Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Limitations of Science?
Options
Comments
-
Not much detail there though.
Heres an independent report on the book.
One of the complaints is; On the subject of Psi Ops research, I recommend the movie "The Men Who Stare at Goats" which may or may not be based on true events (there isn't too much detail given about that) But very funny in places, all the same.
independent? lmfao
For every negative review (in this case by a skeptic atheist, how independent) I can point you to 10 positive reviews. Read the book and make your own mind up.
btw skeptics are giving skeptics a bad name, there was a time when skeptics challenged commonly held beliefs and not just defend establishment thinking.0 -
Science has its limitations because it can only go so far in explaining reality.
Science is limited because human consciousness/mind is limited.
It's arrogant to assume that the human mind can have access to "absolute" or "ultimate" reality and eventually come up with a "theory of everything". There is more to reality that we can conceive of.0 -
The human mind / consciousness continues to evolve though so who knows what future generations will discover. Everbody believed in Newton's physics until Einstein came along. Like evolution science moves forward in small increments for long periods and then huge bursts. The biggest obstacle to learning about reality though is dogmatic thinking which is quite hilarious given we are a deeply flawed species on a little rock in a remote corner of the universe.0
-
Any serious study of the paranormal concludes that the paranormal is bollocks. Any expert who claims otherwise is selling something. If you want to believe something, by all means go ahead. Just don't try to claim evidence for it when such things do not and never will exist, k?
Are you for real or just trolling????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30436
btw skeptics are giving skeptics a bad name, there was a time when skeptics challenged commonly held beliefs and not just defend establishment thinking.
Very strange statement. Skepticism has nothing to do with challenging commonly held beliefs, its about challenging beliefs that don't stand up to scrutiny or have any evidence to back them up. Did you ever stop to think skeptics aren't challenging the stablishment (maaaaan) as much because the general population is no longer as superstitious and prone to believing in bollox like witchcraft and ESP as it once was?
Also, dismissing the viewpoints of experts (or anyone for that matter) in their field just because they may be atheists invalidates all your posts too because it's no different to someone else dismissing all your posts on the grounds that everyone you reference is a complete quack. Basically what I'm I'm trying to get at is saying "LOL their opinion doesn't count because they're atheists" is a pretty lousy line of argument imo.Science has its limitations because it can only go so far in explaining reality.
Science is limited because human consciousness/mind is limited.
It's arrogant to assume that the human mind can have access to "absolute" or "ultimate" reality and eventually come up with a "theory of everything". There is more to reality that we can conceive of.
How can you know there is more to reality than you can conceive of what with your limited human mind?The human mind / consciousness continues to evolve though so who knows what future generations will discover. Everbody believed in Newton's physics until Einstein came along. Like evolution science moves forward in small increments for long periods and then huge bursts. The biggest obstacle to learning about reality though is dogmatic thinking which is quite hilarious given we are a deeply flawed species on a little rock in a remote corner of the universe.
It's funny you mention evolution when you're trying to espouse the possibility that our brains have almost magical capabilities that have no reason to exist evolutionarily speaking.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Would you care to list a few items from this "mountain of data"?
I fear you are speaking from a position of ignorance on this matter...if you don't like the journal of parapsychology try psychological bulletin (or do you have problems with taking that journal seriously too?) Heres a link to a well known article by Bem and Honorton on the subject though admittedly its a good few years old now so not exactly cutting edge and obviously their conclusions have been disputed by others but it is just one example of an article on parapsychology in a respected acadmec journal
http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html
I have found that people tend to be very quick to dismiss the evidence for psi phenomena without actually examining it for themselves. There is actually a fair amount of evidence for certain types of psi phenomena, I do enjoy the reactions of some of the posters on this thread who recoil with horror when the words 'paranormal phenomena' are mentioned, I would imagine most of them have never read any of the relevant scientific literature, confining themselves to populist supposedly 'skeptical' websites (like Randi's) for example. A real sceptic is openminded and doesn't dogmatically dismiss something without taking the trouble to try to understand it.0 -
-
Also, dismissing the viewpoints of experts (or anyone for that matter) in their field just because they may be atheists invalidates all your posts too because it's no different to someone else dismissing all your posts on the grounds that everyone you reference is a complete quack. Basically what I'm I'm trying to get at is saying "LOL their opinion doesn't count because they're atheists" is a pretty lousy line of argument imo.
