nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » And as I said above when the criteria of selection is such that the studies are selected to get the results you want then there IS a problem. And that criteria was NOT made explicit beforehand in this case. In fact it was quite deliberately obfuscated. I already said I agree that criteria have to be implemented in Meta Analysis. But that criteria should never be "Select the studies which give the results that I want to get". And again when a similar study was performed using 30 examples from the same Ganzfeld pool, no significant results were found at all. This is no small thing. Again given the meta analysis you first linked to was so poor and has all the problems I outlined, and your last link was broken and did not go anywhere, I repeat my earlier invitation for how best to progress the discussion. Drill down into one of the meta analysis, cite one of the studies, what you think it is claiming and we can work through together the methodology and interpretations involved. Outside that I can only say that, like Blackemore's piece I linked to, I am not seeing any significant results out there that one can draw any conclusions on at all. Like Blackemore I would be very happy indeed to see more studies done... studies with explicitly and carefully address the issues found in previous studies... and see where that leads us. One very good way to do that would be to include the people who found the methodological problems with the old studies IN the new studies as full co-authors.
Heres Your Future wrote: » As I have repeatedly said, other meta-anaylses have taken into account Wiseman and other supposed skeptics criticisms and still found a psi effect.
Genghiz Cohen wrote: » Atta boy Nozz, reinforce my beliefs!
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » But yes, there is certainly something wrong when someone in these parts beefs up their arguments by declaring everyone here is just engaged in confirmation bias, back patting and are ignorant of the arguments and evidence. When the discussion turns to that level of rhetoric I think it becomes pretty clear the writer of such comments is projecting their own failings on to others.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 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:
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Which „other“ meta studies are you referring to exactly. As I said you already provided one broken link
What S&E-2001/2 did was to perform another Meta Analysis of around 80 studies between the early 70s and the late 90s. In doing so they clearly ignored the well known issues with the earlier studies in that set. They also implemented inconsistent methods for calculating outcomes and criteria for inclusion of papers.
They showed how some of the studies included in S&E-2001/2 were rubbished by Hyman in 1985.
S&E also weighted 11 of their studies but left the rest un-weighted. As Wiseman says “ When producing a quantitative summary of a group of studies, it makes no sense to distort their effect sizes by applying quality weights, nor does it make sense to apply quality weights to some studies in a database but not to others. This practice is simply bizarre and cannot be the basis for making strong claims that the statistically significant cumulated outcome represents strong evidence for psi.”
So not only was your first link rife with issues that I have laid out, your second reference to S&E-2001/2 is worse again. Not only does it have many of the same issues, it has MORE issues again and on top of that there appears to be wanton “Bizarre” dishonesty included too.
Jimoslimos wrote: » Parapsychology is a psuedoscience, until I see such evidence as well as detailed materials and methods in a published reputable journal that allows me to replicate their findings it will remain so.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Now now, that picture is a misrepresentation. That is not where you touched me last time at all :-) But yes, there is certainly something wrong when someone in these parts beefs up their arguments by declaring everyone here is just engaged in confirmation bias,
nagirrac wrote: » You are referring to the "file drawer problem" which is a valid area of discussion. The file drawer problem (how unpublished studies might impact the overall results) is a potential problem in all psychology studies and indeed much of science.
Heres Your Future wrote: » what link is broken? they all work fine for me
Heres Your Future wrote: » You havent read the full debate between Storm & Ertel & Milton & Wiseman so. Storm & Ertel replied to the criticisms in their 2002 article
Heres Your Future wrote: » You would want to be very careful about making claims about academics being 'bizarrely dishonest'
Heres Your Future wrote: » Lol, I specifically said in my post that many posters not all
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » That is not what I was talking about at all. I never mentioned anything like unpublished studies or anything of the sort. I am talking about something ENTIRELY different such as 1) the cherry picking of the studies that best reflect the result you want to find. 2) The weighting of those studies unevenly or at all to massage the results. 3) The inclusion of studies that have been shown to be flawed even by the people who conducted them.
Heres Your Future wrote: » This would be the same Hyman who as I pointed out above wrote in an article in 1996 in which he claimed he could not find methodological flaws in the experiments but still wouldn't accept their results.
