talkmagic.co.uk

by **greedoniz** » May 13th, '09, 10:01

Seems like a fair test to me:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ ... paranormal

No doubt this will have certain "believers" up in arms

by **Replicant** » May 13th, '09, 10:13

I see the $1million has yet to be claimed. Says a lot.

by **Tomo** » May 13th, '09, 10:55

Prof. Richard Wiseman was tweeting about this test last week. It's good to see real science being done in this area, but I can't see many true believers accepting their findings if it's not 100% in their favour.

by **pcwells** » May 13th, '09, 11:09

I was talking to Mr Grue about this sort of thing a couple of weeks ago, and agreed that the Randi challenge (as with all tests on 'psychics') are hampered by the discrpeancy between what happens and the psychic's explanation for why it happens.

As an analogy, we now understand that the Earth circles the sun. It's only a few hundred years, however, since almost everyone believed that the sun moved around the Earth.

Ouija boards have all sorts of explanations among 'believers', from spirits to angels or demons. The perceived effect of a glass or planchette moving around a board is the same. Yes, I think the ideomotor response is the most likely explanation, but that's not the point - IMR is just another possible explanation in the debate.

But back to the point, these experiments test the explanation rather than the effect.

If a medium fails one of these tests under the conditions listed in this article, it simply proves to me that their explanation for the phenomena she claims to observe so regularly might be incorrect. It doesn't, however, prove that the phenomenon itself is non-existant - only that the controls that have been put in place prevent the real cause from taking effect.

So my reaction to a fail in this case isn't to instinctively shout 'FRAUD!'. Instead, I'd like to see the 'psychic' and the scientists cooporate in reevaluating the why, in order to come up with an explanation for the what that can be meaured and quantified in a controlled environment.

Just a thought...

Pete

by **Harry Guinness** » May 13th, '09, 11:21

She's already come out against it:

"I'm not in the least disappointed that the results did not go my way. I was stunned at first but when normal thought re-entered my head I realised that I was never going to win the barriers presented in the protocol were too much even for me to surmount," Putt said in an e-mail on 8 May 2009.

Putt continued, ""With them [the volunteers] being bound from head to foot like black mummies, they themselves felt tied so were not really free to link with Spirit making my work a great deal more difficult," Putt said.

by **Harry Guinness** » May 13th, '09, 11:27

Pete, I agree with your sentiment but the problem is very well explained by Alison from JREF:

In her ideal test, Putt would have had four male volunteers, of whom two would have been adults and two would have been younger, four female volunteers, of whom two would have been adults and two would have been younger, and then two remaining volunteers, one male and one female of ages not specified since ten is not divisible by four.

The individuals in Putt's ideal test would not have been disguised in any way, either.

In order to pass the test, five or more of the volunteers had to choose their own readings from the packet of ten. Imagine that Putt's ideal test was run.

In this imagined test, one reading refers to problems with a boyfriend. One refers to problems with a husband. One refers to problems with a girlfriend. One refers to problems with a wife.

Even though those sentences say exactly the same thing with only gender and relationship status altered, readings that contain those would more than likely suit, respectively, the younger female, the older female, the younger male, and the older male. And since there are two of each, she has a shot at getting a hit for either one.

Four out of ten (and possibly more) with only those sentences.

Obviously, running a test like Putt’s ideal test would not have provided definitive proof of anything - too much information can be given away by things so simple as gender and age - Still, with all the things above, does it always come down to "Oh, the test wasn't fair after all!"?

Patricia Putt checked out the protocol, agreed in writing that it was satisfactory, and even during the test, made no complaints. Those conducting the tests did so with great care, attention to detail, and accuracy. The test stands.

