Talk:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

From WikiSynergy

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Bayesian inference a red herring?

I think Bayesian inference should be considered a red herring for subjects involving conceptual-intensive questions. First, it is not considered without statistical analysis, and depends on being able to apply a value to all elements. The values themselves are subjective in conceptual-intensive questions, leaving too much opportunity for false assumptions prior to analysis of results.

Bayesian techniques are a logical device best applied to number theory or set theory. It is useful for such questions as deviation from expected distribution (deviation from the norm), but a hypothesis that a kind of event represents deviation from the norm when the deviation depends on nonexistent prior art is questionable.

Development in mainstream science is based on the assumption that there is a mainstream science. We have a discontinuity in most frontier subjects. The logic process should look more like: if it can be proven to exist then it must be considered possible. Once proven possible, then the probability of it existing at a particular time can be measured by frequency of events if human perception and human behavior (both etheric and physical) can be quantified.

We begin with the problem that all prior art tells us that paranormal is impossible and therefore cannot be. That is the "prior" we would need to begin with.

The second problem is that few scientists are well-trained to work with statistical analysis. For instance, it seems that Dean Radin is doing the analysis for most parapsychologists. If we cannot argue that statistical analysis is unnecessary and unreasonable, then we may as well close shop and wait for mainstream scientists to change their mind.

It would be good to find a good statistical analyst to advise us on this. Perhaps one could develop a few articles that suggested minimal application of analysis.

One of the reason I talk about decisive determinism is that such analysis has not been convincing for way too many years. If the model we adopt is "Okay, the event is verified as there so what caused it?" then statistical analysis is trivial. Tom Butler 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to follow your line of reasoning, but its not clicking. How about a definition of "conceptual-intensive questions" to start with. Bayesian inference can work with anything that can have an assigned probability. Etaroced 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I think what he is saying depends on "The logic process should look more like: if it can be proven to exist then it must be considered possible." Which basically means that you have to have good, but not really overwhelming evidence. I think he may be saying that science is not developed enough to allow us to set a really low probability for all paranormal phenomena. But really, Tom, would you please try to express things more in layman's terms? PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 20:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure. "Conceptual-intensive questions" means that the questions are mostly conceptual ... not concrete. By "conceptual," I mean they are not questions such as whether it is day or night but what is the experiencer's perception of the relationship between the sun and earth? How do you understand you experience of that? For instance, in our EVP communication, we more often receive information about what something means, rather than what the something is. In a favorite example, what is the name of my favorite restaurant? Expected answer, "Waterfront." Answer, "Has a view of the bay." "Waterfront" as a name is concrete information. "Has a view of the bay" is conceptual information.
When a mental medium senses information to relay to a sitter, he or she senses about the information in terms of how the communicating entity feels about something and what the entity wants to express and so on. A "I love you " message may come to the medium as a sense of what the entity remembers about the sitter, but translated by the medium's worldview. Trans-etheric influences are conceptual and how we sense them is translated from a conceptual form to a more concrete form.
The intent of what I am saying may be open for debate, but the conclusion will be something like what I have said. If you do not understand the difference about how these influences are experienced by us, then you will continue to try to work with these influences as if they are nuts and bolts of the physical world.
I apologize that this material is complex. The error many researchers have made has been to oversimplify and try to make it fit current thought rather than allowing for a different view.Tom Butler 23:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hm, so basically Bayesian analysis is too simple a method for things which involve psychology? You are saying that one has to apply the standards of say, a science like sociology or psychology or anthropology (I do not really know what I am talking about here) rather than physical sciences? So that allows me to better understand "The values themselves are subjective in conceptual-intensive questions, leaving too much opportunity for false assumptions prior to analysis of results." You are saying that when psychology is involved, the values assigned are too arbitrary. And you are saying that much of the fringe is psychologically influenced in this way. So then you are saying that the emphasis should be on having good data, rather than trying to decide beforehand which hypothesis should have a low or high prior.
So a question, if the phenomenon in question is a haunting, and we have two hypotheses: mundane causation and a real ghost. Then, why can't we apply Bayesian analysis to this? Can you define when it would work and would not work, for what kind of phenomena? It would seem to me —and I think you said as much in the Occam's razor article before I deleted the section (sorry)— that we set the prior low for the real ghost hypothesis (something about orbs). From then on, it is just a matter of evidence strength. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 00:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You are trying to shove the Bayesian inference too early into the system. You wouldn't use statistical analysis to determine if something is a "hit" or not, but you can use statistical analysis to see if the number of hits and the number of misses were significantly different. For example, with EVP, if I were too give you two tapes, one done under "legitimate" EVP conditions, and another with pure white noise, and you did not know which tape was which, and I asked you to find "voices" in that noise, the statistics doesn't care how you heard the voices, or what you think you heard, the statistics care about whether or not you heard more "hits" on the "real" tape than the control. Bayesian inference can then take the accumulated evidence and show the threshold at which the number of hits pushes the idea into "plausible." Etaroced 00:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
What a great experiment. What Hyman did with Natasha whats-her-name: does Tom think that was wrong, aside from perhaps the (what was it?) hundred to one against prior he had to use to make her results come in under the margin? I mean, what was wrong with using Bayesian analysis on that? It seems to be the kind of thing he is saying should not be so analyzed. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 00:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

All of these devices work to some extent. In a frontier subject, there is too often little or no historical record. In hauntings investigation for instance, observational records are not usually acceptable data. That is 99.9% of the history.

