Skeptiko – Science at the Tipping Point

I don't think modern medium research is as good as the historical research of Hodgson, Logde, etc.

But that being said, I think something is missing from descriptions of the triple-blind medium study. It's not simply that 13 out of 16 subjects felt satisfied. Rather, 13 out of 16 subjects picked the reading that the medium intended for them to pick.

So let's say a medium writes down two readings on two pieces of paper. One paper contains the reading that was intended for me, and the other paper contains the reading that was intended for somebody else. I look over the two papers, and I pick the one that matches my own life more accurately. Moreover, that paper just so happens to be the same paper that the medium intended for me.

THAT is what happened 13 out of 16 times, despite the fact that the sitters and the mediums never interacted. The mediums were indeed given the sitters' first names, but Bieschel and Schwartz controlled for details that could have been obtained that way.

That being said, if critics want more controls, then let's give them more controls. If mediumship is for real, then there's nothing to fear from controls…

Wow, a bunch of ultra-closed minded skeptics if ever a heard one(or three)

Not worth debating with them because it wouldn't matter what you said or what evidence you provided, these three would find some problem.

Wow they're the close minded ones? I don't think so. Most of the argument was either misdirection on the part of the host, or outright denial of counter points. Simply saying 'I disagree' and then moving the goal posts or throwing out a red herring is not a clever response to a counter argument. Also the host is guilty of being completely ignorant of the law of small numbers vs. the law of large numbers.

LOSN: Judgmental bias which occurs when it is assumed that the characteristics of a sample population can be estimated from a small number of observations or data points.

LOLN: As a general principle it means that, in the long run, the average (mean) of a long series of observations may be taken as the best estimate of the 'true value' of a variable. In other words, what is unpredictable and chancy in case of an individual is predictable and uniform in the case of a large group.

Source: Buisnessdictionary.com

It is easy, patterns can easily be recognized in any small population of any random data. It is only in large sets of properly gathered data that significance can be seen. Is 16 data points enough? Absolutely not, further more a thousand, or even several thousand trials might show significance, but a review of the methodology would be paramount in proving that significance. Here its is both small numbers and poor methodology. The host is biased towards the positive outcome of the trial and is unable to stap bak and eamine the real effectiveness of the trial. Because of this he tries to lead the skeptics away from this point, he wants them to “assume” the methodology is good, so that he can bait them into agreeing that this study was significant. The skeptics would not aquiesce to this, and apparently that makes them close minded?

Either way the host does not understand a scientific or rational approach to a positive claim, which is to assume a neutral position without evidence. Mediums are making a claim, the default position is non belief in that claim until scientific evidence can be produced to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. The host biases himself when he states that he what he thinks is true regardless of evidence (the continuation of human consciousness beyond death). The host dodges counter arguments and claims that he will have another guest tell him what to think. He basically says “I don't beieve you, so I am going to reaffirm my confirmation bias in a later podcast”. He offers absolutely no good argument for the poor controls in the eperiment and instead invokes an appeal to authority, saying that he knows the people responsible for the study are good researchers. He does this on many occasions, but this method of debate is pointless and is only useful in coaersing an opponent into “badmounthing” the researcher not the research. These skeptics do not fall for any of his tom foolery and instead keep on point, beause of this the host changes the topic entirely and states he will talk to someone else at some other time. The host is really a poor thinker, and never said much more than I think it is so, therefore it is so. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

'20 something 'athiests on the ramage. EEK

Ahh I'm on a ramage.. wait a ramage? EEK

As a physician and medical researcher myself for the past 20 years, I really took exception to the point that the guests made about the fact that they were uncomfortable accepting that this was a positive study (even if one felt that it were only weakly so) because of the nature of what was being studied (existence of an afterlife vs. which brand of toothpaste I am trying to guess). The question being asked wasn't whether the results of the study constitute irrefutable proof of the an afterlife, it was whether this study provides positive data to support a growing body of evidence to that effect (or for the more skeptical, that “something” beyond pure materialism is going on). While I agree that an n of 16 was small, one can't toss the results of any study based on a biased world-view that a priori refutes the possibility of a positive outcome. This false assumption was one that they clearly stated multiple times as part of their assessment. For me this shifts my view of their analysis from scientific to scientism. Alex clearly has a bias in the other direction, BUT despite his obvious zeal for the subject matter, does not play the same game when it came to the simple question at hand. Although the guests rightly ask questions pertaining to the study design, statistical rigor, investigator bias and how the data were interpreted, by the end of the broadcast, I recognized something that I have seen hundreds of times when a reviewer comes with a preconceived notion of what the study should show (in this case that it “is all a bunch of flaky rubbish”); they pick the trial apart in every way imaginable until they can rationalize a point in time when they can say “aha! see, it's complete garbage” in order to satisfy their own expectations. No, one would not get a drug approved based on this one small study (not even close), but one would have to admit that there was probably a positive “signal” there that warranted further study in larger trials and in different way. If they could have just moved in that direction more, their true “skepticism” would have been more believable.

eperiment-coaersing-beause-badmounthing-beieve —-stap bak and eamine wot you rit abuv, luv.

