Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal

  • Thread starter pftest
  • Start date
  • #101
187
1
I completely agree flex. One paper doesn't constitute perfect evidence, but it is a good starting point.

Well, one good paper would be a good starting point. This paper is no starting point at all, for the reasons I mentioned. If I take all sorts of data and start drawing lines around some of it, I'm sure I could "prove" all sorts of weird things.

"Oh look, dice throws come up as a five 3% more often on the third Tuesday of January, March, and November. We did over 1,000 dice throws every day, so the results are statistically significant."
 
  • #102
3,875
90
[I wrote: "Wow [Ionadis 2005] is an amazing paper! But yes, it looks like Bem's paper and the criticism on it is being published to provide a case example of just that problem... ]
[..]
Where'd you get that from? That paper is 5 years old and it applies to the majority of published research, not just a single ESP paper. It specifically refers to the area of biomedical research.

The criticism I referred to is the refutation by Wagenmakers at al, which apparently will be published in the same edition as Bem's paper.
 
Last edited:
  • #103
2,745
22
My post was in response to what flex put (like I said). Which is regarding one paper not being enough.

I'm not saying this paper is the starting point. My comment was a general reply regarding any topic, where one paper (under the conditions outlined by flex) is a good starting point.

For me, this paper is not that starting point.
 
  • #104
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
Uh, right. I should've been more clear. I was NOT implying that the paper being discussed would have been "#1" in the list called "Evidence." I'm simply saying that the list called "Evidence" can't be one item long.
 
  • #105
308
0
Uh, right. I should've been more clear. I was NOT implying that the paper being discussed would have been "#1" in the list called "Evidence." I'm simply saying that the list called "Evidence" can't be one item long.

A word I love... "Indication"!
 
  • #106
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
I feel like I might've posted this somewhere already, but I love it, and it seems appropriate. I just hope you'll all take it with a grain of salt given the current context within this thread!

The Data So Far
the_data_so_far.png

But THIS guy, he might be for real!​


(Source: http://xkcd.com/373/)
 
  • #107
308
0
I feel like I might've posted this somewhere already, but I love it, and it seems appropriate. I just hope you'll all take it with a grain of salt given the current context within this thread!

The Data So Far
the_data_so_far.png

But THIS guy, he might be for real!​


(Source: http://xkcd.com/373/)

Sums it up for me!
 
  • #108
249
0
This seems more accurate:
2078ivb.gif
 
  • #109
308
0
This seems more accurate:
2078ivb.gif

Let me get this straight; you believe claims ARE confirmed by experiment?
 
  • #111
249
0
Let me get this straight; you believe claims ARE confirmed by experiment?
Of course. Theres a gigantic amount of such experiments with reported positive results. However, it is mostly said that those experiments are flawed and thereby the results are invalid.
 
  • #112
308
0
Of course. Theres a gigantic amount of such experiments with reported positive results. However, it is mostly said that those experiments are flawed and thereby the results are invalid.

Oh, well then by all means, present the evidence that the world has been waiting for.
 
  • #113
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
Of course. Theres a gigantic amount of such experiments with reported positive results. However, it is mostly said that those experiments are flawed and thereby the results are invalid.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZwpwrrnhqCX8uvE98EPFXkvDuTKSoh1nBzB4CQSQNibtryicD-Q.jpg
 
  • #114
308
0
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZwpwrrnhqCX8uvE98EPFXkvDuTKSoh1nBzB4CQSQNibtryicD-Q.jpg

Don't worry, I'm sure he's been holding back for pages, waiting to pounce! That, or he's just completely and blatantly blasting through the rules as though they don't exist.

One or the other.
 
  • #115
249
0
Look through the references of the paper posted in OP of this topic for some of such experiments. Also just browse through this Skepticism & Debunking forum for many many more examples.
 
  • #116
308
0
Look through the references of the paper posted in OP of this topic for some of such experiments. Also just browse through this Skepticism & Debunking forum for many many more examples.

You said, "Of course. Theres a gigantic amount of such experiments with reported positive results. However, it is mostly said that those experiments are flawed and thereby the results are invalid."

You have a huge burden of proof to meet. I'd start pulling sources together; I'm browsing precisely nada for two reasons:

1.) You made a claim, you get to support it.
2.) Cracked Pottery.
 