What is useful is data collected when sites have been "wired" to make them controlled labs. However, since hauntings events are virtually always spontaneous, there is little meaningful instrumental data. As I remember, bayesian analysis requires that a numeric value be applied to data before it can be analyzed. What is "admissible data" form the history and how it is assigned a value would need to be agreed on by the community before it could be included in the prior record.

Look at something more mainstream like the geomagnetic polarity-magnitude of the rocks at a certain latitude as part of the analysis of a hypothetical crust subduction model. Because there are usually considerable data points, they can be faithfully reproduced and they can be accurately related to a norm. No ambiguity other than the problem of misreading the results. There are literally hundreds of qualified scientists conducting well-funded research who can comment on and agree to the validity of the data. Even so, it took many years and a lot of peer-to-peer battles before plate tectonics gained favor as a workable hypothesis. Do you think our little corner of the universe has the resources to do the same?

I would have to agree with Etaroced in that bayesian analysis may eventually be useful, but maybe not yet. For instance, it may be applied to the study of psi functioning, except that there is still pretty strong indication that results over the years may have been contaminated by unexpected variables such as that study about Sidereal Time and the question of observer effects. If these are a factor, such a small database might not be useful. Then there is the question whether the assumptions used in statistical analysis are reasonable. If you are working from an unstable hypothesis, then assumptions are important.

And no, I would not think it is reasonable to apply bayesian analysis to the Natasha case.

Whatever you all come up with here, I intend to drive the AA-EVP toward decisive determinism and let it be as complicated as it gets. After 9+ years of trying to make people happy, I think it is time to have a little fun.Tom Butler 01:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And by "decisive determinism," what do you mean? It sounds as if you mean just getting such strong data that prior theory must bend to accommodate, so Bayesian analysis would not be necessary. That is, the kind of extraordinary evidence skeptics want.
"In a frontier subject, there is too often little or no historical record." But there is the record of mainstream science. Wouldn't a skeptic say that that is the history with which you set the prior? PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 01:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I would really like to see in the article is a discussion about whether there is really anything different about investigating a mainstream and fringe claim, when the fringe claim is like the kind Tom deals with. Saying there is a psychological component is a start. Saying it is non-local and therefore has special needs might be another. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 01:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The mainstream record does not have a field for paranormal in the data records. I am not sure how you would develop a history. In EVP, an audio recorder has been used twenty million times and never produced an EVP (example only). However, unexpected voice-like noise is discarded as error or imagination and never reported to the scientists. For instance, it is often reported that people sometimes returned their Panasonic RR-DR60 digital voice recorder because there were voices in the recordings they did not make. I do not know if this is true and I doubt Panasonic is going to say, but I also doubt there is a field in their "returned product" records for unexpected voices.
So no, the mainstream record is not useful in paranormal research because the data was not collected or keyed in.
By "decisive determinism," I am trying to come up with a way of saying that, if it does not go in the Class A folder, then it is not counted. One of a kind events must go in a "wait and see if other examples come along" folder. Until there are many examples in the folder, they are not counted. A good example of this is faces on turned off TV screens. We have a few but right now, we can only scratch our heads. the one additional reference we have is that children are always in the room.
Etaroced's example of having people distinguish between speech and noise is a good one because it goes to the way the presence of EVP is determined. I make a recording and get what I think is an EVP. I play the recording for you without telling you anything and ask you to tell me what you hear. I do this with a hundred people and see if there is any agreement. Right now, the results are settling around 25.2% correct word recognition based on what the practitioner reported is present in the EVP.
The typical psi experiment produces deviations from chance guessing of from a fraction of a percent to a few percent. Which one would you prefer to argue with the skeptics?
By the way, Etaroced. Alexander MacRae uses that approach with his listening panels. He likes to slip in a few white noise files to keep his panel honest. He also makes it a practice to keep his recording sessions to a fixed length so that he can count EVP per session. That is useful for him to tell if a new devise is an improvement. Such data can go toward a baseline, but it would be unique to Alec. I would have a different baseline. Tom Butler 01:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"In EVP, an audio recorder has been used twenty million times and never produced an EVP (example only)." I believe that argument is exactly what skeptics say, and how they set the prior.
Well I would prefer to argue the parapsychology, because if white noise sounds like a word, why wouldn't multiple people think it sounds like that word?
Skeptics would say, that mainstream science is the negative background by which we should set the prior on fringe claims. I think that is a very major theme. The argument should be more explicit of course, in that the skeptic should say exactly how the mainstream condition is actually relevant. But that is a large argument for skepticism, see this article. The article has the general argument, but I have heard it much more specific, especially making that direct argument about EVP, for example, or about quantum mechanics not needing parapsychology: that is in one of the articles also. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 02:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a discontinuity of perceived reality between a worldview that accepts paranormal phenomena as part of reality and one that rejects it. Proving these things exist requires that we build a bridge between worldviews. Trying to figure out how and why these phenomena exist, and accepting that mainstream is just going to waist our energy, requires no such bridge.

