- Ε, αυτό δεν είναι επιστήμη!!! - .-= Η ΣΟΦΙΑ =-.

Οποιος θέλει κανει αιτηση στον Rhandi.

Πριν γίνει η δοκιμασία και τα 2 μερη (ο υποψηφιος και ο Rhandi) συμφωνουν για όλες τις λεπτομεριες τις δοκιμασίας για αν αποφευχθουν οι αδικιες.

Αφου συμφωνησουν για το πως θα αποδειχτει η υποτιθεμενη ιδιοτητα λαμβανει χωρα η δοκιμασια.

Ολοι απέτυχαν.

Τι μας λεει στο αρθρο του ο Prescot?Oτι ο JAMES Rhandi είναι αυστηρος!Τον κατηγορει για αυστηροτητα!Δεν τον κατηγορει οτι παραποιει τις δοκιμασίες του για να βγάλει τους υποψηφιους ψευτες και απατεώνες!

Αρα πήγαινε και θεσε εαυτον εις δοκιμασιαν.

A και απο ο,τι βλέπουμε:

quote:

---

χωρίς να έχει την παραμικρή επιστημονική κατάρτιση

---

Along this line, is the experiment a multi-trial statistical one or a direct measurement? Park's description of mind-over-matter experiments is recommended. Although balances capable of measuring micro-gram (very tiny) forces exist, mind-over-matter experiments use statistical trials, possibly because no claimant has ever been able to move a micro-balance with thoughts. The small effect observed in statistical trials is likely due to some small systemic bias in the experiment itself. The polywater affair is an example of a small effect that could not be increased.

PEAR The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)

Table of Contents
Robert Todd Carroll

the truth is in here!
SkepDic.com

Click to order from Amazon

vertline.gif (1078 bytes)

The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)

The brainchild of Robert G. Jahn, who, in 1979, when he was Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University, claimed he wanted “to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice.” In short, he wanted to be a parapsychologist and test psychokinesis (PK). Not so unbelievably, he has found several others at Princeton who also were tired of humdrum work in the humanities, social sciences, engineering, and physics, and have joined the quest to prove that the mind alone can alter matter.

In the 1960s, physicist and parapsychologist Helmut Schmidt started using random event generators to do PK experiments. According to Dean Radin (1997), over the years Schmidt provided solid scientific support for the PK hypothesis and the people involved in the PEAR group replicated Schmidt's work in 258 experimental studies and 127 control studies. C.E.M. Hansel, however, claims that regarding all the studies done after 1969 and before 1987 that attempted to replicate Schmidt’s work: “The main fact that emerges from this data is that 71 experiments gave a result supporting Schmidt’s findings and 261 experiments failed to do so” (Hansel 1989: 185).

In 1986, Jahn, Brenda Dunne, and Roger Nelson reported on millions of trials with 33 subjects over seven years trying to use their minds to override random number generators (RNG). Think of the RNG as producing zeros and ones. Over the long haul, the laws of probability predict that in a truly random sequence, there should be 50% of each produced. The subjects in the PEAR experiments tried to use their minds to produce more zeros (or ones, depending on the assignment). In short, the PEAR people did what many drivers do when they try to use their thoughts to make a red light turn green.

In 1987, Dean Radin and Nelson did a meta-analysis of all RNG experiments done between 1959 and 1987 and found that they produced odds against chance beyond a trillion to one (Radin 1997: 140). This sounds impressive, but as Radin says “in terms of a 50% hit rate, the overall experimental effect, calculated per study, was about 51 percent, where 50 percent would be expected by chance” [emphasis added] (141). A couple of sentences later, Radin gives a more precise rendering of "about 51 percent" by noting that the overall effect was "just under 51 percent." Similar results were found with experiments where people tried to use their minds to affect the outcome of rolls of the dice, according to Radin. And, when Nelson did his own analysis of all the PEAR data (1,262 experiments involving 108 people), he found similar results to the earlier RNG studies but "with odds against chance of four thousand to one" (Radin 1997: 143). Nelson also claimed that there were no "star" performers.

