The criticism that there is no reliably reproducible demonstration of psi

[Laird]

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!).

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.

Psychic archaeology is interesting, though it doesn't really fall into the category of repeatable lab experiments that I was thinking of.

However, Andrew Endersby has made some criticisms of Stephan Schwartz's work, and the criticisms seem pretty effective to me. Here's Endersby's blog article on Schwartz's discovery of the brig Leander in the Bahamas:
http://ersby.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/psyc...hamas.html

And here's his article on Schwartz's work in Alexandria:
http://ersby.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/psyc...egypt.html

---

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!).

Yes. There are a few online experiments around (including a long-running one on retro PK), but my impression is they haven't been very successful so far. I don't know whether anyone has done a survey of them. I think Richard Wiseman also ran an automated study in a ?travelling exhibition, which came up with null results. One drawback of online/automated experiments is that people may not take them very seriously, or there may even be scope for vandalism.

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?

Ahh. OK, now I get it...

There are lots of way to slice this cake: here's one- 
it boils down to the fragility and composition of the thing we are trying to observe and understand. 

Consider a metal worker used to repairing high tech aircraft wings. He does it every day. He does it excellently and with the highest quality available anywhere. Someone comes along and asks him to use those world class skills to repair a butterfly wing: it's a wing after-all. He tries and he tries and all he does is destroy the thing he his trying to fix.

The stuff we are looking at with psi is incredibly fragile. More fragile than anything we have ever encountered. We can't use the tools and skills we normally use. We need new tools and new methods. Ones that can deal with factors that are simply not accounted for in traditional "gross" experimental approaches where subtle effects are overwhelmed by billiard ball mechanical forces. This is analogous to how at the molecular level, weak forces like gravity have no affect compared with the nuclear forces. At those small scales, although gravity still exists, it can be ignored: nuclear forces rule this tiny world.

With psi we need to deal with factors like-
- our ability to measure without affecting, 
- how to deal with the minuscule "forces" involved who's nature we do not yet comprehend

The good news is, we HAVE some of those tools and methods NOW. The bad news is, the mechanics who fix aircraft wings are unfamiliar with them, don't trust them, and have never needed to use them. Maybe most importantly, they don't appreciate that their approach will simply never work in this application.

Additionally, these different approaches are needed not just because a butterfly wing is smaller and more fragile: but because it is a wholly different thing. This goes beyond "fragility". Psi seems to be subject to levels of inter-connectedness that are simply not accounted for in traditional "gross" experimental approaches where these effects are overwhelmed by "billiard ball" type mechanical forces.. 

Now we must consider things like: 
- the experimenter's bias and their expectations
- the non-physical inter-relationship of the tester and the tested, and between the tested themselves (animate or inanimate)
- the possibility of the (supposedly) unconscious test object's ability to have "intention"

Should it surprise anyone that methods and procedures designed for large, gross, mostly mechanical systems are ineffectual? Should it surprise anyone that traditional "mechanics" don't see the need for this different approach? This is because they don't acknowledge the fundamental differences between psi and the "large" (gross) objects they have been working on all these years. They see the butterfly wing that has been placed in front of them as just being different in scale. They think that with smaller hammers and pliers they will get the job done. 

Until they appreciate real nature of the thing being examined, they will continue to be blind.

Gotta say I'm a little confused by ersby's criticism of project deep water. The gist of which seems to be that Schwartz, did not identify the particular wreck they were searching for. And that seventy bouys were used in the location process, not the one that was reported in the book.Then the statement that the wreck was located by the surface vessels magnetometer.
Dealing with the first criticism, I think it would probably be suggested that they were clueing the veiwers. Since there was a contemporary record of the wreck. The second and third criticism seem to me to be contradictory.
If the wreck was found by means of a magnetometer. Why were seventy bouys usefull or necessary? And i would apply the same question to the whole premise of that large of a number of bouys under any circumstance.
I have no experience with deep water salvage and maybe overlooking something obvious.
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.

Hi, all. Just a quick note re Oleo's last post. First, it's really Keith Harary's criticism, not mine. Any confusion would probably best be cleared by tracking down the article in JASPR referenced at the end of my blog post.

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.

That's because I was writing about the Leander. The explosion and granite block are from a different shipwreck they discovered, about ten years before the Leander expedition.

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'.

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'.

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.

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?

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).

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.

Interesting... Shame that they did not have any visions of Bharati's intervention, it sounds quite entertaining (comical) and probably worth living trough twice.

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).

Alcock's other suggestion was getting a psychic to predict lottery numbers, which would have the added virtue of solving the problem of research funding, if successful.

But I feel those suggestions - if they're really meant to be taken seriously - are a bit difficult to reconcile with Alcock's concern about replication. They would be testing for exceptional abilities, so I don't think anyone would expect ordinary members of the public to be successful. But then how would other workers go about replicating the results? They'd need access not only to "the appropriate skill, knowledge and equipment", but also to the same exceptional subjects. That dilemma has existed since the early days of Rhine's experiments.

By the way, did you really mean PEAR? That group was at Princeton, and its PK studies were mostly done using random number generators, and definitely relied on statistical analysis.