Telephone telepathy 'proved'
- Thread starter Xenocrates
- Start date
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
sample size?
What the PRH!? Looking at the actual report ( http://sheldrake.org/papers/Telepathy/Nolan.html ) the sample size is, of all things, 12! What a horribly small sample size! Incredibly bad use of statistics. Clearly a Type I error. I'd calculate the optimal sample size for such an experiment, but I don't have the time right now. As well, the only references he has are citations to his previous "research"!
And I have to say that I must laugh, a lot, at the small size of said report. Heck, I've only taken a basic how-to-make-a-research-paper course, and I've made papers 10 pages long.
And I have to say that I must laugh, a lot, at the small size of said report. Heck, I've only taken a basic how-to-make-a-research-paper course, and I've made papers 10 pages long.
No, you can trust statistics. What you can't trust, however, is people using statistics badly, which can happen a lot. This is one of those cases.
Narz said:, see what I mean.
No study of anything controversial / new age can be air-tight enough for the skeptics but of course preconceived notions need no proof whatsoever.
Actually, they can, as long as they follow scientific method, are confirmed by independent reaserchers and double-blind methodology.
Regards
.I am a bit more careful here and prefer to limit myself to saying that most probaly there is an undetected inherent flaw in the test. (yes, it IS hooey).VRWCAgent said:
Indeed - with the tiny difference that all these medicines have one thing in common: an active substance, measureable, is introduced into the human body. The exact (bio-)chemical reaction taking place may be unknown, but the fact that they happen is known. So there is a factual, measurable component. OTOH, telepathy has what to support it - hearsay? After all, physics is well able to eliminate any method I can think of or have ever heard suggested of effecting that information transfer.
So your example falls short, IMO, although your admonishment is in principle just. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, nor is the inability to explain the proof of divine invention either (and again religion raises its ugly head)
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Who needs a study to know telephone telepathy is real? Anyone who's had a phone for more than a week has experienced it. Excuze me, Ive got to go read a science book to find out what I believe
carlosMM said:I am not, indeed. Now, there's lots ot the 'change your diet' stuff, but the lil' old bit of water with nothing in it is only a placebo. A good one, for gullible people.
I LOVED how some doc tried to prove to me that it works: he took a jar of plain water and a jar into which he put, along with the plain water, a little closed phial with homeopathic stuff. Lo and behold, algae grew faster in the jar with the 'medicine'. Proof, he claimed, that it has 'power'.
Sorry to say, but that is utter nonsense: the phail jsut had additional surface and additional germs on it. An empty one, or one with plain water, each gave the very same result.
Telepathy!
EDIT: Ram, how about we come up with a study that is indeed a solid test? Not this nonsense used in the 'study' named in the OP.
Hehehe. wasn't it in the netherlands that some doctors, enraged by the recognition of homeopathy by the medical council, have organized a protest by "homeopathical suicide"? They applied the multiple homeopathic dilutions on some poison (sulfuric acid, if memory serves) until it was below Avogrado's mark, and took it before the building of thir headquarters.
Needless to say, nobody died.
Regards
.FredLC said:Hehehe. wasn't it in the netherlands that some doctors, enraged by the recognition of homeopathy by the medical council, have organized a protest by "homeopathical suicide"? They applied the multiple homeopathic dilutions on some poison (sulfuric acid, if memory serves) until it was below Avogrado's mark, and took it before the building of thir headquarters.
Needless to say, nobody died.
What? I totally missed that! THank you for this gem of information
carlosMM said:What? I totally missed that! THank you for this gem of information
Most welcomed.
Anyway, I need more memory - it was in belgiun, and it was because of healthy care covering costs on homeopathic treatment. Here is the link:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257287.htm
I reakon scam, because;
A) The study linked to has a sample size of only 12. OK, so they got (just) below the 0.05 p value level, but that is not that good, and I would have to wonder if this is the first time they tried the test, and did not report failed ones. This is a technique used in drug trials, and it has been suggested that all trials are reported BEFORE they are done, or they will not be considered for publication.
I really wonder how this got published, and I have to suspect the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research may not be the most respected peer review journal out there.
Also note it was filmed for TV. It would not have been worth much if it had not reached the significance limit.
B) The other trial referenced, with more than 850 trials and p= 1x10-26 (I guess he means 10^-26) is only referenced in Sheldrakes book, The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind. London: Hutchinson. If it was that good, how come he could not get it published (esp. when this one DID get published)?