However, according to Ray Hyman, “the percentage of hits in the intended direction was only 50.02%" in the PEAR studies (Hyman 1989: 152). And one ‘operator’ (the term used to describe the subjects in these studies) was responsible for 23% of the total data base. His hit rate was 50.05%. Take out this operator and the hit rate becomes 50.01%. According to John McCrone, "Operator 10," believed to be a PEAR staff member, "has been involved in 15% of the 14 million trials, yet contributed to a full half of the total excess hits" (McCrone 1994). According to Dean Radin, the criticism that there "was any one person responsible for the overall results of the experiment...was tested and found to be groundless" (Radin 1997: 221). His source for this claim is a 1991 article by Jahn et al. in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, "Count population profiles in engineering anomalies experiments" (5:205-32). However, Jahn gives the data for his experiments in Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (Harcourt Brace, 1988, p. 352-353). McCrone has done the calculations and found that 'If [operator 10's] figures are taken out of the data pool, scoring in the "low intention" condition falls to chance while "high intention" scoring drops close to the .05 boundary considered weakly significant in scientific results." According to McCrone, the "size of the effect is about .1 percent, meaning that for every thousand electronic tosses, the random event generator is producing about one more head or tail than it should by chance alone" (McCrone 1994).

These data should remind us that statistical significance does not imply importance.

Furthermore, Stanley Jeffers, a physicist at York University, Ontario, has repeated the Jahn experiments but with chance results (Alcock 2003: 135-152). (See "Physics and Claims for Anomalous Effects Related to Consciousness" in Alcock et al. 2003. Abstract.) And Jahn et al. failed to replicate the PEAR results in experiments done in Germany (See "Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG Replication Experiments," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 499–555, 2000).

Based on the results of these experiments, Radin claims that “researchers have produced persuasive, consistent, replicated evidence that mental intention is associated with the behavior of …physical systems” (Radin 1997: 144). That sounds like a hasty conclusion to me. He also claims that “the experimental results are not likely due to chance, selective reporting, poor experimental design, only a few individuals, or only a few experimenters” (Radin 1997: 144). He's probably right except for the bit about it being unlikely that the experimental results are due to chance.

Jahn, six of his associates, and PEAR even have a patent (US5830064) on an “Apparatus and method for distinguishing events which collectively exceed chance expectations and thereby controlling an output.” The PEAR people are so convinced of the breakthrough nature of their work that they have incorporated as Mindsong Inc. They claim their corporation "is developing a range of breakthrough products and research tools based on a provocative new technology -- proprietary microelectronics which are responsive to the inner states of living systems." One of their breakthrough products is some software "that allows you to influence, with your mind, which of two images will be displayed on your computer screen." They also sell a device for several hundred dollars that lets you do your own testing of mental influence on randomized outputs.

See related entries on confirmation bias, ESP, experimenter effect, ganzfeld experiments, law of really large numbers, meta-analysis, occult statistics, parapsychology, pathological science, psi assumption, post hoc fallacy, and psychokinesis.

further reading

* Critique of the PEAR Remote-Viewing Experiments (1992) by George P. Hansen, Jessica Utts, Betty Markwick, Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 56, No. 2, June, pp. 97-113.
* The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality (1996) by Ray Hyman
* Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena (1995) by Ray Hyman
* Slashdot - News for Nerds, IBM and Mind Input Devices
* The Princeton Engineering Anomalies
Research
* STATS - Statistics and the Media (This site had nothing to do with PEAR but since PEAR's claims are based upon statistical analysis of data, I thought some readers might like to look at a site that does nothing but look at statistical data and examine what some people try to do with that data.)

Συνοπτικα παίζουν με τις στατιστικές εδω και 20 χρονια.

Normalizing The Paranormal
By Rusty Rockets
(..........................................................)
But there have been a number of significant challenges to PEAR’s research that raise both methodological and statistical issues. One detailed review, written by George P. Hansen, Jessica Utts, Betty Markwick, concluded: “The PEAR remote-viewing [RP] experiments depart from commonly accepted criteria for formal research in science. In fact, they are undoubtedly some of the poorest quality ESP experiments published in many years. The defects provide plausible alternative explanations. There do not appear to be any methods available for proper statistical evaluation of these experiments because of the way in which they were conducted.” Ouch.

There are other troubling assessments of PEAR’s scientific procedures, but it is not the intention of this article to dwell on whether PEAR did or did not use proper scientific procedure (while acknowledging its significance), but rather, whether anything and everything should be fair game for scientific observation.