I agree Tim. I think Alex does a fantastic job but I couldn't make it through this episode. These guys seemed closed minded and uninformed.

See at least you read it that time. Thats a start!

Yeah, but I wish I hadn't bothered !

A very calm performance from Alex, under provocation from three(decent but.. 'dyed in the wool' products of Acamdemia(at least that's how they came across)

Alex gave the game away when he described designing the experiment as “let’s see if we can make that coin flip in our direction as much as possible.” That's not science, it's chicanery. If anything I think the RI crew were too easy on him. The lack of control point was a good one, not to mention the fact that every medium could have produced a reading for every subject, increasing the amount of data for the study. Alex hasn't even a rudimentary knowledge of the scientific method or he's shilling for paranormal research. Either way, it was painful to listen to someone defend a “scientific” paper with such excuses as, “I disagree”, “these studies are very difficult and expensive” and “the problem is we're not focusing on people's very real experiences” – none of these are valid counterpoints to the criticism. He's basically saying, I believe in this stuff so that's what's important, not the validity of the study.

Oh, come off it, Amber
Are you one of the girlfriends ?

What a staggeringly sexist comment. A woman can't disagree with a poorly developed argument without being a girlfriend of the adversaries? Come out of your cave, Bon_388 and join the 21st century. I do not know any of the participants in this conversation and believe it or not I honed my critical thinking skills in a University – they let us in those now, you know.

'Come out of your cave and join the 21st century' ….Amber.

Don't you see how really stupid that comment is, Amber ?
Everyone since Adam(oh and Eve-person) has laid claim to living in THE..!! CENTURY of enlightenment. “WE LIVE IN THE……first..second… third..9th 14th… 16 th… 21ST CENTURY !!

Can't you understand that EVERYBODY that has ever lived / AND WILL LIVE… has made the same statement…It has no value.
If you honed your critical skills in a university, God help us.

It was a flippant remark, nowhere near “staggeringly sexist”.

Bon_300 do you have anything to add to the discussion or do you just attack people you don't agree with personally? You made a stupid and sexist comment and I responded to it. It was intended to be an insult, not a critical statement for or against the topic of discussion, which for some reason you are choosing to ignore. That leads me to believe you have nothing else to offer. I prefer to be in an environment where people's opinions are responded to with reasoned arguments instead of schoolyard insults. You bore me. Goodbye.

Where have I attacked YOU. I said …oh come off it etc…big deal !

Amber, sexist comments, by the way, seem to work only in favour of women. The problem is you've had your head filled full of political correctness. It's going to take years to undo the damage.

Bon is a troll: One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

What a waste.

I know right, why read anything that contradicts your poor conception of reality!

please make it be about the issues… and above all try and be loving… even when you disagree

I agree that a small study can be a signal that more research is warranted, but in this case the host was using this as good evidence that the effect is real, not that it simply warrants further investigation. The problem with this debate though, is that the host seems to be trying to lead the guests into conceding to his point of view in order to trap them later in the argument, the guests will not concede and the discussion is fruitless. Unfortunately this seems to be a common occurance in this podcast (I am referencing the Brian Dunning and Steve Novella interviews). I also agree that the skeptics did a poor job of succicntly making their arguments leading to multiple unclear analogies and alot of confusion.

Hi

Hi – sorry, strange things happening with my PC! Yes, should have bought a mac.

Firstly, thank you to Alex for having us on Skeptiko. We very much enjoyed the experience. It is very interesting to see how divisive the conversation was in terms of what constitutes an acceptable protocol for mediumship testing. I think Alex is certainly right that the dialogue needs to continue between believers and skeptics. However, I certainly feel that any compromise as to what constitutes a good scientific method would be false. It isn't something I am in favour of. Once we move that goalpost towards relativism I think the door opens.

Just to clear up one thing, Amber definitely isn't one of our girlfriends. If what I read is correct we're on entirely separate continents!

