[extropy-chat] Re: Damien grants psi evidence

[BillK]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:51:43 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote:
> Of course it's also obvious that psi effects *must* usually be small, since
> we don't see paranormal effects most of time. Experiments are designed to
> concentrate or elicit these effects, making them visible to an extent not
> found in ordinary daily life.
> 
> As for statistical competence, it's worth noting that Utts is a professor
> of statistics at UC, Davis, with a PhD in Statistics. This is not an
> argument from authority, but it does suggest that she's not reaching these
> conclusions out of ignorance.
> 

The problem with 'remote viewing' is that it is subjective. It is
mostly based on a single judge saying how similar a rough sketch is to
the chosen subject. The judge does not take into account how much
*more* similar the sketch might be to many other subjects not under
consideration. It is a bit like a 'cold-reader' fishing for hits among
his audience. ' I have a young man here - Joe, John, James, etc.
If you start with biased data, which itself will vary depending on the
opinions of different judges, then the statistical analysis will be
clever garbage.

Utts commented in her 1995 paper:
"8. There is compelling evidence that precognition, in which the
target is selected after the subject has given the description, is
also successful."

So, either she now has time travel as well, or this is evidence that
the whole process of matching rough sketches with selected pictures is
a bag of worms.


In 1995 she was also very keen on the Ganzfeld experiments which
appeared to show results above chance level. However a re-analysis in
1999 casts doubt on the previous reported successes.

New Analyses Raise Doubts About Replicability of ESP Findings
<http://www.csicop.org/si/9911/lilienfeld.html>

Utts herself says that esp effects are not replicable because humans
aren't like that.
"the best hitters in the major baseball leagues cannot hit on demand.
Nor can we predict when someone will hit or when they will score a
home run. In fact, we cannot even predict whether or not a home run
will occur in a particular game."
But, after analysis, over a long series of trials, they will be above
average. So for any particular test case, esp (if it exists) is pretty
well useless.
Nothing there for the scientific method to get its teeth into.

I'll carry on believing it is all clever rubbish until much better
evidence is available.

BillK