While imagination may be more important than knowledge, there are some fundamental ways to decide what can and cannot be scrutinized scientifically. One could argue the most important criteria to be repeatability and falsifiability. The PEAR team say that even though the observed effects of human/machine anomalies are very small, “a few parts in ten thousand on average,” and RP experiments described only as being “beyond any chance” (in fact, one of PEAR’s many papers on the subject claims that the phenomenon of RP has “now been demonstrated”), the experiments are considered “statistically repeatable.” But at PEAR, “repeatable” can be an ambiguous word.

“The statistical evidence for the acquisition of an anomalous component of information is very persuasive, but as in the human/machine experiments, the effects are not replicable in the usual sense of strict scientific repeatability. Of course, most conventional science only demonstrates statistical replicability, but this fact tends to go unacknowledged by those who insist that in this field we must be able to produce effects on demand before the data can be accepted as legitimate!” exclaimed Dunne.

So, whether PEAR’s experiments are replicable or not is left hanging in the air; it just depends on how you interpret “replicable.” Skeptic and author of Science Friction, Michael Shermer, says: “When I look closely at such research…, I find that the experiments are nonreplicable and that the rare significant effects are very slim and when other researchers try to replicate the results, they can't. This is a sign of pseudoscience, or at least bad science,” said Shermer.

What also cannot be ignored are the minute anomalies, supposedly associated with PEAR’s human/machine experiments, surfacing from such a huge body of variables. The question of whether such tiny amounts of anomalous behavior over such a long period of time (25+ years) is not a little disheartening does not seem to bother Dunne. “To that,” says Dunne, “I would simply point out that most of contemporary science deals with extremely tiny effects within huge bodies of variables, yet their legitimacy as non-random, "real" effects is seldom questioned, i.e. quantum mechanics, high energy physics, molecular biology, chemistry, or genetic engineering. The main difference between these fields and our own area of study is that those are theory-driven, where empirical studies are designed to confirm existing models. Our work is data-driven, and presently lacks a theoretical framework that predicts the results for which one should be looking. That does not make it illegitimate science. To the contrary, our approach is actually more consistent with the principles of the scientific method, where data and theory are intended to inform each other in an iterative manner.”

When asked if PEAR had any idea where these mysterious anomalies come from, or any explanation as to how they may have cropped up, Dunne explains that: “we simply do not yet know the reason for the anomalies or their operational mechanisms. But they are very much worth studying, because they are telling us that our current models of reality are evidently incomplete and we still have a few things to learn.” This response is no surprise to Shermer. “Needless to say,” he responds, “believers in PSI have no mechanism to explain how it is supposed to work.”

Popper and Einstein are correct in that all science progresses through various stages, from inspiration to theoretical proof. The researchers at PEAR have certainly worked very hard at trying to prove the existence of human/machine anomalies and RP, but would seem to have little to show for their efforts. It appears on the face of it that PEAR is doing legitimate science, but to what end? And where does it end? When do you hang up your electrodes and call it a day? Perhaps Dunne is correct to claim that any field of science could legitimately be asked the same question.

Dawkins’ sleight-of-hand notwithstanding, according to the rules of Randi’s competition, if a psychic ability is proven, he must pay up. Randi stated to me that a preliminary test would have to yield a probability of one in a thousand that the results were due to chance. After passing the preliminary, the investigator could commence with the formal test, which would have to yield a probability against chance of one in a million. As Dr. Radin notes, a meta-analysis of all ganzfeld telepathy experiments up to 1997 revealed a probability of a million billion to one. So if Randi is true to his word, it ought to be possible to perform an experiment that would garner the prize. Of course, it would take a huge number of sessions to demonstrate such a high level of improbability. In the end, the million dollars might do nothing more than pay for the experiment. But it would be worth it for no other reason than to put an end to allegations that the unclaimed prize is itself evidence against psychic phenomena.

Βασικά η όλη φάση είναι ο πλήρης παραλογισμός στο έπακρο και το γεγονός που λέει ποιο πάνω είναι ότι το βραβείο είναι unclaimed (προφανώς λόγο τον παραλογισμών του σε σχέση με το τι είναι αυτές οι βλακείες που ζητά).

