July 11, 2005

• There is $1,000,000 waiting for the PEAR people to collect. All they have to do is accept the JREF test. Unfortunately, they have yet to do so.
• I quite understand their unwillingness to deal with Randi!
• Heh. Yeah, he can be a bit over the top. If their research is repeatable, then they really should claim the prize and thereby shut him up. I suspect their research isn't repeatable under closely supervised conditions, unfortunately.
• Peer-reviewed journal citations greatly appreciated w/ thanks!
• I'm really thinking hard that Moneyjane is going to give me free access to her new webcam.
• "Peer-reviewed journal citations greatly appreciated w/ thanks" 20 years worth of them. Peer review is presumably part of the grant process. These are the folks who did the widely reported random number generator studies, IIRC, that did weird things before major events.
• This is for you, Skrik.
• Though Randi can be, as Nomen Nescio said, over the top, and occasionally even shrill, the JREF test, the willingness to define a protocol which is amenable to both parties (Randi and the claimant), and the fact that (last I heard) the prize money being held in escrow practically from the start of the process sure puts my skeptical needle into his favor. If the people at PEAR (who, by the way, were on Art Bell's show recently, if that's any indication of the veracity of their claims... take that as you will) are unwilling to undertake an investigation which is supervised, assessed, and reduced by an outside and ostensibly objective agent, how can they call that, by any stretch of things, "scientific"?
• That test was boring. There was no button to click.
• Neat subject, chyren. Thanks for the those links, Nomen. I agree with you and chimaera, Randi wins.
• Thanks Nomen Nescio, JREF is new to me, and I just lost about an hour reading all their recently posted applications!! ;)
• According to the PEAR website, the program is run by "an interdisciplinary staff of engineers, physicists, psychologists, and humanists" My question is: Why humanists? The first three groups are necessary considering the nature of the experiments, but what purpose do the humanists serve?
• rocket88: humanists are supposed to be objective and free from supersitious or paranormal thinking.
• This is all not to mention the fact that virtually all of PEAR's publications are in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration," some of whose recent abstracts include the following papers: "Experimental Test of Possible Psychological Benefits of Past-Life Regression" - Winter 2004 issue. "Inferences from the Case of Ajendra Singh Chauhan: The Effect of Parental Questioning, of Meeting the "Previous Life" Family, an Aborted Attempt to Quantify Probabilities, and the Impact on His Life as a Young Adult" - Winter 2004 "Time-Series Analysis of a Catalog of UFO Events: Evidence of a Local-Sidereal-Time Modulation" - Fall 2004 "Challenging Dominant Physics Paradigms" - Fall 2004 "Electrodermal Presentiments of Future Emotions" - Summer 2004 "The Sasquatch: An Unwelcome and Premature Zoological Discovery?" - Spring 2004 All this and more (The Taos HUM! -- Zero Point Energy! -- Reincarnation! -- Alchemy!) can be found at at The Society for Scientific (*cough*) Exploration Also, some highlights of their list of publications from their decades of research, of 56 papers listed: 30 for Journal of Scientific Exploration 13 "Tech Note" or "Tech Report", presumably self-published by PEAR, 2 of which were published in "Cultivating Consciousness for Enhancing Human Potential, Wellness, and Healing" 1 for Journal of Parapsychology and 5 which appear to be mainstream: 3 for "Foundations of Physics" 1 for Proceedings of IEEE 1 for Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (also a Tech Report above) and reprinted "Antiquity" ------------------- Being one who at least has an undergraduate training in the activities and methods of science, I can hardly call PEAR's activities to be anything REMOTELY approaching compelling science. Reads more like well-funded metaphysics, to me.
• humanists are supposed to be objective and free from supersitious or paranormal thinking Exactly, and a true scientific study would be open to *all* explanations of the observed results.
• Who here has seen ghosts? I know several people who have. Explain that shit. In two cases, different people saw the same fucking ghost despite neither 1. knowing who the ghost was and 2. knowing that the other had seen it. In both cases, the clothes and appearance of the ghost was shown to be identical.
• I'm convinced.
• A true scientific study absolutely SHOULD be open to all explanations of observed results. And we may be seeing that, here, but what I find missing is crucial to the scientific process, and an important part of the division between Science and Pseudo-Science: Repeatability, Repeatability, Repeatability. Sounds like PEAR is unwilling to repeat their experiments for an objective observer, even considering that the $1M would probably more than defray the costs of adjusting their research schedule. I don't care if it's Princeton or MIT, if they don't want to support their claims with repeatable research, whatever it is, it ain't science.
• I saw a "ghost" if you want to call it that. Was witnessed by my sister. First time in my life that I saw something that I had no explanation for. Seemed impossible, yet I know what I saw. Once I started to think about it, the fact that there was no explanation for what I saw scared the shit out of me. Yes, weird shit happens. And no, I don't try to convince anyone over the existance of "ghosts" just because I saw something strange. Seems impossible that such "sightings" could even be tested. And that's about it... I also saw a Yeti the other night.
• rocket88: Let me rephrase what I wrote about humanists. Humanists reject supernatural thinking and focus on rational explanations. I think PEAR mentioned humanists for the same reason aspirin commercials mention "4 out of 5 doctors" or tooth paste commercials mention "3 out of 4 dentists." That is, it is an attempt to influence the reader or viewer into accepting veracity of their claims. A scientific study should be open to all testable, verifiable, and repeatable interpretations of a study. If it isn't then it isn't science.
• Testable, repeatable, and falsifiable, actually.
• True. My bad.
• As a follow-on to what Sugarmilktea mentioned, I've had 2 instances where I have had a dream and that dream came true. Both times were, interestingly enough, completely dull in action, but specific enough in context to remember the dreams. What exactly happened, I don't know. But I'm not about to write my experience down and call it "scientific research." Truly, there is more in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy. Mysteries of life, consciousness, and reality abound. But it is exactly these things that, if they are investigated, must be investigated from a very rigorous scientific standpoint, and furthermore, if one gets "positive" results, you had better be able to do it again. Otherwise, what these people at PEAR are calling "Science" is merely personal anecdote. Interesting enough, perhaps, but Anecdote is the building block of Religion, not Science.
• Making Tom Baker faces can change the outcome of really scientific experiments. That's how I knew you were going to call me.
• Some here may be interested to read about Project Alpha.
• Chimaera: if one gets "positive" results, you had better be able to do it again. Otherwise, what these people at PEAR are calling "Science" is merely personal anecdote. Did you read the link? "Over the laboratory’s 20-year history, thousands of such experiments, involving many millions of trials, have been performed by several hundred operators. The observed effects are usually quite small, of the order of a few parts in ten thousand on average, but they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations." (My emphasis.) Now, I'm not saying I believe them, but on the other hand I haven't looked at the data, or the methodologies. I have, however, met one of the former principals in PEAR, Roger Nelson (I think the guy with the pendulum on the original link is him, but it's been a long time). He's a long-time friend of my mother, and while many of his notions and experiments strike me as deeply goofy, he's definitely a scientist, and sincerely approaches his goofy notions scientifically. To compare what he and the PEAR folk have done to ghost stories or personal anecdote is absurd.
• >Mysteries of life, consciousness, and reality abound. But it is exactly these things that, if they are investigated, must be investigated from a very rigorous scientific standpoint, Why's that? Why discredit the entire realm of subjective experience? Maybe the universe is big enough to encompass mysteries for whose investigation science is not a useful tool. Seems to me folks look askance at religion and then get all religious about science.
• By "do it again," I don't mean repeating it yourself under the same sort of conditions. By "do it again," I am talking about Repeatability from a scientific perspective. My 2 dreams were a genuine repetition of some sort of "Dream Pre-Cognition." But I'm not about to undergo the JREF test, nor am I going to publish my anecdotes and call it science. If it is, as you emphasized "statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations," then why is it published in Journal of Scientific Exploration? Why not Science? or Nature? Why would $1M for their research be dismissed out of hand by choosing not to do the JREF test? Where are all of the other researchers corroborating their work? Why is the PEAR research not being cited by others in Science, or Nature, or Physical Review, or, heck, Discover Magazine? Ask a Scientologist about their e-meter sometime. I bet they'll say something like this:

  Over the laboratory’s Scientology's 20-year nearly 50-year history, thousands of such experiments, involving many millions of trials, have been performed by several hundred operators auditors. The observed effects are usually quite small, [...] but they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations.

  Where's Shermer's Skeptic magazine, endorsing PEAR's methods, research and publications? Scientific methods and "published" results do not Science make, fractalid. I don't doubt Roger Nelson's intellect, ability, or sincerity in his research. I simply refuse to call PEAR's results, repeatable, falsifiable, adequately peer-reviewed (JSE's publication of Past-Life experiences put their "jury" in enough perspective), objectively corroborated, or publicly defended. It's clear that, by rejecting Randi's offer for a public demonstration under a mutually agreed-upon protocol and the clear fact of a profound dearth of publication in (and I emphasize this) respected peer-reviewed journals that they do not wish to undergo a public defense of their studies. Perhaps they're 100% correct. It could be that Dunne, Nelson, and everyone at PEAR is really on to something. But I may never know, if they don't subject their research to rigorous and truly objective analysis and skeptical debate. I've read the links, fractalid. I read their list of publications, reviewed the JSE site, JSE's last couple years of abstracts, and linked directly to the "Society for Scientific Exploration" homepage, and have found PEAR wanting.

• StantheBat: Why's that? Why discredit the entire realm of subjective experience? Maybe the universe is big enough to encompass mysteries for whose investigation science is not a useful tool. Seems to me folks look askance at religion and then get all religious about science.

