Science, Sceptics, and Authority

Originally posted by spookz
None of this, however, detracts from the autoganzfelds themselves. Honorton’s experiments did produce strong positive results which cannot be easily denied. Nonetheless, many scientists remain unconvinced because of several potential flaws in the research. "Of the eleven ganzfeld studies, smaller samples displayed larger hit rates than larger samples. If the effect is real, this is the opposite of what you’d expect." says Lee D. Ross, psychology professor at Stanford. The fact that larger hit rates existed among the smaller samples (The 50% hit rate was from a sample of only twenty) does raise doubt as to whether it really was ESP (Bower 68).

Also, some technical errors raised the brows of other scientists. Early on in the experiments, there was found to be some faulty wiring in the receiver’s headset. This allowed some of the information from the sender (who was allowed to vocalize the images in order to help concentration) to be heard by the receiver. Although Honorton, after fixing the problem, maintained that the flaw was not perceptible, even subliminally, to the receiver, others assert that the possibility of contamination requires that all data gathered prior to the discovery of the problem be discarded. Without that data, the results of Honorton’s experiments are no longer statistically significant (McCrone 31).

Another consideration is that the highest hit rate among the Honorton experiments was with video clips rather than static images, about 41% compared to about 30% (McCrone 30). The latter hit rate is not statistically significant, however the former appears to be so. Yet, what does not seem to be taken into consideration is that a 60 second video clip provides several more images than a still picture. If several more images are involved, the probability that the receiver may identify the film clip coincidentally is raised significantly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then if six decades of experiments have failed to accurately demonstrate the existence of ESP, there are two reasons that could have caused that failure. The first is the simplest: ESP does not exist. The second is that any explanation of ESP transcends science. That is, ESP becomes a matter of faith in the same class as God, angels, and other spiritual matters. This may be asserted because of the logical rules of alternatives: if not one thing, then another. That is to say if something can not be asserted by the empirical use of the scientific method, then it must be either non-existent, or a matter of faith. The popularity of the phenomena of ESP seems to make at least some argument for its existence, even if its not a scientifically sound one. Thus, rather than not existing at all, ESP likely belongs in that category of human experience which does not relate to science at all, but to personal faith; its existence a matter of the heart, rather than the laboratory.

ESP: Just Have Faith


what makes people believe in esp is personal experience or the experience of others that are known to them. to ascribe it to faith is a cop out. also why assume the case is closed? how about devising new tests with tighter and more stringent methods?
Click to expand...



Who exactly wrote your source? He mixes this with that and tries to spin it to suit him. You should find a better source.


I suspect that any evidence that comes forward positive of ESP will straight out be not believed not matter what by some people.
No one is saying case closed, the research continues. I suspect when the test pool reaches into the thousands and the results stay consistent there will be other rationalizations to discount this or that.

Using the kind of rationalization that I see scpetics use against ganzfeld, you could probably rationalize anything out of existence.

Good day to you all.
 
Originally posted by chroot
Why not? Have you done an experiment where you have verified that a large sample of people pick one of four designed stimuli an average of 25% of the time?

- Warren
Click to expand...


25% seems logically correct, but I am not an expert. The experts seem to agree on the statictics part, I dont see what your beef is. Chance says if you have one of four choices, the chance rate is 25%. You can even rationalize logic out of existence if you so desire.
 
During the early to mid-eighties, Hyman published a series of debates with Charles Honorton over the proper protocols for Ganzfeld experiments. Given his decades of experience, and past debate with Honorton, Hyman was a natural choice to be a reviewer of the 1994 Bem and Honorton Psychological Bulletin review article. Hyman recommended publication, but was asked to contribute a response in the same issue of Psychological Bulletin.

Hyman's criticisms of the ganzfeld studies and parapsychology in general range from the heavily methodological to the philosophical and epistemological. First, Hyman questions the reasonableness of arriving at conclusions from meta-analysis. He maintains that the proper use of meta-analysis should be to generate hypotheses, which then must be independently tested on new data.

Second, Hyman told me that in thoroughly probing the data reviewed in the Psychological Bulletin article, he uncovered what he considered "peculiar" patterns. He noticed that all of the significant "hitting," the correct rating of a target by the receiver, was done on the second or later appearance of a target. When Hyman examined the guesses against just the first occurrences of targets, the result was consistent with chance. Adding to his suspicions, Hyman also discovered that the hit rate rose systematically with each additional occurrence of a target. Since all the targets were displayed on video to the receivers, Hyman suggests that to correct for a non-paranormal reason why one target video clip might appear different then another, all the targets be run through the video machine an equal number of times before they are shown to the receiver.