Άντε να πάω να δώσω ένα εκατομμύριο για να κάνω ένα πείραμα μη ξέροντας ο απατεώνας ποια αφορμή θα βρει να μην πληρώσει, απλά για να ικανοποιηθούν κάποιοι πιστοί της βλακείας.

Τέλειο μου φαίνεται, εγώ κάνω επιστημονικά πειράματα δωρεάν που μπορούν να πείσουν ΟΠΟΙΑΝ το επιθυμεί μετά από ένα καλό πείραμα που γνωρίζω μπας και ξυπνήσει.

http://mtrsn.burtcom.homeip.net/sfaq_002.htm
με θεματικες ενότητες
2.1: Is Uri Geller for real?
2.2: I have had a psychic experience.
2.3: What is "Sensory Leakage"?
2.4: Who are the main psi researchers?

2.5: Does dowsing work?
και το κυριοτερο:
2.6: Could psi be inhibited by the presence of skeptics?

Psychic researchers have noted something they call the "shyness effect" (or more grandly "psi-mediated experimenter effects"). This is invoked to explain the way in which many subjects' psychic powers seem to fade when exposed to careful scrutiny and proper controls. Often it is alleged that having a skeptic in the audience can prevent the delicate operation of psi.

In its most extreme form this hypothesis becomes a "catch-22" that makes any results consistent with a psi hypothesis. This renders the hypothesis unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. Less extreme forms might themselves be testable.

2.7: Why don't the skeptics test the *real* psychics?

A claim is sometimes made that the Skeptics movement only tests those psychics which it knows to be frauds. The real psychics are supposedly being ignored by skeptics who are afraid to be proved wrong.

There are three problems with this claim.

* Firstly, it assumes that all the skeptics are engaged in a conspiracy to persuade the world that psychic powers do not exist. This is only a Petty Conspiracy theory (see section 0), since it only requires the involvement of a few dozen of the most prominent skeptics, but it is still difficult to see any motive for such a deception. "Fear of being proved wrong" implies that they already know they are wrong, which makes their continued activity rather puzzling.

* Secondly, most skeptics are always ready to take part in any reasonable test. The "real" psychics are perfectly at liberty to challenge the skeptics.

* Thirdly, there are always more alleged psychics. Hence this argument presents the skeptics with an ever-receding target. The dialogue goes something like this:

Paranormalist: Yes, I concede that Mr. Adams is a fake, but what about Mr. Brown. The things that he does could never be faked.

[Some months later]

Skeptic: Here is how Brown did it....

P: OK, I concede that Adams and Brown are fakes, but Mrs Carver is the surely the real thing.

[Some months later]

S: Here is how Carver did it...

P: OK, maybe Adams, Brown and Carver were fakes, but what about Digby and Ender?

S: I give up. There's no convincing some people.

P: [shouting] Digby and Ender are real psychics: the skeptics are afraid to test them. They only test the fakes!

This same argument is used by creationists disputing intermediate forms in the fossil record, and is expanded upon in the talk.origins FAQ.

2.8: What is the ganzfeld?

quote:

---

Βασικά η όλη φάση είναι ο πλήρης παραλογισμός στο έπακρο και το γεγονός που λέει ποιο πάνω είναι ότι το βραβείο είναι unclaimed (προφανώς λόγο τον παραλογισμών του σε σχέση με το τι είναι αυτές οι βλακείες που ζητά).

---

Edited by - medtech on 15/04/2006 21:16:34

quote:

---

Η δευτερη κατηγορια, ειναι και η πιο επικινδυνη. Εδω πλεον το ατομο, οχι μονο πιστευει οτι εχει επαφη με καποιον αορατο κοσμο, αλλα εχει και τασεις προσυλητισμου, επικοινωνιας με αλλους ανθρωπους "σε ανωτερο επιπεδο", και μια συμπεριφορα συμπλεγματος ανωτεροτητας. Αναζητα ΑΝΑΓΝΩΡΙΣΗ για τις "μεταφυσικες ιδιοτητες του", πραγμα που πολλες φορες τον οδηγει σε κυκλους "μυστων", οι οποιοι εχοντας γνωση της ανυπαρξιας αυτων των φαινομενων, θα χρησιμοποιησουν την μεγαλομανια του "εσωτεριστη", για να τον εκμεταλευτουν.