Thanks again for all of the opinions and comments, the entire experience has been both interesting and entertaining.

Alex, I'm tired of the closed minded skeptics who refuse to honestly look at the research. If a skeptic is not open minded please do not have them on.

Just to follow up, they're talking at you, not with you. I get the feeling they have zero interest in having a genuine dialogue, it's more about ticking off their talking points. I have noticed this time and again with the skeptics you have on.

is the debate whether the mediums are (1) fraudulent, (2) that the source of information cannot be determined. I would like to see the skeptics design the experiment, and not evaluate it.

ST, there isn't such a thing as a close-minded skeptic which to me suggests you have little or no understanding of what skepticism is or what skepticism does.

It is a way of evaluating information one is presented with, it isn't about having belief or no belief in something. To be skeptical is to be openminded.

To be close minded is to have made a decision you wont budge on which isn't what skepticism is about because a skeptic should, and is, willing to change their opinion based on good evidence.

Also, not that personal testimony actually counts for anything, but as the host for Righteous Indignation who couldn't make it to the skeptico intervew I can assure you that nobody involved with RI has a closed mind.

I also happen to agree with Ambers original comments too, and I think you were very dismissive of what she had to say in your reply of “oh come off of it, are you one of their girlfriends?”

I would even go as far as to say that your reply was closeminded because you've made your mind up and aren't willing to accept anything anyone else may say. Just sayin'

We've designed thousands of experiments and they have all given negative results.
It's only afterwards, when their utter failure is apparent that the alleged psychics start whining about the protocols they agreed to in the first place.
The problems are not with the experiments or the level of evidence required. After all thousands of experiments in all fields of science are performed every day and the experimenters make claims for effects that stand up to the most rigorous examination. Their claims are absolutely ripped to shreds and if there are any holes in the protocols they have to go back and plug them and repeat their experiments.
If scientists can provide robust, repeatable and clear evidence for some of the most freakishly bizarre phenomena ever claimed (Casimir effect anyone ?) then why should alleged psychics be held to any lower standards of evidence ?

Psychics, If you can do what you say you can do then do it under controlled conditions with the same standards of evidence that your average post-grad has to live up to.
Put up or shut up.

Leonora Piper was rigorously tested and passed with flying colours. Dr Hodgson changed his position from ultra skeptic to believer on that basis. Or is that now no good because it's too far in the past ?

Can you quote the respectable peer reviewed journal reference please ?
Your say so is not enough as you can appreciate.
As an aside, if she'd been “rigorously tested and passed with flying colours” then firstly she'd be a million dollars richer and secondly we'd be living in a world that was absolutely and profoundly changed by the discovery of an entirely new field of scientific knowledge that could be investigated. And people like me would be astounded and utterly delighted that there were new things to investigate.
Unfortunately neither is the case yet so, bring on your data. If it passes the same standards of evidence as real but bonkers stuff like the fact that 80% of the universe is made of stuff we can't detect then we'll pay attention.
Put up or shut up.

'She'd be a million dollars richer' …. Why don't you go and read the literature, Dave….she died sixty years ago. It may be surprising to you, Dave(the hard nosed materialistic skeptic) but Leonora Piper was not interested in money.
I don't care if people like you accept evidence for the paranormal or not.

'Put up or shut up'

Once again, Super Dave the skeptic(who would like to poke(OR p..ch) me in the eye)

PUT YOUR BOXING GLOVES DOWN AND GO AND READ THE RESEARCH !

Gosh, why do people get so tense about these things? Relax! It's not like, life or death or anything. Damn.

What about the theory of cosmic consciousness, e.g., Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner, MWI, or the decoherence theory, e.g., Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg? Is it a problem of tuning in? What if intuitives have something to offer other than just exasperating analyticals? Are there such things as intuitive dogs and analytical canines, and if we think not, is it just because we are too ignorant? Is it all real world out there, and what is real? Is a problem with swallowing this, is that it's not able to be measured directly yet, and we really don't understand the mind?

None of your points are relevant to whether psychic abilities exist or not.
Until alleged psychics can come up with something better than badly designed protocols and post-hoc excuses for failure they will not be taken seriously.

Ignorance is not a problem. Filling in the areas of ignorance with magic instead of reality is a problem.

True, it's a problem. But, people used to think X-rays were a hoax, because no one had seen them or understood them.

