It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's About Time: The Scientific Evidence for Psi Experiences

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Thanks for the link and I will look over the article.


reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Very good points. I was debating someone on Hawking Radiation and that isn't confirmed but many scientist accept it. This was the main reason why the LHC wouldn't create a black hole. This is because it would evaporate via Hawking Radiation. Well, Hawking Radiation isn't confirmed. (This is not to say that the LHC will create black holes it's just saying you can't base this on something that isn't confirmed like Hawking Radiation).

Psi effects have been confirmed over and over again. Not just in this work but in work by Dean Radin and others.

So things like Psi get the 100 percent test. Either it's 100 percent repeatable and predictable or any result is meaningless. This makes no sense.

Maybe Psi is governed by probability like quantum mechanics and this means Psi will not be 100 percent predictable.

Maybe we need to come up with an equation that governs the probability of Psi occurring in experiments.

So it will be like the Double Slit experiment. Each experimenter can carry out the double slit experiment and observe superposition and measurement. What will be different is momentum and position which is governed by probability.

A Psi test can be replicated and produce Psi effects but maybe the measurements would be different in each experiment because Psi is governed by probability.




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MrVortex
 


Thanks for the links. I will check them out. There's a lot of information out there in these areas it's just some people get the subjective label of "mainstream scientist" or they're doing "mainstream science" and this label alone can be used by some to try to invalidate experiments done by very smart people in areas that don't agree with "mainstream science" whatever that means.

If I study Psi or U.F.O.'s I'm not doing "mainstream science" but if I look into String Theory or Hawking Radiation, I'm doing "mainstream science" even though these things are not confirmed.

Psi effects and U.F.O.'s have been confirmed. U.F.O.'s just means Unidentified Flying Objects. I don't know anyone that says U.F.O.'s don't exist. People debate the origins of U.F.O.'s. Are they a natural phenomenom or something else.

So why isn't scientific studies in these areas labeled "mainstream science"?

This is why ATS is a great source of information because you get a lot of information you may not have seen before in these areas that are not considered "mainstream.."

edit on 5-1-2011 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The effect that Bem showed has nothing to do with the null hypotheses.
All this comment does is show you're not an expert in scientific analysis and statistics, that's standard nomenclature for setting up a statistically valid experiment. Most statistical experiments have everything to do with a null hypothesis which can be statistically accepted or rejected based on the statistical analysis.

Here's the bottom line on Bem's study:

Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect


In the end the paper offers some promising methods but should not be taken as evidence for precognition without extensive independent replication of the results, particularly since there are significant questions about the introduction of bias into the analysis of the data.

That's all I'm saying too, this study needs to be replicated multiple times to be convincing, the effect is pretty small and could have sources that Bem hasn't considered or overlooked in the experimental design that may be revealed on replication, such as experimenter bias:

rationalwiki.org...

Most experiments that purport to show evidence for psychic powers, alternative and quack medicine, or other woo fail to use proper methods and controls to limit experimenter bias. When replication attempts are made that do control for experimenter bias the results are shown to be no better than chance.

I agree that nobody has demonstrated experimenter bias on Bem's 2010 paper (yet) but suggesting that independent replications of the experiment are needed which ensure this possible source of bias or others didn't affect the results seems pretty reasonable to me, before jumping to conclusions.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You're not making any sense.

Bem is not doing this in isolation. Psi effects have been produced and many of them replicated year after year after year. Yes, Bem's study needs to be replicated but there's zero evidence of bias from the experimenter. You bring this nonsense up to try to plant this seed. Until there's evidence that this is the case, you can't use this to try and refute the paper.

What about bias from the experimenter that's trying to replicate the results? This is why I'm glad Bem set up the experiments where there's little contact between the experimenter and the participants. This is because the skeptics will mention experimental bias where there isn't a shred of evidence that experimental bias exist in this case.

You also lose all credibility when you quote nonsense like this:


Most experiments that purport to show evidence for psychic powers, alternative and quack medicine, or other woo fail to use proper methods and controls to limit experimenter bias. When replication attempts are made that do control for experimenter bias the results are shown to be no better than chance.


This is just pure nonsense and you quoted it because you have come to this conclusion before there's any evidence of experimental bias. The subjective talk of quack medicine and woo really makes you look bad.

