Miko, the papers by Utts and Hyman are very enlightening, particularly Utts response to Hyman.

http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/psipapers.html

Based on the first paper listed:

I think there are definitely some “psi phenomenae” that are worth studying, but I do have to question some of their methods and results.

While they start with p-values, they quickly move over to “effect sizes” and claim that these are a more accurate measure. This is problematic because “effect sizes” on smaller samples can be misleading and give false positives. Their general methodology seems to be using p-values on large groups of people in an exploratory phase and then trying for similar “effect sizes” on those who did well on the first phase. Unfortunately, they don’t note that the results in the first stage is valid only in an exploratory sense. Also, by switching to “effect sizes,” they drastically increase the probability that the results in the follow-up stages will be due to pure chance.

Most problematic, they admit that not all of their experiments used the same precautions to ensure accurate results and provide rather sketchy details on the exceptions (hidden away in an appendix).

For remote viewing, they note that “free response” experiments were more successful than “forced choice” experiments. However, the results of a “free response” experiment are necessarily subjective (because it’s up for the experimenters to determine whether the response is a match or not).

They present conclusions that don’t follow from the data such as:

3. Mass-screening efforts found that about one percent of those who volunteered to be tested were consistently successful at remote viewing. This indicates that remote viewing is an ability that differs across individuals, much like athletic ability or musical talent.

Since there definition of “statistically significant” was such that 5% of those experimented upon should have had significant results by pure chance, the fact that 1% were ‘consistently’ more successful where the word ‘consistently’ is not quantified is actually completely meaningless.

Likewise, the fact that experiments in which participants were given feedback after each guess detected higher levels of psychic ability casts doubt on their whole program. (For one thing, they really shouldn’t have been doing that particular experiment in the first place unless the study was specifically designed to test that. For another, if the results were genuine, why should it matter if they’re kept appraised of their success rate?)

Finally, they tested a lot of different phenomena (clairvoyance, telepathy, and precognition) and got very similar results for each, which is odd if these were actually distinct phenomena. The similarities direct me to think that something might have been off with the experiments.

Do such phenomena actually exist? I have no idea. But the evidence here really isn’t convincing to me and doesn’t justify their claim that “psychic functioning has been well established,” especially since many of the results cited are solely exploratory.

I’ve always thought that you guys would do a lot better with John Mortimer as a figurehead than someone with a permanent sneer and a snarl. John Mortimer is a pleasant and fair kind of athist with a sense of fun.

I’ve never thought we needed a figurehead.

I’m not endorsing parapsycology, just saying that they’ve got some positive results and should be able to continue their work.

Is anyone trying to stop their work? Being skeptical of it, sure: scientists would be skeptical of a paper saying the Earth revolved around the Sun; it’s what we do, and parapsychologists should expect the same.

That said, I’ve always considered Vegas the world’s largest ongoing experiment in predicting the outcome of events and in influencing mechanical random-number generators. I’m sure the casinos will let us know if any reliable psychics drop by.

http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/psipapers.html

The parts about meta-analysis are particularly interesting in light of the attempt by CSICOPs to pooh-pooh meta-analysis, especially the scientists who generally accept exactly the same methods in their own fields.

Ray Hyman is interesting. I didn’t pay any attention to this stuff until a few years back when I was looking to review some statistics. Someone said that Jessica Utts textbook was a good one, it’s pretty expensive so I wanted to find out more about her and visited her U.C. Davis faculty website and started reading the papers she had there. I was familiar with Hyman from having seen him on an old Nova program. I remembered wondering how he could endorse Randi’s “debunking” by slight of hand since so much of psychology could be “debunked” in exactly the same way. I’ve had to come to the conclusion that the “Skeptics”, at least when they are dealing with competent lab scientists apply double standards and literally make up flaws that aren’t there. I’m not endorsing parapsycology, just saying that they’ve got some positive results and should be able to continue their work.

I really do think that Paul Kurtz and a few of his close friends have been very harmful to intellectual freedom and honesty. I think they’re to blame for a lot of the frat-boy style ridicule and hazing in “Skepticism”. I’m sorry to have to point out but he is also behind quite a bit of organized atheism, including that found on line. With much the same nastiness. I’ve always thought that you guys would do a lot better with John Mortimer as a figurehead than someone with a permanent sneer and a snarl. John Mortimer is a pleasant and fair kind of athist with a sense of fun. I wrote a piece to that effect a few months back.

