"Consciousness," the missing 'unified theory' factor?

[owl]

There's no causation at a distance with entanglement.

 

How do particles change polarity of spin at a distance when they are observed? How do they stay in "communication?" Or is that a popular misconception? (I am not an expert in quantum physics.)

 

Then, more obviously, how do masses attract each other at a distance? Curved space? (What does that mean? How does that work?)

How did I know that my son was in extreme physical distress 'at a distance?' (Just an "anecdote" of course!) But I "knew" and that knowing was verified. The falsified (selective or distorted) memory argument applies to complicated neurotic cases as we see in clinical counseling situations...

Not so much in run of the mill telepathy testimony. (one of my former 'specialities' as a counseling psychologist.)

Edited February 22, 2012 by owl

[ydoaPs]

How do particles change polarity of spin at a distance when they are observed?

They don't

 

 

How do they stay in "communication?"

They don't.

 

Or is that a popular misconception?

It sure is.

 

Not so much in run of the mill telepathy testimony. (one of my former 'specialities' as a counseling psychologist.)

It sure does. It even applies to things like murder cases and running stop signs. Care to say anything else blatantly false about psychology?

Edited February 22, 2012 by ydoaPs

[owl]

!

Moderator Note

Moved.

Had you studied any of the double blind, rigorously controlled experiments investigating 'consciousness effective at a distance'... some linked above... before you moved the thread to the 'basement' of pseudo-science and 'speculation' here?

How are all those experiments less credible than your favorite examples of verified physics?

 

...

It sure does. It even applies to things like murder cases and running stop signs. Care to say anything else blatantly false about psychology?

All the above (...) was about me misunderstanding 'entangled particles' "communicating at a distance," as the common phrase has it. I don't know about that. Just asking.

 

But, more importantly, how do murder cases and running stop signs have anything to do with any of the above?

 

Finally, what did I say that was " blatantly false about psychology?"

 

Final note, about the anti- Ad Hominem argument policy here:

 

Ad hominem: from Wikipedia

"No personal attacks."

An ad hominem ...is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it

.

That is the essence of every post here in reply by ydoaPs, yet somehow the rule does not apply to him/her.

 

So s/he is allowed to hijack my thread with his obsession and personal attacks on my integrity and honesty.

 

Yet I was the one who got the warning against ad hominem attacks early in this thread after a barrage of insults against me.

Interesting.

[ydoaPs]

 

Final note, about the anti- Ad Hominem argument policy here:

 

Ad hominem: from Wikipedia

.

That is the essence of every post here in reply by ydoaPs, yet somehow the rule does not apply to him/her.

 

So s/he is allowed to hijack my thread with his obsession and personal attacks on my integrity and honesty.

 

Yet I was the one who got the warning against ad hominem attacks early in this thread after a barrage of insults against me.

Interesting.

 

Saying that you're wrong (and giving justification for that claim) is not ad hom.

 

"Civil discourse does not extend all the way to walking on eggshells to accommodate fragile egos."-swansont

 

Now kindly point out where I insulted you and then used that as the basis for you being wrong. What I did do was say your example was an obvious choice for false memory and give ample reason to think this.

[Ben Banana]

I think this should stop.

 

// I have pancakes.

\\ You have no waffles.

// NO. I said pancakes.

\\ Exactly, you have no waffles.

// What do waffles have to do with this?

\\ Why do you think I brought them up?

// Tell yourself why.

\\ Why do you think?

--

That's how its done. Either that or move on please. If we're going to be stubborn now, wait a year.

[Ringer]

Owl, you seem to have said you have a B.S. in psychology with emphasis on behavior and have an M.S. certificate. The M.S. certificate would have to have been in clinical or counseling of some sort for you to have worked in institutional settings, yet in the beginning you stated that you have been studying consciousness for most of your psychology career. Counseling is not studying consciousness as far as I am aware, so how does this come about?

 

 

As to the healing and things at a distance, consciousness, as in awareness, happens at a macro level. So even if quantum entanglement did work that way one or two entangled particles would have virtually no effect on you. It would take quite a bit of interactions at a single spot in both of the peoples brains. Since all the ions and molecules in the brain are constantly being moved, removed, and replenished the effect would practically be nil.

[Iggy]

Or maybe you are just hell bent on clinging to your longstanding project of "debunking" my credentials, since you have so much invested in it over such a long period of stalking me with that agenda.

Have I really become your longstanding boogeyman, or are you just posturing? I've never spent any time debunking your credentials before a few days ago. I never cared enough to look them up. Dry hole.

 

 

Short answer... yes... retired now for quite a few years.

Ok... I do feel bad so I'm going to try to help you out.

 

Your writing suggests an insecure pathological liar. Now, that may not be true. I don't know. Your writing could be delusional and anchored in a firm belief in everything that's written for all I know.

 

But, whatever the case, you've made an uncorrectable error. You've blatantly lied about something that could be checked. You can't be a psychologist without a record. It's not a matter of opinion or delusion, it's a matter of fact. You don't become a psychologist by declaring yourself one or deluding yourself into believing you are one.

 

So... this is my advice. Leave here now, where you've already lost all credibility and cannot recover, and start again. Start telling a different lie somewhere else. Something that isn't so easily refuted by anyone with half a sense and a keyboard. I would say that is the only recourse left to you, but you do have a couple other choices.

 

The masochistic one... stick around and dig your hole as deep as you can. I can't imagine what you think you gain from this, but there it is.

 

Or, the honorable one. Tell a story that's true for once. See where that gets you. I've always believed that old dogs can learn new and enjoyable tricks. I hold no hope that this is the case for you, but I do like surprises.

[Klaynos]

There is no communication between two entangled entities.

 

Take entangled particles a and b several miles apart. You measure particle a and therefore know the result of the measurement conducted by your friend on b he does not know whether you are yet to measure a or not. You then measure a again but this time it tells you nothing about any second measurement on b, the first measurement breaks the entanglement. To re-entangle the particles you need to bring them back together and reapply the original process.

[swansont]

How do particles change polarity of spin at a distance when they are observed? How do they stay in "communication?" Or is that a popular misconception? (I am not an expert in quantum physics.)

 

Changing polarity is a popular misconception — the polarity is undetermined when it is measured. The topic comes up quite a bit here, so there are some explanations already written if you choose to utilize the search function.

 

Then, more obviously, how do masses attract each other at a distance? Curved space? (What does that mean? How does that work?)

 

I seem to recall that we have discussed this at length, and this discussion isn;t going to cover that same ground.

 

How did I know that my son was in extreme physical distress 'at a distance?' (Just an "anecdote" of course!) But I "knew" and that knowing was verified. The falsified (selective or distorted) memory argument applies to complicated neurotic cases as we see in clinical counseling situations...

Not so much in run of the mill telepathy testimony. (one of my former 'specialities' as a counseling psychologist.)

 

Unless you have kept track of every time something like this has happened, you can't scientifically evaluate it. How many false positives do you get? Are you claiming that you never got a feeling of apprehension that your son was in some kind of trouble/distress when he was out of your sight, except this once?

 

Final note, about the anti- Ad Hominem argument policy here:

 

Ad hominem: from Wikipedia

.

That is the essence of every post here in reply by ydoaPs, yet somehow the rule does not apply to him/her.

 

So s/he is allowed to hijack my thread with his obsession and personal attacks on my integrity and honesty.

 

Yet I was the one who got the warning against ad hominem attacks early in this thread after a barrage of insults against me.

Interesting.

 

You were warned about ad-hom because I raised a legitimate scientific point and you avoided answering it by making a snide remark about me, i.e. the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy. This was before this so-callage "barrage of insults"

 

You opened the door to inquiry about you qualifications by claiming a level of expertise/accomplishment. And, as it turns out, a level you arguably did not actually achieve. Discussion along the lines of "You don't know what you are talking about" is not an ad hominem fallacy (or an insult), especially if you actually don't know what you're talking about, and the discussion includes material to back up the claim.

 

Bottom line: if you make tenuous claims, expect them to be challenged.

[Santalum]

i wouldn't call all of them liars...deluded by misinterpreting odd psychological experiences as psychic. When I used to take a variety of recreational substances, I experienced a lot of different "psychic" phenomena. Drugs taught me, particularly LSD, that our minds are a product of a machine...our brain...nothing more.

 

 

That is not to belittle an extraordinary machine however. The human mind/brain is a beguiling case of emergent complexity.

[owl]

Owl, you seem to have said you have a B.S. in psychology with emphasis on behavior and have an M.S. certificate. The M.S. certificate would have to have been in clinical or counseling of some sort for you to have worked in institutional settings, yet in the beginning you stated that you have been studying consciousness for most of your psychology career. Counseling is not studying consciousness as far as I am aware, so how does this come about?

 

I had a B.S. in behavioral psychology when I worked in two mental hospitals in Denver during Nam. My title was simply 'counselor' in those cases, not 'psychologist.'

Then I worked in three settings in Oregon with an M.A. certificate as a 'counseling psychologist.' See post above (quoting the Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.) on masters degree certification for psychologists by state boards of examiners. My studies of consciousness were not part of my credentials but rather a side interest in "transpersonal psychology."

I did private practice also with my "shingle out" as an M.A. psychological counselor (as distinguished from say a financial counselor or career counselor.)

 

As to the healing and things at a distance, consciousness, as in awareness, happens at a macro level. So even if quantum entanglement did work that way one or two entangled particles would have virtually no effect on you. It would take quite a bit of interactions at a single spot in both of the peoples brains. Since all the ions and molecules in the brain are constantly being moved, removed, and replenished the effect would practically be nil.

 

Thanks. I am not an expert in quantum physics, so i just wondered of the often quoted entangled particles "communication at a distance" was similar to the mechanism for telepathy. I guess not.

 

There is no communication between two entangled entities.

 

Take entangled particles a and b several miles apart. You measure particle a and therefore know the result of the measurement conducted by your friend on b he does not know whether you are yet to measure a or not. You then measure a again but this time it tells you nothing about any second measurement on b, the first measurement breaks the entanglement. To re-entangle the particles you need to bring them back together and reapply the original process.

Thanks. I misunderstood the "communicating at a distance" part. And there is no explanation I know of for human consciousness (intention, telepathy, healing) communication/acting at a distance, but that doesn't keep science from studying it.

 

Iggy:

You've blatantly lied about something that could be checked. You can't be a psychologist without a record.

 

Again, I have in fact worked as a M.A. level counseling psychologist in three different professional settings in Oregon. I will not, for obvious reasons, be specific as to where or why you can't find a record of it.

 

Tell a story that's true for once. See where that gets you.

Your persistent conviction that I am a liar does not make me a liar. I say again, I have never lied in this forum. Get over it.

[Iggy]

I had a B.S. in behavioral psychology when I worked in two mental hospitals in Denver during Nam. My title was simply 'counselor' in those cases, not 'psychologist.'

Then I worked in three settings in Oregon with an M.A. certificate as a 'counseling psychologist.' See post above (quoting the Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.) on masters degree certification for psychologists by state boards of examiners. My studies of consciousness were not part of my credentials but rather a side interest in "transpersonal psychology."

I did private practice also with my "shingle out" as an M.A. psychological counselor (as distinguished from say a financial counselor or career counselor.)

Don't forget you were also a professor of philosophy

 

I did teach university level (undergraduate) “Logic and the Scientific Method” as part of a “Philosophy of Science” curriculum

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58293-frame-of-reference-as-subject-in-subjective-idealism/page__view__findpost__p__628011

 

Your many different careers in your many different professions must really have gotten in the way of your bricklaying

[owl]

Don't forget you were also a professor of philosophy[/Quote]

 

Actually I was an assistant to the dean of the philosophy department, teaching a "special studies" course at his invitation since he knew of some of my work in "special studies" as an undergrad and was my academic adviser. He, btw did not have a PhD even though he was the dean of the department. Don't lose any sleep over it because of your obsession with credentials and the 'obvious' requirement that the philosophy dean should have a Ph- ("philosophy") doctorate.

 

Your many different careers in your many different professions must really have gotten in the way of your bricklaying

Not really. I have always had many different interests and have followed those I like most, many of which I have never mentioned here. I always liked working with my hands, and a skilled trade was a good balance with my professional interests. But I really don't care if you understand or believe that.

Note: Dear moderators,

Why is it that Iggy and ydoaPs and others are allowed to hijack this thread with persistent slurs on my character (honesty and integrity)... obviously off topic?

[Ringer]

Thanks. I am not an expert in quantum physics, so i just wondered of the often quoted entangled particles "communication at a distance" was similar to the mechanism for telepathy. I guess not.

 

What mechanism for telepathy?

 

I would also like to know that after what everyone has said, non-topic oriented discussions aside, what parts of this do you still hold to.

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2012 by Ringer

[Iggy]

Note: Dear moderators,

Why is it that Iggy and ydoaPs and others are allowed to hijack this thread with persistent slurs on my character (honesty and integrity)... obviously off topic?

You leaned on your own authority in psychology at least twice before it was refuted.

 

Do a little homework on Oregon law for practicing psychological counseling if you are all that intent...

 

My certification was the result of the M.A. level test they gave

What year were you "certified"?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This is getting tiresome. Can we just admit it doesn't really matter and move on? If you don't believe owl, then ignore that part of the argument and move on. There's an actual topic to discuss.

[Iggy]

This is getting tiresome.

I couldn't argue with that if I wanted to.

 

Can we just admit it doesn't really matter and move on?

I'm not sure if you mean that as a suggestion or a question, but my answer -- my opinion -- would be no. Owl has appealed to his own authority as an expert in a couple different fields a couple dozen times on this forum and no one has seriously confronted him on the tactic, at least as far as I've seen -- I haven't followed most of it. Perhaps it is bad form to do so, but I've become absolutely filled to the brim with it and would prefer not to be silent on the claims any longer -- especially knowing that they are false.

 

He introduced it in this topic and he continues to repeat the claims despite my suggestion that he "get himself back on topic". So long as that is the case, I think it matters quite a lot.

 

If you don't believe owl, then ignore that part of the argument and move on.

Oh, My, No!!!

 

I'm thinking of how best to put this without offending... Imagine a classical debate -- something like huxley vs. wilberforce. Imagine the moderator in the middle of that debate saying "If you don't believe your opponent then ignore that part of the argument and move on". Could you imagine? It doesn't...

 

well..

 

it doens't make sense to me.

[owl]

What mechanism for telepathy? [/Quote]

 

I was just wondering if there was a connection between entangled particles "communicating at a distance" (as often quoted... apparently a misconception, I now learn)... and consciousness 'acting at a distance' as per a huge body of anecdotal accounts and a bunch of very well controlled experiments (see the link on "Healing Research" by Benor above.) If there were a theoretical "mechanism" for entangled particles, I wondered if it could apply to consciousness studies.

Apparently not.

There is no "mechanism" apparently. So if it happens (as it has in my experience, anecdotal as that is), how does it happen?

Present day science is based on materialism, as it must be until all "mechanistic" explanations fail. Then alternative explanations must be considered. One of those is that "consciousness itself" has no mechanistic limits, i.e., that it is or can be a "non-local" phenomenon. This is considered a possibility in the field of consciousness studies, and this thread invites discussion of that possibility and the experiments investigating it.

 

I would also like to know that after what everyone has said, non-topic oriented discussions aside, what parts of this do you still hold to.

 

I "hold to" the "truth as I know it" of my personal story related above, disbelief or claims of distortion notwithstanding.

