ESP researches

Discussions on UFOs, ghosts, myths etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: ESP resarches

#21  Postby campermon » Jan 31, 2013 6:37 am

tolman wrote:Well, science can accept evidence that something happens in advance of working out exactly how it happens.

Given appropriate evidence, medical science can accept the fact that that a particular group of people seem to suddenly have an accelerated death rate from one or more diseases without knowing what the underlying causes might be.

Physics accepted that certain minerals seemed to generate energy well before it had an adequate method of describing what was happening


Yup!

From my research of this topic, there are no results to explain.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17032
Age: 48
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: ESP resarches

#22  Postby Pebble » Jan 31, 2013 1:32 pm

Science proceeds along certain paths.

Reliable, reporducible observations are investigated either using a hypothesis driven approach or a statistical approach. Hypotheses are generated that if shown to be consistent with the evidence gathetered would explain the phenomena observed that cannot currently be explained.

The problem with ESP is that there are no reliable reproducible observations to explain. It is in essence a hypothesis of a quasi religious type which is believed in but does not add to that which requires explanation.

Experiments are then constructed to try to show that the ESP hypothesis is correct, but the nature of all experiments is that chance and bias will produce 'positive' results now and again. Unless the experiment is reproducible by different experimenters independent of each other and at different times, the results cannot be said to be knowledge.

Of course we also have observational knowledge (we can't conduct experiments on the origin of the universe), but here any useful hypothesis will allow experiments to be constructed (Cern for example) that will allow testing of relevant aspects of the theory being proposed.
Pebble
 
Posts: 2702

Country: UK
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: ESP resarches

#23  Postby Transilvanian » Jan 31, 2013 4:30 pm

We can read a lot of researches online, whit statistically significant results. Why these results aren`t accepted? There are a lot of 40%+ Ganzfield results (25% by chance), and not too much negative.
SO what is the truth?



I have a single question:The significant results are "accustomed, regular ", frequent results, or they are rare, in very small ammount, and for this, if we unite every research, we will not find results bigger than chance?
Transilvanian
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 87
Male

Country: Erdély(Transilvania)
Hungary (hu)
Print view this post

Re: ESP resarches

#24  Postby tolman » Jan 31, 2013 4:40 pm

Transilvanian wrote:We can read a lot of researches online, whit statistically significant results. Why these results aren`t accepted? There are a lot of 40%+ Ganzfield results (25% by chance), and not too much negative.

What is needed to be accepted by science as having discovered something inexplicable and amazing is not just someone claiming to have had some significant results in the past, especially in situations where it isn't obvious to independent outsiders how good an experimental setup was or how many 'bad' results might have been explained away and forgotten.

ESP researchers have to be able to demonstrate that in a setting which no-one could rationally find fault with, they can on an ongoing basis get significantly better-than-chance results in experiments more often than would be predictable by chance.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: ESP resarches

#25  Postby iamthereforeithink » Jan 31, 2013 4:48 pm

Where is that debate between jerome and campermon about ESP (or was it ghosts?). Was it here or on RDF?
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
User avatar
iamthereforeithink
 
Posts: 3332
Age: 8
Male

Country: USA/ EU
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: ESP resarches

#26  Postby campermon » Jan 31, 2013 6:15 pm

iamthereforeithink wrote:Where is that debate between jerome and campermon about ESP (or was it ghosts?). Was it here or on RDF?

Ha ha!! It was here! and it is still unfinished!!! Here:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/forma ... t6927.html

One day, me and Jerome might actually conclude!

edit - oh shit! It's my turn to post in the debate :oops: .....

When RL isn't so hectic, I might get round to it! :cheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17032
Age: 48
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: ESP resarches

#27  Postby Pebble » Jan 31, 2013 7:01 pm

Transilvanian wrote:We can read a lot of researches online, whit statistically significant results. Why these results aren`t accepted? There are a lot of 40%+ Ganzfield results (25% by chance), and not too much negative.
SO what is the truth?



I have a single question:The significant results are "accustomed, regular ", frequent results, or they are rare, in very small ammount, and for this, if we unite every research, we will not find results bigger than chance?



Statistically significant results only show that the result is unlikely to be explained by chance. The question then is the source of the deviation - poor study design is the most common problem, poor statistical technique remains a factor, etc. In many 'psi' experiments a very small number of well conducted studies that on their own are inconclusive are 'supported' by large volumes of data from poorly conducted experiments. Only adequately sized, rigorously conducted, optimised experiments should ever be presented as evidence if you want to convince the general scientific community of something that has no mechanistic basis given current knowledge.
It is concievable that in time if current work on cerebral electrical activity and its manipulation pans out in the right direction, you would have somewhat less difficulty with the levels of evidence required before being taken seriously.
Pebble
 
Posts: 2702

Country: UK
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: ESP resarches

#28  Postby Transilvanian » Feb 02, 2013 1:45 pm

Ok!
Then, can you show me Ganzfeld or other tests with no positive results?
Transilvanian
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 87
Male

Country: Erdély(Transilvania)
Hungary (hu)
Print view this post

Re: ESP resarches

#29  Postby Pebble » Feb 02, 2013 4:42 pm

Transilvanian wrote:Ok!
Then, can you show me Ganzfeld or other tests with no positive results?


