Cumulative proof for psychic phenomena

[ChrLzs]

This isn't going anywhere. I guess either I'm not being clear on something or you just don't understand at all.

I think I can see the problem - RIGHT THERE. You think there is no possibility other than those? Strange, because I can think of one - I must have a wider open mind..? Anyway, that's either a troll or a complete inability to accept the possibility you may be in error (or in this case, out of your depth and biased).

Hoist by your own petard. As I'm of the same opinion as Leonardo, namely that you will never concede what is a blindingly obvious lack of decent methodology (we haven't even got to the ridiculous meta-statistics), I'm out.

Do tell us when the definitive study comes out, and also tell me how these supposedly significant effects are being used commercially. Having people with a 10-20% better success rate at guessing stuff is not something that would be ignored by big business..

[Nightmaker47]

I think I can see the problem - RIGHT THERE. You think there is no possibility other than those? Strange, because I can think of one - I must have a wider open mind..? Anyway, that's either a troll or a complete inability to accept the possibility you may be in error (or in this case, out of your depth and biased).

Great! Please do tell. We people who are defending the ganzfeld are always waiting for a decent explanation to debunk the ganzfeld. Yet, when confronted with the facts, none of these criticism ever seem to hold up. Leo claimed that paranormal associations and knowing that the test is paranormal lead to hit inflation where receivers had a greater 25% chance of getting a hit. On the other hand, I and feather proved him wrong by explaining those paranormal associated hits are less likely to be a hit and have no influence of another target. A control group (same condition, but without altering consciousness) also contradicted Leo' latter theory. Let's see if your "decent explanation" stands up to the challenge.

Hoist by your own petard. As I'm of the same opinion as Leonardo, namely that you will never concede what is a blindingly obvious lack of decent methodology (we haven't even got to the ridiculous meta-statistics), I'm out.

Oh, I clearly understand what's a blind/double-blind test. You still haven't prove any of these criticisms either, so that makes us fair doesn't?

Do tell us when the definitive study comes out, and also tell me how these supposedly significant effects are being used commercially. Having people with a 10-20% better success rate at guessing stuff is not something that would be ignored by big business..

I can provide many scientific peer-reviewed studies besides Radin. Why would this 'commercial effect' matter at the first place? The effect-size for the is about 0.19. That's barely a small effect. How do you suppose we can use this weak effect at the casinos?

Edited February 2, 2014 by Nightmaker47

[ChrLzs]

So you don't even get "I'm out"?

I and others have covered the important aspects earlier, eg.

Sakari

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Leonardo

Leonardo

Leonardo

Leonardo

Leonardo

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Leonardo

Leonardo

Leonardo

Those are full of examples and explanations of how the bias can creep into such deceitfully designed experiments.

And ALL of that criticism could have been removed by using NON-subjective choices and subjects.

These experimenters deliberately use subjective choices. It's as simple as that.

And you choose not to see the elephant - preferring to simply handwave. It is pointless continuing. Thankfully at least a lurker or two have now seen the light. They were listening with open minds.

Goodbye.

[White Crane Feather]

So you don't even get "I'm out"?

I and others have covered the important aspects earlier, eg.

Sakari

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Leonardo

Leonardo

Leonardo

Leonardo

Leonardo

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Leonardo

Leonardo

Leonardo

Those are full of examples and explanations of how the bias can creep into such deceitfully designed experiments.

And ALL of that criticism could have been removed by using NON-subjective choices and subjects.

These experimenters deliberately use subjective choices. It's as simple as that.

And you choose not to see the elephant - preferring to simply handwave. It is pointless continuing. Thankfully at least a lurker or two have now seen the light. They were listening with open minds.

Goodbye.

Actually in all of those arguments, very little of it was not pseudo skeptical conjecture mostly based on appeals to authority.

Admittedly, I am not that informed on the details of the ganzfield experiments. I will remedy that.

In the end I may agree with skeptics after I look at the facts. unfortunately pseudo skeptics can get more creative at muddying the waters than the frauds they are trying to debunk. Then when confronted with facts, they back out and ignore basic critical thinking. I find it terribly revealing of pseudo skeptical dogma when a "paranormal" effect actually ends up having a mundane explanation, but t all the pseudo skeptical silliness was so off the mark even inventing more junk than psi kiddies, i feel embarrassed for the people arguing their nonsense.

[Nightmaker47]

So you don't even get "I'm out"?

Why shouldn't I respond? I see so many flaws in your criticism that I don't even know where to begin. Right. Ending this debate means you win and I lose. Oh the irony.

I and others have covered the important aspects earlier, eg.

Sakari

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Leonardo

Leonardo

Leonardo

Leonardo

Leonardo

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Chrlzs

Leonardo

Leonardo

Leonardo

Those are full of examples and explanations of how the bias can creep into such deceitfully designed experiments.

I already addressed most of those criticisms. Do I have to show you where I respond again?

And ALL of that criticism could have been removed by using NON-subjective choices and subjects.

What in 'free response test/25% chance of hit' don't you understand? The ganzfeld is designed to allow altered states of consciousness users to say whatever they see, feel, hear, etc. Instead of relying on predetermined images/videos, they are free to express their impressions on what that target might be. If they were forced-choice, then non-subjective choices and subjects would be applied.

Your argument is that hits are determined by subjective interpertations of the actual target that may really just be done by confirmation bias. The problem with your argument was that you rejected 'double-blind' and objective guessing criteria out of hand. As I tried to explain many times before (and I'm getting really frustrated), the actual target is completely isolated from the experimenter and the receiver. The experimenter cannot hint the receiver what the target might be via sensory cues. Why? Because they're both ignorant! They don't know.

The only option they had if they were truly blind was to guess. That's right! Guess. When you guess, you have to select what that target might be out of 4 possible choices. If the guess matches the target, it's a direct hit. No subjective interpretation required. You can give out so many impressions that have nothing to do with the actual target at all and still get a direct hit if you correctly select the target from four possible choices.

But then you go and babble from Leo that it is the paranormal associations that increase the hit rate. Wrong! As I and Feather mathematically explained, choosing a paranormal associated image has more chances of getting a miss than a hit. So you can choose 20 paranormal associated images and still get only 5 hits (i.e. 25%) by average. This "probability' is also irrelevant to how many paranormal related pictures there are because only one of them could be the target, making you think which one might be the right one. So you can choose a picture of aliens and find out at the end of your guess it was a haunted house or Slender Man. Even if you chose one of those two, it could have been the image of aliens or something else on the alternative. Paranormal associations have nothing to do with hit inflation. As long as the randomization method and blind method are valid, there's no reason to call experimenter bias.

These experimenters deliberately use subjective choices. It's as simple as that.

and yet, the fact you're ill-informed that you have to guess which one of the four might be before the actual target is revealed and the psi-hypothesis being statistically significantly greater or worse than the 25% hit rate is very telling. I guess you're going to say that the receiver gets a hit simply because the impressions seem to match the target, right? Wrong. The target isn't even revealed yet until an objective selection of the four targets is made. What is the chance of success from that selective guess? 25%. If that guess matched the target that is even revealed before that phrase, you got a direct hit. I don't understand why you find it difficult to understand something as simple as this.

And you choose not to see the elephant - preferring to simply handwave. It is pointless continuing. Thankfully at least a lurker or two have now seen the light. They were listening with open minds.

Goodbye.

If you're still going to reject my counter-arguments out of hand and continue babbling with the same thing over and over, then so be it.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Nightmaker47