The Ganzfeld Experiments

[Interesting Ian]

1. Ghosts. Turned out to be cats, drafts, creaky floorboards, air in pipes, rats in the attic.
2. Mediumship. Turned out to be cold-reading, warm-reading, hot-reading, tabloid psychology.
3. Dowsing. Turned out to be ideo-motor effect.

Should I continue?

When I said 3 examples I meant concrete detailed instances that one can point to. None of the 3 things you mention are what parapsychologists typically tend to study. Indeed I know of no dowsing which has been studied by any parapsychologists. And what type of ghosts are we talking about here? Gimme details please.

Also you would need to provide the references for mediumship.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The original Honorton ganzfeld experiments did not involve a judge. The receiver rated the four photos shown to him after finishing up the ganzfeld.

Let's see, flaws in psi experiments. Well, the problem with not editing hints out of ganzfeld transcripts, which I mentioned above.

The problem with synchronized clocks that occured in Sheldrake's telephone experiments. He claims it didn't matter, but I'm suspicious.

The problem with new vs. used video tapes that occured in some other Ganzfeld experiments, along with the problem of tape rewind time.

The problem of subjective bias introduced by using people who know each other as sender and receiver.

The sound from the video clips leaking into the receiver's headphones.

Statistical problems involving trials that are not independent.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Discovering flaws in psi experiment is tough. One thing that helps is the figure out what the subject is actually doing. For example, there were series of ganzfeld experiments in which a list of characteristics was used to judge hits. Some independent raters scored the characteristics of each photo. Then the receiver does his mentation and scores each of four photos, one of which is the target. If the target gets the highest score, it's a hit.

Is the subject trying to read the mind of the sender? No, he is trying to match the scores of the raters. Realizing this can help uncover flaws.

~~ Paul

 

[Ersby]

Er . .why? Why should one expect this? I'd expect the opposite.

Why would you expect that?

 

[Interesting Ian]

The original Honorton ganzfeld experiments did not involve a judge. The receiver rated the four photos shown to him after finishing up the ganzfeld.

Let's see, flaws in psi experiments. Well, the problem with not editing hints out of ganzfeld transcripts, which I mentioned above.

Hints in the ganzfeld transcripts??? Hope you can substantiate this!

The problem with synchronized clocks that occured in Sheldrake's telephone experiments. He claims it didn't matter, but I'm suspicious.

Not sure what you mean.

The problem with new vs. used video tapes that occured in some other Ganzfeld experiments, along with the problem of tape rewind time.

The problem of subjective bias introduced by using people who know each other as sender and receiver.

The sound from the video clips leaking into the receiver's headphones.

Statistical problems involving trials that are not independent.

~~ Paul

None of this is remotely satisfactory to me. You have to give vastly many more details. Moreover you need to precisely show how the results were due to these artifacts.

I think you may have misunderstood my question. I repeat with emphasis added:

Give me say 3 examples where it was established that a positive result obtained in parapsychology was actually due to something else.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Why would you expect that?

The fewer trials that any individual is required to do the less likely are any results to be depressed by boredom. Or if there are the same amount of trials for each individual, but less individuals, the more important and special each individual will feel and this might have a positive effect on psi scores.

I cannot for the life of me understand this psychologist's claim that anyone should expect the opposite. Please explain to me.

 

[Ersby]

Hints in the ganzfeld transcripts??? Hope you can substantiate this!

This is a reference to an experiment (brilliant! my mind's gone awol on me. Was it Schiltz?) whereby the complete transcript of the senders as they moved from target to target contained clues like "I know we're only just starting, but.." which'd cause the judges to put this target near the beginning of the list of targets. Or they referenced a previous target, giving the judges a clue as to which order the targets were visited in.

As for three examples, well, the first has to be the Soal experiments. Use google for more info.

 

[Ersby]

The fewer trials that any individual is required to do the less likely are any results to be depressed by boredom.

In the PRL trials, if my memory serves (I'll have to check tomorrow: must dash) each subject did only one trial each. No chance for boredom to set in. This was certainly the case for the artistic/Jullliard set.

 

[Interesting Ian]

This is a reference to an experiment (brilliant! my mind's gone awol on me. Was it Schiltz?) whereby the complete transcript of the senders

Huh?? Transcript of the senders not receivers??

as they moved from target to target contained clues like "I know we're only just starting, but.." which'd cause the judges to put this target near the beginning of the list of targets. Or they referenced a previous target, giving the judges a clue as to which order the targets were visited in.

Sorry, I simply have no understanding of this. You must mean transcript of receivers, right?? But how can what the receiver say give any clue to the right target since she has no clue to the target either??

Sorry but I really have absolutely no idea what on earth you are talking about.

As for three examples, well, the first has to be the Soal experiments. Use google for more info.

He was a cheat wasn't he? Are you suggesting there are more cheats in parapsychology than in other areas of science? Apart from this one cheat what other examples? I'm more interested in the accusations of sloppy research than outright cheating to tell you the truth.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Hints in the ganzfeld transcripts??? Hope you can substantiate this!

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/air2.html#32

Not sure what you mean.

Sheldrake's telephone telepathy experiments involve people calling the subject at prearranged times and the subject guessing who called. He got positive results. He forgot to control for the fact that the subject might be able to tell who is calling by noticing the difference in time between her clock and the callers'.

None of this is remotely satisfactory to me. You have to give vastly many more details. Moreover you need to precisely show how the results were due to these artifacts.