I will point out that in the parapsychological tests that have been done by real researchers that these things are controlled, with postive results in some of them

Do you have an example?

Louis Rose, a British psychiatrist, investigated hundreds of alleged faith-healing cures. As his interest became well known, he received communications from healers and patients throughout the world. He sent each correspondent a questionnaire and sought corroborating information from physicians. In Faith Healing [Penguin Books 1971], he concluded, “I have been unsuccessful. After nearly twenty years of work I have yet to find one ‘miracle cure’; and without that (or, alternatively, massive statistics which others must provide) I cannot be convinced of the efficacy of what is commonly termed faith healing.” [1]

During the early 1970s, Minnesota surgeon William Nolen, M.D., attended a service conducted by Katherine Kuhlman, the leading evangelical healer of that period. After noting the names of 25 people who had been “miraculously healed,” he was able to perform follow-up interviews and examinations. Among other things, he discovered that one woman who had been announced as cured of “lung cancer” actually had Hodgkin’s disease – which was unaffected by the experience. Another woman with cancer of the spine had discarded her brace and followed Ms. Kuhlman’s enthusiastic command to run across the stage. The following day her backbone collapsed, and four months later she died. Overall, not one person with organic disease had been helped. Dr. Nolen reported his findings, which included observations of several other healers, in Healing: A Doctor in Search of a Miracle.

Darryl, a miracle, by the very definition of the word, is that it is an occurance outside the natural order and that alone would make the actual miracle, if those exist, impossible to confirm or deny. The effects of claimed miracles that aren’t just a matter of opinion could be checked to see if the effects were real and on very rare occasions the process of bringing them about could be checked for fraud but that isn’t usually possible. James Randi style magic isn’t useful if you really want to know what is going on since it is entirely possible to reproduce effects that only appear to be the same thing but which obviosly aren’t. That’s what the profession of magician is all about. Randi himself has not been subjected to his own methods, sysematically and by those competent in his skills. I’d also point out that the psychologists who make up a large part of the scientists in CSICOP (they are actually in the minority of that “scientific” group) would find large parts of their accepted research base disappear overnight if things could be thrown out by the standards of “debunking”. I’m not saying that it isn’t useful to find real bunk but the CSICOPs have had an obcession to destroy any research into parapsychology, even lying about the honesty and competence of somf of its researchers, and so have thrown their hands in with methods they know aren’t really honest scientific inquiry. It was the outrage I felt when I began looking into this question that has led me to study the CSICOP MO and to see that they’re a bunch of frauds, inquiry wise. Since their one attempt at science was a total disaster “sTARBABY” (look for Dennis Rawlins’ article online) they should limit themselves to going after phony faith healers and the kinds of mediums who rob people of large amounts of money.

“Miracles” that are claimed to have happened once in history, the claims of the virgin birth for example, and have left no physicial evidence are entirely outside of the reach of science. Without physical evidence there is nothing to study, with the claim that it was a unique event there is no possible comparison.

I hope you realize that this isn’t a requirement to believe any claimed miracle, it means you’re free to believe it or not or to just not deal with it. I’m all in favor of freedom to think for yourself.

Absolutely! Go for it. But what exactly will you be looking for to confirm it was a miracle? I mean, what would you expect to find?

Something that wouldn’t have happened anyway. Haldane’s “Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian,” to give the evolution-disproof example. Taking the example of medicine, it’s curious that ‘miraculous cures’ seem to affect mainly those being treated by doctors for the very condition they’re cured of. And when I say “mainly,” I mean something so close to “all” as to be indistinguishable from it. As Dawkins has pointed out, the cure rate for cancer patients going on pilgramages to the big shrines is actually lower than the overall rate of spontaneous remission. Of course, we don’t fully understand spontaneous remission yet; you could claim those as your miracles if you’d like…for now.

Or, if you believe the Catholics, we should have an inexhaustable supply of Jesus’ DNA available for testing that could settle the matter right away.

But what exactly will you be looking for to confirm it was a miracle? I mean, what would you expect to find?

Well, not being a scientist, I would rather not try to answer your question; perhaps someone else wants to take a stab at that. I’m just glad to hear you agree with me that miraculous claims can be studied by science.

CARR
SO if somebody was walking around with no heart, you would scoff at the idea that nedical science could confirm the lack of a heart, because that person would be the only person who had no heart, and science could not replicate such a condition?