I also "hold to" the statistical significance of positive effects verified in rigoruously controlled experiments on consciousness acting "at a distance," like the 16 double-blind experiments summarized by Benor.

[Ringer]

I was just wondering if there was a connection between entangled particles "communicating at a distance" (as often quoted... apparently a misconception, I now learn)... and consciousness 'acting at a distance' as per a huge body of anecdotal accounts and a bunch of very well controlled experiments (see the link on "Healing Research" by Benor above.) If there were a theoretical "mechanism" for entangled particles, I wondered if it could apply to consciousness studies.

Apparently not.

 

As everyone has said, and as any one with science experience should know, that anecdotes are worthless so please throw those out the window. I say this because even if you do have good points they will be completely overshadowed by you making completely non-scientific statements. As you have noticed, many scientists skim something before reading in depth. If that skim shows a few blatantly pseudo-scientific statements as well as bad methodology they will not even bother reading it (I say they, but I do this as well though I don't think of myself as a scientist). This isn't because they are close minded, it is because if the author doesn't follow proper scientific methodology, makes blatant mistakes, refuses to take into account falsifying experiments, etc. there is no way to hold them to any scientific standard. Not because scientists are 'high and mighty' and believe themselves better than the author(s), but because if those standards are the basis of science.

 

There is no "mechanism" apparently. So if it happens (as it has in my experience, anecdotal as that is), how does it happen?

Present day science is based on materialism, as it must be until all "mechanistic" explanations fail. Then alternative explanations must be considered. One of those is that "consciousness itself" has no mechanistic limits, i.e., that it is or can be a "non-local" phenomenon. This is considered a possibility in the field of consciousness studies, and this thread invites discussion of that possibility and the experiments investigating it.

 

I have also had these experiences, as have so many other people. But what you are not taking into account is all the times that you had similar feelings with negative results. This is called conformation bias. You remember things that reinforce your ideas. This with other cognitive biases like memory plasticity, illusory correlation, availability bias, anchoring, etc., etc., etc., make anecdotes completely worthless.

 

What you are saying about the mechanism makes no sense. If it has no mechanism there is no cause and effect, unless you are using a different definition of mechanism than I am aware of. Materialistic mechanistic explanations have been absent for most of human history. Without these explanations millions of alternate explanations were considered, including that consciousness itself is not materialistic or mechanistic. The thing is, not a single one of those explanations have held up under scientific scrutiny. If consciousness was non-local, under most circumstances it's functionality shouldn't be altered by local agents, such as drugs or concussion. Obviously this doesn't happen.

 

I "hold to" the "truth as I know it" of my personal story related above, disbelief or claims of distortion notwithstanding.

I also "hold to" the statistical significance of positive effects verified in rigoruously controlled experiments on consciousness acting "at a distance," like the 16 double-blind experiments summarized by Benor.

 

So, as a psychologist, you hold yourself to be above cognitive biases such as memory distortion as well as above accepted scientific practices? If I am mistaken please correct me, but that is what it sounds like.

 

As to the experiments, there is a difference between statistical significance and practical significance. Most, if not all, of these psi studies were conducted with very small sample sizes making any sort of practical significance almost impossible to identify. There have been meta-studies with mixed results depending on how the meta-study was done:

 

I did a meta-analysis of the original ganzfeld experiments as part of my critique of those experiments. My analysis demonstrated that certain flaws, especially quality of randomization, did correlate with outcome. Successful outcomes correlated with inadequate methodology. In his reply to my critique, Charles Honorton did his own meta-analysis of the same data. He too scored for flaws, but he devised scoring schemes different from mine. In his analysis, his quality ratings did not correlate with outcome. This came about because, in part, Honorton found more flaws in unsuccessful experiments than I did. On the other I found more flaws in successful experiments than Honorton did. Presumably, both Honorton and I believed we were rating quality in an objective and unbiased way. Yet, both of us ended up with results that matched our preconceptions.

