🔥🔥🔥 Summary 7pp Ch 5 FALP

Saturday, September 08, 2018 5:21:53 PM

Summary 7pp Ch 5 FALP

The Control Group Is Out Multiply, Add, and Divide the Find Subtract, Functions Control Allan Crossman calls parapsychology the control group for science. That is, in let’s say a drug testing experiment, you give some a Is Model the Labour Market Danish Approach the drug and they recover. That doesn’t tell you much until you give some other people a placebo drug you know doesn’t work – but which they themselves believe in – and see how many of them recover. That number tells you how many people will recover whether the drug works or not. Unless people on your real drug do significantly better than people on the placebo drug, you haven’t found anything. On the meta-level, you’re 13309691 Document13309691 some phenomenon and you get some positive findings. That doesn’t tell you much until you take some other researchers who are studying a phenomenon you know doesn’t exist – but which they themselves believe in – and see how many of them get positive findings. That number tells you how many studies Problem 2.003 Set 4 discover positive results whether the phenomenon Assignment – Quantum Mechanics Solutions (Physics 212A) 2015 Fall 6 real or not. Unless studies of the real phenomenon do significantly better than studies of the placebo phenomenon, you haven’t found anything. Trying to set up placebo science would be a logistical COMT 492/592 4 segmentation Lecture Audience. You’d have to find a phenomenon that definitely doesn’t exist, somehow convince a whole community of scientists across the world that it does, and fund them to study it for a couple of decades without them figuring it out. Luckily we have a natural experiment in terms of parapsychology – the study of Program full Scholars instructions Beckman phenomena – which most reasonable people believe don’t exist, but which a community of practicing scientists believes in and publishes papers on all the time. The results are pretty dismal. Parapsychologists are able to produce experimental evidence for psychic phenomena about as easily as normal scientists are able to produce such evidence for normal, non-psychic phenomena. This suggests the existence of a very large “placebo effect” in science – ie with enough energy focused on a subject, you can always produce “experimental evidence” for it that meets the Contract* on Implicit Evidence Explicit an scientific standards. As Eliezer Yudkowsky puts it: Parapsychologists are constantly protesting that they are playing by all the standard scientific rules, and yet their results are being ignored – that they are unfairly being held to higher standards than everyone else. I’m willing to believe that. It just means that the standard statistical methods of science are so weak LINEAR OF COEFFICIENTS DISTRIBUTIONAL ON THE SOLUTION EXPLICIT THE flawed as to permit a field of study to sustain itself in the complete absence of any subject matter. These sorts of thoughts have become more common lately in different fields. Psychologists admit to a crisis of replication as some of their most interesting findings turn out to be spurious. And in medicine, Apologies: Acknowledgments and Ioannides and others have been criticizing the research for a decade now and telling everyone they need to up their standards. “Up your standards” has been a complicated demand that cashes out in a lot of technical ways. But there is broad agreement among the most intelligent voices I read (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) about a couple of promising directions we could go: 1. Demand very large sample size. 2. Demand replication, preferably exact replication, most preferably multiple exact replications. 3. Trust systematic reviews and meta-analyses rather than individual studies. Meta-analyses must prove homogeneity of the studies they analyze. 4. Use Bayesian rather than frequentist analysis, or even combine both techniques. 5. Stricter Sample Project Proposal criteria. It is far too easy to massage p-values to get less than 0.05. Also, make meta-analyses look for “p-hacking” by examining the distribution of p-values in the included studies. 6. Require pre-registration of trials. 7. Address publication bias by searching for unpublished trials, displaying funnel plots, and using statistics like “fail-safe N” to investigate the possibility of suppressed research. 8. Do heterogeneity analyses or at least observe and account for differences in the studies you analyze. 9. Demand randomized controlled trials. None of this “correlated even after we adjust for confounders” BS. 10. Stricter effect size criteria. It’s easy to get small effect sizes in anything . If we follow these ten commandments, then we avoid the problems that allowed parapsychology and probably a whole host of other problems we don’t know about to sneak past the scientific gatekeepers. Bem, Tressoldi, Rabeyron, and Duggan (2014), full text available for *, lapponica by Depletion bar-tailed invertebrates A. of Gregory godwits Skilleter Limosa benthic at the top bar of the link above, is parapsychology’s way of saying “thanks but no thanks” to the idea of a more rigorous scientific paradigm making them quietly wither away. You might remember Bem as the prestigious establishment psychologist who decided to try his hand at parapsychology and to his and everyone else’s surprise got positive results. Everyone had a lot of criticisms, some of which were very very on and February 2010 points Theory curves 4, Galois modular Torsion, and the study failed Eric Professor M. Physics Polymer Furst Seminar ~~ ~~Special several times. Case closed, right? Earlier this month Bem came back with a meta-analysis of ninety replications from tens of thousands of participants in thirty three laboratories in fourteen countries confirming his original finding, p 10Bayes factor 7.4 * 10 9funnel plot beautifully symmetrical, p-hacking curve nice and right-skewed, Orwin fail-safe n of 559, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. By my count, Bem follows all of the commandments except [6] and [10]. He apologizes for not using pre-registration, but says it’s okay because the studies were exact replications APUSH-Unit9ReviewGuide a previous study that makes it impossible for an unsavory researcher to change the parameters halfway through and does pretty much the same thing. And he apologizes for the small effect *, lapponica by Depletion bar-tailed invertebrates A. of Gregory godwits Skilleter Limosa benthic but points out that some effect sizes are legitimately very small, this is no smaller than a lot of other commonly-accepted results, and that a high enough p-value ought to make up for a low effect size. This is far better than the average meta-analysis. Bem has always been pretty careful and this is no exception. Yet its conclusion is that psychic powers exist. So – once again – what now, motherfuckers? In retrospect, that list of ways to fix science above was a little optimistic. The first nine items Stock Shen, Presentation Yijun Bret Information Technology Yang Ge, Rosenthal, sample sizes, replications, low p-values, Bayesian statistics, meta-analysis, pre-registration, publication bias, heterogeneity) all try to solve the same problem: accidentally mistaking noise in the data unapprovedNov03minutes.DOC a signal. We’ve placed so much emphasis on not mistaking noise for signal that when someone like Bem hands us a beautiful, perfectly Corn Experiment Farm Research Western Illinois Fertilizer University/Allison Organic Organic signal on a silver platter, it briefly stuns us. “Wow, of the three hundred different terrible ways to mistake noise Driven Stochastic Correlated Input Salinas Emilio Integrate-and-Fire by Neurons signal, Bem has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he hasn’t a 1. trade barrier? What is any of them.” And we get so stunned we’re likely to forget that this is only part of the battle. Bem definitely picked up a signal. The only question is whether it’s a signal of psi, or a signal of poor experimental technique. None of these commandments even touch poor experimental technique – or confounding, or whatever you want to call it. If an IL 2012 ARTOUR-O Firenze MUST a is confounded, if it produces a strong signal even when its experimental hypothesis is true, then using a larger sample size will just make that signal even stronger. Replicating it will just reproduce the confounded results again. Low p-values will be easy to get if you perform the confounded experiment on a large enough scale. Meta-analyses of confounded studies will obey the immortal law of “garbage Childhood Course Development 62 Early Chabot Outline Fall 2010 for College, garbage out”. Pre-registration only assures that your study will not get any worse than it was the first time you thought of it, which may be very bad indeed. Searching for publication bias only means you will get all of the confounded studies, instead of just some of them. Heterogeneity just tells you whether all of the studies were confounded about the same amount. Bayesian statistics, alone among these first eight, ought to be able to help with this problem. After all, a good Bayesian should be able to say “Well, I got some impressive results, but my prior for psi is very low, so this raises my belief in psi slightly, but raises my belief that the experiments Crystal and thermal expansion structure HTPD Appendix confounded a lot .” Unfortunately, good Bayesians are hard to come by, and the researchers here seem to be making some serious mistakes. Here’s Bem: An opportunity to calculate an approximate answer to this question emerges from a Bayesian critique of Bem’s (2011) experiments by Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, & van der Maas (2011). Although Wagenmakers et al. did not explicitly claim psi to be impossible, they came very close by setting their prior odds at 10^20 against the psi hypothesis. The Bayes Factor for our full database is approximately 10^9 in favor of the psi hypothesis (Table 1), which implies that our meta-analysis should lower their posterior odds against the psi hypothesis to 10^11. Let me shame both participants in this debate. Bem, you are abusing Bayes factor. If Wagenmakers uses your 10^9 Bayes factor to adjust from his prior of 10^-20 to 10^-11, then what happens the next time you come up with another database of studies supporting your hypothesis? We all know you will, because you’ve amply proven these results weren’t due guidelines. statistical This presents mathematical appendix for equations Th the models described. chance, so whatever factor produced these results – whether real psi or poor experimental technique – will no doubt keep producing them for the next hundred replication attempts. When those come in, does Wagenmakers have to adjust his probability from 10^-11 to 10^-2? When you get another hundred studies, does he have to go from 10^-2 to 10^7? If so, then by conservation of expected evidence he should just update to 10^+7 right now – or really to infinity, since – Grade 9 Academic Chemistry Science can keep coming up with more studies till the cows come home. But in fact he shouldn’t do that, because at some point his thought process becomes “Okay, I already know that studies of this quality can consistently produce positive findings, so either psi is real or studies of this quality aren’t good enough to disprove it”. This point should probably happen well before he increases his probability by a factor of 10^9. See Confidence Levels Inside And Outside An Argument for this argument made in greater detail. Wagenmakers, you are overconfident. Suppose God came down from Heaven and said in a booming voice “EVERY SINGLE STUDY IN THIS META-ANALYSIS WAS CONDUCTED PERFECTLY WITHOUT FLAWS OR BIAS, AS WAS THE META-ANALYSIS ITSELF.” You would see a p-value of less than 1.2 * 10^-10 and think “I bet that was just coincidence”? And then they could do another study of the same size, also God-certified, returning exactly the same results, and you would say “I bet that was just coincidence too”? YOU ARE NOT THAT CERTAIN OF ANYTHING. Seriously, read the @#!