On Sep 26, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
That's actually pretty insulting, magiceducator. There is a lot of research out there, much of which HAS BEEN CITED. Whether you choose to actually read it is up to you.

On Sep 29, 2015, Robb wrote:
MagicalEducator, it HAS been big enough news at many points... However, it doesn't involve sex, blood or money so people are not that interested. So, because the media - which is WELL KNOWN for delivering the most vital information we need to us - doesn't say psi is real, you won't believe it. Interesting...

I can't remember the fact that there are non-carbon based lifeforms on this planet "making the news", but it is a fact and astounding one because it was well known for at least a century to be "impossible". Yet it is, and weirder still, the lifeform is based on arsenic! Sure, if you Google it you will find an article or two, but if people understood the implications of the discovery, it should be EVERYWHERE. It should have been the NEWS OF THE YEAR, yet it barely got any attention at all.

So that argument is really, really weak and a very foolish way to look at the world, through a media business designed to sell cars and hamburgers!

On Sep 28, 2015, MagicalEducator wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 26, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
That's actually pretty insulting, magiceducator. There is a lot of research out there, much of which HAS BEEN CITED. Whether you choose to actually read it is up to you.

I'should think that any conclusive evidence of paranormal behaviour would be big news. Haven't heard any such news and I will remain skeptical to this mystery cutting edge info. As for finding it insulting I can't control your response to a very reasonable request.

On Sep 26, 2015, MagicalEducator wrote:
All of the talk about research is commendable and I'm very hopeful that something conclusive is found. Until then...

On Sep 29, 2015, Dr Spektor wrote:
Http://www.nature.com/news/arsenic-life-......-1.11520

Note - it was controversial too....

So.... I love how this thread has moved from MM vs M (829371928721974 thread) onto possible new forms of life!

On Sep 29, 2015, saysold1 wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 26, 2015, MagicalEducator wrote:
All of the talk about research is commendable and I'm very hopeful that something conclusive is found. Until then...

You've lurking around here since 2003 without much of a peep all these years... and now you finally decide to pop your head out a little finally?

Knock yourself out.

On Sep 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 28, 2015, MagicalEducator wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 26, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
That's actually pretty insulting, magiceducator. There is a lot of research out there, much of which HAS BEEN CITED. Whether you choose to actually read it is up to you.

I'should think that any conclusive evidence of paranormal behaviour would be big news. Haven't heard any such news and I will remain skeptical to this mystery cutting edge info. As for finding it insulting I can't control your response to a very reasonable request.

When you compared me to a holocaust denier you lost whatever respect I had for any of your opinions.

And, like I said, citations HAVE been provided. You just choose to ignore them.

On Sep 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Yes, you are way oversimplifying things.

You really need to review the actual research to comment on it or evaluate it. Even the arch skeptic and magician, Ray Hyman, has acknowledged that he could identify NO FLAWS in the SAIC remote viewing test protocols:

Quote:

The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present.- Ray Hyman on SAIC experiments on remote viewing...

...The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/hyman.html

Professor Utts has provided an historical overview of the SRI and SAIC programs as well as descriptions of the experiments under consideration. I will not duplicate what she has written on these topics. Instead, I will focus on her conclusions that:

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. [Utts, Sept. 1995, p 1]

Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud. [Utts, Sept. 1995, p 1]

Because my report will emphasize points of disagreement between Professor Utts and me, I want to state that we agree on many other points. We both agree that the SAIC experiments were free of the methodological weaknesses that plagued the early SRI research. We also agree that the SAIC experiments appear to be free of the more obvious and better known flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations. We agree that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes.

I also believe that Jessica Utts and I agree on what the next steps should be.

We disagree on key questions such as:

1. Do these apparently non-chance effects justify concluding that the existence of anomalous cognition has been established?

2. Has the possibility of methodological flaws been completely eliminated?

3. Are the SAIC results consistent with the contemporary findings in other parapsychological laboratories on remote viewing and the ganzfeld phenomenon?

The remainder of this report will try to justify why I believe the answer to these three questions is "no."

On Sep 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
You apparently haven't read Hyman's reasons for his "no" answers.

I suggest that you do before you start accusing me of misrepresenting facts. Hyman was unable to refute any of Ute's research and merely sought to explain his doubts. Unsatisfactorily, in my opinion.

Also note that I was referring to the many replicable studies that have been cited. Hyman has conducted no studies at all.

Obviously I do not agree that all possibilities for alternative explanations of the non-chance results have been eliminated. The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, 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 possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility--especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered.

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. The founders of the Society for Psychical Research believed that the Smith-Blackburn experiments afforded no alternative to the conclusion that telepathy was involved. They could conceive of no mundane explanation. Then Blackburn confessed and explained in detail just how he and Smith had tricked the investigators.

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

5. However, the occurrence of statistical effects does not warrant the conclusion that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. Significant departures from the null hypothesis can occur for several reasons. Without a positive theory of anomalous cognition, we cannot say that these effects are due to a single cause, let alone claim they reflect anomalous cognition. We do not yet know how replicable these results will be, especially in terms of showing consistent relations to other variables. The investigators report findings that they believe show that the degree of anomalous cognition varies with target entropy and the `bandwidth' of the target set. These findings are preliminary and only suggestive at this time. Parapsychologists, in the past, have reported finding other correlates of psychic functioning such as extroversion, sheep/goats, altered states only to find that later studies could not replicate them.