I questioned using a self confirmed strong atheist (Morten Monrad Pedersen, author of an article called "Why Gods do not exist") as an "independent" reviewer of Radin's book. Calling someone an atheist is not a slur, but calling someone a quack is. Dean Radin is not a quack if you would go to the trouble of looking at his professional accomplishments.0 -
*Checks to see if James Randi is $1m poorer; Sees he is not. Takes note to make a donation for the massive amount of time he has saved me*0
-
Advertisement
-
*Checks to see if James Randi is $1m poorer; Sees he is not. Takes note to make a donation for the massive amount of time he has saved me*
This Randi?
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/fl-jose-alvarez-amazing-randi-plea-20120314,0,4893077.story0 -
Yes that's him. I'm sorry, what does that have to do with anything exactly? Just reaching for an ad hominem are ya?0
-
Yes that's him. I'm sorry, what does that have to do with anything exactly? Just reaching for an ad hominem are ya?
No, just pointing out the hypocricy of a man who claimed to stand for truth with a capital T but turned out not to be so truthful himself. He is the one who said parapsychologists should be held to a higher standard, well he failed that test.0 -
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one in fairness.No, just pointing out the hypocricy of a man who claimed to stand for truth with a capital T but turned out not to be so truthful himself. He is the one who said parapsychologists should be held to a higher standard, well he failed that test.0 -
Heres Your Future wrote: »but it is just one example of an article on parapsychology in a respected acadmec journal
http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html
Perhaps you can outline what you think the claim in that link is and what the evidence for it actually is. Much has been said about the methods employed by Bern and very little of it was good. Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom and van der Maas for example call heavily into question the way the values Bern uses were interpreted. There was of course a rebuttal written to that paper by... oh wait it was Bern. Unbiased it was not.
James Alcock also weighed in on the actual methods Bern employed to collate his data showing that he changed his methodology half way through the studies and was unnecessarily vague on the quantity of studies actually done, and no information on how certain states described in his subjects were actually defined and established.
Further... the whole point of peer reviewed journals is so that other scientists can replicate your work for verification. Ritchie, French and Wiseman tried to do just that and failed to reproduce any of Berns claims. Their results were rejected from being published in a peer reviewed journal however due to the objections of one single source. Guess who it was. You never will. Someone called Daryl Bem. Go figure!
Gregory Francis also rejected the work on various grounds too.
In fact the only thing good about this study that has come of it's publication is that it has resulted in people like Francis, LeBel and Peters to come together and review Research Practices and Methodologies for the future.
You recommended "open mindedness" when viewing this issue and I heartily agree. The issue is however that too many people think "open mindedness" means to go into the evaluation process assuming the results are correct and to interpret the results and methodologies in that light.0 -
So now it's not enough for someone who disagrees with the more dogmatic worldview which is particularly prevalent on this forum to post an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal in support of their viewpoint, they now have to explain the article aswell??
To be honest I don't have time to do that for every link I post (I have a life outside boards), but in a nutshell Bem (Note it is Bem, not Bern) & Honortons article that I linked to is a meta-analysis of studies that looked for evidence of psi using a particular type of procedure called the Ganzfeld. Aggregating a large number of studies they found evidence of a significant psi effect.
I am fully aware that not everyone agreed with Bems meta analysis (I pointed it out when I linked to the article above). Given your request to me to do so, perhaps you might explain the article by Chris French and Richard Wiseman and how exactly they 'failed to reproduce Bems claims'.
Interesting that you pick Wiseman by the way, I have an interest example of bias by him in one of his recent books which I may post later when I get the chance to dig it up.0 -
Heres Your Future wrote: »So now it's not enough for someone who disagrees with the more dogmatic worldview which is particularly prevalent on this forum to post an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal in support of their viewpoint, they now have to explain the article aswell??
Welcome to the world of science. That is how peer review works. Being published in a peer review journal does not mean you are finished. The whole point of publishing in peer review is... wait for it... so that your peers can review it.
And the results of that peer review are... as I said... not good at all. Despite my automatic spell checker replacing his name on me. Well spotted. The critique I mention was not just leveled against Bem but also against Ganzfeld.
To add another name to the already long list I provided who have had concerns over the methodology and result interpretation, the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research published Sue Blackemore who found many issues with the methodology involved.
None of this is suggesting PSI is false. All I am suggesting is that a lot more work has to be done to establish any of it as true and the methodologies and interpreation needs to be policed much more than it has been.
You asked also about Ritchie, French and Wiseman. They attempted to reproduce Bem's "Retroactive Facilitation of Recall" experiment. Their results were published in PlosOne and they failed to find any evidence at all of pre-cognition.