The same logic applies to prior art. It is a logical fallacy to apply findings that ignore parts of reality to a study of those parts of reality. Other than to say that the prior art is incomplete and therefore of no use.

I am not sure how to make it any simpler than that.Tom Butler 16:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to understand this within the context of Bayesian inference. You are arguing that applying Bayesian inference to paranormal claims is invalid, right? The argument that you seemed to make is that it was invalid because Bayesian inference can't be used to describe such things as why certain words are heard in EVP or how a medium "feels" ghosts. I responded that you are trying to apply Bayesian inference at the wrong stage of analysis. The nut and bolts of "how" something work doesn't need statistical analysis. The analysis comes in when trying to decide if it is real, and it usually involves comparing something akin to "hits" and "misses." We can easily derive a p(d|h) for any phenomenon. In order to derive a p(h|d) then all we need is the prior. You seem to be arguing that setting low probability priors for paranormal phenomenon is invalid because is presupposes it does not exist before the testing starts? None of this invalidates Bayesian inference. We can argue about the how and why of priors, and there are many interesting quantitative approaches one might use, as long as a prior can be assigned and a likelihood computed Bayesian inference is perfectly valid. Etaroced 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
In order to user Bayesian on the paranormal, you would have to build a bridge in terms of having the mainstream accept the prior art of the paranormal. Since that cannot happen, partly due to cultural factors and partly due to the fact that the mainstream is institutionalized in the academy (and uses that as a reference for validity), Tom is saying that the paranormal has to create its own, external tradition of prior art. I do not think he objects to the use of Bayesian analysis, I think he is saying that using it in the current context is unfair to the data in the paranormal community because it rejects a-priori. Also, applying standard science to form the prior on the paranormal does not work because the mainstream has ignored a part of reality. IOW, there is no bridge to be built, and without a bridge Bayesian analysis will not be correct or productive. Is that correct? If so, it should be expressed more or less that way in a section in the article (I mean, it should be said without complex word constructions). Ah, an example of this would be Hyman's analysis of Natasha: he used mainstream science to set the prior, but did not set the prior using, for example, the results of parapsychology or the common experience of people. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 18:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Purple, that is well put. Let's go with that.

A lot of this discussion has been about me trying to express the viewpoint we are learning to use. I cannot speak for the hauntings investigations people, but in actual practice, we who study ITC are not trying to prove anything. We went through that and found it a fruitless and ultimately meaningless task.
Take the White crow example. The real question is why one would propose the existence of a white crow, and then the question is what would cause a white crow. The existence of the crow, itself, may not be the main issue. We have proposed a whit crow with study of trans-etheric influences, but we are studying why there is such influence and the mechanism that makes it possible.
When I propose the hypothesis that we are an etheric Self with an existence independent of our body, phenomena like EVP become mechanisms to study that hypothesis, and whether or not EVP exists becomes a secondary question so long as it works as a tool. How well EVP works as a tool can be measured statistically, but that is not really the study.
I might add that my real objective is learning how to work with these phenomena because that is what my members are asking for. They are the ones who will fund the research and not the mainstream community.
Look at the field of parapsychology. Using statistical analysis, they have pretty convincing results that psi exists. Yet critics find fault with assumptions and protocols. Virtually all of the scientist's time seems to be take defending their work. There are just a few of us in this field and the useful database is very, very small. Based on what I understand, the field is not related to physical studies well enough to permit physical studies precedence to be used in the analysis of etheric subjects. Why would I want to see techniques that require questionable assumptions included in what is expected in etheric studies? It is just a distraction from the preliminary work that needs to be done.
It is certainly counter productive of me to support the mainstream view when it is only marginally applicable and virtually not supportable by our resources. Tom Butler 22:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
So you are basically calling for an entire alternate scientific community which ignores the mainstream. Are you saying that the phenomena are proven so well that demonstration of the phenomenon is no longer necessary, or are you proposing to put aside such studies and focus on process, then come back to them at a later date? PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 23:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] That is it

The latst. The processes of science have been arrived at via substantial experience. I am not discounting it. What I am saying is that the traditional scientific method cannot realistically be applied to many of these questions. Parapsychology has been trying for years with little respect. Even so, it is only in recent times that there are sufficient "acceptable" research reports about psi functioning to conduct meta analyses, which is part of the Bayesian tool.

Our proofs have been rejected, yet we use the proven tools for other research. The lesson is to stop trying to emulate mainstream approaches, stop allowing ourselves to be pushed around by the social pressure of their assumed authority and stick to developing the database needed to understand these phenomena.