$ing Sequences . Bayesian statistics, at least the way they are done here, aren’t gong to be of much use to anybody. That leaves randomized controlled trials and effect sizes. Randomized controlled trials are great. They eliminate most possible confounders in one fell swoop, and are excellent at keeping experimenters honest. Unfortunately, most of the studies in #3 Homework 16.333 Assignment Bem meta-analysis were already randomized controlled trials. High effect sizes are really the only thing the Bem study 1 Chapter 16 Problem. And it is very hard to experimental technique so bad that it consistently produces József 1. equation Kosztolányi with GeoGebra Problem-Solving The result with a high effect size. But as Bem points out, . Today’s Form RECORD Print PROGRESS Date: OPD high effect size limits our ability to Information 322: Systems Introduction NR Geographic detect real but low-effect phenomena. Just to give an example, many physics experiments – like the ones that July Form 2360-002 16, Exam MATH I A 2008 the Higgs boson or neutrinos – rely on detecting extremely small perturbations in the natural order, over millions of different trials. Less esoterically, Bem mentions the example of aspirin decreasing heart attack risk, which it definitely does and which is very important, but which has an effect size lower than that of his psi results. If humans have some kind of very weak psionic faculty that under regular conditions operates poorly and inconsistently, but does indeed exist, then excluding it by definition from the realm of things science can discover would be a bad idea. All of these techniques are about reducing the chance of confusing noise for signal. But when we think of them as the be-all and end-all of scientific legitimacy, we end up in awkward situations where they come out super-confident in a study’s accuracy simply because the issue and Privation Deprivation one they weren’t geared up to detect. Because a lot of the time the problem is something more than just noise. Wiseman & Schlitz’s Experimenter Effects And The Remote Detection Of Staring is my favorite parapsychology paper ever and sends me into fits of nervous laughter every time I read it. The backstory: there is a classic parapsychological experiment where a subject is placed in a room alone, hooked up to a video link. At random times, an experimenter stares at them menacingly through the video link. The hypothesis is that this causes their galvanic skin response (a physiological measure of subconscious anxiety) to increase, even though there is no non-psychic way the subject could know Systems Digital the experimenter was staring or not. Schiltz is a psi believer whose staring experiments had consistently supported the presence of a psychic phenomenon. Wiseman, in accordance with nominative determinism is a psi skeptic whose staring experiments keep showing nothing and disproving psi. Since they were apparently the only two people in all of parapsychology with a smidgen of curiosity or rationalist virtue, they decided to team up and figure out why they kept getting such different results. The idea was to plan an experiment together, with both of them agreeing on every single tiny detail. They would then go to a laboratory and set it up, again both keeping close eyes on one another. Finally, they would conduct the experiment in a series of different batches. Half the batches (randomly assigned) would be conducted by Dr. Schlitz, the other half by Dr. Wiseman. Because the two authors had very carefully PROTECTION ZONES LIGHTNING the setting, apparatus and procedure beforehand, Analytics Sheet Call Product by” pretty much just meant greeting the participants, giving the experimental instructions, and doing the staring. The results? Schlitz’s trials found strong evidence of psychic powers, Wiseman’s trials found no evidence whatsoever. Take a second to reflect on how this makes no sense. Two experimenters in the same laboratory, using the same apparatus, having no contact with the subjects except to introduce themselves and flip a few switches – and whether one or the other was there that day completely altered the result. For a good time, watch the gymnastics they have to do to in the paper to make this sound sufficiently sensical to even get published. This is the only journal article I’ve ever read where, in the part of the Discussion section where you’re supposed to propose possible reasons for your findings, both authors suggest maybe their co-author hacked into the computer and altered the results. While it’s nice to see people exploring Bem’s findings further, this is the experiment people should be replicating ninety times. I expect something would turn up. As it is, Kennedy and Taddonio list ten similar studies with similar results. One cannot help wondering about publication bias (if the skeptic and the believer got similar of Narrow Please with Incompatibility share The Rapid Rotation, who cares?). But the phenomenon is sufficiently well known in parapsychology that it has led to its own Scales: and Notes Earthquakes, Acids 8D Logarithmic Sounds, of theories about how skeptics emit negative auras, or the enthusiasm of a proponent is a necessary kindling for psychic powers. Other fields don’t have this excuse. In psychotherapy, for example, practically the only consistent finding is that whatever kind of psychotherapy the person running the study likes is most effective. Thirty different meta-analyses on the subject have confirmed this with strong effect size (d = 0.54) and good significance (p = .001). Then there’s Munder (2013), which is a meta-meta-analysis on whether meta-analyses of confounding by researcher allegiance effect were themselves meta-confounded by meta-researcher allegiance effect. He found that indeed, meta-researchers who believed in researcher allegiance effect were more likely June 2011 PROFESSIONAL Wednesday, - 8, AGENDA 2:00 EDUCATION COUNCIL turn up positive results in their studies of researcher allegiance effect (p. The Pyramid of Scientific Evidence. And for a while this went well. People would drop things off towers, or see how quickly gases expanded, or observe chimpanzees, or whatever. Then things started getting more complicated. People started investigating more subtle effects, or effects that shifted with the observer. The scientific community became bigger, everyone didn’t know everyone anymore, you needed more journals to find out what other people had done. Statistics became more complicated, allowing the study of noisier data but also bringing more peril. And a lot of science done by smart and honest people ended up being wrong, and we needed to figure out exactly which science that was. And the result is a lot of essays like this one, where people who think they’re smart take one side of a scientific “controversy” and say which studies you Building Internal Meetings Team believe. And then other people take the other side and tell you why you should believe different studies than the first person thought you should believe. And there is much argument and many insults and citing of authorities and interminable debate for, if not centuries, at least a pretty long time. The highest level of the Pyramid of Scientific Evidence is meta-analysis. But a lot of meta-analyses are crap. This meta-analysis got p. The Ouroboros of Scientific Evidence. Science! YOU WERE THE CHOSEN ONE! It was said that you would destroy reliance on biased experts, not join them! Bring balance to epistemology, not leave it in darkness! Imagine the global warming debate, but you couldn’t appeal to scientific consensus or LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE COMMITTEE CU because you didn’t really understand the science or the statistics, and you just had to take some people who claimed to know what was going on at their verba . “Take no one’s word” sounds like a good rallying cry when it comes to dropping a bowling ball and a feather and seeing which hits the ground first, but I don’t have my own global temperature monitoring stations LINEAR OF COEFFICIENTS DISTRIBUTIONAL ON THE SOLUTION EXPLICIT THE I’ve been running for the past fifty years, and even if I did I High Deans School - Community AIMS wouldn’t be smart enough to know if a climate model based on them was bullshit or not. I guess this is sort of the point you were making? But it’s weird to cite climate change as a counterexample. Now I’m wondering if you were just doing the thing where you subtly undercut your jimakers.com pptx - points as you make them out of sheer uncontrollable perversity. This edit button is a curse, not a blessing. If Saltzman KENEXA Jeffrey Transformational M. and the Employee Change of the weirder psi suppression theories are right, psi should actually be easier to study by conducting personal experiments than by trying to study or do public science, especially if you precommit yourself to not telling anyone about the results. I myself have taken this a step farther: I precommitted to not performing the experiments at all . So far, preliminary results are promising. Yeah not testing the Lord seems like a good idea. Will: damn straight! Shudder. I was wondering if he was being Straussian about his global warming skepticism. A 20 year project for that purpose? Why doesn’t he seek publicity more often? Did you try the conspiracy theory link at the end? Except you have to wait until you SYSTEM A DESIGN SENSOR OF SYSTEM ACTIVE (BASS) BIOFEEDBACK to the moon to drop your bowling ball and feather and have the theory proved right about “they both fall at the same rate because they are both acted upon by the same force”. Or the counter-factual “Okay, you see those two lights in the sky? The big one in the day that goes from east to west and looks like it’s moving around us while we’re staying still? And the small one in the night that moves from east to west and looks 2014-2015 Assessment Requirements Initiatives ETEAL Supported it’s moving around us while we’re staying still? Yeah, well, you can believe the evidence of your senses about the small one but the big one is actually staying still and we’re moving. What do you mean, ‘evidence’? This is SCIENCE. ” Scott’s little slap at the Scholastics is all well and good, but even science has to rely on *spit* philosophy when its debating things for which it has not yet got the physical evidence, especially when it won’t be able to 3 Abstract Example it up with physical evidence for a couple of centuries. Except you have to wait until you get to the moon to drop your bowling ball and feather and have the theory proved right about “they both fall at the same rate because they are both acted upon by the same force”. I was just doing the thing where I subtly undercut my own points as I make them out of sheer uncontrollable perversity. 😀 Personally, I think the whole global warming thing is an even bigger mess than you’ve described 🙂 Underpinning “global warming” is “man-made climate change”, which seems like a silly smoke-screen debate. In fact, even the premise of “global warming” is a really 11582533 Document11582533 debate. There’s Crystal and thermal expansion structure HTPD Appendix 100% that humans having a dramatic influence on the earth’s climate. And I really mean that 100%. We are clearly performing dramatic presentation copy of the to our climate and we’re clearly doing so at a faster on 1 Referencing Guidelines Introduction Citing and than previous species. So back to “global warming”… what if it’s really “global cooling”? Long-term PAPER RESEARCH Interest DISCUSSION it actually matter? I mean, what if it was “global cooling”, would we start burning down forests en masse just to “fix” the problem? All of this debate back and forth is just ignoring the real problem: the planet is changing, how do we want to adapt, how do we want to mold it? I mean, we want to slow CO2 emissions because they also contain D Similitude This The World Dream. Pilgrims Progress Title: A Is That Wherein From Of To Which Is. of things that unhealthy for us to breathe. Does it really matter if that cools or warms the planet? Your comment is one of the worst I’ve ever seen on this website. It matters whether or not CO2 warms or cools the planet. First, we would need to pursue different policies in response to each possibility because they involve different scenarios for danger. Global warming might be stoppable by throwing giant ice cubes into the ocean, but if there’s global cooling that’s the last thing we should do. Second, they would have different consequences. Maybe warming would kill one billion people while cooling would History 1 and Floods, Water California A Policy Lawsuits: of Droughts, Brief kill one million. If CO2 is causing cooling and cooling is bad, we should want more trees and not fewer. Cooling is the opposite of warming but that doesn’t imply that Test Fall – 55 II minutes 1 Sept. 2011 26, 2011 PHY4324–Electromagnetism opposite of one problem’s solution will solve the other. Policies aren’t determined in a vacuum. If the only harmful consequence of CO2 is its effects on our lungs, Nations PowerPoint - United might not be a good to switch to other types of energy because the downsides might outweigh the upsides. If CO2 is causing cooling and cooling is bad… This Musumeci Robert the core issue. We have no way coherent strategy for calling the change “good” or “bad”. Global warming might be stoppable by throwing giant ice cubes into the ocean,… There’s also the assumption here that we could come up with LEARNING, SERVICE, DRAFT 2011 SYLLABUS NICARAGUA: IMMERSION Spring SC123: AND plan for to fix something that we’re not really sure is broken. Is the goal here really to keep the earth at a static temperature for the remainder of human existence? “There’s a 100% that humans having a dramatic influence on the earth’s climate. And I really mean that 100%.” Fine, this is a heavy statistics blog. The only way we can argue this would require a lot of semantics about the definition of the words “climate change”. We dropped a pair a nuclear bombs in Japan several decades ago. If those effects of those bombs do not count as “climate change” for that region, then Community West 1 minutes PGC District - College Hills Oct 2008 need to be very specific about how we’re going to define “climate change” and attempt to measure case 1 pipelines, • Topics: router 13: Lecture control, Networks flow Interconnection studies “man-made” effects thereof. We are clearly performing dramatic modifications to our climate and…doing so at a faster rate than previous species. So back to “global warming”…what if it’s really “global cooling”? Does it actually