Their conclusions:This paper reports three independent attempts to replicate the retroactive facilitation of recall effect [1]. All three experiments employed almost exactly the same procedure and software as the original experiment. In addition, they used the same number of participants as the original study and thus had sufficient statistical power to detect an effect (our three experiments combined had 99.92% power to detect the same effect size).
While Bem found a substantial effect, our results failed to provide any evidence for retroactive facilitation of recall.0 -
Yes. If you can't explain it, then perhaps you didn't understand it after all and perhaps it doesn't actually say what you think it says.Heres Your Future wrote: »So now it's not enough for someone who disagrees with the more dogmatic worldview which is particularly prevalent on this forum to post an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal in support of their viewpoint, they now have to explain the article aswell?
A quick read through of it on the train this morning suggests that the majority of studies demonstrated no effect at all, and amongst the studies which did demonstrate something, the effect was generally small except where the number of trials was very small. All in all, I found it quite unconvincing and that's without having any of the source data crunched to produce the conclusions.
Would you like to justify the conclusions reached by the author, or would you like to withdraw this as evidence of a generalized "psi" phenomenon?0 -
Yes. If you can't explain it, then perhaps you didn't understand it after all and perhaps it doesn't actually say what you think it says.
A quick read through of it on the train this morning suggests that the majority of studies demonstrated no effect at all, and amongst the studies which did demonstrate something, the effect was generally small except where the number of trials was very small. All in all, I found it quite unconvincing and that's without having any of the source data crunched to produce the conclusions.
Would you like to justify the conclusions reached by the author, or would you like to withdraw this as evidence of a generalized "psi" phenomenon?
The author justifies his own conclusions perfectly well in the article, thats why I linked to it. As for the effect size being small, effect sizes are often small in psychology experiments, the effect was still significant. Can I ask why folllowing a cursory read on the train and without having studied the experiments used in the meta analysis you find it 'quite unconvincing'0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Welcome to the world of science. That is how peer review works. Being published in a peer review journal does not mean you are finished. The whole point of publishing in peer review is... wait for it... so that your peers can review it.
And the results of that peer review are... as I said... not good at all. Despite my automatic spell checker replacing his name on me. Well spotted. The critique I mention was not just leveled against Bem but also against Ganzfeld.
To add another name to the already long list I provided who have had concerns over the methodology and result interpretation, the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research published Sue Blackemore who found many issues with the methodology involved.
None of this is suggesting PSI is false. All I am suggesting is that a lot more work has to be done to establish any of it as true and the methodologies and interpreation needs to be policed much more than it has been.
You asked also about Ritchie, French and Wiseman. They attempted to reproduce Bem's "Retroactive Facilitation of Recall" experiment. Their results were published in PlosOne and they failed to find any evidence at all of pre-cognition.
Their conclusions:
So basically what you are saying is that Ritchie, French and Wisemans paper had nothing to do with Bems meta-analysis of Ganzfeld studies, yet a couple of posts above you were citing it to try and rubbish Bems article. Why do I get the feeling I am talking to people who are not well informed on the literature pertaining to parapsychology yet still feel qualified to make sweeping statements on the nature of the evidence that exists.
Also Ganzfeld refers to a procedure, not a person, it means 'whole field' in German0 -
Advertisement
-
Heres Your Future wrote: »So basically what you are saying is that Ritchie, French and Wisemans paper had nothing to do with Bems meta-analysis of Ganzfeld studies, yet a couple of posts above you were citing it to try and rubbish Bems article.
If I was saying that I would have typed that. The citations I am giving are showing holes in Bams procedures, methodologies, reporting, interpretation and much more. These are not small problems.
If Bam is serious about his work then what he should be doing is taking all this on board and repeating the experiments with fixes in place to address the issues raised.Heres Your Future wrote: »Why do I get the feeling I am talking to people who are not well informed on the literature pertaining to parapsychology yet still feel qualified to make sweeping statements on the nature of the evidence that exists.
Probably because we are disagreeing with you and reaching such a conclusion allows you to explain away that disagreement with minimum effort. However I too have a "life outside boards" as you put it and part of that life is my hobbies and one of my main hobbies is ALSO science. I have studied not just science papers as part of my education AND my hobbies but also the methodology of how to write AND interpret scientific literature, studies, papers and statistics.Heres Your Future wrote: »Also Ganzfeld refers to a procedure, not a person, it means 'whole field' in German
I never said it was a person. Ever. So I am not sure why you are directing this at me. I live in Germany and have done for many years and my German is more than capable of dealing with the the term involved. All I said was that many of the criticisms leveled against Bam were also leveled against Ganzfeld. Where you got from that that I thought Ganzfeld to be a person is entirely a mystery to me.
