I put the iplayer link here
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... 15034.html

Listening now.

'ang on a minute: "Phil Jones" from Ghostwatchers Incorporated
Is that you trying to set me up Mr Jensen-Romer ?

Hiya, with all this formal debating going on, I have made my next post in this debate and am just waiting for a mod to approve it. Campermon is expecting it

j x

jerome wrote:Hiya, with all this formal debating going on, I have made my next post in this debate and am just waiting for a mod to approve it. Campermon is expecting it

j x

You seem surprised? It's up now at ---

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/forma ... l#p1302897



j x

Firstly, I apologize for being a little late in my response to Campermon (about 15 months i think)

Was it REALLY that long ago?

I look forward to composing my response!

Well yeah I was surprised as well! Wonder if anyone still reading the debate though after all this time?

Interesting post Chris.

If Wiseman's environmental factors hypothesis is correct it should be possible to turn almost any location into a 'haunted' location by reproducing those factors. If that doesn't work it eliminates those factors.

Magnetic effects on temporal lobes and associated sense of presence has possibly been shown experimentally, but, irrc, at much higher field strength.

wikipedia wrote:One published attempt to test Persinger's theories regarding the psychological effects of environmental magnetic fields, used whole-body exposure to magnetic fields and ultrasound in freely-moving participants to create a "haunted room" within which it was hoped subjects would sense a "presence." The study found that reports of unusual experiences were uncorrelated with the presence or absence of "complex" environmental eletromagnetic fields similar to Persinger's. Reports of unusual experiences were however, predicted by the personality characteristics and suggestibility of participants

I'd be a bit more concerned about having a non-blind present during a trial.

Hey Graham -- on Persinger check out the critique by Per Granqvist, in particular -- Granqvist, P., Fredrikson, M., Unge, P., Hagenfeldt, A, Valind, S, Larhammar, D., & Larsson, M. (2005). Sensed presence and mystical experiences are predicted by suggestibility, not by the application of weak complex transcranial magnetic fields. Neuroscience Letters, 379, 1-6. I assume you might not have access to Neuroscience Letters, but the article is available here http://www2.psychology.su.se/staff/pgra ... al2006.pdf courtesy of Granqvist et al. It really is worth reading, and yep, highly pertinent. I have an anecdote about a famous sceptical organisation whose work suffered from a very similar experimental flaw while performing field work on a different environmental variable -- I would share it, but I was so impressed that said group actually did some field work that it would be a shame to criticize, and they never published their results after my amused amazement at the obvious problem with their methodology anyway. Shame, the research was good, and barring that one fatal flaw could have been interesting.

Persinger responded, I think I can find the response -- here it is -- http://www.laurentian.ca/Laurentian/Hom ... Lang=en-CA S

Granqvist's et al. then responded back with Larsson, M., Larhammar, D., Fredrikson, M., & Granqvist, P. (2005). Reply to M.A. Persinger and S. A. Koren's response to Granqvist et al. “Sensed presence and mystical experiences are predicted by suggestibility, not by the application of transcranial weak magnetic fields”. Neuroscience Letters, 380, 348-350.I don't have a full text link -- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 400500371X

The last I have seen on it was St-Pierre, LS; Persinger, MA (2006). "Experimental facilitation of the sensed presence is predicted by the specific patterns of the applied magnetic fields, not by suggestibility: re-analyses of 19 experiments.". International Journal of Neuroscience 116 (9): 1079–96

Persingers commentary on the whole affair is here -- http://www.laurentian.ca/Laurentian/Hom ... Lang=en-CA

I have a great deal of respect for Persinger, but I am pretty certain the Uppsala-Lund's critiques are extremely pertinent, and am on record as doubting a great deal of what has been said about the implications of Persinger's work. I wrote a fairly detailed overview of the papers on the old RD forum I think, or possibly the JREF one. I'm always really happy to talk about it, as it actually touches on an area of academic research I am for once qualified to talk about, and because it does not actually impact at all (or only tangentially) on the debate with Campermon. I'll have a look later, as I am now six years behind the times on all this - well I think I have kept up vaguely, but I'll see what the current status of the debate is -- and write something later.

Great that someone is interested in these things!

j x

GrahamH wrote:

If Wiseman's environmental factors hypothesis is correct it should be possible to turn almost any location into a 'haunted' location by reproducing those factors. If that doesn't work it eliminates those factors.

I'm wary of commenting further directly on the debate subject but when Wiseman mentioned this over lunch at a conference years ago, rather enthusiastically looked at the possibility of doing just that - in fact I playfully costed the possibility of rebuilding one of the most famous haunted house of all, Borley Rectory, on a site not far from the original, and wondered if the TV company I then worked for could afford it. Given the village of Borley is constantly besieged by "ghosthunters", I did think the experiment might have a social pay off in moving them from the hamlet to the new experimental site. Anyway I never did it, as you may have gathered.

Wiseman and French et al have however -- they have built an experimental set up in the lab, and reported their results - at least I believe they have been published. I'll check. I lack the technical expertise to do it, but after the debate, or after Campermon has responded, I can post the paper if it is out yet, or ask Wiseman and French if I may post any summaries that exist in the public domain. I simply have not been keeping up, because i gave up on environmental variables after the late 1990's having spenty a decade on them and then found others doing much better work.


Though of course really all parapsychology involves putting a tea cosy on your head and trying to contact Aunt Ethel in a dark room - or so most readers of this forum probably believe!

j x

@jerome - "Now I have dug out the paper on Psychomanteum research that seemed to show a correlation between apparitional experience periods and unusual environmental conditions (see post 8) I won't invoke it here though, cos I want Campermon to have a chance to read the full paper, so I will pass it on. "

Do you have a linky for the paper?

Team Jerome!

I just realized your debate is still running.

Richard Wiseman just mentioned our analysis of the Colvin paper on Twitter. Lots of traffic ensues Thought might be of interest!

j x

Prof Chris French also retweeted it, and also mentioned he was a fan of my stuff. I went all embarrassed and did not know what to say! Anyway well done to you Twistor Metratron and everyone else who helped - our efforts have been noticed on that paper it seems

j x

I await academic fame and the inevitable riches that will follow...

Is that fame knocking?

GrahamH wrote:Is that fame knocking?

I intend to be a bit of a ghostbusting Brian Cox on the telly! (but better looking )

My mistake. It was just the guy next door nailing a picture hook to the wall.