2017-08-15, 09:15 AM
(2017-08-15, 09:09 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps an online experiment in which the role of the experimenter could be automated and minimised?
Something like this? http://bempsi.org/ (with thanks to K9!).
(2017-08-15, 09:09 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps an online experiment in which the role of the experimenter could be automated and minimised?
(2017-08-15, 12:23 AM)Oleo Wrote: [ -> ]This statement sticks in my craw.i should probably leave it alone. For that reason, but discrecsion is over rated in my book.
Steven Shwartz project deep water. Where remote viewers were able to locate an unknown ship wreck. From nintey years in the past.In and of it self causes substantial problems for this argument.
Psychic Archeology as whole points to huge gaps in the understanding of how the mind works and our alleged under standing of the real world.
(2017-08-15, 09:15 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ](2017-08-15, 09:09 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps an online experiment in which the role of the experimenter could be automated and minimised?
Something like this? http://bempsi.org/ (with thanks to K9!).
(2017-08-15, 09:09 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for all the replies. Of course, it's now obvious to me that I should have copied my follow-up from the liberaparolado thread, as well as the initial question:
"I should say that the question I was asking was meant to be different from "Is there sufficient experimental evidence for the existence of psi?", or even "Is there a problem with the replicability of psi experiments?" I had in mind the kind of criticism James Alcock made when he wrote that "parapsychologists have _never_ been able to produce a successful experiment that neutral scientists, with the appropriate skill, knowledge and equipment, can replicate ..." (in Psi Wars, 2003, p. 35) (For that claim to be meaningful, I think there has to be an implication that the experiment would also be reasonably quick and easy to perform. In theory the Global Consciousness Project could be repeated by neutral scientists, but in reality it's not going to happen.)
I suppose the kind of answers I was expecting ranged from, at the sceptical end of the spectrum (if there are any sceptics here), "Psi experiments can't be replicated because the positive results are due to a combination of chance and questionable research practices", to, at the other end, "There is no problem replicating psi experiments in a statistical sense", or a more moderate "The replication problems can be overcome by larger studies and better experimental design."
Obviously the most interesting answer is that there's an essential feature of psi experiments that means they tend not to be straightforwardly replicable. I didn't entirely understand Max's comments, and I tend to shy away from the position that the scientific method is applicable only to physical (or material) phenomena. But I suppose it's obvious why it may be more difficult to design a replicable psi experiment than a replicable physics experiment. We can't expect the same result unless the conditions are the same, and if we're allowing the possibility of interactions between minds, precognition and so on, we can't achieve the same conditions just by conducting the experiment in a clean white room."
On the other hand, individual subjects happening to be bored or off their form one day shouldn't really hamper statistical repeatability, because it should all be taken care of by the statistics. But if a factor like that affected a whole study (e.g. an experimenter effect with a bored experimenter), then obviously we couldn't expect that study to repeat the results of others.
Sorry - this does all seems a bit obvious now. But I don't think it's just a question of unreasonable sceptics being unwilling to look at the evidence (though it's painfully obvious that there are a lot of people like that around). Perhaps a more constructive question would be whether an experiment could be designed that would eliminate some of the factors that could hamper repeatability. Perhaps an online experiment in which the role of the experimenter could be automated and minimised?
(2017-08-22, 12:32 AM)Oleo Wrote: [ -> ]Ersby also doesnt explain how the veiwers seemed to know that the sinking was the result of an explosion or the cargo( A large granite block ) both of which were recorded before the wreck was located.
(2017-08-22, 05:13 PM)E. Flowers Wrote: [ -> ]Ah, you are here. I never got a chance to thank you for getting me into remote viewing. Before reading your criticism, I hadn't read anything on the topic and had a rather cartoonish concept of it. Now I know that it's not the 'shaman getting glimpses of something' that I imagined and more of 'a lot of garbled information that is loosely related to the target'.
(2017-08-15, 09:09 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for all the replies. Of course, it's now obvious to me that I should have copied my follow-up from the liberaparolado thread, as well as the initial question:
"I should say that the question I was asking was meant to be different from "Is there sufficient experimental evidence for the existence of psi?", or even "Is there a problem with the replicability of psi experiments?" I had in mind the kind of criticism James Alcock made when he wrote that "parapsychologists have _never_ been able to produce a successful experiment that neutral scientists, with the appropriate skill, knowledge and equipment, can replicate ..." (in Psi Wars, 2003, p. 35) (For that claim to be meaningful, I think there has to be an implication that the experiment would also be reasonably quick and easy to perform. In theory the Global Consciousness Project could be repeated by neutral scientists, but in reality it's not going to happen.)
I suppose the kind of answers I was expecting ranged from, at the sceptical end of the spectrum (if there are any sceptics here), "Psi experiments can't be replicated because the positive results are due to a combination of chance and questionable research practices", to, at the other end, "There is no problem replicating psi experiments in a statistical sense", or a more moderate "The replication problems can be overcome by larger studies and better experimental design."
Obviously the most interesting answer is that there's an essential feature of psi experiments that means they tend not to be straightforwardly replicable. I didn't entirely understand Max's comments, and I tend to shy away from the position that the scientific method is applicable only to physical (or material) phenomena. But I suppose it's obvious why it may be more difficult to design a replicable psi experiment than a replicable physics experiment. We can't expect the same result unless the conditions are the same, and if we're allowing the possibility of interactions between minds, precognition and so on, we can't achieve the same conditions just by conducting the experiment in a clean white room."
On the other hand, individual subjects happening to be bored or off their form one day shouldn't really hamper statistical repeatability, because it should all be taken care of by the statistics. But if a factor like that affected a whole study (e.g. an experimenter effect with a bored experimenter), then obviously we couldn't expect that study to repeat the results of others.
Sorry - this does all seems a bit obvious now. But I don't think it's just a question of unreasonable sceptics being unwilling to look at the evidence (though it's painfully obvious that there are a lot of people like that around). Perhaps a more constructive question would be whether an experiment could be designed that would eliminate some of the factors that could hamper repeatability. Perhaps an online experiment in which the role of the experimenter could be automated and minimised?
(2017-08-22, 06:45 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Well there is some Shaman Getting Glimpses regarding the interest in Paranthropology, see Schwartz, S.A. (2000). 'Boulders in the Stream: The Lineage and Founding of the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness.
(2017-08-23, 01:42 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Alcock made a fair assessment. The simplest test for psi is pk. No need for statistical analysis, either the object moves or not. Are you familiar with the old PEAR Research group? They did micro-pk testing (at Cambridge U. I think).