I don't really give a damn, Ian. If you want to believe this stuff even in the face of potential sensory leaks, be my guest. I find it particularly amusing considering that all psi is is whatever is left over after you control for all possible sensory leaks. It is nothing more.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

In the PRL trials, if my memory serves (I'll have to check tomorrow: must dash) each subject did only one trial each. No chance for boredom to set in. This was certainly the case for the artistic/Jullliard set.

So what about my point about individuls feeling more special if there are fewer of them. And why should the hit rate be greater with more subjects??

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Sorry, I simply have no understanding of this. You must mean transcript of receivers, right?? But how can what the receiver say give any clue to the right target since she has no clue to the target either??

Because in these experiments the judges' job was to match transcripts of receiver's mentation to a pool of photos that did not contain any decoys. The photos were give to the judges in order, while the transcripts were given in random order. But the transcripts contains clues as to their order. Braaap!

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to do it that way anymore.

~~ Paul

 

[Lucianarchy]

I asked Dr Blackmore about the Ganzfeld experiments and she told me that:

"The Ganzfeld experiments at Edinburgh are getting highly
significant results. They appear to be well designed and
if they are carried out as stated, then the results are
very unlikely to be due to chance and therefore may be
evidence of ESP. "

 

[Interesting Ian]

[Ian said:
Hints in the ganzfeld transcripts??? Hope you can substantiate this!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/air2.html#32

Huh?? This is ganzfeld??? The target is supposed to be randomly selected. Obviously if the original targets are taken out of some smallish pool of possible targets, and the actual target is never repeated, and the receiver immediately gets to know his success or failure, then that is of some concern. Where does it state these are the ganzfeld experiments??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure what you mean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sheldrake's telephone telepathy experiments involve people calling the subject at prearranged times and the subject guessing who called. He got positive results. He forgot to control for the fact that the subject might be able to tell who is calling by noticing the difference in time between her clock and the callers'.

You mean that the caller and the subject were allowed to pre-arrange a particular time?? You need to substantiate this allegation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this is remotely satisfactory to me. You have to give vastly many more details. Moreover you need to precisely show how the results were due to these artifacts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't really give a damn, Ian.

Then don't make assertions which you cannot back up and which you have no justification for

 

[Interesting Ian]

Because in these experiments the judges' job was to match transcripts of receiver's mentation to a pool of photos that did not contain any decoys. The photos were give to the judges in order, while the transcripts were given in random order. But the transcripts contains clues as to their order. Braaap!

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to do it that way anymore.

~~ Paul

No decoys?? But on each and every occasion there are 3 decoys and the one real target!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
You mean that the caller and the subject were allowed to pre-arrange a particular time?? You need to substantiate this allegation.

It was arranged by the experimenter. Do some googling and you'll find the paper. Sheldrake telephone telepathy

Then don't make assertions which you cannot back up and which you have no justification for.

I can back them up, I just don't give a damn. The fact that you think there have never been flaws uncovered is just laughable.

No decoys?? But on each and every occasion there are 3 decoys and the one real target!

Not in some of the early experiments.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian said:
You mean that the caller and the subject were allowed to pre-arrange a particular time?? You need to substantiate this allegation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It was arranged by the experimenter. Do some googling and you'll find the paper. Sheldrake telephone telepathy

Huh?? It was arranged by the experimenter for them to cheat?? You make the assertions, therefore back them up. Your task not mine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then don't make assertions which you cannot back up and which you have no justification for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I can back them up, I just don't give a damn.

You can't make assertions and not back them up. It's just not acceptable.

The fact that you think there have never been flaws uncovered is just laughable.

Don't be absurd. One can almost certainly find what they consider to be flaws if one is determined enough. This goes for all of science. What I'm interested in is your insinuation that parapsychological research contains more potential flaws than other areas of research. You need to justify this allegation, or apologise.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No decoys?? But on each and every occasion there are 3 decoys and the one real target!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not in some of the early experiments.

Details please. I want evidence that those experiments were included in this ganzfeld meta-analysis. I sincerely hope you weren't lying about it Paul.

 

[Ed]

So what about my point about individuls feeling more special if there are fewer of them. And why should the hit rate be greater with more subjects??

Your point is ignorant, unless "specialnesss" is specifically under investigation. Subjects should know nothing. Have you ever read real science. Perhaps before you waste our time with yet more ignorant speculation you ought to read a bit.

Edit to add: I guess I undersstand how some can be impressed with research into the paranormal. Unfortunately science requires some work to comprehend. If you don't understand the basic principle of control you are really nowhere with regard to undersstanding this stuff.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Your point is ignorant, unless "specialnesss" is specifically under investigation. Subjects should know nothing. Have you ever read real science. Perhaps before you waste our time with yet more ignorant speculation you ought to read a bit.

There are ways that a subject could pick up on the fact that she was only one of a very few. Anyway, none of this explains why a larger number of trials should get a higher hit rate, least of all stating it's very obvious. So obvious that no-one on here has been able to explain it yet Perhaps you'd like to have a shot?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Your point is ignorant, unless "specialnesss" is specifically under investigation. Subjects should know nothing. Have you ever read real science. Perhaps before you waste our time with yet more ignorant speculation you ought to read a bit.

Edit to add: I guess I undersstand how some can be impressed with research into the paranormal. Unfortunately science requires some work to comprehend. If you don't understand the basic principle of control you are really nowhere with regard to undersstanding this stuff.

Yeah, but at least I'm not mindnumbingly stupid as you clearly are. I've never seen you make a post of the least bit of worth. Ed, you are truly a stupid person, through and through. But at least the vast majority of people on here are exactly like you so you're in good company.