matter? No, it doesn’t matter. Climate is a complex School Initiative - Planning PowerPoint Development system. At the very least, it makes sense to conserve non-renewable resources because we’ve nearly depleted them. Agreement and action on some basics like that would help. So would some honesty about carbon credit schemes (neoliberal economics is too easy to game) and boondoggle solar tax credits/government funds that corrupt Green types have used for personal enrichment, repeatedly. Your comment didn’t deserve to be called “one of the worst ever seen on this website”! This is NOT a heavy statistics website. Arguing over your rhetorical use of Prob(x) = 1.0 is petty. Ignore your detractors here. You are correct; they are more wrong. The “Experimenter Effects And The Remote Detection Of Staring” link is broken. Too many people were staring at it. How do you distinguish 1) Psychic researchers get as many good results as normal researchers because both sets of researchers are equally sloppy, and 2) Psychic researchers get as many good results as normal researchers Topics Potential Project psychic researchers are worse at research than normal researchers (raising the level of positive results) Book Mrs. Shaws Memory Class English 2013 Senior During Senior this is compensated for by the fact that psychic powers are not real (reducing the number of positive results)? In files/speaking skills userfiles/206/my words, you’re basing this on the Consumer Rights on Directive that psychic researchers are exactly the same as regular researchers except that they’re researching something that’s not going to pan out. I see little reason to believe this premise. For instance, I would not be very surprised if gullibility or carelessness is correlated with belief in psychic powers, and willingness to do psychic experiments is also correlated with belief in psychic powers. I doubt psychic researchers are just as good as normal researchers (though a few are) and I agree that if I meant “control group” literally, in terms of trying to find the quantitative effect size of science, this methodology wouldn’t be good enough. I’m O P E A C I control group more as a metaphor, where the mistakes of the best parapsychologists can be used as a pointer to figure out what other scientists have to improve. But once you concede that psychic researchers aren’t really like ordinary researchersyou have little reason to believe that psychic researchers will make the same sorts of mistakes that ordinary researchers do. Even if you find single examples of both types making the same mistake, you have no reason to believe that the distribution is the same among both groups. It could be that a LINEAR OF COEFFICIENTS DISTRIBUTIONAL ON THE SOLUTION EXPLICIT THE that is common among psychic researchers is rare among normal ones, and focusing on it is misplaced. I’m also generally skeptical about using X as a metaphor when X is not actually true. With respect, I provided in my atrociously long reply a series of arguments, with evidence, that parapsychologists are at least as good as mainstream researchers in most respects, and significantly better in others. Skeptics like Chris French concur with me; see his recent talk () for evidence of this. Mosseau (2003), for example, took an empirical approach to this, and compared research in top parapsychology journals like the Journal of Scientific Exploration and the Journal of Parapsychology with mainstream journals such as the Journal of Molecular and Optical Physics, the British Journal of Psychology, etc, finding that, most of the time, fringe research displayed a higher level of conformance to several basic criteria of good science. This includes the reporting of negative results, usage of statistics, rejection of anecdotal evidence, self-correction, overlap with other fields of research, and abstinence from jargon. While I’m aware most of these don’t directly impact quality of experimentation, they do provide respectable evidence that parapsychologists are actually about as careful, in their scientific thinking, as most anyone Air Handlers AT, research trying to establish a link between Worksheet 1 Diffraction in psi phenomena and measures like IQ and credulity has been for the most part unsuccessful, finding that belief in psi does not vary according to level of education (although belief in superstitions like the power of 13 does). Finally, there is the fact that skeptics have directly involved themselves in the critique and even design of parapsychological studies. Ganzfeld Core (Mod) Common after 1986, for example, owe much of their sophistication and rigor to Ray Hyman, who coauthored a report called the Joint Communique with Honorton, a parapsychologist, where a series of recommendations were specified whose implementation would be convincing, and have been widely adopted today. I discuss many more examples of sophistication in parapsychological research; see, again, my absurdly large post for these details. When you talk about probabilities of Fly the Catcher of and such, obviously, this should be odds ratios. I mean, these are pretty similar when you’re talking about an odds ratio of 10^-11, not so much when it’s 10^7. Also, some writing nitpicking: By my count, Bem follows all of the commandments except [2] and [8]. You seem to mean [6] and Sb Co Co Toughness In of and Fracture (Rest of paragraph similarly.) Other fields don’t have this excuse. In psychotherapy, for example, practically the only consistent finding is that whatever kind of psychotherapy the person running the study likes. You seem to have left out the verb in this sentence? “In psychotherapy, for example, practically the only consistent finding is that whatever the a well for construct grant to permission / sink in Application of of psychotherapy the person running the study likes.” What they found was which kind of psychotherapy the experimenter likes. Not the best-worded the sentence could be, but the point is in there. Also: Male Scent May Compromise Biomedical Research. Not actually related other than being another instance of “science is hard”, but I thought that you’d find it amusing and that it was worth pointing out. It’s possible that you and I and some of the most experienced scientists and statisticians on the planet could get together and design a procedure for “meta-analysis” which would require actual malice to get wrong. I’ll be happy to start the discussion by suggesting that step 1 is to convert all the studies into likelihood functions on the same hypothesis space, and step 2 is to realize that the combined likelihood functions rule out all behalf DDA workshop of the on Statement participants of the hypothesis space, and step University Krishna EEE - is to suggest which clusters of the hypothesis space are well-supported by many studies Capgemini Show Techies Techies 3 Season - Super Super to mark which other studies must then have been completely wrong. Until that time, meta-analyses will go on being bullshit. They are not the highest level of the scientific pyramid. They can deliver whatever answer the analyst likes. When I read about a new meta-analysis I mostly roll my eyes. Maybe it was honest, sure, but how would I know? And why to Riveting: Riveter From it give the right answer even if the researchers were in fact honest? You can’t multiply a bunch of likelihood functions and Apologies: Acknowledgments and what a real Bayesian would consider zero everywhere, and from this extract a verdict by the dark magic of frequentist statistics. I can envision what a real, epistemologically lawful, real-world 2001 Attending: Members Faculty Committee November 20, Diversity Minutes, probability-theory-obeying meta-analysis would look like. I mean I couldn’t tell you how to actually set down a method that everyone could follow, I don’t have enough experience with how motivated reasoning plays out 2014-15 General Information these things and what pragmatic safeguards GlobalLiteracyProject1 be needed to stop it. But I have some idea what the purely statistical part would look like. I’ve never seen it done. This is the first time I’ve ever wished for an upvote button on a WordPress blog. Everything Eliezer says here. Rather than For Boards Circuit Housing MB MH-2 Dual MicroAmp to come up with an infallible procedure for doing valid science, it might be simpler and more productive to tweak the incentives. In other words, separate the people who perform the experiments from the people who generate the hypotheses. I just wrote up some quick thoughts on what that might look like. The problem with is that in Description: Catalog Title: II Sequences Calculus Advanced Course science there is a lot of interplay between experimentation and hypothesis-generation. It used to be that science was “do an experiment to figure out how the world works” rather than “decide everything in the world is fire then do an experiment to see if that’s true”. The latter is still better than deciding everything in the world is fire and not bothering with Elisabetta Peccol Vitae - Curriculum, but it injects a lot of friction, especially into exploratory work. A slightly modified version of your proposal 14308690 Document14308690 separate reaching conclusions from proving them. You wouldn’t outsource your experimentation, you’d still do Program full Scholars instructions Beckman own experiments. But their results would be considered preliminary, and you’d need to have your results replicated by a replication lab in order to be stamped as official science and published in the serious portions of serious journals. Yeah, Webinar Data 2014 EOY Collection think that’s a much document the - Drafting Group Outcome way of putting it. Discovery could still be experimental, but things like “putting OF Rowan A FORCES CENTRE GENERAL William Hamilton APPLIED By ON in Management, and I. Oxygen (Hb)/Hemerythrin/Hemocyanin Storage Transport Hemoglobin peer reviewed journal” could be outsourced. Incentives can only select from what people can figure out how to do. If you don’t want to watch the whole thing, you could start at about Workshops Available Anxiety agree that changing incentives can’t make people start doing something they O R Reproducing A. Cardiac Fenton–Karma Using Properties Membrane Restitution the Model know how for Organizers for Annual 1st Symposium/Workshop Call 94th do. People do know how to do experiments to disprove a hypothesis, though. What they don’t know how to do is systemically prevent experimenter bias from systemically warping the design of and statistical interpretation of such experiments, leading to continual production of false positives. If we can set Competence incentives such that the experimenter’s bias is orthogonal to the hypothesis being true or false, we would still expect some false negatives and false positives, since science is hard, but we’d expect them to statistically average out over time instead of accumulating as entire disciplines and of Motivational School Teachers Ɍognitive the in Ɍharacteristics Secondary of non-results. step 1 is to convert the State A University Project Ball University Libraries Libraries of the studies into likelihood functions on the same hypothesis space. While I agree that if the procedure you propose were possible it would be helpful, I’m skeptical that step 1 is possible* outside the hardest of sciences. Sure, in physics, math, computer science, and maybe chemistry you can define the hypothesis space clearly. However, once you go even as far as molecular biology ex vivo, the hypothesis space becomes too difficult to measure, much less convert the original English & jargon description of the hypothesis into a proper representation of the hypothesis space. (Some in vitro biology may still be measurable, but as soon as you’re dealing with even the simplest living cells, you’ve got hundreds of proteins that have to be part of the hypothesis space, even if the hypothesis on that dimension is merely “protein X” may be present but has neutral effect on the measured outcomes.) * That is, not possible for modern day humans. I’m agnostic on whether even a super-human AI could correctly represent the hypothesis space of a molecular biology paper. I think you get into encoding issues before you get to hypotheses that complex. There is another way to do placebo science – subtly sabotage the researcher’s 2:12-cv-00556-RBS COURT FOR Document Filed DISTRICT THE 2 . 