Aura Testing

[T'ai Chi]

But as is, this criticism is of a potential problem, not necessarily an actual problem.

But that is unfortunately what modern skepticism is a lot of the time- pointing out potential flaws in hopes of casting doubt on the whole thing.

For example, Geller sneaking a peak through a small hole in the wall, filled with cables, with a machine in the way, somehow got a peak at pictures hung on the opposite wall, etc.

 

[CFLarsen]

But that is unfortunately what modern skepticism is a lot of the time- pointing out potential flaws in hopes of casting doubt on the whole thing.

What is wrong with that? If potential flaws exist, shouldn't we point them out?

For example, Geller sneaking a peak through a small hole in the wall, filled with cables, with a machine in the way, somehow got a peak at pictures hung on the opposite wall, etc.

Why is that different than pointing out how Rosa could manipulate the coin?

It's called "finding natural explanations".

 

[ChristineR]

I've met several people who can control coin tosses. I haven't seen the film clips of Rosa tossing the coin, so I can't comment specificially. But even if she has learned to control coin tosses, what would be the motivation for doing so here?

It's known that people tend to prefer patterns without sequences, i.e., when the previous sequence was HHH people prefer T to H. So Rosa could have been biasing the tests against the chance by forcing HHHH instead of HHHT. Still, this should only has an effect when there is feedback.

Personally, if I were to design such a test I would choose some other randomization, but that's not much of a criticism.

 

[Ed]

What ever happened to the John Edwards data base?

 

[Mercutio]

But that is unfortunately what modern skepticism is a lot of the time- pointing out potential flaws in hopes of casting doubt on the whole thing.

For example, Geller sneaking a peak through a small hole in the wall, filled with cables, with a machine in the way, somehow got a peak at pictures hung on the opposite wall, etc.

Sure--it's the "dirty test tube" idea. After a new reaction is found, and someone points out that the test tubes were dirty, the right thing to do is to repeat the experiment with clean test tubes. Geller ought to be eager to replicate his success with clean test tubes, don't you think? He could shove it in the skeptics' faces, and make a cool million while at it, if he chose.

I am certain Emily Rosa (or anyone else) would be perfectly willing to replicate her experiment with proper double or triple blinding. TT practitioners ought to be eager to do it, too, especially if they think the lack of success was due to these potential flaws.

If the reaction is real, cleaning the test tubes will show it all the better. If it is an artifact of dirty test tubes, it is best to know that.

 

[ChristineR]

One critque I've always had of this test is that it requires a neutral subject. It appears that Rosa has an anti-TT bias. A believer in TT could easily replicate this experiment with a subject with a pro-TT bias. But the subject could positively influence test results by waving her hand, or lowering her fingers. Therefore we could easily imagine a slew of replications showing some or no correlation depending on subject bias.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Geller ought to be eager to replicate his success with clean test tubes, don't you think? He could shove it in the skeptics' faces, and make a cool million while at it, if he chose.

You'd have to ask Geller.

Yes, Geller could make a million if he choose, just like JREF could donate the million to a children's hospital, if they choose. I'd rather not speculate about what someone may or may not choose.

 

[Tricky]

In what way was the experimental design influenced by this?

In what way did this influence the experiment?

In that you simply don't have proper controls. You simply cannot have someone who has a material or emotional stake in the outcome collecting the evidence. I'm not saying she did anything. I'm reasonably sure she didn't. But sensory leakage goes both ways. As skeptics, we must hold ourselves to the same standards we demand of others. As Mercutio points out, this is a very good Science Fair experiment. Outstandingly good. As a piece of scientific research, it falls short.

 

[Mercutio]

You'd have to ask Geller.

Yes, Geller could make a million if he choose, just like JREF could donate the million to a children's hospital, if they choose. I'd rather not speculate about what someone may or may not choose.

I don't think the JREF could donate it as you describe; the money is earmarked for the challenge. Donors gave it with that expectation.

Still, the offer is there. Geller could donate it if he chose. What are his excuses for not trying to replicate with clean test tubes?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Geller could donate it if he chose. What are his excuses for not trying to replicate with clean test tubes?

You'd have to ask Geller.

 

[Mercutio]

You'd have to ask Geller.

Just curious as to whether you were familiar with the case.

My mistake, though; whatever you might have read about it should be expected to speak for itself.

 

[CFLarsen]

In that you simply don't have proper controls. You simply cannot have someone who has a material or emotional stake in the outcome collecting the evidence. I'm not saying she did anything. I'm reasonably sure she didn't. But sensory leakage goes both ways. As skeptics, we must hold ourselves to the same standards we demand of others. As Mercutio points out, this is a very good Science Fair experiment. Outstandingly good. As a piece of scientific research, it falls short.

Emily Rosa wasn't alone doing the experiment. There were people around her. The data collected was as clear as it can possibly get: Was there a hit or not?

I don't see how trickery can enter here.

You'd have to ask Geller.

Why is Geller sneaking a peak through a small hole in the wall etc., different than pointing out how Rosa could manipulate the coin?

If potential flaws exist, shouldn't we point them out?

 

[CFLarsen]

Bumped for T'ai Chi.