Experimental Evidence For Anomalous Retroactive Influences On Cognition And Affect

[pongo]

Wired article

 

here is the dirty secret of anomalous phenomena like telepathy and clairvoyance: They’ve been demonstrated dozens of times, often by reputable scientists.

[integer]

I knew you were going to post that.

[jimbms]

Damn integer you beat me to it as I knew you would

[Chinahand]

There's a famous quote which goes along the lines of 95% of my experiments don't show anything, the other 5% get published in Science.

 

There will always be statistical anomolies which need further investigation. Science is a lot more than just saying a particular experiment has shown so-and-so results. Science also attempts to develop an understanding of why the results have occurred, and to base that understanding on wider accepted evidence to coherently explain the phenomenon within an accepted paradigm.

 

Paradims do break down - Newtonian physics was replaced by relativity and quantum theory. They did so when the evidence of anomolies was so strong it could not be ignored AND when theoritical geniuses had started to provide an explanation of these anomolies which made them not outliers, but statistically significant results for the new theory.

 

These results on "Retroactive Influences" are currently nothing more than anomolous outliers and assumptions about ESP, PSI etc are not scientific and are simply based on wishful thinking.

 

Science cannot make statements about the unkown - there is too much of it out there! Certainly other experimenters can attempt to replicate them - more results volume should tighten statistical uncertainty and remove statistical fluke, but if there is anything to this then there also needs to be some attempt to understand how such results could occur some causal explanation.

 

I'd be fascinated, but I'm not holding my breath. I basically think its just a statistical fluke and not a real phenomenon.

[VinnieK]

There will always be statistical anomolies which need further investigation. Science is a lot more than just saying a particular experiment has shown so-and-so results. Science also attempts to develop an understanding of why the results have occurred, and to base that understanding on wider accepted evidence to coherently explain the phenomenon within an accepted paradigm.

 

Your general point, that one result does not constitute proof of psi, is correct, but I think you''re being more that a little unfair, and perhaps exposing your prejudices here. For a start, demonstrating a phenomenon is just as valid a piece of science as explaining it and it's silly to say, or imply otherwise. Whether it proves psi exists or not (and my instinct is, as I expect yours is, not) is neither here nor there, it remains an interesting observation and a potential jump off point for other investigations in this area and as it happens, there have been attempts to replicate Bem's results, which have so far failed (see the update on the article).

 

My feeling is that the result has been hyped more than it should have been, but it's better here to criticise the reporting rather than belittling the researcher and the research. At the end of the day, the journal is a good one, the researcher in question is has a decent record, and the article has been reviewed by those who know what they're talking about. Given that, who are you (or me, or anyone who hasn't read the full paper with an informed, critical eye and gone through the statistical and experimental methods employed with a fine tooth comb) to say "oh this is just stupid anomalies and assumption"?

 

There's a famous quote which goes along the lines of 95% of my experiments don't show anything, the other 5% get published in Science.

 

Even accounting for its tongue in cheek nature, that remains a silly quote which demonstrates little but how bitchy and stupid the world of scientific research can be! The only people who really say anything like that (and I've never heard it said in exactly that form, though I've heard variations) are usually people insecure about their own research record who think that ostentatiously dismissing the vast bulk of reasearch, including their own, raises them up a little above their peers by virtue of being aware of this supposed state of affairs. It's pretty much the equivalent of that kind of person who tries to make a virtue of their own ignorance by proudly stating that they know they know nothing where others do not.

 

I know you used it innocently and in good humour, but that type of thing really gets on my tits and reflects an unpleasant undertone sometimes evident in science and academia: "Q. what do you call a failed mathematician/what do you call someone who can't do maths? A. A computer scientist/an engineer", "Q. Why did the chicken do biology? A. Because it failed its Physics A-Level" - all pompous crap from puffed up dumbkopfs who should know better.

 

Paradims do break down - Newtonian physics was replaced by relativity and quantum theory. They did so when the evidence of anomolies was so strong it could not be ignored AND when theoritical geniuses had started to provide an explanation of these anomolies which made them not outliers, but statistically significant results for the new theory.

 

It's a pedantic point, that being what I do best, but Newtonian physics was not replaced, so much as was refined by relativity. Newtonian mechanics is still valid, that's why it's still taught to and used by physicists, mathematicians, and engineers. What's changed is the notion of scale - whereas prior to relativity and mechanics it was assumed that Newtonian mechanics would naturally hold at all scales of observation, it has since become apparent that it's only really a decent approximation within a particular range. The theory remains the same, just the assumptions in the hypothesis have changed.

 

Science cannot make statements about the unkown

 

Yes and no. I think you mean Science cannot say anything about the metaphysical, and this is true, but it's difficult to see where this fits in with the story: If, and I believe it's a long shot (especially since Bem's results have not so far been replicated), psi exists, then it has a physical manifestation and can be observed; which is all Bem's experiments were trying to do.

 

In general, however, science does make statements about the unknown (i.e. statements regarding the existence or properties of hitherto unknown particlese etc).

 

 

 

 

[Chinahand]

Signs that there were problems with the protocol in these experiments - words weren't either correctly pre-remembered or not - the experimenter screened them and was allowed to correct "near misses"/spelling mistakes. That creates a huge risk of bias.