The Windbridge study was funded by a member who wants to talk to a loved one on the other side. She can care less about the science, just if the study will lead to a mechanism through which she can do so. She does not know if EVP is real. All she knows is that the reports of such contact are interesting and she has the money to help study. She would not have funded a "prove it" study. Tom Butler 23:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

When you say "the traditional scientific method cannot realistically be applied to many of these questions" Do you mean the scientific method, or do you rather mean the standard scientific protocols. Because traditionally there is not much besides revelation, science/inductive reasoning, and feeling. If you are proposing something besides those, it is a radical shift and needs some sort of definition. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Burden of proof

Hypothesis: Anomalous voices are sometimes found in recording media.

Experimental Protocol: Conduct ten, three minute recording session following the procedure described in Basic EVP Recording Technique and analyze the resulting sound files for anomalous voices.
Prediction: some anomalous voices will be detected.
(I will not approach the question of what who or why concerning the anomalous voices.)

Most people will report finding anomalous voices within the first few tries; however, the experiment is not 100%. Not finding anomalous voices does not negate the hypothesis, only that the practitioner was not able to record them in the allocated time.

I like the idea of being able to have an experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of anomalous voices recorded with this protocol, but I am not sure how to design such an experiment. It would be contrived to say that, if the voices are not recorded in X number of tries, they do not exist and the hypothesis is false.

Still, I am often told that our hypotheses are not valid because they cannot be disproved. Tom Butler 01:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that when you start looking for ways to exact your proof. To say anomalous voices are sometimes found in recording media is a start. However, what you need to do, in addition to recording the voices, is find a way to rule out other possible causes. It isn't enough to say "Look, I hear voices. Therefore my hypothesis is correct." What you need to do is say "Look, we have voices on this recording, and they didn't come from source X, Source Y, or Source Z." Then, you need to develop a parallel control experiment that says "under this more normal circumstance, you will hear no anomalous voices." Your conflict with science is that you don't understand that science thrives on specifics and exacts. You do not want to approach the questions of who, what or why, but those are exactly the specifics that real science needs in order for your hypothesis to be proven.Gooniepunk2005 02:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, they have done that I believe, by shielding it from radio, and it is just the same. The skeptical hypothesis is not usually radio but Apophenia/Pareidolia, I think. And there was just an experiment suggested here to use pure white noise for the controls. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 02:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so now on to the next point: what you are trying to do is prove an observation. That's fine and all, but it doesn't equal a scientific theory or law anymore than me saying that, sometimes, the sky is blue and taking pictures of when it is and isn't blue. Again, what the scientific method seeks and what science in general begs of the hypothesis is why and the how. Why does it occur, if we know it is occurring? Is it radio interference from the government? Is is natural interference from lightning? Is it aliens? Why is it happening, from which we can deduce how is it happening?Gooniepunk2005 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So you see from the above sections that he is not trying to prove it, but as far as I can tell develop the method and leave proof for when they have better methods. So I assume he is trying to develop better theory along with method, because the two go together. But he questions the concept of "scientific community" you are using. And you cannot deduce how from why, unless you assume normal causation. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 03:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, you are trying to prove an observation exists. Fine, so you prove it. But while science cares about that observation, the scientific method is more concerned with the meaning of that observation, and the data surrounding it. "I hear anomalous voices on the radio." Fine. But what are some other observations associated with it? What does it sound like? Are there patterns in when they do/don't occur? If it occurs, at what times? Is it always a similar sound, or does it change and, if so, how and how frequently? Part of having made an observation is being able to understand and dissect that observation and make predictions about it. Once you are able to make predictions based on relevant data, and can prove the correlation in those predictions to even the most stringent of critics, you are then starting to prove something as being true. I would also like to add, in my defense, that my concept of scientific community is, essentially, anyone who generally understands the scientific method. My questions are not meant so much to dismiss or slag as to guide.Gooniepunk2005 03:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