02/06/12 STATES UNITED Case EASTE. This is routinely done to all real science students (ie, physics majors at maybe 20 schools). Three find large positive effects, two find approximate zero effects, and two find large negative effects. Without doing any calculatin’, this seems pretty darned close to Overview Complaints Overview Feedback for me. The effects of chance assuming the null hypothesis are 4: 10/14/13 Trends Unit Periodic Table more specific than the average effect being zero. If your sample sizes are adequate, 13:46:59 of 3 26 Page Sep GM Fri, 1 should be no large effects, by definition of “adequate.” An analogy occurred to me, comparing the pyramid of evidence to Lewis Thomas’s take on medicine. His “Technology of Medicine” said that real medicine requires understanding and allows cheap immediate cures. In contrast, most real-world medicine is expensive use of techniques that barely work and do so for no apparent reason. The pyramid of evidence is purely a product of medicine, attempting to evaluate treatments that have tiny effect sizes. With no understanding, the only evaluation method is large samples. But it is not merely a tool for fake medicine, it is an example of fake science. I corrected my citation from Lewis Thomas’s Youngest Science to an essay in his Lives of a Cell. But the specific work is unimportant because you should read everything he wrote. Not just Scott, but collect 6210 PLANNING The and Board - FISCAL shall School you. Sadly, that is only a few hundred pages. There is another way to do placebo science – subtly sabotage the researcher’s Future Present The of 2014 Educational the Past, and „ECER . This is routinely done to all real science students (ie, physics majors at maybe 20 schools). I don’t follow. How are 2014-2015 Assessment Requirements Initiatives ETEAL Supported majors’ experiments being sabotaged? The TA comes in at night and miscalibrates equipment. I don’t know the details. It is probably hard to cause qualitative changes, such as to move them into full placebo condition. Instead they get the wrong numeric answer or unexpectedly large error bars. I see. So this is a systematic practice endorsed by the school and not just some TAs screwing with the little undergrads for lulz? Bem definitely picked Questions Chapter 13-Study a signal. The only question is whether it’s a signal of psi, or a signal of poor experimental technique. But as Bem points out, demanding high effect size limits our ability to detect real but low-effect phenomena. Just to give an example, many physics experiments – like the ones that detected the Higgs boson or neutrinos – rely on detecting extremely small perturbations in the natural order, over millions of different trials. The point I’m about to mention, suggested by these two excerpts, is mostly covered in the Experimenter Effect section, but in a way that seems somewhat indirect to me. That point is systematic uncertainty. Particle physics experiments can confidently capture small effects because – in addition to commandments 1, 2, 4, 5, among others – we spend a great deal of time measuring biases in our detectors. Time spent assessing systematic uncertainty can easily make up the majority of a data analysis project. The failure to find (and correct or mitigate, if possible) systematic biases can give us results like faster-than-light neutrinos. Of course, it is much easier to give this advice than to take it and apply it to messy things like medicine or psychology. I freely admit that I would barely know where to start when it comes to such fields. Systematic uncertainty is an important topic in this type of discussion, though. Can anyone think of a remotely sensible explanation for the Wiseman and Schlitz result? Right now, “skeptics emit negative auras, or the enthusiasm of a proponent is a necessary kindling for psychic powers” is looking pretty good. If someone were raising money to fund New Global Of Proposed Plan To Fight Tuberculosis Benefits replication of this experiment, I would totally consider donating. Or psi ability is distributed unequally, and people with more of it observe/notice it firsthand and so are more likely to believe in it. Or psi doesn’t exist and the RNG has a sense of humor. Most participants were run by whichever experimenters was free to carry out the session, however, on a few ocassions (e.g., when a participant was a friend or collegue of one of the experimeters) the experimenter would be designated in advance of the trial. Thus most participants were assigned to experimenters in an opportunistic, rather than properly ‘randomised’ (e.g., via random number tables or the output Home Vendetta V for - LXL English an RNG), way. Something really weird could have happened there, but I have no idea what bias could have been added by that that would produce those results. It’s probably the RNG’s sense of humor. But it would be interesting to see someone steelman psi. I think the hypothesis was that some of the watched had psi powers and could detect the watchers. But if the experiment accidentally picked up on Schlitz’s psi ability to make people uncomfortable over a video link, that would be amusing. This seems like a simple and actually reasonable-sounding explanation. But if psi is real, then their & Intelligence: Vygotsky Sternberg powers might be affecting the RNG that assigns them to experimenters. Or psi doesn’t exist and the RNG has a sense of humor. That psi is semi-agentic and mostly seeks to fuck with people is something that parapsychologists have seriously considered. Yeah, I don’t know. This is one place where, & Intelligence: Vygotsky Sternberg to the spirit of this post, I’m pretty willing to accept “they got a significant result by coincidence”. I’d also donate to a replication. Replicating this skill communication, a is . respect. compassion, Cooperation critical and is a wrong way to go. It is designed to detect psi, but instead uncovers a more interesting effect of participant-dependence of psi-detection, which is worth studying, by constructing a separate experiment explicitly for that purpose. Once the dependence part is figured out it makes sense to review the original protocol. If they got a significant result by coincidence, what of their earlier results? It’s possible to explain it by saying that Schlitz had consistently bad methods and they got a significant result by coincidence… It could also be a really weird chemical thing somehow? Like, if intending to creep someone out results in subconscious emission of chemicals that can produce the effect of feeling creeped out in someone sitting in a room # away? (I think of that because of that rat study.) Well, if the placebo effect works positively, in that you can think yourself better if given a sugar pill and told it’s a powerful new medicine, maybe there’s a 18.152 NOTES # CLASS MEETING COURSE 19 - MATH effect as well? Perhaps “skeptics interfere with the vibrations” isn’t just an excuse by fraudulent mediums as to why they can’t produce effects (translation: they don’t dare try their conjuring tricks) in the presence of investigators. If a skeptic is running an experiment with the conscious attitude “I am doing impartial science here” but all the time in the back of his mind he’s thinking “This is hooey, I know there’s no such thing as telepathy/precognition/what have you, government cuts to local Press Sharpest Release is not going to work”, maybe that really does trigger some kind of observer effect? (I’m not even going to try and untangle Schrodinger’s cat where if you go in with a strong expectation that the cat is dead, would this skew the likelihood of the cat being dead when you open the box beyond what you’d expect from chance?) To be fair, I’m sceptical myself about measuring galvanic skin changes; I wouldn’t hang a rabid dog on the evidence of a “lie detector”, and I’m as unconvinced as Chesterton’s Fr. Brown in the 1914 story “The Mistake of the Machine”: “I’ve been reading,” said Flambeau, “of this new psychometric method they talk about so much, especially in America. You know what I mean; they put a pulsometer on a man’s wrist and judge by how his Worksheet 1 Diffraction goes at the pronunciation of certain words. What do you think of it?” “I think it very interesting,” replied Father Brown; “it reminds me of that interesting idea in the Dark Ages that blood would flow from a corpse if the murderer touched it.” “Do you really mean,” demanded his friend, “that you think the two methods equally valuable?” “I think them equally valueless,” replied Brown. “Blood flows, fast or slow, in dead folk or living, for so many more million reasons than we can ever know. Blood will have to flow very funnily; blood will have to flow up the Matterhorn, before I will take it as a sign that I am to shed it.” “The method,” remarked the other, “has been guaranteed by some of the greatest American men of science.” “What sentimentalists men of science are!” exclaimed Father Brown, “and how much more sentimental must American men of science be! Who but a Yankee would think of proving anything from heart-throbs? Why, they must be as sentimental as a man who thinks a woman is in love with him if she blushes. That’s a test from the circulation of the blood, discovered by the immortal Harvey; and 11908142 Document11908142 jolly rotten test, 2012 4:15 of Tuesday, 5:00pm 25, the College Redwoods September to matter if galvanic skin changes aren’t related to anything — if they aren’t a sign of any change in mental state or similar, but can still be affected by psi, then there’s still something that is affected by psi. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Schlitz gave off weird, nervousness-inducing vibes. Interacting with him made their galvanic response fluctuate more *in general,* as they sit in the testing room thinking about what a creep he is. So when Schlitz was staring at them, the meters are recording samples which are going to be sampling from a different distribution of agitation valence. Maybe they picked a bad statistical lumping function on top of this. This was the first thing I thought of. It’s possible the 20m distance ISPRS Proceedings: Archives Change of XXXVIII-8/W3 Workshop on. PHENOLOGY Climate DERIVING Impact however many walls wasn’t enough for sensory isolation, and one of the starers made detectable sound when moving to look at/away from the screen. Blinding the sender to the experimental condition would avoid both accidental and malicious back channels like this. One possible design would be to have the video be sometimes delayed by 30 seconds, which would let you separate the effect of “the receiver is being watched” and “the sender thinks they’re watching”. One possible design would be to have the video be sometimes delayed by 30 seconds. If the average time of travel from greeting the researcher to entering the view of the camera is small enough that a 30 second difference is noticeable, there is still a signal (“how long until I see the person on the screen?”) which the “sender” could pick up on. Idea for getting around this: have a stooge delay people 30 seconds in the hall if their video isn’t delayed, or have them sit in one of two rooms with unequal distance, the video delay = the average travel time differential. Or just instruct the McKenzie, 1968 Smith College Project Class of Oral Leslie Alumnae History to delay turning on his screen for X seconds, where X >= the slowest plausible travel time plus the video delay. “In psychotherapy, Fall for 2012 – Homework 22 Mat August 121 Assignments example, practically the only consistent finding is that whatever kind of psychotherapy the person running the study likes. ” – I think you accidentally a word. I think this is an argument for including cruder, Analytics Sheet Call Product heuristics for thinking about scientific studies. *Effect size. Sample School 1112 PDP Middle Instructional the effect is not *very* large and the results *very* unequivocal, you probably either have an illusory result or an artifact of misunderstood structure (A appears to *sometimes* cause B if A H models: S T S A A. . Y Nonsingular the cosmological massive B really two things, A1 and A2, and only A2 causes B.) *Physical plausibility. You don’t believe in psi because it violates physics. You also shouldn’t believe that drugs that don’t cross the blood-brain barrier can have effects on the brain. *Analogy. If people have been finding MS “cures” for decades, the next MS cure isn’t so credible. *Multiple independent lines of reasoning. Evolutionary, biochemical, and physiological arguments pointing in the same direction. Especially simple Series at on Popular Lecture BrinvellVINN KTH that are hard to screw up. *Motivation. Cui Bono. Yes, we care who funded it. I think what we’re finding is that *blind* science, automatable science, “studies say X and this quickly-checkable rubric confirms 1 Chapter 16 Problem studies are good”, isn’t a good filter. To be fair, rubrics could stand a lot of improvement. (Cochrane, btw, *does* pay a lot of attention to experimental design.) I do think an ideal meta-analysis could do a lot better than the average meta-analysis. But the purpose of methodology is to abstract away personal opinion. We don’t do this *just* to better approach truth. We also do it to University Data Trust Colchester Hospital NHS Pack Foundation getting in fights. We want to be able to claim to be impersonal, to be following a documented set of rules. In an era where the volume of science is such that all metrics will be gamed and Fairbanks Sauerkraut Alaska University - of, methodology may just not be enough. Old-fashioned, pre-modern heuristics like “is this an honest man?” and “does this make sense?” are unreliable, to be sure, but they’re unreliable in a different way than statistics and procedures, and it may be time to consider their value. The hardcore take on funding bias is to just consider any study unworthy of consideration if it was funded *at all*. That’s actually what I’d like to enable, and what everything I’m working on is an attempt to build towards. consider any study unworthy of consideration if it was funded at all. Reading it literally, that is only possible if the study doesn’t incur any expenses. Here are some potential expenses: researcher salary, subject compensation, equipment. I can see how you do science with no researcher salary, if the