Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page
Debunking PseudoSkeptical Arguments of Paranormal Debunkers
Argument # 17: Experiments
that
show positive results for psi must be replicable to count as
evidence.
Corollary:
“I
won’t consider
successful psi experiments as evidence of psi unless the results are
replicated
and peer reviewed.”
Besides
claiming lack of
controls, pseudoskeptics also demand psi experiments to be replicable
to count
as evidence. While this standard may
seem reasonable scientifically, it is usually just another tactic to
try to
raise the bar, because no matter how many times a successful psi
experiment is
replicated, they still will demand a never-ending higher rate of
replication.
(If the 2,549 sessions of the
Ganzfeld and
Autoganzfeld experiments from 1974 to 1997 by different
research
laboratories
which produced above chance results doesn’t count as
replicable, then what
would?)
This is because these guys are all about arguing and playing hopscotch
games. No matter what, they never concede that they are wrong, and will
use every slimy tactic they can find to deny what they don't believe
in. If cornered, they will change the topic or rant about something
irrelevant. That's just the way they are.
The first
problem with this
argument is that just because something hasn’t been
replicated doesn’t mean that it
didn’t happen. For example, if an
Olympic Track and Field runner breaks a world record, and other
athletes don’t
repeat it, it doesn’t mean that it never happened. Likewise,
if I won a slot machine jackpot or
threw a quarter that landed on its edge (against astronomical odds),
but I wasn’t able to repeat it, it
doesn’t mean that it never happened the first time. Similarly,
phenomena such as supernovas,
balls of lightning, and comets are outer phenomena not replicable under
our
control but are acknowledged to exist anyway. Therefore,
replicating the
appearance of UFO’s or ghosts may not be
possible because they are out of our control, but that
doesn’t mean they never
happen or don’t exist. All
it would take
is one genuine case of a UFO or ghost to prove that they were real and
possible.
As an unnamed law
says:
“If it happens
once, then it is possible.”
In fact,
the very nature of
psychic phenomena makes them not easy to replicate. Dean
Radin, Ph.D, Director of the
Consciousness Research Laboratory at the University of Nevada, and
author of The
Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena,
lists 8 reasons why this is so: (page 40)
“Psi effects do
not fall into the class of easily
replicated effects.
There are eight
typical reasons why replication is difficult to achieve: (1) the
phenomenon may
not be replicable; (2) the written experimental procedures may be
incomplete,
or the skills needed to perform the replication may not be well
understood; (3)
the effect under study may change over time or react to the
experimental
procedure; (4) investigators may inadvertently affect the results of
their
experiments; (5) experiments sometimes fail for sociological reasons;
(6) there
are psychological reasons that prevent replications from being easy to
conduct;
(7) the statistical aspects of replication are much more confusing than
more
people think; and (78) complications in experimental design affect some
replications.”
The second
problem with this
argument is that successful psi experiments definitely have
been replicated by different researchers and
laboratories.
One famous solid example
is the series of telepathy studies known as the Ganzfeld
experiments,
in which
subjects guess target images while sitting with ping pong ball halves
over
their eyes and listening to relaxing white noise designed to deprive
them of
sensory stimuli to heighten their intuition and psychic abilities. These
have been replicated for decades. Dean
Radin, in the same book quoted above
describes the replicability of the Ganzfeld experiments: (page 78-79)
“At the annual
convention of the Parapsychological
Association in 1982, Charles Honorton presented a paper summarizing the
results
of all known ganzfeld experiments to that date.
He concluded that the
experiments at that time provided sufficient
evidence to demonstrate the existence of psi in the
ganzfeld…
At that time, ganzfeld
experiments had appeared in
thirty-four published reports by ten different researchers. These
reports described a total of forty-two
separate experiments.
Of these,
twenty-eight reported the actual hit rates that were obtained. The
other studies simply declared the
experiments successful or unsuccessful.
Since this information is
insufficient for conducting a numerically
oriented meta-analysis, Hyman and Honorton concentrated their analyses
on the
twenty-either studies that had reported actual hit rates.
Of
those twenty-eight, twenty-three had
resulted in hit rates greater than chance expectation.
This
was an instant indicator that some
degree of replication had been achieved, but when the actual hit rates
of all
twenty-eight studies were combined, the results were even more
astounding than
Hyman and Honorton had expected: odds
against chance of ten billion to one.
Clearly, the overall results
were not just a fluke, and both researchers
immediately agreed that something
interesting was going on.
But was it
telepathy?”
Radin
further elaborates on
how researcher Charles Honorton tested whether independent replications
had
actually been achieved: (page 79)
“To address the
concern about whether independent
replications had been achieved, Honorton calculated the experimental
outcomes
for each laboratory separately.