  I'm not discrediting the entire realm of subjective experience. If you read what I said, my personal subjective experience is impenetrable to the (current) methods of science. I'm not saying that science is the only method and arbiter of Reality. That science isn't capable of defining all of reality was the point of my post. All I'm doing is saying that what PEAR is doing isn't science. And I'm not saying that knowledge attained by means other than science isn't worthwhile. I wouldn't presume to say anyone's personal experiences (normal, paranormal, Religious) are false. But to call their experience Science is a misapplication, regardless of how they tried to control for assorted variables, quantify their measurements, or reduce thousands of hours of data. Allow me to repeat myself: There is more in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy. There is more than is understood by Science. There are truths that either defy quantification, or repeatability, or falsifiability and are still true. But don't dare call the examination of experience in those truths Science. The universe very likely is full of mysteries the understanding of which is inaccessible through Science. Investigations into these things are more rightly called Philosophy, Metaphysics, and Religion. PEAR calls their work science, and fails to live up to that claim.
• Points taken. Sorry if I got you wrong. Party on, Wayne.
• By "do it again," I don't mean repeating it yourself under the same sort of conditions. By "do it again," I am talking about Repeatability from a scientific perspective. If a number of researchers performing a number of quite different experiments at different places and times counts as "repeating it yourself", how can PEAR possibly be held accountable for Repeatability? They can't do it "right" by themselves, and they can't make anyone else try. Unless and until someone does, they've done what they can by performing their experiments and publishing their results. I simply refuse to call PEAR's results, repeatable, falsifiable, adequately peer-reviewed (JSE's publication of Past-Life experiences put their "jury" in enough perspective), objectively corroborated, or publicly defended. Fair enough. You didn't call it any of that, you called it anecdote. Perhaps it is this all-or-nothing thinking that rubbed me wrong. If it is, as you emphasized "statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations," then why is it published in Journal of Scientific Exploration? Why not Science? or Nature? Do you really think the editors of either of those magazines would even read a submission from these people? They're obviously cranks. Perhaps they're 100% correct. It could be that Dunne, Nelson, and everyone at PEAR is really on to something. But I may never know, if they don't subject their research to rigorous and truly objective analysis and skeptical debate. What exactly would you have them do? You obviously believe they were not rigorous or objective in performing their analysis - so what can they do? Try again? You also argue, reasonably enough, that other groups ought to be able to replicate their results if there's really something to them. What can PEAR do about this, besides the publishing they've already done?
• Well, fractalid, I can think of one thing that PEAR can do that would go a very, very long way toward establishing the credibility of their research. Take Randi up on his offer, and be the first group ever to not only follow through on the test, but to take the $1M prize. That success would surely be a PR coup, a scientific breakthrough of considerable import, and enough of a support for their decades of work that scientists from around the world would surely fall over themselves to verify, replicate, expand upon, broaden, deepen, and exploit the understanding of these observed processes.
• Party on, Stan. :)
• Since the general comments have wandered into the territory of belief, anyone here catch Derren Brown's Messiah program? Rumour has it that it can even be found on the net. Bad net! Baaaad!
• If science exists, why do bad things happen?
• I can think of one thing that PEAR can do that would go a very, very long way toward establishing the credibility of their research. Take Randi up on his offer... You're criticizing their research as non-scientific, but to rectify that you expect them to submit to a challenge from someone who explicitly claims "no scientific authority", a challenge furthermore which consists of a single test which a representative of his organization uses "to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test". No controls, no blinds, no repeatability, no peer-review... You know, I'm not sure what I'm defending here or why. In real life I'm about the most skeptical person I know, and I certainly don't believe PEAR's claims about "the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality". On the other hand I don't find it reasonable to believe their claims about their data or their methods are false because the conclusions they draw from them sound like hooey. Maybe I'm just a little too sensitive to knee-jerk reactions and some of your initial comments sounded reflexive to me. (How's that for ironic?) My apologies as well if I took you wrong.
• The problem with ghosts is that they don't seem to be repeatable phenomena. Doesn't mean they're not real, just not apparently repeatable. But having said that we should also recognize that people see things all the time that don't exist.
• I'd say that a preliminary assessment in order to determine, to first order, if the claimant is likely to perform as promised is a fair place to start in a scientific examination. Saves a lot of people time if the observations in that instance are grossly disproportionate to the claims. Also, I don't think their data and methods are false because I think the claims are hooey (who am I to say a claim is hooey?), but specifically because they don't submit to external review, and seem to only publish in clearly undemanding places.
• People who see things are still seeing something. So the something exists if only in a more limited contect. Reality is a concensus issue.
• I don't agree with your spelling of consensus :)
• I don't agree with your definition of 'seeing something'; are people who hallucinate still seeing things? Is the firing of a neuron equal the presence of an external object? Gimme back that psilocybin!
• Is the firing of a neuron equal the presence of an external object? Excellent question. What do you say?
• I don't agree with your refusal to make me a sammich!
• I say there are no external objects.
• So you're a solipsist. Oops. *vanishes in thin air, ..err, no air ..err, in nothing actually*
• Yeah, yeah- I'm the product of too many undergraduate philosophy courses. But I can make good sammiches.
• Besides, psilo is OK, the lysg is where it's at.
• Everybody needs to shut the fuck up now, this is ridiculous.
• *uses psychic powers to lock thread*
• My free will is unstoppable!
• Hey all my forks are bent!