Quite so. But when Rontgen's claims were investigated his effects and results could be repeated reliably by hundreds of other scientists. And now there are millions of experiments confirming his data. When you have an X-ray in hospital you are part of yet another scientific experiment. X-rays are a part of the established scientific knowledge pool.
When we investigate the claims of alleged psychics we cannot reproduce their results and there is no reliable data.
All we want is for them to meet the same standards of evidence as everyone else. To date they have failed utterly.
That's it.

In reply to Wondering :
Quite so. But when Rontgen's claims were investigated his effects and results could be repeated reliably by hundreds of other scientists. And now there are millions of experiments confirming his data. When you have an X-ray in hospital you are part of yet another scientific experiment. X-rays are a part of the established scientific knowledge pool.
When we investigate the claims of alleged psychics we cannot reproduce their results and there is no reliable data.
All we want is for them to meet the same standards of evidence as everyone else. To date they have failed utterly.
That's it.

[edit]this comment reply offset system is rubbish[/quote]

What are you talking about, Hayley, there's no such thing as a close minded skeptic. Of course there is, Academia is run by them.

Ha Ha Ha….(anything paranormal) It can't occur…… therefore it doesn't occur, and that's an end to it.

You're missing the boat here Tim. To say 'something paranormal can not happen' is apriori skepticism, not the skepticism we are discussing. If something can be definitely shown to be anomalous under experimentation conducted in strictly scientific conditions then I will sit up and take notice. As for academia being run by a priori skeptics I think you're making a rather hasty generalisation.

It can't occur and therefore it doesn't occur is more or less the position that most high ranking members of academia adopt, Trystan. Does Dickie Dawkins ever look properly at the NDE research, for instance ? No, he believes he doesn't need to because 'there can't be anything in it'…circular thinking. Go and ask Lewis Wolpert about the same thing. He'd chortle scornfully at you…”Don't be so bloody ridiculous, you silly arse, how can you have life without a body !

One of my friends is very high up in academia and secretly accepts the paranormal as fact, but he would never admit it to his colleagues etc, his research grants would be in danger.
And talking of anomolies, what about the Ganzfield experiments and Ray Hyman's comments.

If there is no good evidence for anything, why believe it to be real unless some compelling evidence comes to light in proper scientific conditions? You're also using guilt by association…are Dawkins and Wolpert the same as the entire scientific community? As for your friend, you're just using a plea to oppression. Likewise, so what if you know an academic who believes the paranormal is genuine? Even if Hawking believes in goblins does that automatically render them real?

Because believe or not, Trystan, there is compelling evidence. Very compelling. But you don't want to look at it. That's fine, but don't pretend that your a man of science because in science you follow the data and whether you like it or not , the data points strongly to survival.

Eileen Garrett.

Tim, I disagree. If the evidence was good, I think there would be grounds here for investigation. Unfortunately, there isn't. The problem with the study here is that it was a “forced decision”. The subject had to pick one of the two profiles. This completely negates the case that they could both be crap. I'll give you a scenario: One profile says your father is dead, the other that your mother is dead. Both your parents are alive, but you are required to choose one profile. They're both wrong. The solution would be to present at least two (better to have at least three) profiles. The choices could then be A) A is more accurate; B) B is more accurate; C) neither is accurate or D) both are accurate.

[deleted by author]

The Righteous Indignation people really need to brush up on some basic math skills. How can they even begin to discuss scientific data without a basic understanding of p values? Just in case they read this, here is quick introduction to binomial probabilities:

http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/binomialX.html

Alex was pretty kind given the fact that these guys were so ill informed not just on the subject at hand, but on some very basic concepts used in data analysis. Mind you, I did have a good laugh at their failed attempts to figure out probabilities. hehehe….

The RI crew need to go back to school and brush up on their math skills. Honestly, those guys were a joke. They might be better off doing something less challenging like debunking Most Haunted.

Yes, that's called a two-tailed t-test and is most often the standard you're using. I don't really see your point here. The p-value generated from this study has taken this into account.

I would indeed say that the group behind the global consciousness project does offer theories about what they are looking at, contrary to what Alex said in the podcast. The way I see it, the problem reveals itself already in the title of the whole project. To call it the global consciousness project reveals that the researchers have beliefs about how this effect comes about and what it is related to.

Let's say that what they suggest their data says actually is the case. That the different random number generators are more coherent with each other during major events that affects people compared to baseline. How does that, in any way say anything about consciousness? Sure, consciousness could be involved, but that will just be speculation.

