Statistician analyzes paranormal predictions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the analysis of remote viewing experiments and the validity of paranormal predictions, particularly focusing on a meta-analysis of studies conducted at Stanford Research Institute. Participants explore the implications of statistical results, personal experiences related to remote viewing, and the adequacy of methodological details in the reporting of such studies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references Utts' meta-analysis, noting that subjects identified targets correctly 34% of the time, with a very low probability of these results occurring by chance.
  • Another participant questions the methods used in the studies, suggesting that the nature of the unknown objects could influence the results, and proposes that guessing a number from a random generator might yield clearer insights.
  • A personal anecdote is shared by a participant who describes a series of seemingly successful attempts at finding hidden objects while blindfolded, though they express skepticism about the paranormal nature of the experience.
  • Another participant expresses frustration with the statistical reporting, highlighting a lack of relevant information and questioning the interpretation of the 30% success rate in guessing objects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus. There are multiple competing views regarding the validity of remote viewing, the influence of methodology on results, and the interpretation of statistical data.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note limitations in the studies, such as the ambiguity of the targets and the lack of detailed methodological information, which may affect the interpretation of the results.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
... The research program involved remote viewing, in which test subjects were asked to describe or draw an unknown target. The target could be anything and could be located anywhere. According to Utts' meta-analysis of the 966 studies performed at Stanford Research Institute, subjects could identify the target correctly 34 percent of the time. The probability of these results occurring by chance is .000000000043. [continued]
http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/09/10/ScienceTech/Uc.Davis.Statistician.Analyzes.Validity.Of.Paranormal.Predictions-2958047.shtml
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Interesting stuff, but I wish the article would give more info on methods. An 'unknown object' could be anything. If the object was an obvious choice for the people conducting the investigation, perhaps it was something the subjects were more likely to guess. Perhaps guessing a number generated by a random number generator would be easier to investigate.A personal anecdote though- I had a friend in high school who claimed some kind of remote viewing powers, so we tested him. Another friend drew the BMW logo and hid it from him. I'm pretty sure he never saw it. Within a couple of minutes the guy had managed to draw the shape of it and he said that he knew there were letters but couldn't tell what they were. I was impressed. He was talking about it as he went though, so I don't rule out him reading our reactions about his guesses and piecing it together that way.
 
Ay, I loathe describing this one personal experience. I mean, after my UFO sighting and living in a haunted house, I might as well just toss my credibility into the pond. But what the hey...

Back when I was I think an eighth grader, I was at the elementary school for the ten/fifteen minute wait for my transfer bus home. I had some current interest in ESP, and maybe that's what prompted me to do this. I walked around in a wooded area where the kids played during their recesses, but with my eyes closed and looking straight ahead. Which was a bit risky since tree roots were rampant. At some point I stopped, looked down, and picked up what looked like a rock. It was in the ground a bit, but once I dug it out I saw that it was a Cub Scout neckerchief slide. I took it into a teacher and returned to the wooded area, hoping to pull it off again, maybe finding some lunch money. Three more times in a row, without fail, I stopped just in front of yet more slides. Now, that in itself was strange. And looking at them each I didn't know what they were until I cleaned off the mud. After sharing this with the teacher, my enthusiasm waned when she seemed unimpressed. Come to think of it in retrospect, maybe she thought I was pulling her leg.

On the other hand, if someone had a box full of slides that somehow got tossed out there, well it's not so strange then in that case.

I've since tried to duplicate similar results, but to no avail. Personally, I'm not convinced that there's anything paranormal about it. If it's real, I'd describe it as a kind of peripheral sense, maybe something that developed on the side when we were ancient hunters or gatherers. Maybe like a coalescence of our senses. Perhaps any perceived rewards has an influence. In any case, I don't see much use for it unless we can fully develop it. And I'm very pessimistic about that for I think obvious reasons.
 
And I quote "I don't know! A couple of squiggly lines?!"

So they averaged the studies and about 30% of the time these people could guess an object at random, any object? Seems like either there is something crazy, or the press is misinterpreting the statistics.

PS. I also hate statistical articles that list no relevant information.
 

Similar threads

News Using M.R.I.'s to See Politics on the Brain
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K