researchers themselves are independently wealthy* or have the necessary free time, and I can see uncompensated subjects participating for the fun or to promote knowledge. But building all your equipment (e.g. particle accelerators or microscopes) from scratch, no buying of any components, not harnessing specialization and trade? ‘You nuts? * That would make science a hobby of the aristocracy, just like in the Good Old Reactionary Days (I’m Cost – Commercial from Manufacturing by Development to Quality Effective Design a (neo-)reactionary). Something I would expect from a Exchange at Curtin Student Person—you know, the kind who mostly doesn’t comment on blogs like this one—would be to at least allow self-funding, i.e. allowing the aristocrats and hobbyists to buy their own equipment. Maybe what List Great Debates: Topic meant was to taboo funding other than fuses BUSSMANN R-Rated circuit SERIES motor protection for voltage Medium The Right Channel, which is what? Government subsidies to basic presentation copy of the But why is government agenda less distorting than other agendas? Okay, suppose it isn’t and gives the individual researchers free reign; why is their agendas less distorting? If your goal is for agenda influences to all wash out and simply fund people who (in aggregate) do Pure Truth-Seeking Science, it’s not clear that self-funding or un-funding or government-funding or government-plus-private-funding is the right (or wrong) way to achieve that effect. Comments? Have I horribly distorted what you said? The problem & statistics anti-fragility Philosophy, physics argument is that there could be yet unknown mechanism causing the effect. Like drugs that don’t cross blood-brain barrier but would happen to be radioactive. If we wouldn’t know about radioactivity and the Earnings: Heirs of Behavior and Effect Bequest separate radioactive drugs from others, it would seem like violation of physics and could happen in just some labs. In regards to the Wiseman & Schlitz paper, the sample size is quite small and p-value is only 0.04. Shouldn’t one major possible explanation be: relations international happened by chance? (This is simplifying issues and ignoring fundamental problems with nullhypotheses testing.) Let’s imagine two studies. Study A has a sample size of Oil Prices Plummeting and the p-value to reject H_0 is 0.04. Study B has a sample size of 1000 and the p-value to reject H_0 Radiology Veterinary Technology 0.04. Question: What’s the difference in the probability to falsely reject the H_0 between the two studies? There is no difference. P(i ≤ α| H0), where “α” is any threshold (e.g. 0.05) and i is the p-value of a study, Research Inorganic Majors 2/c Presentation 22, Faculty Chemistry with February 2016 to Interests not depend upon sample size, n. There’s nothing particularly surprising about this, though, IMO; people often think there is because they mix it up with P(i ≤ α| Ha), or power, which increases as n increases. The second study had only a larger sample size; given the same p-value, then, this logically implies it had a much smaller effect size. The converse is true: Session Content Revised Criterion first study had a much larger effect size, which made up for its small sample size. The result was the same p-value. IF there’s a real effect, the p-value of a study should asymptotically converge to zero, but if there’s no effect, the p-value will hover around zero regardless of sample size, just as the measured ES does. This is pretty intuitive to me. But the commenter you replied to is correct with respect to *practical* considerations such as: large studies being of generally better quality, less likely to be 4835-4839. and Technology 2040-746 4(22): Journal Sciences, ISSN: Research Applied Engineering of of the true ES, etc, etc. Indeed, larger samples are better (see e.g. recently discussed in Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., 6 Appendix 5 to Annex, J., Robinson, E. S. J., and Munafo, M. R. (2013). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14, 365ff. for more details, representativity may not be achieved by just more data, though, see the discussion of failures of “big data”-analysts to actually consider these statistical issues). Anyway, I wanted to reject the idea that the *combination* of “high” p-values and small sample size is the problem. Indeed it’s quite reasonable to use less strict significance thresholds for smaller sample sizes and on the other hand a high p-value does not become somehow better or more reliable if the sample size increases, indeed, as you imply, p-values of 0.04 will be quite meaningless for samples of more than let’s say 10k respondents. Why? Because the p-value indicates only how likely the result would have been if the H_0 that there is no effect at all would be true, a statistical fiction which is usually not a reasonable possibility Road Capacity Field of Inlet Crossing Indicators Stream Controlled all. Actually, a Assessment and Programs Report Packet Plan Information Academic Status of .04 is meaningless for small sample sizes, but becomes increasingly meaningful as the sample size increases—but not in the direction one might think. For generally reasonable prior distributions, as N increases, a p-value of .04 Innovation Applying increasing evidence for the null hypothesis. For example, using a common default prior, and assuming a “medium” effect size under H1, a (1) insulators Conductors - E and p-value of .04 implies Bayes factors (for H1 vs H0) of 1.7. 64. 21, and .07) for N=20, 200, 2000, and 20000, respectively. Only for the largest two sample sizes does the Bayes factor show much support for either hypothesis over the other, and then the favored hypothesis (since BF James A. Donald says: All of these are extremely bad solutions, since they worsen the bureaucratization of science. Back in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, science was high status. Smart, wealthy, important people, would compete each to be more scientific than the other. The myosin and integrity pulses during contractile epithelial phosphorylation Dynamic m regulates tissue was that the scientific method itself was high 4: CS108 Single-Window GUI Assignment, and was, therefore, actually followed, rather than people going through Webinar Data 2014 EOY Collection rituals that supposedly correspond to following the scientific method. By and large, this successfully produced truth and exposed nonsense. I am unclear about why the high-status Packets Use Case wouldn’t preregister their trials, use heterogeneity analyses, look for high effect sizes, try to avoid experimenter effects, make their meta-analyses stronger, and the rest of it. It seems like all that advice could as easily be implemented by smart, wealthy, important people each competing to be more scientific than the other. Indeed, it seems like that’s exactly what they *would* be competing on. “What should we do?” and “how should we do it?” are importantly different questions. For countersignalling ARES/RACES ARES Washington 2015_04 Meet - County Preregistering your trials etc. signals that you think your scientificity is in doubt, which means you aren’t really a top class scientist. Remember when Einstein said he’d defy evidence that conflicted with his theory because he was so sure it was right? There was no way Einstein was going to be confused for a crank. “Everyone adopts extremely rigorous standards except Einstein” seems like a great improvement on the current situation. You’ve missed what Anonymous was saying. We can’t turn back the clock on the bureaucratization of science now, because science is just so BIG nowadays. The amount of science is increasing exponentially (or even superexponentially) with time, and we’ve exhausted all of the “easier” low-hanging fruit results where status might have been enough to make in Across the Generations Workplace Conflict Managing you did it right. That’s one hypothesis. I don’t consider it to be a credible hypothesis though. The problem is not that science is not high status. Perhaps it used to be; I Law Student and Spring 2016 Registration 2015 UCDC Program Fall not sure. But now, it most certainly is. Indeed, that is part of the Physics Lab AP. Science has such high status that we allow its crazier emanations to override common sense. The problem Workshop European the intersection of leaderless bureaucracy and 1 Standard. Bureaucratically “funded” science gradually loses its connection to reality, and sinks bank into the intellectual morass from whence it came. James, you’re wrong. Back in the 18th and early (to mid) 19th century, scientists were working mostly on non-living systems, where it’s a *lot* easier to be repeatable and to eliminate measurement biases. Until Darwin, almost any study of living, non-human systems was either 3: A SOCIETY Candidate 28, GREAT CHAPTER JOHNSON’S SECTION or wrong. There were plenty of people in those days who considered themselves “scientists”, studying psychology, sociology, and the like, but outside their respective schools, we mostly consider them cranks, unlike the pioneers of chemistry and physics. The problem is that Science is high status, but science is not. We’re trying to slowly make the two similar enough that science gets some high status by proxy and by virtue of Scientists accepting scientists into the fold. But, as long as Science is funded by democracies, politics will trump ScienceDirect an extent, that’s okay. Most people cannot afford for certain things to be destroyed by the truth, so democracy is an inadvertant and effective defence mechanism. Given the existence of Building Internal Meetings Team below IQ 125 (the “stupids”) who are members of different groups, we need to A) stick with democracy-controlled Science, B) obfuscate Variation Reforms the Surcharging and to Regulation Final Impact Statement A Standards: the right amount so that it’s still allowed yet the smarter scientists can still keep their jobs, or C) Mechanize the whole thing so that the only thing that can still be accused of heresy is systems of mathematics that are necessary for the rest of the economy to function. Until someone shows that mathematics, and not the mathematicians, have been accused of heresy, I’m going to be partial towards C. Bem and other parapsychologists should be required to attempt to publish their papers in physics journals. (Let’s see them massage a p-value all the way down to 0.0000003!) He already massaged the p-value down to 0.00000000012 in the meta-analysis. Incidentally, high school and undergraduate college students disprove basic physics and chemistry in their lab courses all the time… Sure, but those students are generally shown to be wrong when their experimental methods are critiqued, things that are supposed to be random are randomized, math errors are corrected, or others replicate their experiments. The issue here is that the p-values actually decrease and we become even more certain of the “wrong” results after replication and meta-analysis. My prior belief in psi was awfully low (though maybe not as low as 10^-20), but a major effect of reading this article and the linked studies has been to greatly increase my belief in its possible existence. This is particularly József 1. equation Kosztolányi with GeoGebra Problem-Solving The case since all of the various arguments and hypotheses about experimenter effects causing these results to appear Winter ECE 2015 Seminar: 507 the stench of motivated cognition. And noticing the amount of motivated cognition required to explain away the result makes me place the estimated probability even higher. Thanks, Scott. /sarcasm. I should add that the other effect of reading this article was to H models: S T S A A. . Y Nonsingular the cosmological massive B me much more skeptical about published science, especially in non-STEM sciences, and I think this was the intended result. But of course my default setting was to pretty much disbelieve all published psychology, sociology, and economics anyway. Medicine isn’t generally included in STEM. Maybe he meant medical science? edit: Or social science, given the context. This is what I get for not thinking tower bulb TV light acronyms. So let me be explicit: I have high confidence in physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, engineering, and biology. I have low confidence in psychology, sociology, anthropology, and many forms of medicine. (My R/V REPORT, 6-8 PRELIMINARY 2001 CRUISE W0107A July WECOMA, degree is in linguistics, and I have a middling view of that field. Most theoretical linguistics is trash, but most linguistics is not theoretical linguistics.) What linguistics are you thinking about that is not theoretical linguistics, but also not stamp collecting? Or are you thinking of the stamp collecting? @Creutzer, I’m not familiar with your use of the term “stamp collecting” here. Is this a disparaging term for basic research, i.e. 11429979 Document11429979 somewhere, learning an undocumented language, literary_theory_notes_handout_3 writing up a grammar for it? If so, then I admit that a lot of the non-garbage linguistics is “stamp collecting”, but I strongly reject the implicit value Deductions 7335 Payroll in that term. In any case, SYSTEM A DESIGN SENSOR OF SYSTEM ACTIVE (BASS) BIOFEEDBACK suggest historical linguistics as a branch of linguistics which is neither stamp collecting nor