A) The study linked to has a sample size of only 12. OK, so they got (just) below the 0.05 p value level, but that is not that good, and I would have to wonder if this is the first time they tried the test, and did not report failed ones. This is a technique used in drug trials, and it has been suggested that all trials are reported BEFORE they are done, or they will not be considered for publication.
I really wonder how this got published, and I have to suspect the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research may not be the most respected peer review journal out there.
Also note it was filmed for TV. It would not have been worth much if it had not reached the significance limit.
B) The other trial referenced, with more than 850 trials and p= 1x10-26 (I guess he means 10^-26) is only referenced in Sheldrakes book, The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind. London: Hutchinson. If it was that good, how come he could not get it published (esp. when this one DID get published)?
amadeus
rad thibodeaux-xs
I'm used to it.Narz said:
If anyone had telepathy and could see things others couldn't, why haven't any of them used it to their own personal advantage?
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
The answer usually involves possible revocation or removal of "powers" should they be used for "wrong" purposes (obviously including personal gain). Since this explanation tends to imply that the powers are being granted in some fashion, it pushes the phenomenon closer to religion and away from science.rmsharpe said:
(Cue nerdic reference of D&D Clerics being granted spells.)
Or they're all secretly plotting to take over the world while convincing us that they don't exist.
Xenocrates
Deity
Samson said:
Actually, contrary to common sense, parapsychology stuff gets a LOT more peer review than anything else. Everyone's out to debunk these guys and, to date, no one's managed to debunk Sheldrake and he's been around for a long time now.
In mainstream science, researchers try to ape the results of their illustrious forebears (it's true, I've been there), but in this field everyone's out to debunk you.
Sheldrake uses the biggest samples that he can and he appears to me to use scientifically accurate methods. In the online staring experiment, he used 6860 trials, giving a positive result 60.6% of the time (miles over the expected 50%). This can't be dismissed lightly! He was drawn to internet based experimentation because he could get a high sample size and do cheap experiments. He gives his methods and invites you to reproduce his work; 'low sample size' is an invalid criticism now. It's more a question of whether you dismiss something that has experimental evidence for it for unscientific reasons and whether you can find an alternative explanation for the phenomena.
Lastly The CIA spent at least $20,000,000 on 'remote viewing' programmes over two decades or more. Wouldn't they have shut down the operation early if it was drawing a blank?
From http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/air1995.pdf
The Indians have recently started their own remote viewing and have reported successes against Pakistani intelligence by using it. The article here is very interesting, but there are potential flaws and it could be a smokescreen (who knows?) http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/12-13-04.asp
Interesting stuff!
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Just to give some evidence in the other direction.
And, repeating myself on Platonic Ideas, I'd like to challenge the staring test a little: Will it also detect when you are being taken a picture of?
And, repeating myself on Platonic Ideas, I'd like to challenge the staring test a little: Will it also detect when you are being taken a picture of?
Xenocrates
Deity
Erik Mesoy said:
LOL Erik I was just thinking about you (NOT!!!).
Anyway I read the link:
I would ask Mr Baker why he takes this view. His experiment is worse designed than Sheldrake's (see http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/stare.html yet he prefers to believe the results of a poor experiment
He's got lighter credentials than has Sheldrake as well as a lighter intellect. Who ya wanna believe?
PS i've no idea about the possibility of detecting someone taking your picture, although I did read somewhere that some people know when CCTV cameras are watching them. However I have also read many stories of people doing the most stupid things on CCTV, so this is doubtful.
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
rmsharpe said:
How would one go about using the ability to predict phonecalls to give oneself a personal advantage?
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
You read one of the search results. It was a general search of "Sheldrake" on two sites that I expected to oppose him, because I had seen little of that to date.
Apparently the staring test is supposed to show that we emit some kind of sight-rays when looking at people, and these rays are detectable. This leans on Platonic Ideas, that of "person" looking at "person". Will it work if one is
- Looking through a sheet of glass?
- Looking through a one-way mirror?
- Looking in a mirror around a corner?
- Looking around a wall by means of several mirrors?
- Looking at a transferred image?
- Not in possession of an organic optic nerve, but instead having visual stimuli piped to your brain through a cable?
punkbass2000 said:
Police call centers? Predict the high priority calls...
Similar threads
