New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove

There seem to be conflicting claims about whether these experiments with Tanous on perception in out-of-body experiences actually produced significant results. In the interview, and in his article on Tanous in the Psi Encyclopedia, Callum Cooper says they did, though he refers to a claim by Susan Blackmore that the statistical analysis was incorrect, which he says the authors rebutted:
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...d_Research

Blackmore herself, writing in 1983, seems to claim afterwards that the effect was only "marginal" (though she refers to a 1975 publication, whereas Cooper refers to one in 1980 and correspondence the following year):
https://www.susanblackmore.uk/chapters/o...-survival/

In a review article from 1982, Carlos S. Alvarado (at pp. 213, 214), referring to the same publication as Blackmore, says the overall results weren't significant, but some post hoc analyses produced results that were:
https://www.academia.edu/366168/_1982_._...46_209_230

To complicate matters, the film is said to have been made c. 1983, which is after both the publications by Osis. Cooper says there must be more unpublished data in the archives of the ASPR.

It's all a bit bewildering. Unfortunately I can't find either of the publications or the following criticism and response online.

Someone kindly sent me a copy of Susan Blackmore's letter to the JASPR, criticising the 1980 paper on the Tanous experiments in the same journal, and the reply by Osis and McCormick. This makes things clearer.

It wasn't so much that Blackmore was claiming the statistical analysis was incorrect, but that she thought it didn't make sense to look at the correlation between the correctness of the guesses in the visual task and another indicator (strain gauge measurements), because the overall hit rate for the visual task wasn't statistically significant, and therefore she questioned whether there was a psi effect at all.

The authors actually agreed that the overall hit rate wasn't significant, but pointed to a long history of experiments that had produced statistically significant patterns in data that were suggestive of psi, even when overall hit rates weren't significant. (I think they might also have pointed out that statistical significance depends on power, and in principle it's quite possible for the power of an experiment to be greater for a secondary effect than for the primary hit rate. The overall hit rate in these experiments was above chance expectation, after all.)

The authors had also pointed out (before Blackmore wrote her letter) that while the hit rate defined by getting at least one of the three aspects of the visual target correct was indeed not significant, the departure from chance was larger for the hit rate based on getting two or more aspects correct. Blackmore claimed this alternative hit rate was still insignificant (p=0.17), based on the data they had provided her with. I'm not actually sure how she calculated the statistic this is based on, but based on the data she prints, they got 36 hits out of 197 trials where the probability of success was 11/80, and an exact binomial calculation gives p=0.045.

The authors actually agreed that the overall hit rate wasn't significant, but pointed to a long history of experiments that had produced statistically significant patterns in data that were suggestive of psi, even when overall hit rates weren't significant. (I think they might also have pointed out that statistical significance depends on power, and in principle it's quite possible for the power of an experiment to be greater for a secondary effect than for the primary hit rate. The overall hit rate in these experiments was above chance expectation, after all.)

I know nothing about statistics, but - if the overall hit rate of your study isn't significant, isn't claiming that the longer history of such studies awards significance an appeal to statistical trickery?

I know nothing about statistics, but - if the overall hit rate of your study isn't significant, isn't claiming that the longer history of such studies awards significance an appeal to statistical trickery?

Sorry, what I wrote wasn't very clear. The point was that they were claiming a significant correlation between strain gauge readings (which were suggested to be an indication of Tanous being "really" present in an out-of-body sense) and correct guesses on the visual task - even though the overall hit rate on the visual task (measured in terms of getting at least one of the three aspects of the target correct), considered throughout the experiment, without reference to the strain gauge, wasn't significant.

The reference to history was to previous work in which significant secondary effects (i.e. some kinds of patterns in the data) were observed, despite the primary effect not being significant. The implication was that this was such a well known phenomenn that Susan Blackmore should have been aware of it. It wasn't an attempt to convert a non-significant effect into a significant one by appealing to previous results.

Certainly in principle there's nothing inconsistent about an overall hit rate being insignificant, but there being a significant correlation between hits and another variable. For example, suppose that the other variable deviated from zero 10% of the time, and during that period the hit rate was 100%. Unless the experiment was an extremely small one, that would be a significant finding. But the overall hit rate would be raised by a relatively small amount, so in those terms the effect might easily not be significant. (For example, in this experiment where the chance probability of success was 0.55, it would be raised to 59.5, and the expected overall hit rate for 200 trials wouldn't be significant.)