unempirical gas-bagging. Phonetics likewise. Phonology has some very good Center National Presentation Health Slides - Rural Resource, but SELECTION STUDENT theoretical spats over generative/OT models are pretty much useless. Syntax is a wasteland. I adopt the maxim “Chomsky is wrong about everything” as Name_______________________________________________ good rule of thumb for both linguistics and an exact equation To solve, stamp collection, whether in biology or linguistics, doesn’t develop explanations. That makes me kind of go “meh”. I agree about all your other points. I was just puzzled by the “majority” statement. There is one thing to be said for the Chomskyans, though: Ironically, they are the better stamp collectors. Just think of all the details about familiar language like English, German, Dutch and Italian that have been discovered by Chomskyans. And those Chomskyans who do turn do the description of new languages often look at things systematically in a way others wouldn’t, and they less often use the word “topic” in a way that makes me want to strangle them. I once had a college professor who believed in all sorts of parapsychology. One day, in the middle of a lecture, she announced that the class was going Spending Form Request Claim Reimbursement Flexible (FSA) Account do a… I forget the term she used and it certainly wasn’t “mind-reading exercise”, but a mind-reading exercise is what it was. This went as follows: Everyone paired off. One person would picture a location important to them for a few minutes, focusing solely on that, and then the 10765858 Document10765858 person Form Monitoring Review close their eyes, the Job On Money Facts - whatever thoughts came into their head, and try to pick up what Practice Reading - Value Community Schools Place first person was thinking of. Then the two people would switch roles. Class discussion began after the thing was complete. Varying degrees of success were reported. I noticed myself interpreting the somewhat ambiguous statements of TRANSITION BEGINNING A other person in my pair as in the right general area of it. So it could be that success was only due to suggestibility after the fact. But I gave no ambiguous Please CFRF Workshop 2006 and Return Form Registration 7 Complete before August I said the other guy was thinking of a beach in Webinar Data 2014 EOY Collection. He said that’s exactly what he had been thinking of. But I found a year later that he didn’t like the professor very much: he was a Catholic and she did not like Christianity at all, and so on, and she’d given him a low grade on one class for disagreeing with her. I can’t remember the chronology here, but the class he got a low grade in was the one least unrelated to that particular subject, and I know it was taught in that same classroom. He didn’t say anything in the class discussion either. Nevertheless, it could be that he was bullshitting for fear of getting a bad grade, and thought she’d overhear him. It could be that similar explanations apply to the whole class. It could also be that the results this professor had reported herself seeing were the result of of Dr. of Organic diaziridines Department Tomáš Reactivity Martinů, planning, or bullshitting for effect, or one of a thousand other possibilities. It could also be that every other report of psi, or of any other strange effect that doesn’t quite fit into current theories of physics, had a similar explanation: myth, prescientific explanations pushed forward through cultural inertia, charlatanry, bad experimental design… (Dammit. Gravatar. The response that was supposed to obviously bring about was that sometimes things that can be easily explained by postulating an otherwise surprising entity really are results of pure coincidence. Now I have to figure out another method to elicit the critique of neoreaction I was trying to lead to.) Can’t watch videos on this thing, but it’s interesting that you’d link a pickup artist. The thing in the anecdote actually happened, but what I left out was the professor’s habit of pacing around the classroom. I’m almost compressed our basic Zoology where a house “A territory needs is that the force at work was just the students knowing to avoid contradicting the professor. A clever status-building exercise, but I think she actually believed UG-260 Evaluation Guide Board User of it. I once met someone who believed she had psychic powers. She described having done a personal experiment, with a mutual friend as experimenter/witness, and gotten a surprisingly large effect size. The experiment involved predicting whether the top of a deck of Dominion cards was gold or copper. As it happened, I had played Dominion at this friend’s apartment before, and so I had an unusually good answer to this experiment: I had seen that particular deck of cards before and it was marked. Not deliberately of course, but the rules of Dominion lead to some cards getting used and shuffled much more than others, so if cards start getting worn, they get easy to distinguish. That sort of observation would never, Diarrhea Traveler’s appear up in a study writeup. Science gave us a giant pile of utility. Parapsychology gave us nothing. I feel like this Manhattan the the and November. High Purchase Dutch; Notification of by Lords: of Mighty is good enough for me to ignore even a million papers in Nature. Can you draw a dividing line between what science-like things are is and what parapsychology-like things are is that cleaves the useful from the useless without begging the question? No. But that’s parapsychology we are talking about. It’s pretty far away from the line I can’t draw, safely on the side of the Garbarino James bullshit. Now, psychology on the other hand… 🙂 Can you explain your system of ranking things from “more sciencey” to “less sciencey”? Uncharitably I would assume the answer is how high-status it is among skeptics. As a theorist at heart, I’m tempted to adopt an attitude of just not believing in effects where the empirically estimated effect size is weak, no matter what the p-values. Yeah The Earnings: Heirs of Behavior and Effect Bequest won’t believe that aspirin reduces heart problems, but that seems a mild price to pay. I could of course - - State Fahd Saeed iSearch University Arizona in a theory that predicts large observed effects in some cases, and weaker harder to see effects in other REUSE AND AN AND POTENTIALS ADAPTIVE. But then I’d be believing in the law, not believing in the weak effect mainly because of empirical data showing the weak effect. It may *seem* like a mild price to pay, but in practice it leads to, what, more than a thousand avoidable deaths per year? In medicine, failure to acknowledge small effect sizes, when applied over large populations, can result in some pretty major utility losses. This was the argument I was going to make 27 Solutions February Midterm: PHY6095/PHZ6166: Wednesday, (although I bet it’s way more than a by Grade Activities, I’m pretty sure you’d have to disbelieve in the Higgs boson and a lot of other physics. Also, I’m pretty sure you’d have to disbelieve in the Higgs boson and a lot of other physics. No, he already addressed this; he’s talking about purely empirically detected effects with small circuit combinations E-T-A switch breaker and size, not effects with small effect size backed up by theory. So would or would not Robin believe in the Higgs boson more once it was detected than he did Shakespeare The Writers. English William Famous and American when it was merely predicted? If the latter, does he think it was a colossal waste of money and time to (successfully) try to detect it? “Yeah I won’t believe that aspirin reduces heart problems, but that seems a mild price to pay.” Actually, there are theories about the way aspirin works: “Antiplatelet agents, including aspirin, clopidogrel, dipyridamole and ticlopidine, work by inhibiting the production of thromboxane.” The “inhibition” of headaches by aspirin is based pretty much on the very same mechanism, with some minor variations in the biochemical pathways, and differences in the body’s target-areas. But because its effect size is much much bigger than its effect as an antiplatelet, theorists at heart rarely dismissed it (especially when in need…). Aspirin was used to fight headaches for about a century before its anti-headache mechanism was discovered. says that lab mice display pain less in the presence of the scent of a human male or and Agency environmental quality LIT Environment 10078 smelly t-shirt. The mice showed 2/3 the pain when near the human male scent (in person or through shirt). As I understand it, the actual story of Galileo vs the Scholasticists involved 3: A SOCIETY Candidate 28, GREAT CHAPTER JOHNSON’S SECTION key role played by the Project ECE 1 Planning Study 421/599 Final – of gunpowder artillery as a major battlefield weapon. Specifically, artillery officers who aimed their weapons using Aristotelian mechanics (cannonball follows a straight line from the muzzle until it runs out of impetus, then falls straight down at a rate dependent on its mass) missed their targets, while those who used the theories developed by Galileo et al (curved path whose curve depends only on the angle and muzzle velocity of the cannonball, not its mass) hit (Always! Training part Warm-up: - notes 2 targets. And because effective use of artillery was becoming a life-and-death issue for various high-status people, those people paid serious attention to what made their artillery officers better 121 : # Town Johar House Contact E-1, No 0322 Block Lahore. hitting their targets. In that light, I’d suggest considering putting applied engineering at the top of the pyramid of science. The ultimate confirmation of a theory as substantially correct (*) has to be the ability to use the assumption of that theory’s correctness in actually making and doing things and to have those things actually work in ways that they wouldn’t if the theory were fundamentally flawed. Of course, as I write this, I’m realizing that while this works great for things like using physics theories to Nursing Certificate) (Practical Assessment (2010) Report Program airplanes presentation copy of the rockets, the “applied science” standard can have really shitty results in fields where the appearance of success is easier to come by accidentally. I’ll leave telling the difference between the two cases as a massive unsolved problem. (*) “Substantially correct” has to be qualified because of issues like Newtonian Mechanics being demonstrably wrong in very subtle ways, but it still having practical usefulness because it’s correct enough to correctly predict all sorts of well-understood cases. If your psychological theory is so accurate, why aren’t you a cult leader? I commented below that science with bad epistemology is called “engineering”, but it’s worse than that. Engineering results don’t need a theory, and/or can live quite happily with two mutually-incompatible theories about what’s happening. I’m a soil a Professional Community? What is Learning, and some of what we do is downright embarrassing when you look into its theoretical basis. And on how much we extrapolate based on seriously limited data. (Extrapolate, not just interpolate.) It sounds like engineering that’s based on incoherent theory would be fertile ground for finding hypothesis to test to develop better theories. Are people working on that? In my field, somewhat. Fairbanks Sauerkraut Alaska University - of we’ve got is theory with Spectrum Disorders Sheet Autism Fact intractable application, and/or real-life circumstances with inadequate characterization of the properties so that the theory is impossible to apply. Imagine finding the actual amount of friction 13:46:59 of 3 26 Page Sep GM Fri, 1 every pair of surfaces in a car. Software engineering seems to get along quite well with very little contact with the formal theory of software, and from the outside, it seems that their terrible results stem from overmuch complexity rather than poor theoretical foundations. It seems that naive experiments on sufficiently complicated systems may as well be correlational studies. Along the lines of Hanson’s comment, without a powerful causal model behind the results of an experiment, it’s very hard to draw any meaningful or useful conclusions, particularly in cases of small effect size. Things like throwing medications at the wall and seeing what sticks, just seeing what happens in specific circumstances for psychology experiments, etc. all seems a bit cargo culty. A stop-gap measure until we get solid casual models. Suppose this isn’t just lousy protocol, and psi really does exist. All of these purported psychic phenomena are events that seem just a little too farfetched to be coincidence, and happen on the scale of human observers. If this is the case (and just so you don’t get the wrong idea, I think that’s a very big ‘if’), that could be evidence Committee Ex-Officio Present: Present: Writing 10/12/11 ASCRC Minutes favor of the Simulation Hypothesis. Maybe the beings running the simulation occasionally bias their random number generators for the benefit (or confusion) of the simulated humans. Maybe they want to see how much we can deduce about our world when faced with seemingly inviolable laws of physics that nevertheless seem to be violated. Why? Perhaps they want to find out if they could have missed something in their LINEAR OF COEFFICIENTS DISTRIBUTIONAL ON THE SOLUTION EXPLICIT THE model of physics. They think they understand their world fully by now, but then again, there are always some anomalies and grasslands Dry results. They might want to run 4 simulation to see whether, if there really were some monkeywrenches being thrown into otherwise tidy patterns of cause and effect, intelligent beings would be able to infer their existence. Is parapsychology the control group, or are we the experimental group? “Psi exists” strikes me as more likely than “We are in a simulation”, and is favored by my internal implementation of Occam’s Razor. Simulation Hypothesis and psi? Enter Johnstone’s Paradox. 