5 ms·

The strange thing is that with that many people with experiences the James Randy Challenge never had to pay anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_D

The strange thing is that with that many people with experiences the James Randy Challenge never had to pay anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_...

yters 6y ago
I am curious why it has never been claimed. At least ESP seems to be very well documented from a scientific perspective.
- anoonmoose 6y ago
  Ah, well, there's your problem: ESP has not been "very well documented from a scientific perspective", unless you mean that in the negative sense.
  - snet0 6y ago
    Have you looked at the research in this area or are you just winging it?
    - anoonmoose 6y ago
      Somewhere in between those two extremes. I'd love to see/hear what you think qualifies as "very well documented from a scientific perspective".
      - snet0 6y ago
        In lieu of just linking to studies, I'll link to a great Slatestar Codex post: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-o...
        yters 6y ago
        This would naively seem to be a yes to psi. Bem got a strong signal and Scott doesn't believe in psi so he thinks science in general is deeply flawed as it currently works.
        anoonmoose 6y ago
        That is absolutely not my takeaway from that article.
        yters 6y ago
        What is your takeaway? Scott at the end says he doesn't believe is psi despite the results because Coyne says psi is crap. That doesn't sound like checking your priors at the door. At any rate contra your original claim it appears a psi effect has been extensively scientifically documented.
        snet0 6y ago
        Should we "check our priors at the door", though? When neutrinos were "observed" to travel faster than light, the most appropriate conclusion wasn't "well I guess we were fundamentally wrong about just about everything we've found in the last century", but was probably something like "okay, but can I take a closer look at your data". With priors left aside, the foundations of physics are questioned. I think the same holds for psi: if you abandon your priors and just make conclusions from which way some data swings, there is something very different about the universe than what has previously been attested to. I think Scott's analysis of "my priors against this are so strong that evidence in support of it looks more like evidence against the validity of the methodology" broadly matches with mine. Forgive me if I am misreading you, here.
        yters 6y ago
        Yes, that is my takeaway. Psi is heavily evidenced by the scientific literature, and is dismissed because it goes against the priors of the scientific establishment. Not dismissed because there is anything inherently faulty with the research, at least compared to the standard scientific milieu.
    - MikeDelta 6y ago
      I would love to find out that ESP really is possible. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any proof so far. I believe that the CIA used to experiment with it, but nothing useful came out of it.
      - yters 6y ago
        I don't have direct proof, but groups like SRI have published results in IEEE.
- gus_massa 6y ago
  This is exactly the problem the Randi Challenge tries to solve. There are reports and papers from time to time about ESP, but as far as we know they are just flukes, p-hacking, bad experiment design or plain lying. Some of them get press coverage, but the press just copy&paste the press release. So the idea is to make some challenge that where there is a magician team to detect frauds, a statistics team to avoid p-hacking and minimize the chance of flukes, something equivalent to pre-registering and other security measures to ensure the result is legit. What is the best scientifically documented EPS experiment?
  - yters 6y ago
    Dean Radin has a fascinating book looking at the evidence for ESP. There is quite a bit since the topic has obvious military applications if it works. There are a number of metaanalyses he looks at which indicate it is not p hacking. The book has some interesting brain impulse graphs which show a clear anticipation of randomly chosen images, when the image is distressing. As for Randi, who watches the watchers? Is he truly disinterested in his challenge, or are his examinations also biased? Additionally, the research I've seen shows a statistically significant, but faint result, so it may not be easy to reproduce in Randi's setting. All that being said, I have not personally been able to reproduce the results, even though the claim is that almost everyone has a low level of latent ESP capability, which can be amplified through training. SRI even has an ESP training app if you want to try verifying the claims.
    - anoonmoose 6y ago
      Are you familiar with the critiques of Radin's works? They're plentiful.
      - yters 6y ago
        I found this nature article which claims he has inflated the p values, because Radin fails to include hypothetical negative tests in his sample analysis of the file drawer. Seems pretty clear, although I don't understand it yet, so I will need need to think about it further. That being said, I would still have trouble accounting for all the various pieces of evidence in his book. E.g. the anticipation graphs are pretty remarkable. https://www.nature.com/articles/39784 https://www.nature.com/articles/39784

yters 6y ago

I am curious why it has never been claimed. At least ESP seems to be very well documented from a scientific perspective.