Here is a question for you, basic to these subjects: should science bother with phenomena which are utterly beyond current theory? Or should they take only the phenomena which are at the fringes of current theory and try to explain them? What if we are up against phenomena which will not be explained for a long time. Is it worth bothering with them if all you can have is some ambiguous and experiential data? PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 03:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How curious you should ask that. The answer is that, for concepts beyond current scientific knowledge, science should strive to do its best to understand the data that is available, and use that for research into how to conduct future experiments, while at the same time trying to develop the technology to prove or disprove such concepts. Remember, it wasn't that long ago people thought dishwashers would be robotic arms and thought computers would be skyscraper-sized by the year 2000.Gooniepunk2005 03:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They got the timing wrong on the dishwashers, we will have to wait for humanoid robots (because dishwashers are lousy technology). Anyway, I believe that is what Tom says he is trying to do. But he says that trying to prove it to mainstream science is not worth it at this point. That probably shouts "woo" to you but then you have to answer the question of how people who have had personal experience which science —at least institutional science— says is impossible are supposed to conduct themselves. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 04:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, though, what they; what he should focus on is less on trying to provide the proof of what he is experiencing, which can be developed later when technology allows, and more on what is causing it so that they can have a vaild reason as to why trying to provide such evidence is neccessary.Gooniepunk2005 04:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 04:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to keep the example simple. :-)
It could have been: Hypothesis: Anomalous voices are sometimes found in recording media made in a Mil-Spec radio-frequency screened room. If a control recorder is used, it will not produce the same anomalous voices. A double-blind listening panel will agree to what is said in some percentage of the he resulting anomalous voice examples. The same panel will sometimes agree that a known speaker is speaking and the utterances are appropriate for the circumstance. Multiple techniques may be used to produce the anomalous voices, including random selection of synthetic speech fragments.
It is no longer in the Burden of Proof article, but I was trying to get to the question of what was intended by: "One of requirements set forth by the scientific method is that, in order for something to be proven science, it also has to be disprovable." We know all of that other stuff about science. What I do not know is what skeptics are tying to say with the above. Tom Butler 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that is more like it! :D Re the falsifiability problem, if it cannot be disproven, then it cannot be really tested. I think this is Popper or someone. If there is no experimental result which would convince a person they are wrong, they are faith-based. There is debate around string theory, because there is little that could prove it true or false, so people say it is not really science. We should really do an article on ways various parts of the paranormal could be falsified. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 22:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, though, your hypothesis is, indeed, a hypothesis. But it is a hypothesis about the experiment being conducted, which is fine. But most scientifically accepted concepts, such as gravity, are proven by more than one experiment testing more than one different experimental hypothesis in order to understand the data collected by those experiments. Your experiment may, if proven, answer the "what we are observing" part of EVP, but what you also would then need is other experiments to answer other questions surrounding EVP in order to understand it better such as: an experiment to answer why you hear these anomalous voices, etc. Once more of the fundamental questions surrounding EVP could be answered, I am certain that the surrounding skepticism would then begin to simmer down.Gooniepunk2005 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
All of those things are on record. This is a rather well-established study and we are way past "observing." I was just wondering if you had an idea about how to answer the disprovable question. If you do not, would you agree that the argument is just a way of posing an impossible task before the question will be considered? Tom Butler 22:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
In all honesty, I will have to do more research. EVP is something I know little about (if you couldn't tell by my points). I was just offering my opinion because it was one that wasn't tainted by anything more than my knowledge of science in general and my rationalist, objective POV. Once I have done some of my own research, I can come back and explain to you why EVP isn't accepted as science. Until then, do not make any assumptions about my opinion that I wouldn't make myself because when you assume you make an ass out of "U" and "me." (And, yes, I came to WikiSynergy with my usual sense of humor and terrible antics).Gooniepunk2005 23:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Try not to be condescending. However, seeing a skeptic say he does not know something in the presence of a paranormalist is unusual, and means you are not acting as a pseudoskeptic (;
Goonie, I think there were several hypotheses tested: radio, paradolia (sp?), mistakes etc. Without saying anything about the validity of the phenomenon, I think that they were conducting proper science in testing to disprove these hypotheses. The idea that the dead are speaking is not a theory in the sense of mathematics, but it is a theory in the same sense that you have theories in psychology: the phenomenon can be predicted on that basis, you have a something (consciousness) which is active in the affair.
Tom, if nothing anyone could ever say or do would disprove the idea that EVP are paranormal, how does the idea that they are paranormal differ from religion? If it is religion, why bother with the experiments, with verifying it? Yes, I think you need to think on it and clearly state what evidence or situation would cause you to say that EVP are most likely not paranormal (nothing being sure in science).
I wasn't trying to be condescending. Rather, as you will find out, I have a strange sense of humor. In fact. I thought it was blatantly obvious, judging from my arguements, that I didn't know about EVP. The arguments I was making are my usual line of BS detection: if one cannot answer those questions, than their argument is weak and probably wrong. If someone can make it past them, than that is where I actually require knowledge in order to continue the debate. In this case, I know nothing (not even the criticisms of) EVP, so I cannot continue to debate it simply because of my pure lack of knowledge, as it would not be fair.Gooniepunk2005 23:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
We approach the subject by asking what we can do to more reliably make intelligible contact, not to prove such contact is possible. Each such experiment has the outcome of improving, not changing or making contact less effective. For instance, if the voices are formed from available noise, if we supply a single frequency, say 1000 Hz, will a voice be formed in that? No, not intelligible . If we supply noise ranging from 200 Hz to 2000 Hz and 6000 Hz to 7000 Hz, will we find different utterances in each range at the same time. Yes, sometimes.
In such experiments, the question is how to manage the output, not whether or not there is an output. There is nothing about the existence of the subject that is to be accepted on faith. Who is talking is a matter of theory and we are still looking for ways to test this. For instance, we do not know how to isolate the practitioner and witness from the recording process ... or isolate the hypothetical dead person to see who is really talking.
Again, my question is about how one might go about disproving something. ("One of requirements set forth by the scientific method is that, in order for something to be proven science, it also has to be disprovable.")
As suggested earlier, let's look at gravity. Someone dropped an apple and proposed that there is an attractive force which caused the apple to fall. Does someone have to prove that the earth sucks in order to falsify that theory? Tom Butler 23:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
PS: It would be best if you did not screen me for BS. A simple, "I do not know" would suffice." Tom Butler 23:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Goonie, when I said condescending I meant the part about explaining to him why science doesn't accept EVP. But I say again, that a skeptic who can admit he doesn't know everything is unusual, and that is very valuable. It may not seem possible to you, but skeptics like that are really not very common.
Tom, it seems that what you are saying is that you 1. have an anomaly, which you have not been able to explain by normal means, in spite of the fact you have tried to explain it by normal means 2. you are not making the claim that it is paranormal 3. it seems to be paranormal, so for that reason you think it is worth your time and effort 4. your focus is on making the phenomenon stronger so that you can then learn more about what it is and how to use it.
Concerning falsification, to falsify that the earth sucks you only have to come up with a theory which explains things better. So what type of mechanism could you test for which would explain EVP better? Is there any brain imaging technique which could be used to explain it and make the paranormal explanation significantly more unlikely? I am not an expert in falsification, in the theory of science, but I do think that is one of the requirements of science. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 00:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Modify the question