Perhaps a way to progress the discussion would be if you were to pick out a specific result or study from the meta analysis and we can go through it together one at a time. As I said I am quite well versed in how science papers are written and how best to interpret them and I am more than happy to help you through the process and look at the study, the methodology and the result interpretations with you.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The critique I mention was not just leveled against Bem but also against Ganzfeld.
The way you phrased the above suggested to me you thought Ganzfeld was a person otherwise you would have said 'the Ganzfeld' if referring to a procedure. That is how it is usually referred to in the parapsychology literature.
I never said you were not well versed in science by the way, I said that in relation to the particular field of science we are discussing, parapsychology, you come across as not being very conversant with the academic literature.
As I already pointed out the citations you give re French etc have nothing whatsoever to do with Bem & Honortons meta analysis of the Ganzfeld, and don' t in any way invaldiate it. They are dealing with an attempted replication of an experiment on retroactive recall and you haven't even linked to the paper you are talking about. I am not sure why you would cite that paper in any instance as it has nothing to this particular meta-analysis.
By the way I never posted the link to Bem & Honortons paper to somehow prove the existence of psi phenomena. I did so because other posters seemed to be claiming psi is nonsense, experiments are not well conducted, only published in obscure journals etc when this is in fact not the case at all. If they were in any way conversant with the field of parapsychology they would know that. Heres another article for you which you might find it useful as in it a statistician discusses meta analysis and its application to parapsychology.
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/UttsStatPsi.pdf0 -
Heres Your Future wrote: »The way you phrased the above suggested to me you thought Ganzfeld was a person otherwise you would have said 'the Ganzfeld' if referring to a procedure. That is how it is usually referred to in the parapsychology literature.
I am not writing literature, I am writing a forum post. And my use of the language is perfectly fine. I would also say for example "The criticism was not just leveled against Rooney, but also against soccer".Heres Your Future wrote: »in relation to the particular field of science we are discussing, parapsychology, you come across as not being very conversant with the academic literature.
A conclusion which is false and I can only assume it is one reached because it is an easy catch all explanation for why I am not agreeing with you. It allows you, in the space of one sentence, to summarily dismiss all the critique I have mentioned merely by suggesting ignorance where none exists.Heres Your Future wrote: »nothing whatsoever to do with Bem & Honortons meta analysis of the Ganzfeld
Again the methodologies used, the interpretation techniques applies and more have all been faulted and this is no small issue.
Ray Hyman (Uni. Oregon) found inconsistencies in the experimental procedures used in different ganzfeld experiments (Bem’s lumped all these together in meta-analysis as if they used the same procedures. A big issue on it's own by the way). He also went on to indicate flaws in the target randomization process that caused target-selection bias.
Richard Wiseman (Uni. Hertfordshire) conducted a meta-analysis of 30 more ganzfelds and found no evidence for psi... concluding that psi data can not be replicated.
These are all about the study you linked to directly and so yes they do go quite a way to invalidating it.
Again as I said the best thing for this guy to do is repeat his studies while taking all the critique on board. If he is genuinely convinced by his own results he should have little issue with doing so.0 -
Another issue with Meta Analysis is that biased cherry picking of results is also possible. Meta Analysis is rendered useless if out of 100 studies you pick the 25 that best indicate the results you want. for a Meta Analysis to be good the studies used should share methodlogy and be picked randomly. This did NOT happen in the case of Bam & as is outlined in this excerpt from a larger article by Susan Blackemore. The bolding and highlighting is my own:How can one draw reliable and impartial conclusions in such circumstances? I do not believe one can. My own conclusion is based not just on reading these published papers but also on my personal experience over many years. I have carried out numerous experiments of many kinds and never found any convincing evidence for psi (Blackmore, 1996). I tried my first ganzfeld experiment in 1978, when the procedure was new. Failing to get results myself I went to visit Sargent’s laboratory in Cambridge where some of the best ganzfeld results were then being obtained. Note that in Honorton’s database 9 of the 28 experiments came from Sargent’s lab. What I found there had a profound effect on my confidence in the whole field and in published claims of successful experiments.