anoonmoose 6y ago
Ah, well, there's your problem: ESP has not been "very well documented from a scientific perspective", unless you mean that in the negative sense.
- snet0 6y ago
  Have you looked at the research in this area or are you just winging it?
  - anoonmoose 6y ago
    Somewhere in between those two extremes. I'd love to see/hear what you think qualifies as "very well documented from a scientific perspective".
    - snet0 6y ago
      In lieu of just linking to studies, I'll link to a great Slatestar Codex post: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-o...
      - yters 6y ago
        This would naively seem to be a yes to psi. Bem got a strong signal and Scott doesn't believe in psi so he thinks science in general is deeply flawed as it currently works.
        anoonmoose 6y ago
        That is absolutely not my takeaway from that article.
        yters 6y ago
        What is your takeaway? Scott at the end says he doesn't believe is psi despite the results because Coyne says psi is crap. That doesn't sound like checking your priors at the door. At any rate contra your original claim it appears a psi effect has been extensively scientifically documented.
        snet0 6y ago
        Should we "check our priors at the door", though? When neutrinos were "observed" to travel faster than light, the most appropriate conclusion wasn't "well I guess we were fundamentally wrong about just about everything we've found in the last century", but was probably something like "okay, but can I take a closer look at your data". With priors left aside, the foundations of physics are questioned. I think the same holds for psi: if you abandon your priors and just make conclusions from which way some data swings, there is something very different about the universe than what has previously been attested to. I think Scott's analysis of "my priors against this are so strong that evidence in support of it looks more like evidence against the validity of the methodology" broadly matches with mine. Forgive me if I am misreading you, here.
        yters 6y ago
        Yes, that is my takeaway. Psi is heavily evidenced by the scientific literature, and is dismissed because it goes against the priors of the scientific establishment. Not dismissed because there is anything inherently faulty with the research, at least compared to the standard scientific milieu.
  - MikeDelta 6y ago
    I would love to find out that ESP really is possible. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any proof so far. I believe that the CIA used to experiment with it, but nothing useful came out of it.
    - yters 6y ago
      I don't have direct proof, but groups like SRI have published results in IEEE.
gus_massa 6y ago
This is exactly the problem the Randi Challenge tries to solve. There are reports and papers from time to time about ESP, but as far as we know they are just flukes, p-hacking, bad experiment design or plain lying. Some of them get press coverage, but the press just copy&paste the press release. So the idea is to make some challenge that where there is a magician team to detect frauds, a statistics team to avoid p-hacking and minimize the chance of flukes, something equivalent to pre-registering and other security measures to ensure the result is legit. What is the best scientifically documented EPS experiment?
- yters 6y ago
  Dean Radin has a fascinating book looking at the evidence for ESP. There is quite a bit since the topic has obvious military applications if it works. There are a number of metaanalyses he looks at which indicate it is not p hacking. The book has some interesting brain impulse graphs which show a clear anticipation of randomly chosen images, when the image is distressing. As for Randi, who watches the watchers? Is he truly disinterested in his challenge, or are his examinations also biased? Additionally, the research I've seen shows a statistically significant, but faint result, so it may not be easy to reproduce in Randi's setting. All that being said, I have not personally been able to reproduce the results, even though the claim is that almost everyone has a low level of latent ESP capability, which can be amplified through training. SRI even has an ESP training app if you want to try verifying the claims.
  - anoonmoose 6y ago
    Are you familiar with the critiques of Radin's works? They're plentiful.
    - yters 6y ago
      I found this nature article which claims he has inflated the p values, because Radin fails to include hypothetical negative tests in his sample analysis of the file drawer. Seems pretty clear, although I don't understand it yet, so I will need need to think about it further. That being said, I would still have trouble accounting for all the various pieces of evidence in his book. E.g. the anticipation graphs are pretty remarkable. https://www.nature.com/articles/39784 https://www.nature.com/articles/39784