6. Professor Utts and the investigators point to what they see as consistencies between the outcome of contemporary ganzfeld experiments and the SAIC results. The major consistency is similarity of average effect sizes across experiments. Such consistency is problematical because these average effect sizes, in each case, are the result of arbitrary combinations from different investigators and conditions. None of these averages can be justified as estimating a meaningful parameter. Effect size, by itself, says nothing about its origin. Where parapsychologists see consistency, I see inconsistency. The ganzfeld studies are premised on the idea that viewers must be in altered state for successful results. The remote viewing studies use viewers in a normal state. The ganzfeld experimenters believe that the viewers should judge the match between their ideation and the target for best results; the remote viewers believe that independent judges provide better evidence for psi than viewers judging their own responses. The recent autoganzfeld studies found successful hitting only with dynamic targets and only chance results with static targets. The SAIC investigators, in one study, found hitting with static targets and not with dynamic ones. In a subsequent study they found hitting for both types of targets. They suggest that they may have solution to this apparent inconsistency in terms of their concept of bandwidth. At this time, this is only suggestive.

On Sep 29, 2015, WooverM wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
You apparently haven't read Hyman's reasons for his "no" answers.

I suggest that you do before you start accusing me of misrepresenting facts. Hyman was unable to refute any of Ute's research and merely sought to explain his doubts. Unsatisfactorily, in my opinion.

Also note that I was referring to the many replicable studies that have been cited. Hyman has conducted no studies at all.

I have read them.

Quote:

Obviously I do not agree that all possibilities for alternative explanations of the non-chance results have been eliminated. The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, 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 possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility--especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered.

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. The founders of the Society for Psychical Research believed that the Smith-Blackburn experiments afforded no alternative to the conclusion that telepathy was involved. They could conceive of no mundane explanation. Then Blackburn confessed and explained in detail just how he and Smith had tricked the investigators.

And

Quote:

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

5. However, the occurrence of statistical effects does not warrant the conclusion that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. Significant departures from the null hypothesis can occur for several reasons. Without a positive theory of anomalous cognition, we cannot say that these effects are due to a single cause, let alone claim they reflect anomalous cognition. We do not yet know how replicable these results will be, especially in terms of showing consistent relations to other variables. The investigators report findings that they believe show that the degree of anomalous cognition varies with target entropy and the `bandwidth' of the target set. These findings are preliminary and only suggestive at this time. Parapsychologists, in the past, have reported finding other correlates of psychic functioning such as extroversion, sheep/goats, altered states only to find that later studies could not replicate them.

6. Professor Utts and the investigators point to what they see as consistencies between the outcome of contemporary ganzfeld experiments and the SAIC results. The major consistency is similarity of average effect sizes across experiments. Such consistency is problematical because these average effect sizes, in each case, are the result of arbitrary combinations from different investigators and conditions. None of these averages can be justified as estimating a meaningful parameter. Effect size, by itself, says nothing about its origin. Where parapsychologists see consistency, I see inconsistency. The ganzfeld studies are premised on the idea that viewers must be in altered state for successful results. The remote viewing studies use viewers in a normal state. The ganzfeld experimenters believe that the viewers should judge the match between their ideation and the target for best results; the remote viewers believe that independent judges provide better evidence for psi than viewers judging their own responses. The recent autoganzfeld studies found successful hitting only with dynamic targets and only chance results with static targets. The SAIC investigators, in one study, found hitting with static targets and not with dynamic ones. In a subsequent study they found hitting for both types of targets. They suggest that they may have solution to this apparent inconsistency in terms of their concept of bandwidth. At this time, this is only suggestive.

Seem to be satisfactory to me, that's not to say that he disproved anything, just the Utts hasn't proved it enough, as is mentioned by a lot of skeptics "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and it seems the evidence provided by Utts, while promising, is still lacking; On top of that, the burden of proof wasn't, isn't and will never be on Hyman or anyone critiquing such a claim, but on the researchers themselves, so I fail to see how mentioning that Hyman has not conducted any studies has any merit to the discussion.

Also, your original quotation of Hyman misrepresents the truth, is partial and doesn't explain the whole picture, and that is very disappointing coming from you.

On Sep 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Sorry you're disappointed, But I stand by my opinion. And once you've actually studied parapsychology research for over forty years, as I have, you might understand why pseudo-skeptics like Hyman are not very persuasive.

Have you forgotten that leading skeptics have already acknowledged that, by normal scientific standards, psi has been proven? The statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is simply a way that arch skeptics are able to say that NO proof is extraordinary enough for them. In other words, they have an a priori disbelief and will not be swayed by ANY evidence.

As for replicability, I suggest you research the "sheep/goat" effect discovered by Gertrude Schmeidler in the late 1940's.

You might also look at the other voluminous research that has been cited in this thread. Because it really seems like you have little to no knowledge of current parapsychological studies.

So I guess you could say I'm a bit disappointed in you as well.

Have you forgotten that leading skeptics have already acknowledged that, by normal scientific standards, psi has been proven?

On Sep 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Yes, that is correct!

The point that Woover is missing is that Hyman did indeed acknowledge that there were no flaws in Utt's protocol. But he goes on to state that the absence of flaws may merely mean that he missed one. In other words, there is NO testing procedure that he will ever find satisfactory. But, as Marcello Truzzi noted, once a skeptic has made an affirmative claim, HE has the burden of proving it. And Hyman has failed to offer ANY proof that a flaw exists. He simply says it's "possible."