SCEPCOP Forum

Profwag,
Oh, that study. No, you should not believe them. It is yet another poorly done, yet widely publicized skeptical study with sweeping conclusions based on faulty data. In this case, they rushed the subjects through their paces and thereby ignored basic protocol in creating the proper conditions for telepathy. They also failed to cite several other studies of this sort which yielded positive results.

I keep telling you guys to be skeptical of the skeptics, but you never listen.

Wait a minute - so it is possible to look at the same data and reach different conclusions?

Good to know!

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.

In the case of this MRI study, there is only one sensible conclusion to reach: It proves nothing. No other conclusion is merited. My calling it a form of scientific denial is, of course, simply my opinion.

Craig: I'm talking about parapsychology in general.

Ok. Here is the problem I face in dealing with skeptics: You are blind to the shortcomings of your own skepticism and because of this, you are denied the opportunity to look at parapsychology and psychic people objectively. When I showed you a large list of positive studies that were all treated identically by skeptics, you saw no problem with that. You can't see the continually bad skepticism of people like Shermer, Wiseman, Hyman and pretty much every high profile skeptic you care to name. The fact that they continually bend the facts to fit their narrative is no problem for you. That is not skepticism, it is denial. And you are getting your information from them.

Why is the skepticism so continually bad? You never ask that question.

But I do. I see this and I question why I should respect the differences of opinion that are so obviously biased. I have not found anyone who is truly objective among the ranks of skeptics, so why should I take their viewpoints seriously?

Craig: you list a whole bunch of studies that you say: none are accepted! The implication being that the skeptics are wrong not to accept them. That's not an argument. What we should do is take a topic on its own, and evaluate them independantly. I was trying to do that with ganzfeld, but you weren't interested.

I've told you what my general problems are with parapsychology. At the end of the day what you have are largely studies showing small deviations from chance, in a tiny field of study. It doesn't make me comfortable with putting a high degree of confidence on the conclusion that its psi. It is too easy for small biases and errors to affect the results, producing a small effect. That's not to mention the issues involving the statistics and meta-studies.

As much as 7% eh?

For overall results, yes. Actually, in the study with artistic people, it was around 22%. 7% is a big enough number to be able to identify the cause of the bias. I think that is rather obvious. Since this number is fairly consistent across a wide range of researchers and their studies, someone should be able to spot it if it's there. And people have been looking specifically for this bias with no success. Do you acknowledge this point? All of this research comes under very close scrutiny.

And none of the evidence indicates that researcher bias is in play. The results do not decline as the studies get tighter. As I said, you are not standing on solid scientific ground here.

22% meaning a 47% hit rate? Which study was that?

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