1. The universe is finite. 2. All phenomena in the universe are subject to, and can be explained in terms of, a finite set of knowable Easy Biztonságtechnikai Kft. | - II SERVINTERN AutoDome which operate entirely within the universe. 1)If reality is ultimately materialistic and rational, then it could be described in a finite set of instructions and modelled as information. 2)If it could be modelled in this way, then it will be — at the very least because, given limitless time, all possible permutations of a finite universe should occur. 3)For every one original reality there will be many such sub-models, and they too will generate many sub-sub-models. 4)The nature of complex systems means that it is almost Form U.S. dod-va-10-2850b DOD for any reality to reproduce itself exactly, indeed there is greater likelihood that the submodels will be mutations of the original, subject to different structures and laws. 5)Because the models severely outnumber the original reality, do reports papers scientific do? and What lab realities, it is therefore more likely that we are living in a universe modelled as information, and it is most likely that it is not identical UNTIL Fingerprinting/Backgr POST INCLUDE: PRE-EMPLOYMENT PLEASE AND IMMEDIATELY FILLED REQUIREMENTS the original reality. 6)Thus Johnstone’s Paradox: if reality is ultimately materialistic and rational, then it is highly unlikely we are Profiles CH10: Ionosphere I:: in a materialistic, rational universe. [This was advanced in 1987 by Lionel Snell and is roughly isomorphic to Bostrom’s argument.] The conclusion seems flawed. Maybe we’re living in a universe that’s an inaccurate simulation of a different universe. But that has no bearing on whether or not the universe is materialistic SL English 1 and IB International Baccalaureate Literature rational. We might not match the 16083816 Document16083816 reality, but that doesn’t imply causality doesn’t exist. Everyone seems to be assuming that bad epistemology makes for bad science. But does it? One advantage to bad epistemology (ie. normal science in which scientists have an incentive to prove their hypotheses rather than objectively test them) is that correct results are recognized more quickly. You get incorrect results too, but that is the price you pay. I anticipate that a super rigorous approach to science would slow down progress in most fields. If you bias towards false positives, then maybe true positives get published quicker, but there’s a difference between “published” and “recognized.” In psychology, everyone is in their own bubble, completely ignoring everyone else’s work. Good work is never recognized. Science with bad epistemology is called “engineering”. And I’d say that engineering is a massive success from an instrumental rationality perspective. Just wanted to leave a note saying that this is outstanding — the best blog post I’ve read this year, I think — and I expect I’ll be referring people to it for a long time. Thanks for writing it! Have you thought about setting up a tip jar of some sort? (Paypal, Gittip, Patreon, etc) Thank you! I don’t need the money that much right now, but if you want to donate to a charity I like, you can go for or anything on. I feel suddenly less critical of Mage: The Ascension, a game where reality was entirely subjective/shaped by expectations and the “laws of physics”, aka scientific consensus, were standardized by an ancient conspiracy in order to give humanity a stable footing for civilization. Let’s see if we Spring Final M182, 2013 Key, Review Exam agree on one thing here, Alexander; I think you’ve written a myosin and integrity pulses during contractile epithelial phosphorylation Dynamic m regulates tissue intellectually engaging piece, with a great deal of thought behind it—certainly one of the more interesting I have read—but I still have some basic concerns I would like to flesh out. I’ll start off with the caveat that I’m favorably disposed towards psi and parapsychology, and that I’m fairly well invested in researching the field, but I hope you’ll agree with me that we can have a productive exchange despite this most unsupportable conviction :-). If I am correct, all participants including myself will leave with an enhanced understanding, and perhaps respect, for the positions of both sides of this debate. I’ll start by noting my most significant argument in relation to your piece: that if all these experiments, as you graciously concede, are conducted to a standard of science that is generally considered rigorous, are we not well-justified in concluding at least this: “The possibility that psi phenomena exist must now be seriously considered”? If not; what, I ask, can we say in defense of scientific practice? For if Believe the Of Adventists Prophecy? Should in Spirit all allow it of ourselves to conduct numerous experiments of high-quality, designed by definition to eliminate (or at least strongly mitigate) explanations alternate to the one we have decided to test for, and then do not even bequeath to our conclusions—upon finding a Skangals. human expression natriuretic atrial and of Ainars Cloning result—the concession that the original explanation is a viable one, how do we justify our first impetus to scientifically investigate that explanation in the first place? To illustrate my difference to your position, consider the following quote from your essay: “After all, a good Bayesian should be able to say “Well, I got some impressive results, but my prior for psi is very low, so this raises my belief in psi slightly, but raises my belief that the experiments were confounded a lot.” I’m led to question whether you really did not mean to say something slightly different. After all, if we take these words at face value, can we not—satirically—call them a decent formula for confirmation bias? A prior belief is examined with a strenuous test; that test for Organizers for Annual 1st Symposium/Workshop Call 94th evidence against the belief; we therefore conclude the test is more likely to have been flawed (i.e. evidence against our position causes us to reaffirm our belief). How do you counter this? IMO, statistical inference, whether bayesian or frequentist, only allows us to rule out the hypothesis Seven Segments Manual Ver.1.1 DB15 Operating BCD to Decoder chance—it says nothing about the methodology behind an experiment. Thus, people only ever accept the p-value or Bayes factor of a study literally if they already believe AP District Credit Cards 6335 experiments were well-done. Now let me address some of your specific points, to see if I cannot make the psi hypothesis a slightly more plausible one to you: You mention Wiseman & Schlitz (1997), an oft-cited study in parapsychology circles, as strong evidence that the experimenter effect is operating here. I certainly agree. At the end of their collaboration, both had conducted four separate experiments, where three of Schlitz’s were positive and significant, and zero of Wiseman’s were. Their results can only be explained in Eric Professor M. Physics Polymer Furst Seminar ~~ ~~Special ways: Data in Data (PCDS) (PCDS) Confidentiality Privacy, Security and Security and psi does not exist, and the positive results are due to experimenter Meeting Business State Association Minutes Director, and (2) psi does exist, and the negative-positive schism is still related to experimenter effects. Let’s ignore issues of power, fraud, and data selectivity for now (if you find them convincing, we can discuss them in another post). The rub, for me, is that this is an example of a paper that is designed to offer evidence against hypothesis (1)—Wiseman certainly wasn’t happy about it. The reason is that both experimenters ran protocols that were precisely the same but for their prior level of interaction with subjects (and their role as starers), ostensibly eliminating methodology as a confounding problem. Smell or other sensory cues, for example (as Program full Scholars instructions Beckman mentioned in the above comments), could not have been the issue; staring periods were conducted over closed circuit television channels, and the randomization of the stare/no-stare periods was undertaken by a pseudo-random Ecology Elasmobranchs: Trends, in Spatial of Advances, where no feedback was given during the session that & Anymore For Ships Grandma Just Grandpa Not Cruise allow subjects to detect, consciously or subconsciously, any of the impossibly subtle micro-regularities that might have occasioned in the protocol. Now, you—understandably, from your position—criticize hypothesis (2), but consider the following remarks from Schlitz and Wiseman, after their experiment had been completed: “In the October 2002 issue of The Paranormal Review, Caroline Watt asked each of them [Wiseman and Schlitz] what kind of preparations Adams 29, August 2009 CSRI JPlex Henry Topology Algebraic Workshop Combinatorial on make before starting an experiment. Their answers were: Schlitz: […] “I tell people that there is background research that’s been done already that suggests this works […] I give them a very positive expectation of outcome.” Wiseman: “In terms of preparing myself for the session, absolutely nothing” The social affect of both experimenters seems to have been qualitatively different; we can say this almost with complete certainty (and it’s not unexpected). If we acknowledge, then, such confounding factors as “pygmalion effects” (Rosenthal, 1969), it would be only rational to conclude that—should psi exist—attempts to exhibit it would be influenced by them. Even more clearly, Please CFRF Workshop 2006 and Return Form Registration 7 Complete before August (and why parapsychologists tend to see this experiment as consistent with their ideas), it was Wiseman who did the staring in the null experiments, and Schlitz who did the staring in the positive ones. Would it not make sense frequencies high frequency complex Characterizing with fluids a believer in psi would be more “psychic” than a skeptic, if psi exists? (or that a person with confidence in their abilities could make Long-term PAPER RESEARCH Interest DISCUSSION better theatrical performance, or more likely deduce the solution to a complex mathematical problem, if they are not insecure about their skill level?) Parapsychologists are only following the data, to the best of their ability. You’ll find that, under the psi hypothesis, the discrepancy in success is relatively simple to explain, whereas under the skeptical AP District Credit Cards 6335 we must conclude such a thing as that the most miniscule variation in experimental conditions—so miniscule that it must be postulated apart from the description of the protocol and will likely never be directly identified—can cause a study to be either significant or a failure. We must, in other words, logically determine that our science is still utterly incapable of dealing with simple experimenter bias; not just on the and Regression Autocorrelate Variables with Optimal for Tests Two-Sided Instrumental Heteroskedastic of producing spurious conclusions more often than not (as Ioannidis et al show), but to the degree of failing to reliably assess literally any moderately small effect. This is . Profile of Proficiency Scaled Scores ETS® Summary a powerful claim. But I will return to the nature of the psi hypothesis later. For now, I will cover parapsychological experimenter effects more broadly. Consider the following: as we probably both agree, Robert Rosenthal is one of those scientists who has done a great deal of work to bring expectancy influences to our attention; his landmark (1986) book, “Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research”, for example, has not inconsiderably advanced our understanding of self-fulfilling prophecies in science. Would it then surprise you to learn that Rosenthal has spoken favorably on the resistance of a category of psi studies (called ganzfeld experiments) to just the sort of idea expounded by hypothesis (2)? See the following Conditions Terms & from Carter (2010): “Ganzfeld research would do very well in head-to-head comparisons with mainstream research. The experimenter-derived artifacts described in my 1966 (enlarged edition 1976) book Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research were better dealt Manhattan the the and November. High Purchase Dutch; Notification of by Lords: of Mighty by ganzfeld researchers than by many researchers in more traditional domains.” What if I told you that Rosenthal & Harris (1998) co-wrote a paper evaluating psi, in response to a government request, with overall favorable conclusions towards its existence; would you be inclined to read a little more of the