These experiments, which looked so beautifully designed in print, were in fact open to fraud or error in several ways, and indeed I detected several errors and failures to follow the protocol while I was there. I concluded that the published papers gave an unfair impression of the experiments and that the results could not be relied upon as evidence for psi. Eventually the experimenters and I all published our different views of the affair (Blackmore, 1987; Harley and Matthews, 1987; Sargent, 1987). The main experimenter left the field altogether.
I would not refer to this depressing incident again but for one fact. The Cambridge data are all there in the Bem and Honorton review but unacknowledged. Out of 28 studies included, 9 came from the Cambridge lab, more than any other single laboratory, and they had the second highest effect size after Honorton’s own studies. Bem and Honorton do point out that one of the laboratories contributed nine of the studies but they do not say which one. Not a word of doubt is expressed, no references to my investigation are given, and no casual reader could guess there was such controversy over a third of the studies in the database.
So not only did the writers of your original link hand pick the studies which best gave the result they wanted in their meta analysis... they took steps to be vague about which studies they picked and why so the casual reader would not know about the cherry picking process that they engaged in with their 28 studies. When Wiseman repeated another meta analysis with 30 more studies what did he find? Squat!
All we know... and Blackemore goes on in that article to say this... is that the results we have so far do nothing more than suggest further study under greater controls are necessary and should be performed. I am all for that.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Ray Hyman (Uni. Oregon) found inconsistencies in the experimental procedures used in different ganzfeld experiments (Bem’s lumped all these together in meta-analysis as if they used the same procedures. A big issue on it's own by the way). He also went on to indicate flaws in the target randomization process that caused target-selection bias.
Richard Wiseman (Uni. Hertfordshire) conducted a meta-analysis of 30 more ganzfelds and found no evidence for psi... concluding that psi data can not be replicated.
These are all about the study you linked to directly and so yes they do go quite a way to invalidating it.
Again as I said the best thing for this guy to do is repeat his studies while taking all the critique on board. If he is genuinely convinced by his own results he should have little issue with doing so.
Errr he and other parapsychologists have done so... if you really are as familiar with the parapsychological literature as you claim then you would know that already, see for example Storm & Ertel 2001 'Does Psi Exist? Comments on Milton & Wisemans (1999) meta analysis of psi research' published in Psychological Bulletin, and the same authors paper in 2002 in which they takcle the claims of Milton and Wiseman.
By the way its interesting you pick Hyman as an example as he is a good example of someone who calls himself a sceptic but in fact isnt a proper sceptic at all. In a paper in 1996 he admitted that 'parapsychological experiments are well designed and the investigators have taken pains to limit the known' (his words) and added 'I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present. Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from flaws.' So even though he could identifyy no flaws in the experimental procedures used, he can't bring himself to admit psi phenomena exist because 'it just can't be'. No different to a religious zealot justifying whatever version of God he/she happens to believe.0 -
That's the fellow, yes. I know there's a lot of James Randi's offering up $1m dollars for proof of the paranormal so I'm glad you took the time to clarify which one I meant and I'm amazed at your almost psychic powers in picking the right one first time!
I would have thought you would be a fan too considering he helps narrow the field of people claiming paranormal powers one needs to investigate by debunking plenty of the fraudsters, regardless of whether you think everyone is a fraudster or not. Without the likes of him any real abilities would likely be drowned out the the sea of con people.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So not only did the writers of your original link hand pick the studies which best gave the result they wanted in their meta analysis... they took steps to be vague about which studies they picked and why so the casual reader would not know about the cherry picking process that they engaged in with their 28 studies. When Wiseman repeated another meta analysis with 30 more studies what did he find? Squat!
All we know... and Blackemore goes on in that article to say this... is that the results we have so far do nothing more than suggest further study under greater controls are necessary and should be performed. I am all for that.
Studies for a meta-analysis are always hand picked by those who conduct them, this happens in every area of science, not just parapsychology. Once the criteria for including studies are laid out clearly beforehand I don't see a problem. There will be always be some subjectivity involved in setting out these criteria. By the way it would be good if you provide links (or references for) to some of the studies you cite. You also completely ignored the article I linked to by Jessica Utts which specifically deals with meta-analysis and its application to parapsychology.