---

Ωραία υπόθεση το σκέφτηκα να σου πω την αλήθεια αλλά ήμουν 2 μέτρα μακριά και στην πρώτη περίπτωση είχα και μάρτηρα άρα μάλλον πρόκειται για ομαδική μαστούρα.

Εγώ μαστουρωμένους βλέπω μόνο κάποιους από την βλακεία που θεωρούν αξιόπιστο τον αποδεδειγμένα απατεώνα Randi και όχι τις έρευνες του standford.

Θα μπορούσατε να είσαστε λιγότερο βλαμμένα αν απλά παραδεχόσασταν ότι αυτό που λέτε δεν είναι τίποτα περισσότερο από απλά μια γνώμη και να προκαλούσατε λιγότερο και να μαστουρώνατε λιγότερο.

Αν είναι να παίξουμε με links να αρχίσω και εγώ να κατεβάζω καθώς τα βλαμμένα καταλαβαίνουν μόνο από ποσότητες, εξού η απίστευτη μαστούρα της βλακείας που σας έχει βαρέσει.

Αυτά περί ατομικά κλπ στα αντιστρέφω γιατί κάποιοι άλλοι είναι που πάσχουν από αυτό το θέμα.

Τον Randi ποιος τον εξετάζει?

Άρα είναι unclaimed γιατί δεν έχει γίνει επιστημονική κριτική στις μεθόδους του.

Βασικά έχει γίνει απλά ο κάθε ένας πιστεύει ότι θέλει that is my point.

Eντυποσιαστικα τόσο πολύ με τον Randi και την ιδέα του να γίνει διάσημος και πλούσιος που σκέφτομαι και εγώ να κάνω κάτι ανάλογο.

Δεν υπάρχει κανένας που να μην του αρέσει να τον παίρνει από πίσω.

Και οποίος μου αποδείξει το αντίθετο μέσα από το πειράματα κωλοκονθοσκοπησης που θα πραγματοποιήσω αν υπάρξει έστω και ένας που να βγει έξω άντρας θα του δώσω το νόμπελ βλακείας.

Ο τύπος έχει καταδικαστεί για ύβρεις και αλλού είδους ενέργειες, βρίζει και ψεύδεται ασύστολος και έχει κάνει το θέμα με την παραψυχολογία προσωπικό του πρόβλημα, του έχει γίνει εμμονή.

Άρα είναι τόσο αξιόπιστος όσο όλοι οι άνθρωποι που βάζουν μπροστά τον εγωισμό τους σε προσωπικές κόντρες.

What's more important, what science knows or what it doesn't (yet)? What's more beneficial to scientific inquiry, an open mind or a sense of self-importance?

Randi's main qualities are his malice and hypocrisy.
Ιn 1997, Randi threatened to fly to Sri Lanka to persuade Arthur C. Clarke to stop advocating cold fusion. (Clarke, a genuine scientific visionary, inventor of the communication satellite and award-winning author, received degrees, with honors, in physics and mathematics.) In 2001, on a BBC Radio program, Randi attacked Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize-winner and professor of physics at Cambridge University.
Ο τύπος είναι για τα σίδερα, μπράβο χαίρομαι που βρήκατε το super ψυχωτικό βλαμμένο να τον κάνετε θεό σας.

Charismatic psychic Uri Geller, whose abilities have been tested by a number of prestigious laboratories, has probably been Randi's biggest target. In the process of attempting to discredit the psychic, Randi has also attacked institutions, like Stanford, intrigued by Geller's alleged abilities. He defamed two eminent scientists, Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ, calling them "incompetent." At the time, author Robert Anton Wilson wryly observed, "Randi was not there, yet he claims to know what was going on [during the experiment] better than the two scientists who were supervising it. The only way he could know better ... is if he had 100 percent accurate telepathy."
http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2006/01/26/awsi3.html

Το ξαναβάζω αυτό μήπως ξεμαστουρώσετε από την αλαζονεία που σας προσφέρει αυτός ο ψυχανομαλος.

What's more important, what science knows or what it doesn't (yet)? What's more beneficial to scientific inquiry, an open mind or a sense of self-importance?