So far, other than my meta-analysis, all the meta-analyses evaluating quality and outcome have been carried out by parapsychologists. We might reasonably expect that the findings will differ with skeptics as raters.

http://www.csicop.or...ms_vs._reality/

 

Another problem with these experiments is that there are no examples I am aware of that people would showed these psi abilities keep them over any extended period of time. So why would one assume that these people have abilities instead of it being chance? You may say these studies show it to be so, but most of these studies are published in para-psych journals that most likely would have a strong publication bias avoiding publishing negative outcomes.

 

[edit] Things you may want to read

http://www.psychologyjourney3ce.nelson.com/faculty/pdf/Psych.WEB.Para.pdf

http://www.ebo.de/publikationen/pk_ma.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712699161378/abstract

Edited February 24, 2012 by Ringer

[owl]

Ringer,

I read the links you offered (thanks) and then spent a couple of hours reading links from a search on non-local consciousness. I recommend you do the same in reciprocation.

 

I have yet to study abstracts of the 16 double blind experiments showing positive statistically significant results listed by Benor in the link I provided earlier to his "Healing research." I will get back to you on that, but they may refute the claims in your links that there are no such results.

(Btw, thanks for sticking to the topic.)

 

As everyone has said, and as any one with science experience should know, that anecdotes are worthless so please throw those out the window.[/Quote]

 

I agree that they are not valid scientific experimental evidence, but calling them worthless may just reflect your particular bias. My son didn't think that my unexplained return from (lets just say) way out of normal communication range and my presence at his hospital bedside was "worthless." And it is quite a closed minded approach to science to claim that the multitudes of similar anecdotes are all attributable to liars or "cognitive biases like memory plasticity, illusory correlation, availability bias, anchoring, etc., etc., etc."

 

What you are saying about the mechanism makes no sense. If it has no mechanism there is no cause and effect, unless you are using a different definition of mechanism than I am aware of.

Here is a link to Trends in Cognitive Sciences from

Volume 5, Issue 11, 1 November 2001, Pages 472–478;

A quantum approach to visual consciousness:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661300017745

Please read the abstract.

 

I've read other articles in The Journal of Consciousness Studies on quantum non-locality in larger-than-micro brain events. Will dig up and link if you are interested.

 

If consciousness was non-local, under most circumstances it's functionality shouldn't be altered by local agents, such as drugs or concussion. Obviously this doesn't happen.

Another alternative is that most normal, everyday brain functions and sensory/perception are quite local, while those called "extrasensory" depend on altered states of consciousness... altered by a wide range of situations.

 

Much testimony of "psychics" and "healer" is that they go into a variety of 'altered states' for their results, but when tested, the test situations themselves demand that they function rationally rather than "intuitively" or whatever. This is always taken by skeptics as just a lame excuse.

When my father was demonstrating "the power of the mind" in a "trance state" before an audience* (guided in and out by my mother) his usually positive results could easily be disrupted/blocked by a heckler. Once removed, the demonstration would proceed with results unexplainable by science.

*Btw, he never charged for admission and would not accept donations. He felt that accepting money to witness his 'gift' would have "corrupted" the gift.

 

So, as a psychologist, you hold yourself to be above cognitive biases such as memory distortion as well as above accepted scientific practices? If I am mistaken please correct me, but that is what it sounds like.

 

No, I do not. As I already said, my stomach pain and image of my son suffering far away, simultaneously with his hospitalization with an ulcer was 'susceptible' to memory distortion. Yet I immediately told my wife what brought me back home and recorded the whole experience in my journal soon after he got out of the hospital. So, it is reasonable to assume that the chances of or extent of such distortion were minimal. (Plus my whole academic career testifies to an excellent memory... for details studied for tests, etc.)

 

As to the experiments, there is a difference between statistical significance and practical significance.

 

Again, I'll get back to you with a specific critique of those most rigorously controlled experiments above. If you deny the significance of a one in a million chance of occurrence "by chance," for instance, then you deny the principle of statistical significance as a whole. (Some were, as I remember, very highly significant as per statistical analysis.)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Again, I'll get back to you with a specific critique of those most rigorously controlled experiments above. If you deny the significance of a one in a million chance of occurrence "by chance," for instance, then you deny the principle of statistical significance as a whole. (Some were, as I remember, very highly significant as per statistical analysis.)

