Human Flying

[ProfWag]

No. You've missed the point entirely; the skeptical study was POORLY DONE and the conclusions were faulty. It is really all just another form of scientific denial.

Ironically that is EXACTLY what I believe about any of the so-called positive paranormal studies. Now, here's where you are biased. MIT's study should NOT be referred to as a "skeptical study." It was an independent study done by a reputable university to determine an outcome either way. Just because it's conclusion doesn't support your idea doesn't mean it was poorly done.
So, who should I believe? MIT's study or Princeton which has since shut it's doors? I guess, if you need to make some money as a psychic, you would support Princeton and others with similar results. However, if you think there are a lot of crooks, ala Sylvia, who work as a psychic, then one would support MIT's study and other's with similar results. Just my observation and opinion.

[craig weiler]

It is a skeptical study because the researchers revealed their intentions by declaring psi to be non existent. That is an absurd overstatement.

I have already explained WHY the study was poorly done. That is the most important feature of this discussion. I have explained what was wrong with the study and why it could not have achieved positive results. If you are educated in psi experiments, you should be able to understand my reasoning and unless I am mistaken as to how the experiment was performed, I am correct in my conclusions. There is no reason to take this study seriously.

If you put so much stock in independent studies by universities, I have a boatload of positive studies to share with you. Or is everyone who conducts a psi study and achieves positive results automatically biased in your opinion?

[Arouet]

U. of Edinburgh, Scotland* Kathy Dalton 1997

128 trials

47% hit rate

* Artistically gifted sample

This closely matched the results of a study with Julliard Students. Schitz and Honorton 1992 which yielded 50% and another by Morris, Cunningham, McAlpine and Taylor, 1993, which had a 41% hit rate.

http://books.google.com/books?id=F4-p5T ... 25&f=false

Tx, I'll try and dig it up.

[Arouet]

Ah, I see, Dalton was one of the one's Ersby excluded. I stopped going through it to see what was resolved (they were discussing whether it should or not.) I'll have to continue going over that thread to see what they concluded there. I think this weekend I'll continue my review, post some interesting stuff and if anyone wants to join in, they can.

[craig weiler]

Well, Ok. We still have the matter of a lack of any sort of proof for researcher bias in ganzfeld studies. Just accusations by skeptics that they must somehow exist. Even 7% is a large enough number for bias to be visible in the procedure if it existed.

[Arouet]

It's not about accusations of skeptics about bias. We should assume bias. Have you read the Ioannidis study? I'll link it for you if you haven't. (it doesn't deal with psi, but its generally understood to apply to scientists in general)

[craig weiler]

I don't believe we should automatically assume bias on an automated double blind study that's been totally picked over. You have to prove your point just like everyone else.

[Arouet]

What the Ioannidis study focuses on is how confident can we be that results of a study - or a collection of studies - are correct. What he notes, for example is that when there is no effect, we would often still expect the study to show a small effect. It is almost impossible to review a study and completely identify any possible small bias or small error just from reading the report: not everything shows up in a report.

There is a subtle difference here. I am not saying that I know these studies are wrong. What my problem is is having confidence that they are RIGHT! Do you see the difference? That's the problem with small effect sizes in small fields. It is hard to be confident in the results.

Remember: most studies - even double blind ones - turn out to be wrong. These are peer reviewed studies we're talking about! Bias is everywhere in all of us. It serves little to presume that parapsychologists are the only scientists in the world to somehow be bias free. There is no reason to believe that and some reason to believe the opposite. Again: that's not a slight against parapsychologists - it's in everyone.

[ProfWag]

Well, Ok. We still have the matter of a lack of any sort of proof for researcher bias in ganzfeld studies. Just accusations by skeptics that they must somehow exist. Even 7% is a large enough number for bias to be visible in the procedure if it existed.

Craig W, what are your thoughts on Louie Savva?

[craig weiler]

I read just a little bit of it. He seems a bit like Susan Blackmore: just not cut out for it. I don't know his whole story and Blackmore's didn't come out until years later. In her case, her studies were poorly done and even so, demonstrated the psi effect that she claimed was missing. Her supposed 10 years in the field was actually 2. This gentleman may or may not have the same issues, I don't know. He is clearly seeing things from a certain perspective and can't get past it. Some people have trouble grasping the essence of the paranormal and he sounds like one of them. I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Parapsychology is a tough field.

[craig weiler]

Arouet,
The Ioannidis study doesn't even come close to applying to the Ganzfeld.

In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance.

No way does this describe the tightly controlled, totally examined ganzfeld. So, I reiterate my previous point: You have to prove your claim of researcher bias.

[Arouet]

That list applies to a broad number of studies, it's not meant to narrow a small number of studies that meets all those criteria. The small effect size alone is cause for concern. Small number of studies. Read the report as a whole, consider the message that is being presented.

[craig weiler]

Since when is the ganzfeld a small number of studies? Prove your claim.

[Arouet]

Craig, I wanted to talk about ganzfeld - you didn't. Do you want to go back to discussing it?

[NinjaPuppy]

Craig, I wanted to talk about ganzfeld - you didn't. Do you want to go back to discussing it?

I'd like to know more about it. I read a bit about the ganzfeld experiment on Wikipedia but I'll be darned if I can understand the significance of the ping pong balls. Basically, even if the rest of the procedure worked like a charm, the person would still look like a major dork with ping pong balls on their eyes.