Significantly positive
outcomes were reported by six of the ten labs,
and the combined score across the ten laboratories still resulted in
odds
against chance of about a billion to one.
This showed that no one lab
was responsible for the positive results;
they appeared across-the-board, even from labs reporting only a
few experiments.
To examine further the
possibility that the
two most prolific labs were responsible for the strong odds against
chance,
Honorton recalculated the results after excluding the studies that he
and
Sargent had reported.
The resulting odds
against chance were still ten thousand to one.
Thus, the effect did not
depend on just one or two labs; it had been
successfully replicated by eight other laboratories.”
On the
same page, he then
soundly dismisses the skeptical claim that the file-drawer effect
(selective
reporting) could skew the meta-analysis results in favor of psi: (page
79-80)
“Another factor
that might account for the overall success
of the ganzfeld studies was the editorial policy of professional
journals,
which tends to favor the publication of successful rather than
unsuccessful
studies.
This is the
“file-drawer”
effect mentioned earlier.
Parapsychologists were among
the first to become sensitive to this
problem, which affects all experimental domains. In
1975 the Parapsychological Association’s
officers adopted a policy opposing the selective reporting of positive
outcomes.
As a result, both positive
and
negative findings have been reported atg the Paraspsychological
Association’s
annual meetings and in its affiliated publications for over two decades.
Furthermore, a 1980
survey of parapsychologists by
the skeptical British psychologist Susan Blackmore had confirmed that
the
file-drawer problem was not a serious issue for the ganzfeld
meta-analysis.
Blackmore uncovered
nineteen complete but unpublished ganzfeld studies.
Of
those nineteen, seven were independently
successful with odds against chance of twenty to one or greater. Thus
while some ganzfeld studies had not been
published, Hyman and Honorton agreed that selective reporting was not
an
important issue in this database.
Still, because it is
impossible to know how many
other studies might have been in file drawers, it is common in
meta-analyses to
calculate how many unreported studies would be required to nullify the
observed
effects among the known studies. For
the
twenty-eight direct-hit ganzfeld studies, this figure was 423
file-drawer
experiments, a ratio of unreported-to-reported studies of approximately
fifteen
to one.
Given the time and resources
it
takes to conduct a single ganzfeld session, let alone 423 hypotheitcal
unrepoted experiments, it is not surprising that Hyman agreed with
Honorton
that the file-drawer issue could not plausibly account for the overall
results
of the psi ganzfeld database.
There were
simply not enough experimenters around to have conducted those 423
studies.
Thus far, the proponent
and the skeptic had agreed
that the results could not be attributed to chance or to selective
reporting
practices.”
Another
skeptical argument
against the ganzfeld studies is sensory leakage. Radin
addresses this as well: (page 81-82)
“Because the
ganzfeld procedure uses a
sensory-isolation environment, the possibility of sensory leakage
during the
telepathic “sending” portion of the session is
already significantly
diminished.
After the sending
period,
however, when the receiver is
attempting to match his or her experience to the correct target, if the
experimenter interacting wit the receiver knows the identity of the
target, he
or she could inadvertently bias the receiver’s ratings. One
study in the ganzfeld database contained
this potentially fatal flaw, but rather than showing a wildly
successful
result, that study’s participants actually performed slightly
below
chance expectation…
Despite variations in
study quality due to these and
other factors, Hyman and Honorton both concluded that there was no
systematic
relationship between the security methods used to guard against sensory
leakage
and the study outcomes.
Honorton proved
his point by recalculating the overall results only for studies that
had used
duplicate target sets.
He found that the
results were still quite strong, with odds against chance of about
100,000 to
1.”
Where
skeptic Ray Hyman
disagreed with Charles Honorton was in the role of randomization flaws
affecting the ganzfeld results.
However,
as Radin points out, the consensus of the experts on meta-analysis is
against
Hyman’s hypothesis: (page 82-83)
“A similar
concern arises for the method of
randomizing the sequence in which the experimenter presents the target
and the
three decoys to the receiver during the judging process.
If,
for example, the target is always
presented second in the sequence of four, then again, a subject may
tell a
friend, and the friend, armed with knowledge about which of the four
targets Is
the real one, could successfully select the real target without the use
of psi.
Although these scenarios
are implausible, skeptics
have always insisted on nailing down even the most unlikely
hypothetical
flaws.