There have been tests on telepathy from places from Harvard to Stanford. These studies have been replicated since 1920. The accumulated result from over 3,000 sessions with chance being .25 was an average of .32 and when people who claimed to be highly intuitive it went up to .65. The test was even duplicated by a skeptic who wanted to debunk it and he got the same results. Of course he didn't accept the results.

Here's a good video called Dean Radin and the Taboo of Psi that he gave at Google.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Yes, Bem's study needs to be replicated but there's zero evidence of bias from the experimenter.
Bem says in his own paper that replication needed to see if he has successfully avoided the experimenter bias problem in his approach. From Bem's paper pages 49-50:


One of the major obstacles to successful replication in psychology generally is the
influence of the experimenter on the results. The sex, age, and demeanor of the experimenter can
interact with characteristics of the participants, and expectancies of the experimenter can affect
the results in subtle ways (Rosenthal, 1966). Psi research is no exception. In three psi
experiments specifically designed to investigate the experimenter effect, a proponent and a
skeptic of psi jointly ran a psi experiment, using the same procedures and drawing participants
from the same pool (Schlitz et al., 2005; Wiseman & Schlitz, 1997, 1999). In two of the three
experiments, the proponent obtained a significant result, but the skeptic did not.

My approach to the problem of experimenter effects has been to minimize the
experimenter’s role as much as possible, reducing it to that of greeter and debriefer, and leaving
the experimental instructions and other interactions with the participant to the computer program.
Moreover, I used several undergraduate experimenters in each experiment and deliberately gave
them only informal training. This was to ensure that the experimental protocols are robust
enough to overcome differences among experimenters so that the protocols have a better chance
of surviving replications in other laboratories. Whether or not this strategy will be successful
remains to be seen.


By "Whether or not this strategy will be successful remains to be seen", he's referring to replication experiments. So until the replication experiments are done, we won't know how successful he was at avoiding experimenter bias, and this isn't according to me, this is according to the author of the paper!!!!



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So until the replication experiments are done, we won't know how successful he was at avoiding experimenter bias, ... according to the author of the paper!!!!
I just ran across this:

www.nytimes.com...


So far, at least three efforts to replicate the experiments have failed. But more are in the works, Dr. Bem said, adding, “I have received hundreds of requests for the materials” to conduct studies.
So more studies are in the works. Bem has definitely generated interest and is making the replication kits readily available to aid other researchers as it seems he is actually encouraging replication attempts based on the need for them he cited in his paper.

We'll have to see how these other replication efforts perform.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


First off Bem tried to reduce the experimenters contact with the computers and that's great and I mentioned that earlier.

That's different than trying to discredit the study with pure nonsense and opinion by trying to compare it to quack science and woo.


Most experiments that purport to show evidence for psychic powers, alternative and quack medicine, or other woo fail to use proper methods and controls to limit experimenter bias. When replication attempts are made that do control for experimenter bias the results are shown to be no better than chance.


You show your bias when you make silly accusations like this.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Again, you show your bias. The mere mention of three experiments that has failed to replicate the study have you jumping for joy. There's no mention of experimental bias by those that have been trying to replicate the study. Here's one example:


One failed attempt at replication has already been posted online. In this study, Jeff Galak of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Leif Nelson of the University of California, Berkeley, employed an online panel called Consumer Behavior Lab in an effort to repeat Bem's findings on the recall of words.

Bem argues that online surveys are inconclusive, because it's impossible to know whether volunteers have paid sufficient attention to the task. Galak concedes that this is a limitation of the initial study, but says he is now planning a follow-up involving student volunteers that will more closely repeat the design of Bem's word-recall experiment.


www.newscientist.com...

This is a problem because people like you will jump to conclusions on a study that claims to refute Bem's study because they failed to replicate the study but you will not scrutinize how these studies were carried out.

It's like the skeptic that carries out the study is pure and has no experimental bias.

It's obvious you can't carry out these studies on line because being on line in private is very different than being on the computer in a lab. Like now I have the TV on and there's some noise outside. So of course your going to get different results.

But that didn't matter, the guy just carried out a study and wanted to get online and say his study refutes Bem.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Well this paper seems to refute this paper by Dr. Bem. Didn't read the original paper and my understanding of statistics isn't quite what I hope it was so can't comment more..



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


The paper doesn't refute anything, it's just their opinion that Bem should have conducted the experiments in a way that they would have conducted the experiments. It's just nonsense and opinion.