Alex; I guess it would be good if you changed the settings for the Disqus plugin to not allow more indentations than five or something when people answer to each others post. As it is now, they get ridiculously narrow or just completely disappear to the right. At least for me.

good suggestion… but didn't find an easy way to do with disqus options…
limited nesting to 7 levels… hope this helps.

Alex

Alex

I was really pleased to hear you suggest during this podcast that you would interview an appropriate “expert” in statistics on your show to discuss some of the more complex statistical issues involved in the studies discussed. I was very disappointed that at the end of the podcast you brushed over this follow-up interview, with a general “I think this has been resolved” or something similar.

Given that there has not been many (any?) comments here related to this maybe most people agree with you that this issue was resolved. I have no idea whether the lads from Manchester have a valid point or not (or if you are both of the mark completely) but to me this was not resolved one way or the other.

Given in a previous podcast with the Skeptics Guide to the Universe (SGU #125) there were issues raised around the statistical approach to the paranormal study that was been discussed – I would have thought this would be a great opportunity to get an “expert” in the field of social research on your show to provided some independent advice on these issues. Simply saying “I think you are completely wrong…” doesn't really provide any evidence to the debate on an issue that is likely to be raised again.

I have spent 15 years analysing large data sets and surveys and from past experience it is very easy to get significantly different results depending on the structure of the data collection and the analysis conducted afterward. This for me is therefore a big issue to be cleared up.

I've enjoyed listening to the 2 or 3 Skeptiko podcasts I've listened to and particularly like the calm debating style that you encourage on the podcast (and that you try to provide yourself). The brushing off of this follow-up interview, that you indicated you would undertake at least twice during this podcast, was disappointing.

Thank you for your generally interesting podcasts and for taking an interest in paranormal research which does not seem to be covered in detail elsewhere in “podcast land”. I hope you get the opportunity to interview a qualified “statistician” on your show in the future – if you do might I also suggest that you get one of the more critical skeptics on the podcast at the same time to cover the skeptics angle.

Regards

MMcCarthy

It seemed to me like we had reached some consensus by the end of the

podcast regarding the probability of a 50/50 event occurring 13/16

times… as I'm sure you're aware this is basic stuff you can do in

Excel.

Hi Alex

Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Sorry I wasn't clearer – the statistical issue or rather issue regarding methodological approach I am referring to in this podcast is whether it is necessary to have a scientific control (re: psychic medium experiment) and if so, the importance of and in what form this “control” should take in studies of this general nature (social sciences studies not just paranormal studies). I believe this is what you were referring to when you first suggested interviewing an appropriate statistician (~minute 24:50, itunes Skeptiko podcast 106) as it directly followed the detail discussion (with some force and heat from the critics) about scientific control and the 13/16 issue had yet to be discussed in detail.

In general the more critical skeptics seem to point out that the paranormal research methodology and analysis does not meet normal scientific research standards (I believe the appropriateness of meta-analysis (?) has been raised a number of times) for these types of studies. Them saying it “invalidates the studies” and you saying “it doesn't have any impact” are mearly two conflicting opinions. I believe, as you have suggested, an independent researcher/statistician (if one exists) who can provide some “expert” advice and who can also point to more then a handful of relevant studies as evidence for their statements, would be an informative and entertaining way of providing some informed data on whether scientific controls are necessary (and in what types of studies). They could also provide general information on the type of study methodology and analysis that is typically applied in these types of social research studies.

I have had a little exposure to surveys (design and analysis) of this nature but I have no real understanding of the importance or necessity of scientific control in these types of studies or even what a meta-analysis is (or in what context it should or should not be used). So for people like myself (or those even less informed) this could have the makings for a really interesting and informative podcast.

Cheers

MMcCarthy

Hi Matt.. such a show would be interesting, but not sure how soon I

will get there.

Also, not sure I see much controversy to resolve. The issue of

control raised in this episode seemed to go away once the RI guys

really understood what was going on (i.e. forced choice between two

blinded readings). Clearly one of the readings is a control.

With regard to meta-analysis, each case is different. The one we

explored most throughly was a long time ago with Dean Radin, Steve

Novella and Ray Hyman (http://www.reason9.com/podcast/index.php?id=9).

This was rather clear-cut example of the appropriate use of

meta-analysis. Radin did a meta-analysis spanning three presentiment

experiments. He used methods he refined and eventually settled on

during his his last experiment.

I tried to get Dr. Novella or Dr. Hyman to defend their position with

no success. Dr. Steve (who really knows better) deferred to Hyman…

and Hyman refused all requests (even by Steve) to respond.