Why? However wrong the hypothesis, even with carefully constructed rigorously conducted experiments there will be occasional positive results. The probability of such an outcome means that on repetition the same experiment is highly unlikely to yield further positive results. That is why people with limited understanding of statistics cherry pick a few well constructed positive trials and attempt to embellish the evidence using poorly constructed trials, some even call the result a meta-analysis.
Only gathering the evidence of all trials completed, rejecting those failing to meet acceptable standards and analysing all remaining trials could give you a steer on this. Even then 'proof' would require that there was evidence from preceding trials of the magnitude of effect observable in a particular senario and construction of independently conducted trials demonstrating the same magnitude of effect in adequately powered trials.
Pebble
 
Posts: 2702

Country: UK
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: ESP resarches

#30  Postby BlackBart » Feb 02, 2013 4:54 pm

Transilvanian wrote:Ok!
Then, can you show me Ganzfeld or other tests with no positive results?


What would be the point of that? As a sceptic, you should be familiar with the concepts of 'Burden of proof' and 'proving a negative'. Any Ganzfeld test that had no positive result would simply fail to prove ESP, it wouldn't prove that it doesn't exist. It's up to the individual making the positive claim to provide evidence for it, not for anyone else to provide evidence of it's absence.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 11036
Age: 55
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: ESP resarches

#31  Postby theropod » Feb 02, 2013 5:07 pm

There's that why question again.

:nono:

RS
17 years off-grid and counting.

Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7051
Age: 64
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: ESP resarches

#32  Postby Transilvanian » Feb 02, 2013 7:12 pm

@Pebble: Yes, then there will be OCASIONALLY positive results. But there are more positive, significant results, then negative... or I did not found them. :S And the Ganzfeld experiments have in average results of 33-34%, when by chance they could have only 25.

For examle, here is this:
http://forum.szkeptikus.hu/download/fil ... &mode=view
709 hits from 2124, 33,4%!

So, nobody knows some negative results?
And:Is it true that there are more positive than negative results? Or not? Then where are them??? I know thah they are some negativs too, but I found much more positive...
I am a sckeptic, but until I found so much positive, and very few negative results, if I am correct, I see that probably there is something.

Transilvanian
But I hope I am wrong. But then, show me the negative results, PEASE!
Transilvanian
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 87
Male

Country: Erdély(Transilvania)
Hungary (hu)
Print view this post

Re: ESP resarches

#33  Postby Pebble » Feb 02, 2013 7:32 pm

Transilvanian wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b]Pebble:[/b][/color] Yes, then there will be OCASIONALLY positive results. But there are more positive, significant results, then negative... or I did not found them. :S And the Ganzfeld experiments have in average results of 33-34%, when by chance they could have only 25.

For examle, here is this:
http://forum.szkeptikus.hu/download/fil ... &mode=view
709 hits from 2124, 33,4%!

So, nobody knows some negative results?
And:Is it true that there are more positive than negative results? Or not? Then where are them??? I know thah they are some negativs too, but I found much more positive...
I am a sckeptic, but until I found so much positive, and very few negative results, if I am correct, I see that probably there is something.

Transilvanian
But I hope I am wrong. But then, show me the negative results, PEASE!


Most of the studies are poor quality - therein lies the problem. Mainly inadequate and potentially biased blinding, lack of independent randomisation of order of choices etc. There are relatively few studies that would be considered adequate for inclusion in a clean analysis. Also lacking pre-registration of trials one cannot be clear that there is no publication bias. Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science' is a good primer on how poor data can be presented as a strong case.
Pebble
 
Posts: 2702

Country: UK
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post


Re: ESP researches

#35  Postby Pebble » Feb 02, 2013 9:23 pm

Pebble
 
Posts: 2702

Country: UK
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: ESP researches

#36  Postby Onyx8 » Feb 03, 2013 12:26 am

Just posting to highlight the video that Ingenuity Gap linked:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Fel1VKEN8[/youtube]

This is very well worth watching, is entirely on topic and answers the OP completely. The suggested 'perception' cannot exist because the laws of physics does not allow it. /thread.

Deepak Chopra (and some others... :whistle:) should be strapped to a chair like Alex from 'A Clockwork Orange' and made to watch it until he goes away.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 61
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: ESP resarches

#37  Postby iamthereforeithink » Feb 03, 2013 8:01 am

campermon wrote:
iamthereforeithink wrote:Where is that debate between jerome and campermon about ESP (or was it ghosts?). Was it here or on RDF?

Ha ha!! It was here! and it is still unfinished!!! Here:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/forma ... t6927.html

One day, me and Jerome might actually conclude!

edit - oh shit! It's my turn to post in the debate :oops: .....

When RL isn't so hectic, I might get round to it! :cheers:


Well, hurry up. I don't have much time :nono:

:mrgreen:
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
User avatar
iamthereforeithink
 
Posts: 3332
Age: 8
Male

Country: USA/ EU
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: ESP researches

#38  Postby tolman » Feb 03, 2013 9:14 pm

If even a relatively small fraction of humans were (on average) good at predicting random numbers, seeing through solid objects, or predicting the future, then it's hard to see how casinos and bookmakers would be in business.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: ESP researches

#39  Postby Onyx8 » Feb 03, 2013 9:31 pm

Also it would appear at least on the surface to be a pretty strong survival benefit and so should have fixed/spread in the population.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 61
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: ESP researches

#40  Postby BlackBart » Feb 04, 2013 8:09 am

tolman wrote:If even a relatively small fraction of humans were (on average) good at predicting random numbers, seeing through solid objects, or predicting the future, then it's hard to see how casinos and bookmakers would be in business.

Strange how organised crime insists on long winded hacking methods to harvest internet passwords when it could use remote viewing or ESP.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 11036
Age: 55
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Paranormal & Supernatural

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest