Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

[craig weiler]

[Arouet]

I think the point is that these issues are worth exploring. That sometimes we see something from the "other side" and are automatically against it.

The issue of whether a meta-analysis should be homogeneous or not is not about parapsychology. It's about what the proper methodology should be.

In a field so dependant on stats there needs to be stricter focus on the proper methods. From what I understand for the recent peer review of Bem's paper there was no statistician on the panel! Shocking!

[craig weiler]

From what I understand, the calculations are pretty easy. They are the same for all sciences. I think that is a red herring. Did you find any literature that said that the calculations were wrong? That would be pretty amazing for a paper that went through peer review.

To go down the list:
"The effect is too small." I believe that concern has been addressed.

"There might be researcher bias." That was addressed.

"The effect goes down as the controls get tightened." As you probably saw from the large list of studies, that wasn't the case. The results stayed the same regardless of study quality until you get to the bottom and then the percentages go down, not up. That's to be expected. The ability to generate the effect will be lost in a poorly done study.

"The studies aren't homogenous." Well, now you see that when they account for that, the effect is stronger, not weaker.

As the PA provided skeptics with exactly the meta analysis that they asked for, I don't believe that your call for stricter focus on proper methods is warranted. You have not made a good case for that.

While I might have erred in assuming that homogenous studies were a non issue, it didn't change anything. The Ganzfeld studies are holding up just fine under your scrutiny.

[Arouet]

haha, I had started doing a summary of one of the recent hyman papers a few weeks ago. I thought I'd lost it but i saved it. I may try and finish it up this weekend and post it for further discussion. I'm trying to understand the recent debate.

I'll continue to review this stuff and post thoughts as I go.

[craig weiler]

I will look it over, but I might not respond. I haven't seen any argument you've put forward that is valid and there is no reason to believe you're going to find one. I doubt that there is anything legitimate left to discuss.

[Arouet]

Wow. Nice chatting with you.

(why is that people become such asses on the internet? And I was actually enjoying the pickup in this forum and some civil discussion about these interesting topics! At least it's one more example that the jerks are not only on the skeptic side!)

[craig weiler]

Excuse me? I've been civil the whole time. I just think that this thread has run it's course. It's just a disagreement about evidence, not a personal snub.

You're very zealous in defending the skeptic position to the point where I don't think that there is any chance that this will end no matter how many times your objections are met. With no end point in sight, I just lost interest.

[Arouet]

You might want to re-read your last post.

Anyhow, OP asked for a civil, detailed discussion of the Ganzfeld experiments. I'm still game if he is.

[_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_]

Arouet,

Fair enough..... (I'll check those studies when I have the chance.)

Personally, I agree that the studies need to be homogeneous in order to conduct a proper meta-analysis, but I really don't believe it is neccesary to separate the static and dynamic targets into 2 separate meta-analyses (as long as the studies contain the standard criteria and testing the fruit, telepathy in this case). Combining the ganzfeld, presentiment, dice-toss, etc. studies as if they are a large study is a seriously flawed meta-analysis (which Radin did on his 2007 book)

Hyman's conclusion that static targets haven't been replicated is incorrect btw.The studies using only static targets were still statistically significant despite the fact the hit rate were smaller than the dynamic ones. There are theories why it happens, but the most plausible theory is the assumption that target that are rich in information can be transmitted easier than the static ones.....

[craig weiler]

Arouet,
I re-read my last post. I stand by it. I have a LOT of experience with people of different personalities in a variety of situations. I know reasonable when I see it and you don't fall in that category.

You are just running to the skeptic sites every time one of your points is addressed and you automatically assume that they are right until proven otherwise. It has not occurred to you yet that they are consistently wrong. Never mind that absolutely every skeptical objection you have put forth so far has been demonstrated to be a non issue. You have also never actually conceded any point either. You've merely moved on to the next; shifting the goal post . . .

This is not critical thinking, it is dogma. I don't have any interest in that.

[_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_]

craig weiler,

Scientific proof of psi????

Let's see here..... has psi been proven...... uh no I don't think so (even if there is evidence)

[craig weiler]

Ice Ages,
No one who has the ability to see this data objectively doubts the existence of psi and they have moved on. When you look at the accumulation of positive evidence in parapsychology you cannot reasonably reach any other conclusion. You don't need to lump it together into a huge meta analysis, the existence of several positive databases in different areas is enough. The only way you could possibly doubt this is if you attack everything in detail while forgetting everything else. Anyone who does that is an idiot.

The bar for acceptance is not that high. While many scientists may quibble over it, this is something that is observed all over the frigging planet. Entire cultures accept its existence. That we should find something that everyone except a small percentage of the world population accepts as real is not at all surprising.

You're good with stats. What are the odds that roughly 50% of the US population was delusional when they said they had experienced some form of psi? Bear in mind, there is no evidence that they are any less logical and rational than skeptics.

So yeah, the Ganzfeld doesn't need to be absolutely perfect. It meets better than ordinary standards of science and that is enough. They've proven their point.

[Arouet]

[craig weiler]

I'm sorry Arouet, but you've done nothing but gone down a list of predictable skeptic talking points.

If you are truly curious, I can give you a list of books to read. In particular, Parapsychology and the Skeptics, by Chris Carter. You will get far better information that way.

The issue is not as complex as you're making it. You're just going about it in the the most difficult way possible.

I personally, have no faith that you can be convinced by any amount of evidence. And that's really where I have to stop.

[Arouet]

Wait - so I'm going about it in the most difficult way possible but also dogmatically?

That's a neat trick!