 

That is most emphatically not what statistical significance tests mean. I have an overview of this common misconception on my blog:

 

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/capn/2011/02/21/statistical-significance-of-doom/

 

Statistical significance by itself cannot tell you the odds of the data occurring "by chance". Getting a result with p < 0.05 does not mean a less than 5% chance of your result being a fluke; in many cases, with small sample sizes and poor statistical methods, the odds of your result being a fluke can be over 50%.

[owl]

That is most emphatically not what statistical significance tests mean. I have an overview of this common misconception on my blog:

 

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/capn/2011/02/21/statistical-significance-of-doom/

 

Statistical significance by itself cannot tell you the odds of the data occurring "by chance". Getting a result with p < 0.05 does not mean a less than 5% chance of your result being a fluke; in many cases, with small sample sizes and poor statistical methods, the odds of your result being a fluke can be over 50%.

I read the first two sections of the blog.

 

You assume there was no effect or no significant difference (my ed: the null hypothesis), and then make some calculations.

...

Assuming this happened by chance, what are the odds this happened by chance?” It’s nonsensical. And it leads us to some major problems.

 

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the null hypothesis. In the “psi” realm, it is simply stating the assumption which the experiment will attempt to show wrong, i.e., that there is no “psi” effect present. If there is a ‘statistically significant correlation' (as per standard experimental stastistical procedures) between the “intent” and the “effect”, then the null hypothesis is discarded and a positive effect demonstrated. Of course the rigor of control is in the meaningful quantification of both intent and effect. And the larger the sample the better... but for psi effects quality, not just quantity is very important.

Edit:

A "gifted healer or psychic" with an excellent (albeit anecdotal) track record is 'worth his weight in gold' for experimental verification, while multitudes with no history or record of such "gifts" will show, not suprisingly, no positive results.

 

Edit: The question here is not, "Does everyone have psychic abilities?" but, "Does anyone have psychic abilities.)

 

 

False negatives (in your next heading) are not a big concern to critics of “psi” experiments, i.e., positive psi effects that experiments missed.

 

Statisticians all appreciate the power of sample size called statistical power, but you have gone way off the deep end applying your medical study source to all statistical analysis and claiming that half of all results are wrong, by those assumptions about sample size:

 

“The average statistical power of a medical study is 50%.”

 

In section 2 you continue with the assumption:

Well, remember that in part 1 we found the average statistical power to be 50%, so the average study has a 50% chance of missing a real correlation

...

 

...which makes no sense to me... so any critique of the rest of your blog would be mute.(edit: moot.)

 

Again, in the psi realm, "missing a real correlation" has not been an aspect of criticism of the experiments

Edited February 25, 2012 by owl

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the null hypothesis. In the “psi” realm, it is simply stating the assumption which the experiment will attempt to show wrong, i.e., that there is no “psi” effect present. If there is a ‘statistically significant correlation' (as per standard experimental stastistical procedures) between the “intent” and the “effect”, then the null hypothesis is discarded and a positive effect demonstrated.

I'm not sure how this relates to my point. You stated earlier that a high statistical significance value (say, p < 0.05) represents a small chance that the null hypothesis is true. This is not true. Statistical significance is calculated under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true, and tells you the likelihood of obtaining this particular data.

 

Suppose I design a trial which is to test 1000 purported psychics. Of these psychics, only 100 are truly "gifted", and the rest are merely fraudulent or deluded. I test their abilities in some standard psychic test, and compare them against a control group of individuals with no known psychic powers. I use a statistical significance test to determine if the psychics perform any better than the control group.