At this point, a parapsychologist might protest that such "in principle" arguments can always be raised against any findings, no matter how well conceived was the study from which they emerged. Such a response is understandable, but I believe my caution is reasonable in this particular case. Historically, many cases of evidence for psi were proffered on the grounds that they came from experiments of impeccable methodological design. Only subsequently, sometimes by fortunate accident, did the possibility of a serious flaw or alternative explanation of the results become available
Although, I cannot point to any obvious flaws in the experiments, the experimental program is too recent and insufficiently evaluated to be sure that flaws and biases have been eliminated.
1. Both Professor Utts and I agree that the first step should be to have the SAIC protocols rejudged by independent judges who are blind to the actual target. 2. Assuming that such independent judging confirms the extra-chance matchings, the findings should be replicated in independent laboratories. Replication could take several forms. Some of the original viewers from the SAIC experiments could be used. However, it seems desirable to use a new target set and several independent judges. Operational Implications 1. The current default assessment of the operational effectiveness of remote viewing is fraught with hazards. Subjective validation is well known to generate compelling, but false, convictions that a description matches a target in striking ways. Better, double blind, ways of assessing operational effectiveness can be used. I suggest at least one way in the report. 2. The ultimate assessment of the potential utility of remote viewing for intelligence gathering cannot be separated from the findings of laboratory research.
nagirrac wrote: » The "file drawer problem" or publication bias is the biggest issue by far in terms of cherry picking results in many areas of science. At least parapsychologists are being more intellectually honest by publishing negative data sets, more than can be said for the broader Psychology field.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » There is quite a few problems with just this piece of text so it warrants a separate reply. Firstly he never once said he would not accept their results in the part you pasted. You are just making that up entirely. In the quote you posted in post #146 all he said was that he could not claim to be 100% certain of a lack of flaws. No more. You are putting words deliberately into his mouth here! Not just you either It is a quote often lifted out of that paper and posted on sites supporting PSI and the like. He actually goes on then to say:
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » It is great if they are taking steps to be honest. I can not fault that at all. But even if they are taking SOME steps to be honest that just not magically negate the issues with S&E-2001/2 that I mentioned. Those issues are still real and present even if they are doing their best to be honest elsewhere.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Yeah guys, it is not that your experiments failed to produce a positive result... it is just that the magic world of PSI is rendered silly by the power of static picture targets. Right. Though in fairness Willin’s (1996) tried it all again using music instead of static pictures. Good idea, especially if he had read the conclusion above. Trouble is he found squat too. His excuse? The people being tested must have lost interest!
theexorcist wrote: » The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.nagirrac , did you read the above quote from Einsteins letter , readit slowly, he did not believe in God :rolleyes:
Jernal wrote: » Attack science all the time, I do it all the time. (Most folks here might be surprised by that.) But you know what, this thread so far hasn't actually discussed the limitations of science and there are many. Jeez, Depressing.
recedite wrote: » Bear in mind the thread only got that title a few hours ago after splitting off from another one
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Not sure what you are saying there Obliq but thanks for the thanks I am not sure I look at life as us being "limited" though. We are alive against all the odds, we are here despite us not knowing any good reason why we should be. We are talking, living, breathing, loving and more. I do not feel limited. I feel alive despite all the limits that are possible and all the reasons I should not be alive. It is a shame many people look at life and the human condition as limiting. I see it entirely the opposite. Then again I am often told I have an overly optimistic outlook on life
nagirrac wrote: » Yes, certain knowledge is passed on via the written and oral traditions. However, that is not what I am talking about. A few examples: There is a species of wasp that lays its eggs in mud flats. They build an inverted funnel (with slippery surfaces to keep predators out) to get in and out while making the nest and then when complete they lay their eggs, fill their tunnel with food, break off the funnel and seal the entrance. It is very sophistocated. There are obviously thousands of examples like this in nature but the question is where did the individual wasp building the nest get this detailed knowledge (from a book? a guide to wasp nest building for wasps). There no evidence they learned it from older wasps as wasps bred under a controlled environment do exactly the same thing. I have chickens in my backyard. They were all procured as day old chicks so have no adults to teach them anything. One night I forget to lock them into their coup and they roosted on braches about 15ft off the ground. How did they know to do this to avoid predators? The obvious response is instinct but what the hell is instinct?