They say things like this:


We argue that in order to convince a skeptical audience of a
controversial claim, one needs to conduct strictly confirmatory studies and
analyze the results with statistical tests that are conservative rather than
liberal.


This is just subjective nonsense. They label Bem's study liberal as opposed to their subjective definition of conservative. It's obvious that any experiment into Psi will never be conservative enough for them to accept the results.

It's just full of opinion and nonsense.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


The paper also makes this silly claim:


Despite the lack of a plausible mechanistic account of precognition, Bem was able to
reject the null hypothesis of no precognition in eight out of nine experiments.


This is like saying we should throw gravity out of the window because of the lack of a plausible mechanism for gravity.

Is gravity an illusion? is gravity caused by the zero point field Is there some theory of quantum gravity that will explain this?

They are saying because we don't know the origin of Psi then we can't say that Psi exist. This is just idiotic because we can know that Psi effects exist and we can began to look for the origin of this effect.

Bem actually ask theses questions in his paper.

Is Psi related to non locality and entanglement or is Psi an evolutionary mechanism that evolved in humans.

We don't have to know the origins of gravity to say that gravity exists.

Bem actually explains why he chose erotic images as well as negative images. Maybe Psi is an evolutionary mechanism that evolved from animals who could sense when another animal is in heat (erotic) and who can sense danger (negative images).

So Bem was going on a fishing expedition as this silly paper suggests.

Bem's results show that we can feel when pleasure is in our future and we can avoid danger using the same Psi effect.

If you look at his first two experiments they drive home this point.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Some people claim that the psi effect is small. This is nonsense. For instance you have some tests where chance is .25 but the averaged these tests that have been replicated is .32 and when siblings or highly intuitive people participate it's .65.

Test for Psi has a greater statistical signifigance than tests that involve asprin being able to help prevent a second heart attack. Yet, this small effect in statistical studies was enough for the FDA to approve companies like Bayer using this in their commercials. I have a friend who works for the EMT and he says when they pick up patients with chest pains they either get nitrogen under the tongue or asprin.

So a small statistical effect produced a real result and statistical results for Psi experiments are larger and more significant than studies carried out on asprin and heart attack prevention.


"It is also instructive to compare the psi ganzfeld effect with the results of a recent medical study that sought to determine whether aspirin can prevent heart attacks (Steering Committee of the Physicians' Health Study Research Group, 1988). The study was discontinued after 6 years because it was already clear that the aspirin treatment was effective (p < .00001) and it was considered unethical to keep the control group on placebo medication. The study was widely publicized as a major medical breakthrough. But despite its undisputed reality and practical importance, the size of the aspirin effect is quite small: Taking aspirin reduces the probability of suffering a heart attack by only .008. The corresponding effect size (h) is .068, about one third to one fourth the size of the psi ganzfeld effect (Atkinson et al., 1993, p. 236; Utts, 1991b)."


Skeptics will tell you the Psi results are small and insignificant and that's just a flat out lie.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by C-JEAN
Hi psi fans.

Look around the subjects linked by the first line of my signature,
and you will see what psi can do to the reality and to you ! !

What the BLEEP! do we know !? down the rabbit hole".
A FANTASTIC 3 DVD movie and interviews kit ! !

Blue skies.


"What the Bleep!" Is propaganda from the Ramtha cult.

Its disinforms more than it informs.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT

Personally, I used to be able to guess red/black way more than 50% of the time, until I 'put my money where my mouth is' and then the clarity disappeared in a whoosh of emotion. I still managed to pay my rent etc at the time, but it was very draining and I later found much easier ways to make money consistently and without any ongoing investment of time and energy, so I don't do it anymore.




If you don't mind could you tell me how did you do it? And what did you move on to for better money making?
edit on 6-1-2011 by _Phoenix_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I just saw Bem on Fox being interviewed by Megyn Kelly and he defended his study very well. She asked did his study show that ESP is real and the distinguished and well respected Professor said YES. There's outrage from the skeptics of course because a well respected Professor has well respected Journal publishing his paper that supports Psi!!!

The lock that these pseudo skeptics have on what's considered "mainstream science" is crazy. They don't want this paper published in a well respected Journal because they feel it will give the subject of Psi more credibility. This is just stupid.

