The Ganzfeld Experiments

[amherst]

amherst,


And since the result of this process doesn't produce a simple graph that directly maps 'high hit rates' to 'high standardness' and 'low hit rates' to 'low standardness', then the decisions on what constitutes 'standardness' tells us what?

The paper lists all 40 experiments, their rated standardness, and their hit rates. Experiments rated at high-standardness had high hit rates. Experiments rated at high non-standardness had low hit rates.

amherst

 

[Loki]

amherst,

As I suspected, there is no more reasoning to be had with the skeptics in here...
Basically, this isn't complicated

Then just explain what the the ratings 'mean'.

Show me a study they rated as being of 'standardness = 1'. Now replicate that protocol exactly, but substitute a monkey as the 'sender'. Is the resulting protocol still a 'standardness = 1'? If not, then what is it's standardness'? If so, then what does '1' mean if it encompasses both?

If I take a protocol of rating '6' and I change it in such a way that it drops 3 levels to a protocol of rating '3', the new protocol is 'half' as standard as the original? If I take a protocol of rating '4' and change it to produce a drop of 3 levels the (to '1') then the new protoocl is a quarter as standard as the old one?

 

[Loki]

amherst,

The paper lists all 40 experiments, their rated standardness, and their hit rates. Experiments rated at high-standardness had high hit rates. Experiments rated at high non-standardness had low hit rates.

I'll assusme you didn't understand. There is no direct linear correspondence between the hit rates and the standardness, correct?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Come on, Amherst. What you say would be true, more or less, if the standardness scale was a smooth function of the experiment protocol deviations and the studies were evenly distributed across the scale. But this is not even vaguely the case, so the midpoint is an arbitrary point on the scale.

Basically, this isn't complicated.

Yes, it is.

~~ Paul

 

[amherst]

amherst,


I'll assusme you didn't understand. There is no direct linear correspondence between the hit rates and the standardness, correct?

You're the one who isn't understanding. As I just explained to you, there is a correspondence between hit rates and standardness. The overall hit rate for the 29 studies rated standard was 31.2%. The overall hit rate for the nine studies rated nonstandard was 24.0%.(There were 2 studies rated at the midpoint of 4). Standard studies are successful, nonstandard ones aren't.

amherst

 

[amherst]

Come on, Amherst. What you say would be true, more or less, if the standardness scale was a smooth function of the experiment protocol deviations and the studies were evenly distributed across the scale. But this is not even vaguely the case, so the midpoint is an arbitrary point on the scale.


~~ Paul

How is the midpoint arbitrary Paul? 4 is exactly midway between 1 and 7!

amherst

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Amherst said:
How is the midpoint arbitrary Paul? 4 is exactly midway between 1 and 7!

You may repeat this mantra all you like, but it doesn't necessarily make sense to take the median of any old set of ordered numbers.

Take an obvious example. If we alphabetize a bunch of people's names, does the median name mean anything? No.

Here we have standardness numbers, with no explanation of how the numbers were derived from the list of deviations. For all we know, they might just as well have assigned standardness ratings like Very Standard, Standard, Not So Standard, Nonstandard, etc. We do not know what the numbers mean, so we do not know if the median is meaningful.

Don't get me wrong: I'm perfectly willing to believe that nonstandard studies get no results. But I want to know why.

~~ Paul

 

[Dancing David]

Amhearst,
You are a poseur, you have no understanding of statistics or science.

You haven't the guts to answer any questions that are posed to you, show me a real study that has real results and I will be the first to say
"Yep, they showed a psi effect."

You haven't even answered Ed's question about how did they rate the validity of the 'stardardness' measure, which seems to show that you are a poseur.

You can hide nehind you mindless numbers and false assertions.

But when will you answer the questions about controls?

You can't control after the fact.

POSEUR!

 

[Ed]

Three raters were used, all given the same instructions.

~~ Paul

I understand that. The issue is inter rater variation, that is to say, how would all three rate the same stimulus? In other words, how much variability does the rating, per se, introduce?

 

[T'ai Chi]

[B
Man, I really want to see the rating sheets.
~~ Paul [/B]

Have you contacted the authors of the studies?

 

[Ed]

That is certainly a possiblity. Another possibility is that something 'psi' related took place. We know that something went on, so we have to experiment further.

Could be martians too. As long as you have to appeal to the subjective you will have crap.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Could be martians too. As long as you have to appeal to the subjective you will have crap.

You assume by saying 'psi' that I am talking of something equivalent to 'martians'.

By 'psi' all I mean is that something happened even after controlling for all known sensorial inputs.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Could be martians too. As long as you have to appeal to the subjective you will have crap.

By what people commonly call 'psi', all I mean is that something happened even after controlling for all known sensorial inputs in a controlled scientific experiment.

But you knew that.

 

[Ed]

You assume by saying 'psi' that I am talking of something equivalent to 'martians'.

By 'psi' all I mean is that something happened even after controlling for all known sensorial inputs.

You don't know if they are indeed controlled for. The word you are hunting for is "noise"

 

[T'ai Chi]

Then just explain what the the ratings 'mean'.

Aren't they how close the researchers followed the standard ganzfeld procedure?

Show me a study they rated as being of 'standardness = 1'. Now replicate that protocol exactly, but substitute a monkey as the 'sender'. Is the resulting protocol still a 'standardness = 1'? If not, then what is it's standardness'? If so, then what does '1' mean if it encompasses both?

Humans are the participants here in all the studies...

If I take a protocol of rating '6' and I change it in such a way that it drops 3 levels to a protocol of rating '3', the new protocol is 'half' as standard as the original? If I take a protocol of rating '4' and change it to produce a drop of 3 levels the (to '1') then the new protoocl is a quarter as standard as the old one?

Here is a website with descriptions of various types of data:

http://www.math.sfu.ca/~cschwarz/Stat-301/Handouts/node5.html

 

[T'ai Chi]

You don't know if they are indeed controlled for. The word you are hunting for is "noise"

Did I say that I knew that they are indeed controlled for? I said "all known". If there are other ways found, the holes get plugged so to speak, and better experiments are done to reflect that.

That is probably the main reason why skeptical comments are important..

Paul, you know the probability of "noise" being statistically significant so often.. ?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Take an obvious example. If we alphabetize a bunch of people's names, does the median name mean anything? No.

Sure. It means half of the names lie below it, and half of the names lie above it, and that it probably starts with a "M".

For all we know, they might just as well have assigned standardness ratings like Very Standard, Standard, Not So Standard, Nonstandard, etc. We do not know what the numbers mean, so we do not know if the median is meaningful.

What do you mean we don't know what they mean? They tell us how a study stuck to the original procedure or not. Or did I miss something?

 

[T'ai Chi]

You are a poseur, you have no understanding of statistics or science.

I do, of both, so what seems to be your question?

 

[Loki]

T'ai chi,

Or did I miss something?

I suspect you didn't, but seem to want to pretend you did?

Aren't they how close the researchers followed the standard ganzfeld procedure?

Sure - but does '1' mean "Didn't follow it at all"?

 

[T'ai Chi]

And can someone provide a link to the paper re: standardness, etc., in question?