Any reading obtained under that condition is much more plausibly explained like that than as a demonstration of psychic powers. The only way science can happen properly is everyone is blinded, otherwise there is too much room for bias, all you have to do is look at the countless unblinded CAM trials and compare them with the double blinded, placebo controlled trials. If psychics want to get involved in science they will have to be bound by the same stringent controls that everyone else is for the results to have any relevance.

by **Reverend Tristan** » May 13th, '09, 11:30

I wonder what Mr Browning will have to say on this?

by **Harry Guinness** » May 13th, '09, 11:33

Probably b****k me!!!!

by **Tomo** » May 13th, '09, 11:36

Harry Guinness wrote:She's already come out against it:

"I'm not in the least disappointed that the results did not go my way. I was stunned at first but when normal thought re-entered my head I realised that I was never going to win the barriers presented in the protocol were too much even for me to surmount," Putt said in an e-mail on 8 May 2009.

Putt continued, ""With them [the volunteers] being bound from head to foot like black mummies, they themselves felt tied so were not really free to link with Spirit making my work a great deal more difficult," Putt said.

However, the stop press to the story says: "For the record, no volunteers were "bound" and Mrs Putt did not speak to any of the volunteers after the test. One can only assume that she picked up on their feelings of being "tied" via her psychic powers."

The really interesting thing is that there's a pattern to the way these experiments go. The group designs a protocol in conjunction with the testee, who then signs it off. The testee fails the agreed protocol and then questions the whole process.

What future applicants need to do is to do the leg work of coming up with a proper protocol themselves before they approach JREF. That means learning something about the scientific method, which unfortunately seems to be asking them to shake the Devil's hand.

by **pcwells** » May 13th, '09, 11:47

But my point isn't to do away with protocols and strictness of tests, but to conduct a series of tests that allow only for one possible cause each time.

In doing so, we step away from the 'psychic's' belief of what's at play and look at a whole bunch of possibilities in isolation.

If they yield nothing, let's allow for controlled combinations of possible contributing factors...

Pete

by **Harry Guinness** » May 13th, '09, 11:48

Thanks Tomo, I thought I had the stop press comment in there!

EDIT: That's an interesting idea, and cetainly would work. But most psychics I've talked to are certain of how it works and didn't strike me as people who'd be willing to do that!

by **pcwells** » May 13th, '09, 12:02

Harry Guinness wrote:Thanks Tomo, I thought I had the stop press comment in there!

EDIT: That's an interesting idea, and cetainly would work. But most psychics I've talked to are certain of how it works and didn't strike me as people who'd be willing to do that!

It's true that most psychics are committed to their belief in why things happen the way they do. And investigating their 'abilities' would be similar to debating whether or not their personal gods exist. But that's still, to my mind, the angle that skeptics and scientists would do well to adopt, as the current crops of tests are geared more to an assessment of the subject's belief system than their actual claimed abilities.

by **Tomo** » May 13th, '09, 12:28

pcwells wrote:the current crops of tests are geared more to an assessment of the subject's belief system than their actual claimed abilities.

How do you mean?

by **Craig Browning** » May 13th, '09, 12:29

Tomo wrote:Prof. Richard Wiseman was tweeting about this test last week. It's good to see real science being done in this area, but I can't see many true believers accepting their findings if it's not 100% in their favour.

Conversely, and as we've seen far too many times, it will be interesting to see all the cynics squirming when data don't prove their bias at 100%

I'm still amazed as to how blind supposedly intelligent people can be when the answer is setting rather boldly in front of their face

by **TonyB** » May 13th, '09, 12:37

The problem with psychic phenemona is that we have a huge amoung of anecdotal evidence, but not one single, repeatable, scientific test that has found any strange powers. It's a bit like Santa Claus. We have a huge among of acecdotal evidence of his existance - just ask any six year old in the world, and you will hear the evidence. But we all know the truth.
Hard science no longer takes psi seriously, because there is nothing to take seriously. Its all in the heads of the psychics and mediums. And, for the record, I believe every television psychic and medium in the world knows that they are deliberately conning their audience. I don't believe in the sincere but misguided medium.

talkmagic.co.uk

Interesting article on psychic test

Interesting article on psychic test

Who is online