|
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
 Posted - 04/17/2004 : 08:36:21
|
New Scientist vol 181 issue 2438 - 13 March 2004 - Robert Matthews
[Moderator edited to remove copyrighted material. Please use a link in the future, not a complete quote. Thanks -- Valiant Dancer]
|
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 04/17/2004 15:14:06
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 13:09:50 [Permalink]
|
I am trying to get some articles on this, but I can't find a lot of recent articles on this.
A Medline (database of articles on medical/health related issues in scientific magazines) -search on extra sensory perception gave me three articles. 2 were actually researching ESP. The first one came from 1966 (Green CE, Eastman ME, Adams ST, Birth order, familiy size and extra-sensory perception, British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology. 5(2):150-2, 1966 Jun) didn't have an abstract, so I don't know what's in it at this point.
The second was more recent. It didn't find any significant effects of possible ESP amongst 27,856 participants in trials with a "mind machine". ESP was being detected by letting the participants predict coint tosses. (Wiseman R, Greening E. The mind machine: a mass participation experiment into the possible existence of extra-sensory perception. British Journal of Psychology. 93(Pt 4):487-99, 2002 Nov)
Pubmed (the free equivalent of Medline) gives 117 results. However, the most recent result was published in 1978. None of the articles had an abstract. Not being in a library now (or anywhere near it) I'm not able to check out what's in them.
The point with statistics is that they can be deceptive, and shouldn't solely be relied upon unless they are backed up by plausibel biological pathways to explain the results. Hence the reason that striptokinase finally got accepted (if I read your post correctly). The statistics weren't conclusive (note that they also didn't say the treatment did not work), but a plausible biological pathway was present.
I am suspicious at the claim that there is a significant body of scientific research showing the undoubted truth of ESP. There don't seem to be a lot of articles written about this in recent years, except for the one cited above, which didn't find any result. My suspicion is that there are also a lot (or maybe more) studies showing a negative result, or that indeed the design of the studies is flawed in some way. Yes, doing research has a subjective part in it. And yes, new theories often have a hard time getting through the scientific treadmill, since a lot of researchers have to be convinced of the result. However, in my viewpoint new theories are also never discarded immediately, and extraordinary claims should indeed bring about an extraordinary amount of evidence. If someone comes to me with an experiment that things drop up instead of down, I'll ask him to repeat his assertion over and over again so I can find the catch. As far as I know at this point of time, paranormal research hasn't shown that the research is valid, and a lot of catches have been found. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 14:55:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In short, by all the normal rules for assessing scientific evidence, the case for ESP has been made.
That would explain all the money Randi has been giving away to proven psychics.
quote:
Bayes's theorem shows how the chances of an event happening change in light of developments, such as the odds of a horse winning a race given that it won its last one
From what I read on Bayes' theorem, the only thing that changes in this case is the probability of someone betting on said horse. We don't really have all the information needed to calculate the true probability of any horse winning a race, so we really have no idea how that probability changes given the results of the last race (unless of course the horse broke a leg in the last race ).
Bayes' theorem seems to be more aptly applied to economics, trying to predict the behavior of people, and thus markets. To broadly apply it to all scientific research, claiming that no one can ever be objective, therefore scientists must be biased when they conclude that claims of paranormal ability have not been proven, is a bit of a stretch. The purpose of well designed, double blind, peer reviewed studies (notice that none supporting the reality of ESP was actually cited in the article) is to remove the subjectivity from the process.
quote:
By the standards of conventional science, the weight of evidence is now very impressive, but the scientific community refuses to accept the reality of ESP. Instead, they insist that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
I suppose the weight of the evidence is "impressive". The quality of the evidence I have seen however leaves something to be desired. And the nerve of the scientific community, demanding evidence commensurate with the claim !
quote:
It simply reflects the fact that science alone cannot give us what we seek: an objective view of reality.
I strongly disagree. Science is our best chance for objectivity. And if science "alone" is not enough, I wonder what the author thinks should be used along with science to come to an objective view of reality. ESP?
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 15:09:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
SO, YOU think you are rational, dispassionate and swayed only by hard evidence? Then try this little test. Last September two teams of respected scientists unveiled the outcome of research to prove the effectiveness of two very different agents. One team reported a powerful effect, much larger than expected by chance alone; the other could only muster an indifferent result with borderline significance. Which of these do you find the more convincing proof? Most of us would view this as a no-brainer, and cite the first. But you probably sense a trap and would like to know more before deciding. The weak result came from an international team of medical scientists studying a new drug aimed at reducing the chances of recurrent heart attacks. They found that the odds of another heart attack fell by just a few per cent, barely better than the reduction expected by chance alone. The far stronger finding came from a team at the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh, UK, and seems to support the existence of extrasensory perception (ESP).
Note also that in this first alinea of the article, there is no description of what the conclusion of the international research group was on whether the medicin should be used or not. They just reported a weak effect. That's it. Probably, further research is necessary. The Koestler Parapsychology Unit reported a strong effect. But here, suddenly, the author of the article does make an inference about whether ESP exists or not. IMO the first alinea is misleading in its assertions.
A single research is not enough to prove a theory. Scientists always want more (yes, they're greedy). Which would I find the most convincing proof? Well, I'd like to see the whole picture, not a single part of the puzzle. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