And it was on this issue, the
importance of randomization flaws, that Hyman and Honorton disagreed. Hyman
claimed that he saw a significant relationship
between randomization flaws and study outcomes, and Honorton did not. The
sources of this disagreement can be
traced to Honorton’s and Hyman’s differing
definitions of “randomization
flaws,” to how the two analysts rated these flaws in the
individual studies,
and to how they statistically treated the quality ratings.
These sorts of
complicated disagreements are not
unexpected given the diametrically opposed conviction with which
Hnorton and
Hyman began their analyses.
When such
discrepancies arise, it is useful to consider the opinions of outside
reviewers
who have the technical skills to assess the disagreements.
In
this case, ten psychologists and
statisticians supplied commentaries alongside the Honorton-Hyman
published
debate that appeared in 1986.
None
of
the commentators agreed with Hyman, while two statisticians and two
psychologists not previously associated with this debate explicitly
agreed with
Honorton.
In two separate analyses
conducted later, Harvard
University behavioral scientists Monica Harris and Robert Rosenthal
(the latter
a world-renowned expert in methodology and meta-analysis) used
Hyman’s own flaw
ratings and failed to find any significant relationships between the
supposed
flaws and te study outcomes.
They wrote,
“Our analysis of the effects of flaws on study outcome lends
no support to the
hypothesis that ganzfeld research results are a significant function of
the set
of flaw variables.
In other words, everyone
agreed that the ganzfeld
results were not due to chance, nor to selective reporting, nor to
sensory
leakage.
And everyone, except one
confirmed skeptic, also agreed that the results were not plausibly due
to flaws
in randomization procedures.
The debate
was now poised to take the climactic step from Stage 1,
“It’s impossible,” to
Stage 2, “Okay, so maybe it’s real.”
Even after
the successful
replicable series of ganzfeld experiments, further replicability was
found in
the computer-controlled autoganzfeld experiments, designed to be even
more
efficient and controlled than the original ganzfeld experiments
(although not
shown to be significant as mentioned above).
This time though, two
magicians who specialized in mentalism were
brought in to check the protocals for cheating loopholes, as Radin
describes: (page
86)
“In addition,
two professional magicians who
specialized in the simulation of psi effects (called
“mentalists” or “psychic
entertainers”) examined the autoganzeld system and protocols
to see if it was
vulnerable to mentalist tricks or conjuring-type deceptions. One
of the magicians was Ford Kross, an
officer of the Psychic Entertainers Association. Kross
provided the following written
statement about the autoganzfeld setup:
"In my
professional capacity as a mentalist, I have reviewed Psychophysical
Research
Laboratories’ automated ganzfeld system and found it to be
provide excellent
security against deception by subjects."
The other magician was
Radin
summarizes the results
of the autoganzfeld experiments as follows: (page 86)
“The bottom
line for the eleven series, consisting of
a total of 354 sessions, was 122 direct hits, for a 34 percent hit rate. This
compares favorably with the 1985
meta-analysis hit rate of 37 percent.
Honorton’s
autoganzfeld results overall produced odds against chance of
forty-five thousand to one.”
Further
replications beyond
the ganzfeld and autoganzfeld experiments include the following: (page
87-88)
“The next
replications were reported by psychologist
Kathy Dalton and her colleagues at the Koestler Chair of
Parapsychology,
Department of Psychology,
While only the 1985
meta-analysis, the autoganzfeld
study, and the
Finally,
at the end of the
chapter, Radin concludes what the findings of the ganzfeld experiments
and
others before it suggest: (page 88)
“Now jointly
consider the results of the ganzfeld psi
experiments, the dream-telepathy experiments of the 1960s and 1970s,
the ESP
cards tests from the 1880s to the 1940s, Upton Sinclair’s
experiments in 1929,
and earlier studies on thought transference.
The same effects have been
repeated again and again, by new generations
of experimenters, using increasingly rigorous methods.
From
the beginning, each new series of
telepathy experiments was met with its share of skeptical attacks. These
criticisms reduced mainstream
scientific interest in the reported effects, but ironically they also
refined
the methods used in future experiments to the point that
today’s ganzfeld
experiments stump the experts.”
Thus from
all this, it is
indisputable that we have solid scientific and statistical evidence
that one of
the most successful and controlled series of telepathy experiments in
history,
the Ganzfeld experiments, were definitely replicable.
Therefore,
the skeptical challenge has been
met, and it’s up to them to accept the obvious data or reject
it.
Radin’s book
describes many other replicable
psi experiments as well, including ESP, clairvoyance, remote viewing,
and
psychokinesis.
So I highly recommend
it. For
more details about the Ganzfeld
and Autoganzfeld experiments, see the following detailed articles which
can be
viewed online:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/node2.html
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page