  • #117
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
You said, "Of course. Theres a gigantic amount of such experiments with reported positive results. However, it is mostly said that those experiments are flawed and thereby the results are invalid."

You have a huge burden of proof to meet. I'd start pulling sources together; I'm browsing precisely nada for two reasons:

1.) You made a claim, you get to support it.
2.) Cracked Pottery.

Meh, I would call it an "off the cuff" remark. He doesn't mean it, it was just a knee-jerk reaction to your post. No need to hammer on the guy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #118
308
0
Meh, I would call it an "off the cuff" remark. He doesn't mean it, it was just a knee-jerk reaction to your post. No need to hammer on the guy.

... But it keeps talking to me! :biggrin:
"It provides sources for its claims or it gets the HOSE again!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #119
2,745
22
... But it keeps talking to me! :biggrin:
"It provides sources for its claims or it gets the HOSE again!"

:rofl:
 
  • #120
249
0
I'm browsing precisely nada for two reasons
Suddenly its too much trouble to click on the opening post? :rofl:

Does anyone know when the paper will be published? I thought it was supposed to happen in 2010.
 
  • #121
FlexGunship
Gold Member
399
8
Suddenly its too much trouble to click on the opening post? :rofl:

Does anyone know when the paper will be published? I thought it was supposed to happen in 2010.

Get used to it. This is what always happens. Someone claims an amazing study was performed that will finally blow the lid off of the ______ phenomenon and bring it into mainstream scientific acceptance. But, inevitably, the study proves to be flawed and the paper never gets published (or it does, and then other scientific journals spend years trying to undo the damage (sic. autism/vaccination fiasco)).
 
  • #122
249
0
Get used to it. This is what always happens. Someone claims an amazing study was performed that will finally blow the lid off of the ______ phenomenon and bring it into mainstream scientific acceptance. But, inevitably, the study proves to be flawed and the paper never gets published (or it does, and then other scientific journals spend years trying to undo the damage (sic. autism/vaccination fiasco)).
There was a link to a paper a few pages back, that shows this actually happens to the (vast) majority of published research findings (with a special mention of biomedical research). I dont think this is damaging for science, in fact i think its a strength of science to keep scrutinising results.
 
  • #123
249
0
Here is a PDF of a response paper:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1018886/Bem6.pdf

It looks like there are some serious flaws with the ESP paper. The one I have the biggest problem with is coming up with a hypothesis from a set of data, and then using that same set of data to test the hypothesis. It's a version of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
Bem now has a response paper to Wagenmakers response:

We agree with Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, & Van der Maas (2011) that there are advantages to analyzing data with Bayesian statistical procedures, but we argue that they have incorrectly characterized several features of Bem’s (2011) psi experiments and have selected an unrealistic Bayesian prior distribution for their analysis, leading them to seriously underestimate the experimental support in favor of the psi hypothesis. We provide an extended Bayesian analysis that displays the effects of different prior distributions on the Bayes factors and conclude that the evidence strongly favors the psi hypothesis over the null. More generally, we believe that psychology would be well served by training future generations of psychologists in the skills necessary to understand Bayesian analyses well enough to perform them on their own data.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8290411/ResponsetoWagenmakers.pdf [Broken]
It also mentions a gigantic amount of previous experiments. If anyone here still believes they dont exist, read the paper for the references.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #124
308
0
Sooo... the argument is that 'Those psychologist Bayesian means, "by the bay",'... not impressed. I saw nothing in their analysis of the data to support their claim, just throwing stones... sadly, it happens in the world of academics as anywhere. The assumption and assertion that this is simply a misuse of the statistical process because of another assumed ignorance isn't a response, it's just noise.
 
  • #125
249
0
Wagenmakers response to Bems response:

Does psi exist? In a widely publicized article featuring nine experiments with over one thousand participants, Bem (in press) claimed that future events retroactively affect people's responses. In a response, we pointed out that Bem's analyses were partly exploratory. Moreover, we reanalyzed Bem's data using a default Bayesian t-test and showed that Bem's evidence for psi is weak to nonexistent. A robustness analysis con¯rmed our skeptical conclusions. Recently, Bem, Utts, and Johnson (2011) question several aspects of our analysis. In this brief reply we clarify our analysis procedure and demonstrate that our arguments still hold.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1018886/ClarificationsForBemUttsJohnson.pdf
 

Related Threads on Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
634
Replies
12
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Top