As I pointed out in my previous post above further studies and meta analyses have been carried out and point to a significant psi effect. In fact unless you are trying to hold parasychologists to some higher standard of proof than you would hold experimental psychologists in other fields, then it is fair to say that it has been demonstrated that a psi effect exists (that is not to say that the effect is paranormal but it is certainly anomalous)0 -
Heres Your Future wrote: »if you really are as familiar with the parapsychological literature as you claim then you would know that already
Well if we are going to play THAT game then if YOU were really familiar with the literature, as you claim, you would not have linked to and cited a paper that was rife with cherry picking results, methodological errors and more. You would have known the issues related to it and more. Or perhaps you were aware of all that but you cited it anyway in the hope we would not.
Again... ensuring that 9 out of 28 studies come from the one lab giving the results you want is not just a small thing. It is monumentally bad procedure indeed.
Having someone try to replicate your results who take 30 more studies from the pile and perform a meta analysis and failing to find anything is no small think either. It looks horrifically bad for your study.
Making a meta analysis of studies with differing methodologies in this way can also be problematic. Changing methodology in the middle of a study is too.
One single meta analysis study showing that much error and being unrepeatable goes absolutely no way to proving anything... especially here on what is essentially a skeptics forum.Heres Your Future wrote: »Studies for a meta-analysis are always hand picked by those who conduct them, this happens in every area of science, not just parapsychology.
Depends what you mean by "hand picked". For example as I already said one needs to ensure as best as possible that the studies being analysed share methodologies. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges. So they have to be hand picked in THAT sense yes.
But "hand picked" does NOT mean that you decide what conclusion you want to prove and then deliberately pick the studies that support that conclusion and discard the rest. That is more "skewing the results" than "hand picking" the studies. Advocates of Homeopathy are usually the ones you find pulling that stunt.
Then being deliberately vague about where the studies came from in order to cover up the fact that they were hand picked to skew the results... that just sets all kinds of alarm bells off in my head I have to say.
So no I do not think it is "fair to say" that these studies are showing psi effects. Far from it.0 -
Just a minor thing, but within scientific skepticism, "skepticism" is universally spelled with a 'k', not a 'c', and has been for many years.Heres Your Future wrote: »By the way its interesting you pick Hyman as an example as he is a good example of someone who calls himself a sceptic but in fact isnt a proper sceptic at all.0 -
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Well if we are going to play THAT game then if YOU were really familiar with the literature, as you claim, you would not have linked to and cited a paper that was rife with cherry picking results, methodological errors and more. You would have known the issues related to it and more. Or perhaps you were aware of all that but you cited it anyway in the hope we would not.
Sigh...when I first linked to the article, I mentioned that it didnt meet universal agreement. I was aware of the alleged issues with this paper, I dont happen to agree with all of them. In any case there are other studies and meta analyses which indicate a Psi effect, I have referenced some above.Again... ensuring that 9 out of 28 studies come from the one lab giving the results you want is not just a small thing. It is monumentally bad procedure indeed.
Are you sure about that? As far as I know Blackmore is referring to an earlier subset of studies that Honorton used for a previous meta-analysis and NOT the Bem & Honorton meta-analysis.Having someone try to replicate your results who take 30 more studies from the pile and perform a meta analysis and failing to find anything is no small think either. It looks horrifically bad for your study.
As I have repeatedly said, other meta-anaylses have taken into account Wiseman and other supposed skeptics criticisms and still found a psi effect.Making a meta analysis of studies with differing methodologies in this way can also be problematic. Changing methodology in the middle of a study is too.
One single meta analysis study showing that much error and being unrepeatable goes absolutely no way to proving anything... especially here on what is essentially a skeptics forum.
Thats the problem, this isn't a skeptics forum, it's a place where, for many (though admittedly not all) pseudo skeptics congregate to clap each other on the back and reinforce their uninformed assumptions. Real skeptics familiarise themselves with all the evidence before coming to a conclusion.Depends what you mean by "hand picked". For example as I already said one needs to ensure as best as possible that the studies being analysed share methodologies. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges. So they have to be hand picked in THAT sense yes.
But "hand picked" does NOT mean that you decide what conclusion you want to prove and then deliberately pick the studies that support that conclusion and discard the rest. That is more "skewing the results" than "hand picking" the studies. Advocates of Homeopathy are usually the ones you find pulling that stunt.
Then being deliberately vague about where the studies came from in order to cover up the fact that they were hand picked to skew the results... that just sets all kinds of alarm bells off in my head I have to say.
So no I do not think it is "fair to say" that these studies are showing psi effects. Far from it.
I said above that once the criteria for including/ not including studies are made explicit beforehand then what is the problem?0
Advertisement