Of course, from today's perspective it would be vital in such an experiment to prespecify all the hypotheses - primary and secondary - and allow for the fact that several hypotheses were being tested.

Sorry, what I wrote wasn't very clear. The point was that they were claiming a significant correlation between strain gauge readings (which were suggested to be an indication of Tanous being "really" present in an out-of-body sense) and correct guesses on the visual task - even though the overall hit rate on the visual task (measured in terms of getting at least one of the three aspects of the target correct), considered throughout the experiment, without reference to the strain gauge, wasn't significant.

The reference to history was to previous work in which significant secondary effects (i.e. some kinds of patterns in the data) were observed, despite the primary effect not being significant. The implication was that this was such a well known phenomenn that Susan Blackmore should have been aware of it. It wasn't an attempt to convert a non-significant effect into a significant one by appealing to previous results.

Certainly principle there's nothing inconsistent about an overall hit rate being insignificant, but there being a significant correlation between hits and another variable. For example, suppose that the other variable deviated from zero 10% of the time, and during that period the hit rate was 100%. Unless the experiment was an extremely small one, that would be a significant finding. But the overall hit rate would be raised by a relatively small amount, so in those terms the effect might easily not be significant. (For example, in this experiment where the chance probability of success was 0.55, it would be raised to 59.5, and the expected overall hit rate for 200 trials wouldn't be significant.)

Of course, from today's perspective it would be vital in such an experiment to prespecify all the hypotheses - primary and secondary - and allow for the fact that several hypotheses were being tested.

And I could have taken time to read the Psi Encyclopedia too, which made things clear 


I would think that setting up multiple measures of activity should have become standard in OBE experiments, though.

And I could have taken time to read the Psi Encyclopedia too, which made things clear 

I don't think that article gets this point quite right though, because Blackmore was claiming that on the single-aspect criterion they hadn't achieved statistical significance for the visual task, and they responded that they hadn't claimed statistical significance for the visual task in isolation, but only when correlated with the strain gauge readings. And the same went for the criterion based on more than one aspect of the visual task (though it seems to me Blackmore was wrong in saying that didn't produce a statistically significant result.)

Healing Research and Practice with William Bengston

William Bengston currently serves as president of the Society for Scientific Exploration. He is author of The Energy Cure: Unravelling the Mystery of Hands-On Healing. He is a professor of sociology at St. Joseph's College in New York.

Here he describes how he began his investigations as a young man who encountered a psychic healer who served as his mentor and friend. When his friend backed out of participation in a healing experiment with cancer-injected mice, Bengston stepped in unwillingly. To his astonishment, after several healing sessions, the mice were completely cured. This result has now been replicated numerous times. Bengston discusses his approach to healing research and his attitude toward healing.

Has anyone here successfully been able to use Bengston's healing techniques?

Thankfully, I haven't needed to try them.

The Double Slit Delayed Choice Experiment with Edward R. Close

Edward R. Close, PhD, is author of Transcendental Physics. He is coauthor (with Vernon Neppe) of Reality Begins with Consciousness: A Paradigm Shift That Works. He is also author of a lengthy chapter titled "The Mathematical Unification of Time, Space, Matter, Energy, and Consciousness" in Is Consciousness Primary? edited by Gary Schwartz and Marjorie Woollacott.

Here he describes the history of the double-slit experiments that confirmed the mysterious wave-particle duality of photons. This work began prior to the development of quantum physics. Later, physicist John Wheeler proposed the delayed-choice modification of this experiment that further confirmed the role of the conscious observer in the manifestation of observable reality. The mysteries of quantum physics are also highlighted in the EPR paradox as developed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.

Implications of the Near-Death Experience with Peter B. Todd

Peter B. Todd, a psychotherapist with a Jungian orientation, is author of The Individuation of God: Integrating Science and Religion. He experienced clinical death, during cardiac surgery, in 2005, and was subsequently revived. He was also a gold medalist at the 1982 Gay Games in San Francisco.

Here he describes the numinous qualities associated with his death experience in 2005. Prior to that experience, he had been at the deathbeds of hundreds of AIDS victims, both in the United States and Australia. At that time, he was already well-versed in the theories of both Carl G. Jung and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Therefore, he was already well-prepared for his own death experience. That profound experience awakened in him a desire to serve as an activist for a new theology for the third millennium that would integrate science and religion.