Part of the problem is that I am an engineer, and training for that is pretty much based on a go or no-go test for things. I am taught to contain unknowns so that they cannot interfere with ways of applying knowns. Falsifying a claim is not really meaningful to an engineer.

By definition, EVP are paranormal because they are not part of what is defined as "normal." However, I am not claiming them to be magic, mysterious, secrete, hidden or in any way unknowable. The way we run the AA-EVP is to say that, if you have to have faith about something, then it has to be so noted. We do not accept reports of phenomena that are abnormal (even for EVP) except on an "Okay, we will keep this in a safe place and see if more reports like this come along. In the meantime, we will not act on the report."

The problem of applying the scientific method is what has caused me to say that we are going to focus on process and not argue validity of concept. By that I mean, I don't care if EVP is real or not as long as I can use it to do something. When I will study what I am able to do with EVP, I learn a little about EVP as well.

In the hypothesis I used, I am saying that I can do this to get that. Instead of claiming "that" I might claim "doing this." I can ask a question in an EVP session and sometimes get a useful answer. For instance, "What was surprising to you when you died?" The EVP was "Your alive" form a female and "Regrets" from the practitioner's son, Braden. What I study is the protocol that got me an answer, the fact that the information is in agreement with other theories of survival ( we think "regret" is in reference to a painful life review) and the information we can gather about the people talking. If EVP exists was not the question.

Do you need to know how electricity works to watch television? Electricity is a tool from the perspective of entertainment. EVP is a tool from the perspective of studying the etheric.