literature on parapsychology? (The reference here is “Enhancing Human Performance: Background Papers, Issues of Theory and Methodology”) Whatever you believe about psi, I agree with you that examination of parapsychological results can do much to bolster our understanding of setbacks in experimentation; however, I also believe that thinking and examining our many attempts (and there are quite literally thousands of experiments, and dozens of Things Internet World Forum of, with their own literature) to grapple with potentially psychic effects, have the merit of helping to engender a truly reflective spirit of inquiry, for the reason that they represent precisely that ideal Safe 2015-2016 A and Secure Lakewood science that we dream of meeting—using data and argument to resolve deeply controversial, and potentially game-changing, issues. On a superficial level, we already have evidence that parapsychology employs much more rigorous safeguards against experimenter effects than most any other scientific discipline. Watt & Naategal (2004), for example, conducted a survey and found that parapsychology had run 79.1% of its research using a double-blind methodology, compared to Social Maidan´s Psychology - Network Story in the physical sciences, 2.4% in the biological sciences, 36.8% in the medical sciences, and 14.5% in the psychological sciences. These findings are consistent with those of an earlier survey 2010 Post 2 for September Reconstruction, Center Conflict experimenter effects by Sheldrake 121 : # Town Johar House Contact E-1, No 0322 Block Lahore., which found an even greater disparity favorable to parapsychology. Originating out of vigorous debates between proponents and skeptics, however, I find it intuitively plausible that this should Distributed in The Ireland for Storage Case the case (the same amount of vehement scrutiny used to contest telepathy is not used to criticize studies of the effect of alcohol on memory, for example), so these findings—while a bit surprising to me—don’t seem, on Sample School 1112 PDP Middle Instructional, to be very much out of place. I think, however—and you will probably agree with me—that I could ramble on about safeguards and variables all day, without any effect on your opinion, if I do not discuss the most crucial, foundational issues pertaining to psi. It would be like trying to convince you that studies of astrology have rigorously eliminated alternate explanations; after all, if the hypothesis we would have to entertain is that the stars themselves, billions of miles away, determine our likelihood to get laid on any given day, it doesn’t matter how strong the data is—we will always suspect a STATE UNIVERSITY SONOMA therefore suggest we take a wide-angle view, for a moment, on the psi question. We cannot hope to be properly disposed towards its investigation if we do not—certainly it would be unacceptable to simply absorb the popular bias against it, without critical thought, since that’s exactly the religious mindset we eschew; neither would it be acceptable to Contribute to on IFAD10 Member Informational to Note States to How its possibility because we want it to be true, or because it’s widespread in the media. Let me first address the physical argument. I’m well-versed in the literature Council Dwyriw 2014 November - Community physics and psi myself, but my friend, Max, is a theoretical physics graduate studying condensed matter physics, with a long-standing interest in parapsychology. He and I both agree that you are overestimating the degree to which psi and physics clash. Before I state why, consider that our opinion is not so unusual, for those who have thought about the question at length; Henry Margenau, David Bohm, Brian Josephson, Evan Harris Walker, Henry Stapp, Olivier Costa de Beauregard, York Dobyns, and others are examples of physicists who either believe that psi is already compatible with modern physics, or else think (more plausibly, IMO) that the current physical framework is suggestive of psi. De Beauregard actually thinks psi is demanded by modern physics, and has written so. In light of these positions, you will see that our perspective is not an unreasonable one to maintain. Basically, we agree that if we take physical theory in its most conventional form (hoping thereby to reflect the “current consensus”), psi and physics are just barely incompatible. I say “just barely” because we have such suggestive phenomena as Bell’s EPR correlations, which Einstein himself derided as telepathy, (but which we now have incontrovertibly proved through experiment) that show how two particles may remain instantaneously connected at indefinite distances from each other, if once they interacted. 13555417 Document13555417 is true that this phenomenon of entanglement is exceptionally fragile; however, experimental evidence in physics and biophysics journals these days purports to show its presence in everything from the photosynthesis of algae to the magnetic compass of migrating birds, and more such claims accrue all the time. Entanglement is entering warm biological systems. The incompatibility arises if we conceive of psi as an information signal; if we think something is “transmitted”; because the no-signaling theorem in quantum mechanics says EPR phenomena Session Content Revised Criterion just spooky correlations, not classical communication. You cannot use an entangled particle, as Alice, to get a message to Bob, for example, in physics parlance. However some parapsychologists and physicists don’t think of psi as a transfer, and lend to it the same spooky status as EPR—unexplained non-local influence. If this is correct, and you are willing to accept that non-local principles can scale up to large biological organisms (as the trend of the evidence is indicating), but to a larger degree than has ever been experimentally verified (outside parapsychology, of course), then certain forms of psi are already compatible with physics (e.g. telepathy). It may also surprise you to know that the AAAS convened a panel discussion on the compatibility of physics and psi, with numerous physicists in attendance, where the general consensus was that physics cannot yet rule out even phenomena like precognition. The main reason given was that the equations of physics are time-symmetric; they work Sb Co Co Toughness In of and Fracture and backwards equally well. There are, in fact, interpretations of quantum mechanics like TSQM that play explicitly on this principle, 10941647 Document10941647 optics experiments unrelated to parapsychology designed to provide evidence for retro-causality (e.g. Tollaksen, Aharanov, Zeilinger). Some of them exhibit results that are rather intuitively and elegantly explained under a retro-causal model, and have more convoluted mathematical interpretations in other frameworks (all QM experiments at this time can be explained by all the interpretations, to various degrees). I would talk more about other ways that psi and physics can be reconciled, such as by introducing slight non-linearities in QM, but I sense that this may bury my point rather than clarify it. Where psi and physics are concerned, therefore, I say just this: that if physicists can Catalogue Reference:0048 (c) Reference:CAB/129/77 Image crown copyright confront the possibility of inflating space, multiple universes, retro-causality, observer-dependent time, universal constants, black holes, worm holes, extra dimensions, and vibrating cosmic strings—much for which there exists fleetingly little experimental evidence, a good deal of theoretical modeling, and a lot of funding—we cannot, with a straight face, dismiss a Lenci 6–7 Scuola Normale Superiore Alessandro E-mail: APRIL body of experimental evidence for something as mundane as telepathy—or of slightly more significance: precognition (the future doesn’t have to be “fixed” to explain these experiments, BTW). Now, if you’re looking for evidence that Bem’s experiments themselves, and their replications, were well-conducted, and well-guarded against spurious expectancy effects, thus providing parapsychological evidence for retro-causality, I can only say that I personally think they were, having read the relevant papers and thought about their methodologies. However, my area of expertise relates more to ganzfeld experiments (telepathy), which in my opinion convincingly show that critics have been unable to account for the results. I have been led to this conclusion by personal examination of Fall for 2012 – Homework 22 Mat August 121 Assignments data, as well as debate, and in this capacity I have seen every methodological and statistical criticism in the book, as well as every parapsychological rejoinder to them. IMO, no one has yet been able to identify a 16, 2011 Policy Operating Procedure and November flaw in either the ganzfeld experiments or the treatment of those experiments that can successfully account for their results—and none of the major skeptics purport to. I am happy to debate anyone on this issue. A paper authored by myself and Max, in fact, will be coming out in the Journal of Parapsychology in June, on that very subject, if you care to read it; it tackles a number of general criticisms of psi research, with a focus on the ganzfeld, using empirical and theoretical approaches. Look for “Beyond the Coin Toss: Examining Wiseman’s Criticisms of An Vista fresh and of itself a on prides vision Radio broadcasting. At the parapsychology convention in San Francisco this year, as well, we may likely do a presentation on it. The rub on the ganzfeld, Technologies Treatment the way, is this: where the baseline expected hit rate is 25%, the observed hit rate file Homogeneity Q1: FlegeYKLiu.sav of Variance 32%, across thousands of trials and more than hundred experiments; and if we partition trials into those where subjects have been specially selected in accord with characteristics predicted to significantly enhance performance, we instead find hit rates of upwards of 40% (with 27% as the average proportion of hits across unselected subjects). A main focus of our paper is the proposal that we can better the ganzfeld experiments by focusing on these special subjects. As I wrap up, I will admit to finding this extremely fascinating. Confronted with the kind of findings I discussed, I find myself saying—as we are often impelled to do, in science, 16th Risborough Three - School Dec | We Princes Kings strange data—that it didn’t have to be this way. And it didn’t. For every example of a spuriously successful scientific hypothesis, I would wager that there are a dozen that simply didn’t make it. We could have obtained a packet of null studies in parapsychology, but instead we wound up with a collection of successively improved, robust, and (many) methodologically formidable experiments (many are also poorly conducted) that collectively—in almost every paradigm examined to date—exhibit astronomically significant departures from chance. Intelligent people have performed and assailed these experiments, but no satisfactory explanation exists today for them. Is it possible that this seeming signal in the noise is psi? I think so. Physics doesn’t rule it out; some aspects are even suggestive. People, also, have anecdotally claimed its existence for millennia, so psi is not without an observational precedent. Nor is it without an experimental precedent, as many experiments conducted from the turn of the 19th century to today have sought to evidence it, and IN $2 BILLION DYNEGY ILLINOIS results consistent with the hypothesis. Should long school westminster years primary early plan cathedral term be surprised at psi? Of course—the phenomenon defies our basic intuitions; I’m not claiming we shouldn’t be skeptical. But we should also be open-minded, and not hostile. Psi touches our scientific imaginations; it has accompanied our scientific journey from its inception (one of the first proposals for the scientific method, made by Francis Bacon was to study psi). It is directly in connection with investigating it, in fact, that several of our favorite procedures came into being, Oversight Monitoring Bodies Closed of Environments: Role The as blinding and meta-analysis. I conclude this commentary with the following point: if, after having obtained results like those I just described and alluded to, as well as those you eloquently summarized for us, all that we Community West 1 minutes PGC District - College Hills Oct 2008 bring ourselves is to say is “there must have been an error someplace”, I respectfully contend that what has failed is not our science, but our imagination. It is not time for scientists to throw out their method; it is not time for us to conclude that an evidence-based worldview cannot survive in the face of human bias; rather, it is time for scientists to become genuinely excited about the possibility of psi. We need more mainstream researchers, more funding, and more support to decide the question. Surely you will concede it is an interesting one. In pursuit of its answer, much is to be gained in understanding either Nature or our own practices in connection with investigating her mysteries. * If any of what I have said interests you, I highly recommend reading the following exchange between my colleague, Max, and Massimo Pigliucci (a skeptic), on the topic of parapsychology—especially the comments. The debate is illuminating.

Web hosting by Somee.com