[Jimcalagon]

the experimenter screened them and was allowed to correct "near misses"/spelling mistakes.

 

And for that reason, I'm out.

[Matt Bawden]

There will always be statistical anomolies which need further investigation. Science is a lot more than just saying a particular experiment has shown so-and-so results. Science also attempts to develop an understanding of why the results have occurred, and to base that understanding on wider accepted evidence to coherently explain the phenomenon within an accepted paradigm.

 

Your general point, that one result does not constitute proof of psi, is correct, but I think you''re being more that a little unfair, and perhaps exposing your prejudices here. For a start, demonstrating a phenomenon is just as valid a piece of science as explaining it and it's silly to say, or imply otherwise. Whether it proves psi exists or not (and my instinct is, as I expect yours is, not) is neither here nor there, it remains an interesting observation and a potential jump off point for other investigations in this area and as it happens, there have been attempts to replicate Bem's results, which have so far failed (see the update on the article).

 

My feeling is that the result has been hyped more than it should have been, but it's better here to criticise the reporting rather than belittling the researcher and the research. At the end of the day, the journal is a good one, the researcher in question is has a decent record, and the article has been reviewed by those who know what they're talking about. Given that, who are you (or me, or anyone who hasn't read the full paper with an informed, critical eye and gone through the statistical and experimental methods employed with a fine tooth comb) to say "oh this is just stupid anomalies and assumption"?

 

There's a famous quote which goes along the lines of 95% of my experiments don't show anything, the other 5% get published in Science.

 

Even accounting for its tongue in cheek nature, that remains a silly quote which demonstrates little but how bitchy and stupid the world of scientific research can be! The only people who really say anything like that (and I've never heard it said in exactly that form, though I've heard variations) are usually people insecure about their own research record who think that ostentatiously dismissing the vast bulk of reasearch, including their own, raises them up a little above their peers by virtue of being aware of this supposed state of affairs. It's pretty much the equivalent of that kind of person who tries to make a virtue of their own ignorance by proudly stating that they know they know nothing where others do not.

 

I know you used it innocently and in good humour, but that type of thing really gets on my tits and reflects an unpleasant undertone sometimes evident in science and academia: "Q. what do you call a failed mathematician/what do you call someone who can't do maths? A. A computer scientist/an engineer", "Q. Why did the chicken do biology? A. Because it failed its Physics A-Level" - all pompous crap from puffed up dumbkopfs who should know better.

 

Paradims do break down - Newtonian physics was replaced by relativity and quantum theory. They did so when the evidence of anomolies was so strong it could not be ignored AND when theoritical geniuses had started to provide an explanation of these anomolies which made them not outliers, but statistically significant results for the new theory.

 

It's a pedantic point, that being what I do best, but Newtonian physics was not replaced, so much as was refined by relativity. Newtonian mechanics is still valid, that's why it's still taught to and used by physicists, mathematicians, and engineers. What's changed is the notion of scale - whereas prior to relativity and mechanics it was assumed that Newtonian mechanics would naturally hold at all scales of observation, it has since become apparent that it's only really a decent approximation within a particular range. The theory remains the same, just the assumptions in the hypothesis have changed.

 

Science cannot make statements about the unkown

 

Yes and no. I think you mean Science cannot say anything about the metaphysical, and this is true, but it's difficult to see where this fits in with the story: If, and I believe it's a long shot (especially since Bem's results have not so far been replicated), psi exists, then it has a physical manifestation and can be observed; which is all Bem's experiments were trying to do.

 

In general, however, science does make statements about the unknown (i.e. statements regarding the existence or properties of hitherto unknown particlese etc).

 

There's the proof right there that precognition isn't and won't be a reality because if it was, you would have known that you were going to come out with that anally retentive boring drivel and would have stopped yourself or atleast someone else would have.

[VinnieK]

There's the proof right there that precognition isn't and won't be a reality because if it was, you would have known that you were going to come out with that anally retentive boring drivel and would have stopped yourself or atleast someone else would have.

 

Good contribution bro'. What's wrong, are you feeling a bit neglected since Barrie Stevens stole your thunder as popularly elected forum buffoon?

 

Hugs.

[Matt Bawden]

There's the proof right there that precognition isn't and won't be a reality because if it was, you would have known that you were going to come out with that anally retentive boring drivel and would have stopped yourself or atleast someone else would have.

 

Good contribution bro'. What's wrong, are you feeling a bit neglected since Barrie Stevens stole your thunder as popularly elected forum buffoon?

 

Hugs.

 

No, I'm happy leaving the throne to someone else for a while. Usually I do like reading your posts, they are intelligent, articulate and a lot of the time spot on, but this time I found it as I previously posted and for my own amusement I ridiculed it in an appropriate manner, obviously no serious insult or offence was meant, it was late at night and I thought it would be quite fun.

[Chinahand]

Results which are unable to replicate the original work on precognition left unpublished.

 

There is a genuine problem in Science that negative results are often left unpublished - this creates a risk of bias, especially in meta-analyses when the only data available to survey comes from positive studies.

 

Why was Prof Bem's work statistically significant while three other academics doing the same work haven't found anything? No one knows, but statistical flukes do occur - and science is all about protecting yourself from your unrealized biases - as Richard Feynman said - The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.