(2017-09-12, 04:09 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I remember that selective reporting was one of the risks, and that indirect comparisons and heterogeneity were part of the downgrading.
Thanks. I think it's fair enough to point out the lack of pre-registration as a problem, at least in the past. But regarding the other two, I wonder how much those really bear on the strength of the evidence for the
existence of a psi effect, as opposed to the
accuracy of the measured effect size. I'm not even sure we should be assuming that psi can be characterised by a simple effect size in that way.
(2017-09-12, 04:44 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks. I think it's fair enough to point out the lack of pre-registration as a problem, at least in the past. But regarding the other two, I wonder how much those really bear on the strength of the evidence for the existence of a psi effect, as opposed to the accuracy of the measured effect size. I'm not even sure we should be assuming that psi can be characterised by a simple effect size in that way.
I don't think selective reporting is an issue, there simply aren't enough people conducting experiments and there isnt enough funding.
(2017-09-12, 04:46 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think selective reporting is an issue, there simply aren't enough people conducting experiments and there isnt enough funding.
I think it probably depends on the protocol. It's probably not too much of an issue for Ganzfeld studies. But I remember reading a claim that at one time there were a lot of student projects based on Bem's "Feeling the Future" paper.
(2017-09-12, 04:51 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I think it probably depends on the protocol. It's probably not too much of an issue for Ganzfeld studies. But I remember reading a claim that at one time there were a lot of student projects based on Bem's "Feeling the Future" paper.
I think there's been statistical analyses ruling it out as a possiblity - like I said I just cant see it as a factor. Got a source for this claim? And anyone can claim anything
.
(2017-09-12, 09:35 AM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Stories documented after the fact, no matter how seemingly compelling, are essentially useless as evidence, as it is no longer possible to know who was the original source of the information. Plus the baseline of compelling correspondences due to happenstance further confounds the situation. Stevenson recognized that most of his cases fell in to this category. I would suggest that if you want scientists to take you seriously, you should stop referring to undocumented stories when asked about evidence.
Linda
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this in its entirety. Broadly dismissing the cases that way isn't remotely reasonable, and to say they're essentially useless as evidence is comical - and a very limited use of the term "evidence".
(2017-09-12, 05:04 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]I think there's been statistical analyses ruling it out as a possiblity - like I said I just cant see it as a factor. Got a source for this claim? And anyone can claim anything .
No, I can't remember where I saw that. I think it must have been in an online discussion of this question of selective publication.
Whatever people think of the scope for selective publication in the past, I can't see any good argument against pre-registering studies in the future.
(2017-09-12, 04:21 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]There was a whole thread on the old forum about problems which had arisen in conventional research, including medicine. I never did understand why proponents were pleased with this, given its relevance to parapsychology research. If it's reason for proponents to dismiss well-evidenced ideas, then it's also reason to dismiss your pet 'well-evidenced' ideas.
There are plenty of well-informed people, including parapsychologists, who think the evidence is weak. "Informed" doesn't serve to distinguish between proponent and skeptic. And there isn't anything unique about resistance to parapsychology beliefs. Look at all the conventional ideas dismissed by proponents, for example.
Linda
They're pleased by it because it reflects that all those things that are "set in stone" by dogmatic scientists are not founded in nearly as much certainty as they'd have you believe. Like I said, evidence of something not being the case is just as important of evidence of something being the case.
(2017-09-12, 05:23 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]No, I can't remember where I saw that. I think it must have been in an online discussion of this question of selective publication.
Whatever people think of the scope for selective publication in the past, I can't see any good argument against pre-registering studies in the future.
I agree - they should pre register.
(2017-09-12, 04:21 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]There was a whole thread on the old forum about problems which had arisen in conventional research, including medicine. I never did understand why proponents were pleased with this, given its relevance to parapsychology research. If it's reason for proponents to dismiss well-evidenced ideas, then it's also reason to dismiss your pet 'well-evidenced' ideas.
There are plenty of well-informed people, including parapsychologists, who think the evidence is weak. "Informed" doesn't serve to distinguish between proponent and skeptic. And there isn't anything unique about resistance to parapsychology beliefs. Look at all the conventional ideas dismissed by proponents, for example.
Linda
Which proponents were pleased with it? I'm certainly not - just pointing out an area of research you said had vastly improved had problems, that's it. What well-evidenced ideas am I dismissing? Going to ignore the rest of that paragraph.
Yes, but most well informed people on psi, and most Parapsychologists, are proponents or lean in that direction. Why? Because the evidence isn't anywhere near as weak as you have claimed. I disagree Parapsychology doesn't face unique resistance, and only a small minority of proponents dismiss more mainstream ideas (I left Skeptiko because of what you're referring to).
(2017-09-12, 04:31 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not saying that information collected after the event is useless. Its more about how and when that information is documented. A recording of someone's initial statement is reliable, while somebody's recollection about what somebody else told them they recalled the patient saying is not. A statement recorded in the absence of feedback is reliable in a way that statements made after feedback are not.
Linda
You said it was 'essentially useless' - make your mind up.