 

My test has very good statistical power, so I detect all 100 "gifted" psychics and accurately determine that they have psychic powers. However, there are 900 frauds in the group; the odds of any given fraud (for whom the null hypothesis of no powers is in fact true) producing a statistically significant result with p < 0.05 is 5%, so 45 frauds will be determined to have true psychic powers.

 

Hence I have detected 145 psychics, only two-thirds of whom are actually psychic. Despite looking for p < 0.05, any individual "confirmed psychic" only has a 68% chance of being psychic, and a 32% chance of being a fraud.

 

Similarly, if none of the 1000 evaluated psychics had any powers at all, I would still detect 50 false positives.

 

This is why interpreting p < 0.05 as "less than 5% chance of this being a fluke" is incorrect.

 

edit: I should also point out that this example is almost directly lifted from this article:

 

Sterne, J., Smith, G., & Cox, D. (2001). "Sifting the evidence—what's wrong with significance tests? Another comment on the role of statistical methods." British Medical Journal, 322(7280), 226.

 

I can send you a copy if you're interested.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Cap'n Refsmmat

[owl]

I'm not sure how this relates to my point. You stated earlier that a high statistical significance value (say, p < 0.05) represents a small chance that the null hypothesis is true. This is not true. Statistical significance is calculated under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true, and tells you the likelihood of obtaining this particular data.[/Quote]

 

Simply stated, avoiding any possible double negatives and statistical convolutions, if there turns out to be an actual, statistical 5% chance that the null hypothesis is true, then there is a 95% chance that the result is positive. You can slice it and dice it all you want, but the above is the *intent* of honest, non-deceptive statistical analysis.

 

Suppose I design a trial which is to test 1000 purported psychics. Of these psychics, only 100 are truly "gifted", and the rest are merely fraudulent or deluded. I test their abilities in some standard psychic test, and compare them against a control group of individuals with no known psychic powers. I use a statistical significance test to determine if the psychics perform any better than the control group.

 

My test has very good statistical power, so I detect all 100 "gifted" psychics and accurately determine that they have psychic powers. However, there are 900 frauds in the group; the odds of any given fraud (for whom the null hypothesis of no powers is in fact true) producing a statistically significant result with p < 0.05 is 5%, so 45 frauds will be determined to have true psychic powers.

 

No. First, the experiment must be designed to clearly detect and distinguish the difference between demonstrated psychic ability and lack thereof. Without that, the old statistical saw holds true, as exemplified in your 45 frauds falsely showing psychic powers: "There are liars, damn liars, and statistians."

 

Similarly, if none of the 1000 evaluated psychics had any powers at all, I would still detect 50 false positives.

Again, that is always the challenge of excellent experimental design... to eliminate false positives to the best of the experimenter's ability.

I will keep this in mind as I study the 16 examples referred to above.

 

I can send you a copy if you're interested.

 

Yes, thanks.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Simply stated, avoiding any possible double negatives and statistical convolutions, if there turns out to be an actual, statistical 5% chance that the null hypothesis is true, then there is a 95% chance that the result is positive. You can slice it and dice it all you want, but the above is the *intent* of honest, non-deceptive statistical analysis.

There is not a statistical significance test which can tell you there is a 5% chance that the null hypothesis is true. No study can report that information, because saying "p < 0.05" does not tell you that.

 

p < 0.05 means that, if the null hypothesis were true, there'd be less than a 5% chance of obtaining results that look like the data you collected. The p-value is computed under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true. It cannot be used to determine the odds that the null hypothesis is, in fact, true.

 

No. First, the experiment must be designed to clearly detect and distinguish the difference between demonstrated psychic ability and lack thereof. Without that, the old statistical saw holds true, as exemplified in your 45 frauds falsely showing psychic powers: "There are liars, damn liars, and statistians."

My computations are a result of the definition of p-values. The results are unavoidable. You can, however, collect more data and set the bar higher, requiring significance of, say, p < 0.01, or p < 0.001. This cuts down on false positives significantly, but also means that psychics with weak powers will be regarded as frauds, rather than merely unskilled psychics.

 

Yes, thanks.

You should receive a copy shortly.