Psi effects threaten their way of thinking about the world so they can't be real. I don't know how these pseudo skeptic frauds get away with it. These are things that need to be explored and the pseudo skeptics want to dismiss these things out of hand because they personally don't accept them. Science is not about someone's personal or subjective belief.

There have been study after study, year after year in the areas of Psi and many of these studies have sown significant results. The question we need to be asking is this something that occurs because of non locality and entanglement? Is this biological and an ability that has evolved? We see this even stronger in siblings and twin telepathy.

This needs to be explored not ignored because you don't accept it on a personal level.
edit on 6-1-2011 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

If it was real all casinos of the world would have been bankrupted a long time ago.
edit on 6-1-2011 by rhinoceros because: editing



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 





OK readers, later in this article, I'm going to use an example that will involve either a garden, a sailboat, a running man or a train. Can you accurately guess which one? In a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP), Cornell psychology professor Daryl Bem has published an article that suggests you can, possibly more often than the 25 percent of the time on average you might expect just by chance.


I guessed correctly.

Read Bem's article previously, it is really fascinating. When coupled with Penrose's and Hameroff's thoughts on quantum consciousness things get exciting!



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

If it was real all casinos of the world would have been bankrupted a long time ago.
edit on 6-1-2011 by rhinoceros because: editing


You have no idea what your talking about. Casinos are run by criminals.

Did you know if your sensitive microwaving you would while your being microwaved hinder it. Do you think criminals in casinos do not know this sort of thing?

Anyone going to a casino trying to prove this is wasting there time period, criminals would have any number of systems to watch.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

If it was real all casinos of the world would have been bankrupted a long time ago.
edit on 6-1-2011 by rhinoceros because: editing


It's funny cause Bem was asked the same question and the answer is how do you know people are not using Psi to hit the lottery or win in a Casino? You can't use this to refute the article because you don't know either way.

If a person is using Psi to win the Lottery or win at a Casino why would he tell you? People are not going to believe them and they're getting rich and living their life without the unwanted attention.

It's like saying that no murderers live in town X because there hasn't been a murder in town X in a month. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Murderers can still live in a town where there hasn't been any murders. Maybe they haven't murdered yet or Police haven't found their victims.

So you can't say Psi doesn't exist because nobody has told you that they use Psi to hit the lottery.

What if I told you a guy told me that the reason he wins at the race track a lot isn't because he has any type of system but he just picks horses based on a feeling he gets? Would you believe me? The answer of course is no, the skeptics would swear up and down that he was lying or cheating. So why even bother going to the news? He can just keep winning money whether you accept him or not.

Another possibility is this is something that occurs on a quantum level. Maybe the bigger the odds get of an event occurring the more the Psi effect gets diminished.

So if the odds are 1/4 that an event will occur than the Psi effect is strong vs if the odds were 1/1,000,000.

These are things that need to be explored but the goal of the pseudo skeptic isn't to debate Psi, it's to diminish Psi so anytime anyone brings Psi up they can yell "quack medicine" or "woo." This is why they hate this article being published. They don't want debate and they see this article being published in a respected Journal as a threat. Why are they so scared to debate the issue? If Bem is wrong then the process will show this but the pseudo skeptic doesn't want things like Psi debated in this way because to them it's "woo" or "pseudo science"
before the issue is even debated.

edit on 6-1-2011 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

If it was real all casinos of the world would have been bankrupted a long time ago.
edit on 6-1-2011 by rhinoceros because: editing


It's funny cause Bem was asked the same question and the answer is how do you know people are not using Psi to hit the lottery or win in a Casino? You can't use this to refute the article because you don't know either way.


I agree with you on the fact that people could possibly be using Psi for financial gains and simply not telling anyone. So that point can not really be made against the existance of Psi.

But it also can not be used in any way to support Psi phenomena either, so it really doesn't matter.

No matter how many of these papers are published all of the data is just statistics, and anomally's are very common in statistics especially in something like this, so it will never be solidified using this method.

I believe if any sort of Psi does exist, it will not be accepted or even looked at seriously until we understand the underlying mechanics behind it and have some real data to work with. Personally from a scientific standpoint I don't see any reason why Psi could not exist though, and if so I see no reason why someday we won't discover exactly how and why it can happen.

But it will have to be taken out of the realm of psychology and into something more biology / chemistry centric.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join