Human Flying

[craig weiler]

Ninjapuppy,
The ping pong balls diffuse the light and help put the test subject in a relaxed state so that they receive better. Wikipedia is a terrible source for anything psychic. It's infested with utterly hardcore psi deniers that would almost make Randi blush. (almost) A great book available from most libraries is "The Conscious Universe" by Dean Radin. It's a really straightforward explanation of the science.

And Arouet,
I got my dander up (you might have noticed) and backed away for awhile. I'm a highly emotional person and I know better than to continue when I get that way.

Anyway, I've made my point. I would say that your claim of possible researcher bias is not as strong as you think it is. You haven't actually said so, but I think it's apparent that you can't point to any actual bias. The Ioannidis study which you refer to is a very tenuous thread to be hanging on. The ganzfeld is probably the most scrutinized study in the history of science.

[snark on] I am glad to be doing my bit to aid you in your quest for better skepticism by pointing out your flaws. [snark off]

[craig weiler]

I realized that I needed to explain in some detail why the The Ioannidis study doesn't apply here. First of all, a bit of history about the ganzfeld. Honorton and Hyman went through this many years ago with Hyman absolutely insisting on removing any possibility of researcher bias from the study. Photos might have fingerprints, tapes might have been run too many times. There might be non verbal clues from assistants and on and on. All of these possible problems were removed when computers became available and the test became automated. There is very little handling and very few people involved. There is a very strict protocol for ganzfeld studies and it is very easy to grade them on their quality. Of particular interest here is that none of these modification made any difference to the study outcomes. The results stayed about the same. That means that the earlier, less strictly controlled studies were just as valid as later ones because none of the supposed problems were valid. Even in its rough form, researcher bias was not showing up in the ganzfeld.

Hyman was forced to admit that something was going on and called for more studies to be sure. That has happened.

Now in the The Ioannidis study the authors were looking at medical studies, which are complicated by the tenacious placebo effect. So they essentially have two studies to deal with: The control and the actual study. More people equals more things that can go wrong. A control is not straightforward because a poorly done procedure can invalidate the placebo effect. It has to be believable to the patient. Then you have the problem of evaluating the outcome of the study, which is not always straightforward and might be open to interpretation. So small effects are very likely to be meaningless. These studies are also obscure for the most part and as was pointed out in the Loannidis study, medical studies are subject to influence through money. (This is why I don't try to evaluate medical studies.)

These studies also do not have an army of skeptics waiting in the wings to criticize any failures.

So when it comes to comparing the ganzfeld to these other studies, this is very much comparing apples and oranges.

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

[craig weiler]

[Arouet]

Quite a few relative to other areas of study? The parapsychological community has always been small. Do you really think there has been anywhere near as much scrutiny over ganzfeld as there has been over, say, relativity? Or evolution? Or pretty well any other major discovery? Parapsychology is largely unknown. Not completely unknown - but largely unknown to the general mainstream and scientific population. To suggest that it is one of the most scrutinized areas in science seems to me to be a bit of wishful thinking.

it's not a knock against parapsychology - I'd like to see more people interested too.

[craig weiler]

I didn't say area of science, I said study. Please don't mis-quote me as it leads to straw man arguments where you compare this to discussions of evolution. And the ganzfeld has been picked over by a small army of skeptics for over 30 years, so yes, it's gotten a lot of attention. It might be an obscure field, but it gets outsized attention from skeptics.

And no one has been able to find this mythical researcher bias that is supposedly responsible for the amazingly consistent results. Would you please at least acknowledge that there is no proof of researcher bias? I am getting the impression that you will not concede this obvious fact.

[Arouet]

[craig weiler]

What warning signs? And I told you, the Loannidis study was referring to far more obscure and way more complicated medical studies. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand. YOU can't feel confident in the results. Skeptics can't feel confident in the results. There is no WE!

[Arouet]

Ummm, you obviously weren't included in the "us". Actually, I was using it more like "one". It was meant to be generic. In any event, it's fine that you feel confident in the results. I don't. Maybe one day I will, but I'm not there yet.

[craig weiler]

Okey Dokey.

[cecil1]

[ProfWag]

Assuming, I'm sure, that one actually wants to change?

[cecil1]

I would say that for an assumption, you are extremely accurate.