But I am just "beating around the bush." The question is now whether or not it is necessary to be able to falsify a theory before the concept can be used. Do I have to falsify the existence of electricity before I can build a television set? Tom Butler 01:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the Wikipedia article, it does not seem to be a total requirement. But it is something to which it would be well to formulate a response, because I think it is one of the main things skeptics would throw at you, after they get finished saying there is "no evidence." I just do not know enough, but I know what will be thrown at you. From the looks of the article, a response could be formulated possibly right from Popper. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 02:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
No offense, Tom, but I screen all woo-sounding arguments for BS just to make sure that the ones making the claim actually understand what they are talking about. I wasn't singling you out, but I was, rather, making sure you had arguments that conformed, at least somewhat, to the scientific method. I was actually relieved that you had done enough research as to be able to put my initial critiques to rest. When I have done some research into EVP, then I shall return to debate some more from the rationalist perspective.Gooniepunk2005 04:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that brings up something I have been wondering: it is not really the "rationalist" perspective, unless you are willing to call all other perspectives "irrationalist." It is also not "materialist," because materialist indicates that there is material which is basic and not energy, and also that such things as EVP are not material. So perhaps you could suggest a term which works better, and is neither complimentary nor demeaning to people. I do not know of one. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You are saying we do not need to establish that something is real, or how it works, in order to get something useful out of it. You then provide a few examples and show how if you assume it is real you might get something interesting. Lets start from the perspective that EVP is complete nonsense, simply as a point of argument for now, and take a look at your basic claim. If EVP is completely a fabrication of the human mind's potential to formulate patterns out of random noise what useful or interesting information can be gleamed by studying it?
I could come up with several things, if everyone hears the same exact thing then it becomes interesting from a sensory perceptual analysis stand point. Much like optical illusions, everyone shares the same illusion and it tells us much about how visual perception works. If people will only here the same thing if "primed" for it that can also tell us lot about perception. There is a lot of evidence the sensory perception is Bayesian in nature, the use of a primed prior "do you hear the word 'x'?" is interesting from the perspective of perceptual psychology.
These are just a couple of examples. Do you notice an interesting pattern? Depending on whether you work from the perspective that EVP is true or false you arrive at two very different ways that the information is useful. They are mutually exclusive, and one is right while the other is wrong. One approach creates useful valid data, the other approach is just making stuff that has zero external validity.
This is why it is important to establish which hypothesis is the better hypothesis. We can not figure out useful information until we have settled the initial question. Is EVP an auditory illusion or is there something more to it? That question must be established and answered to some degree before extrapolating the information from EVP experiments. How then do we test these hypotheses? Standard confirmatory methods are inefficient and probably impossible. That is why science focuses on falsification. A single falsification experiment can tell what is going on, compared to hundreds of confirmatory observations or experiments. Simply take a look at the two hypotheses, see where they make two different and contradictory experiments, then preform that experiment and see which prediction was closer to the actual data.
That gives us the probability of the data given the hypothesis, but we are interested in the probability of the hypothesis given all the data we have. How then do we relate our new found information in p(d|h) to p(h|d)? You guessed it, Bayesian inference. And we are right back to where we started with this, that Bayesian inference is a nice way to examine how individual data sets relate to your overall management of the probability of alternative hypotheses, and why it provides a quantitative reason behind the general quip that "extraordinary claims require extraoridnary evidence."Etaroced
Exactly the point I've been trying to get across. They are focused on proving the observation, when they should focus on other things such as the causes, etc.Gooniepunk2005 19:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Etaroced, that is a bad argument because it assumes that they prime people with the right word. I do not think that is true. Your argument then becomes "white noise will have sounds in it which multiple people will say is the same word." And as I said, they have tried to rule out different hypotheses by experimentation. So, what is the problem? I do not think you read all the thread here, let alone know about EVP in general. They have tried to do falsification experiments with the normal hypotheses (but do not know of a falsification experiment that would prove that it is not paranormal). They think they have been successful. That data is what needs to be dealt with, not the method.
Really, we need to stick to basics of science in general, because those here do not know the experiments which have been done. I do not know either, but I do know that they have attempted to do what you say. Also, the whole point they are making is that they are not focusing on proof of the observation any more, but on causes and improving the methods. So I do not understand the criticisms, they do not seem to relate to the reality. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 20:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the key point in Etaroced's comments is "data sets." Bayesian inference depends on being able to assign a value to elements in a data set, and that remains a problem. If we had the many hundreds of experiments like what is available for meta analysis with physical phenomena, then certainly it would be reasonable to begin looking for trends indicating norms such as a Gaussian Distribution. The problem is that we have only small data sets developed by people with no credibility in the academic community for a subject that is not considered possible a priori. We need to manage human resources with care.

We have developed hypothesis, protocols and conducted studies intended to answer your question of illusion/delusion verses actual processes. One is the double-bind online listening study reported at http://ethericstudies.org/journal-esbp/index.php?title=EVP_online_listening_trials (soon to be moved to http://ethericstudies.org/journal) indicating an average 25% corrected word recognition. Computer analysis examining the structure of the voices has been conducted many times, clearly showing anomalous structures in the speech. Synthetic speech has been used, and is in fact the subject of a study being conducted by the Windbridge Institute and funded by the AA-EVP. (We do no t know the results of that study).

In line with your comments, take a look at the discussion in the article at http://ethericstudies.org/journal-esbp/index.php/Radio_sweep_case_study. We do have considerable problems with how people experience these phenomena and this is common to virtually all of the trans-etheric influence-kinds of phenomena such as hauntings events. There is no doubt that we are easily fooled by our senses and our mind. There is also a shortage of critical thinking in our field, and as pointed out before, we are receiving zero help from people trained as critical thinkers.

Since the discovery of EVP fifty years ago, level-headed researchers have been trying to find ways to study EVP in an effort to determine if it is real, and if so, what causes it. Right now, it is eminently reasonable to seek ways to apply EVP because in those applications, we learn more about the phenomena themselves. I have the impression Goonie does not understand the implications when he says we should be focusing on the causes. the scientific method is focused on outcome research which leads to understanding of cause when hypotheses are developed to model the outcome. We are unable to do much about the outcome because it may depend on a sentient entity acting independently from the protocol. This is a subtle difference from mainstream thought, but we have to study the mechanism rather than the outcome.