Hyman also severely questions the non-replicability of the ganzfeld experiments and other experiments in parapsychology. "The most serious weakness of parapsychology is that there is a failure of replication by rivals in independent laboratories," Hyman said. "Every field has 'paradigm experiments' where you can get results. There are thousands of experiments in psychology that can be replicated, but in parapsychology there isn't one where you can get that. In no other field is there something similar." As Hyman has maintained for several decades, he believes that the ganzfeld experiments continue to need independent replication with tighter controls.

I asked Hyman why he thought Bem had taken such an interest in the ganzfeld research of Honorton. "Most of the criticisms of parapsychology are unfair. I think Bem may have had the feeling of defending the underdog."

http://www.csicop.org/genx/ganzfeld/
 
Originally posted by spookz
swatter

scientists are bunch of arrogant dumb glorified beancounters.
they go round and round in circles repeating the same old shit.
in fact i have heard that these people regularly visit our very own
sub-cultures forum for inspiration

peer review - prepare to be torn apart by jealousy, spitefullness and anger. your creativity and vision will be laughed at and ridiculed. later you find your lifes work has been appropiated by thieves.

:D
Click to expand...

unfortunately this is quite true...

what's lacking most in science nowadays is creativity. They think that I am nuts because I usually start with writing the discussion, instead of the results.
 
spookz

From the link you posted:

Bem told me that he would like to see a large scale series of ganzfeld experiments using as subjects what he termed "superstars"-individuals previously believed to demonstrate psychic ability. "If you were to test for high jumping ability, you wouldn't take random people; you would use the superstars," Bem said.
Click to expand...

Interpretation: The loonier - the better.

He regards psi as a topic that deserves the attention and resources of mainstream psychology. "It is far more interesting than the hum-drum stuff that gets funded."
Click to expand...

Oh yes, let's take away funding from "hum-drum stuff" such as cognitive research, development behavior, etc. and give it to the loonies.

Though Hyman doesn't see much promise in current and past psi research, he agrees that a confirmation of psi would be of wide interest and importance. "The first person to make a breakthrough is going to make Newton and Einstein look puny," Hyman predicted.
Click to expand...

hehe - this is too funny. Hyman certainly has his work cut out for him, wouldn't you agree ?

The history of parapsychology has not offered much hope that future generations will witness the scientific confirmation of psychic ability, but the prospect remains provocative and tantalizing to the imagination. Daryl Bem's research may stand as a major guidepost on the road to discovery, or go down in future decades as one of many promising findings never to be replicated nor confirmed.
Click to expand...

If his findings cannot be replicated or confirmed, then it is complete nonsense. That's what makes good science and good theories - the capacity to replicate and confirm findings.
 
spookz

i buy into all of this shit, ufo's, esp........the works

Perfect! That gives us good reason to partake in a variety of discussions. :)
 
spurious,

<i>what's lacking most in science nowadays is creativity.</i>

Who created your microwave oven, and your TV set, and the jet engine, and your dishwashing liquid, and CD players and ....

Scientists, that's who.
 
Oh boy, this thread is a mess. I just started reading Demon Haunted World, by Carl Sagan, and it's very relevant to this discussion. It's a great summary of what it is to be skeptical, why science is such a powerful tool, and how to tell fact from fantasy. I'll let Sagan make the points I want to make:

"Yes the wourld would be a more interesting place if there were UFOs lurking in the deep waters off bermuda and eating ships and planes, or if dead people could take control of our hands and write us messages. It would be fascinating if adolescents were able to make telephone handsets rocket off their cradles just by thinking at them, or if our dreams could, more often than can be explained by chance and our knowledge of the world, accurately foretell the future.

These are all instances of pseudoscience. They purport to use the methods and findings of science, while in fact they are faithless to its nature--often because they are based on insufficient evidence or because they ignore clues that point the other way. They ripple with gullibility. With the uninformed cooperation (and often cynical connivance) of newspapers, magazines, book publishers, radio, television, movie producers, and the like, such ideas are easily and widely available. Far more difficult to come upon...are the alternative, more challenging, and even more dazzling findings of science."

A few pages later:

"Pseudoscience differs from erroneous science. Science thrives on errors, cutting them away one by one. ... Hypotheses are framed so they are capable of being disproved. A succession of alternative hypotheses is confronted by experiment and observation...

Pseudoscience is just the opposite. Hypotheses are often framed precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of disproof, so even in principle they cannot be invalidated. Practitioners are defensive and wary. Skeptical scrutiny is opposed. When the pseudoscientific hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists, conspiracies to suppress it are deduced." --Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World

Now, before you point out to me that Sagan is not considered an "expert" in the field of, say, near death experiences, I'd like to say that he IS an expert in what we are discussing here. That is, the methods of good science. Therefore, his comments are valid in this argument, regardless of the relation of his area of study to the topics. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top