I am not sure how to make this any clearer. The question remains: how does one satisfy the burden of proof when the conventional methods of science may not be applicable? Tom Butler 20:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question, is there an experiment that was conducted that tested the rate of words heard on a tape that was created with under EVP conditions, versus noise that was specifically manufactured and would have no EVP? Etaroced 23:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Alexander MacRae A MEANS OF PRODUCING THE ELECTRONIC VOICE PHENOMENON BASED ON ELECTRO-DERMAL ACTIVITY
Abstract: This paper concerns a device that produces anomalous speech products similar in many respects to the Electronic Voice Phenomenon (although it was not intended to function in this way), and its purpose is to describe the characteristic behaviour of this device and its products, and to consider possible alternative explanations. For example, could what is happening simply be a case of stray pick-up — either electromagnetic or acoustic? To answer that question, experiments were carried out with the equipment relocated in an environment where communication in Spanish rather than in English was normal. Another possible alternative is considered: that these voices exist only in the mind, like an ‘audible Rorschach Test’ interpretation. An objective process for assessing the most probable meaning of the information contained in an anomalous speech product is outlined, with the conclusion that such products are real and have characteristics of communication." Tom Butler 00:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, though, Tom, you are busy trying to prove an observation. That's fine and all, but is missing the larger pictures of who, how, etc. For example: I could say the sky is blue and take a million photos of it being blue to prove my point. Therefore, I'd prove the sky is blue. But that doesn't answer the bigger questions of why it is blue and how it appears to be blue. In fact (and I will post it when I have the time so you can look at it), I spent 2 days revising you experiment into something that could be done in a way that science would except it ande where it wouldn't even require more technology but could be completed using existing technology, and which could, quite reasonably, pass a peer review. I will post it here fore you, probably, in the next day or two (when I am in a more sober state and when I am not busy).Gooniepunk2005 04:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in seeing your experiment, but I am not sure what experiment you are talking about. What is the subject? That abstract is MacRae's approach and I was answering Etaroced. It is not intended to show my point.

I am not trying to prove anything other than the view that the scientific method needs to be modified for some frontier subjects. I have been trying to make it clear that the best approach in my field at least is to study the process and accept the result as a given. I summed it up in the 7th paragraph of this page as "One of the reason I talk about decisive determinism is that such analysis has not been convincing for way too many years. If the model we adopt is "Okay, the event is verified as there so what caused it?" then statistical analysis is trivial."

Trans-etheric influences should be accepted as givens to permit the design of hypotheses and protocols to study the necessary physical processes. This is not to say that we should say the trans-etheric influence is what we model. It is just saying that an anecdotal effect is reported, and if it is real, then how does it happen--what are the physical elements in its existence and can we learn anything about the existence of the effect by knowing the necessary process? The article at here will give you an idea of what is intended when I say to study the processes. Tom Butler 17:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Further to some of the above about EVP

I want to comment on this:

"Hypothesis: Anomalous voices are sometimes found in recording media.

Experimental Protocol: Conduct ten, three minute recording session following the procedure described in Basic EVP Recording Technique and analyze the resulting sound files for anomalous voices.

Prediction: some anomalous voices will be detected."

There seem to be several assumptions underlying these three "points" that I wish to clarify. So I'll try to add a few extra steps and see if I can get some clarification.

Observation: humans hear what seem to be spoken words in the background noise of recording media Observation: these words are reported consistently from a given sample at some level of reliability

That's the first step - the observation of some phenomena, in this case hearing "voices" in "static".

The next step is to form a hypothesis regarding them that 1. can be tested via making predictions from it and 2. has the potential to yield "useful" results.

One such hypothesis is the paredolia thing - that given enough random noise, some of it will seem like recognizable sounds. One possible test that be done with this is to present a reasonably marge example of noise (recorded "correctly"?) to native speakers of different languages.

Another hypothesis appears to be something along the lines of "these anomalous sounds are intentionally made by etheric spirits". I'd guess that one way to test for the intentionality (and hence there being a genuine being of some sort creating the EVP) would be to assume temporarily that the communication is two-way (they can hear us somehow) and ask questions of some sort, parse the EVP for answers, then see if the answers are correct. But anyway, one problem with this hypothesis is it assumes a "source" for the EVP for which there is no real evidence in the initial observations. Working from this hypothesis certainly can't lead to proof that etheric beings exist, since their existence is assumed in the hypothesis. However, if the hypothesis is contradicted by tests, it might prove they don't exist.

Anyway, now some commentary in a different direction:

"Hypothesis: Anomalous voices are sometimes found in recording media." - that's not a hypothesis, at least not with that wording. Unless the hypothesis is that the sounds reported (as above) are actually real voices of some sort. The "Experimental Protocol" described above has nothing to do with testing this hypothesis, since it does not preclude the null hypothesis (it's just random noise). And the "prediction" is just that what has been observed before (sounds that seem like voices in static) will likely be observed again. Just my 3 or 4 cents... Human 23:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The "hypothesis" is overly simple, but can be taken literally. "Anomalous voices are sometimes found in recording media" means real human-language utterances will be found in the recording media.
One test for this is a double-blind listening panel. One such study is here. In that, Class A examples as determined by an experienced practitioner are presented to the participating online listener who is asked to type in what they hear. "Correct response" is determined by counting the number of correctly understood words in each example based on what the practitioner reported was present. A very strict standard of "correctly recognized word" was use and the raw responses are available for analysis. Also, the website is available for similar experiments conducted by other researchers. The average is settling to around 25% correctly recognized words.
This is by no means a perfect way to study this, but it does represent one data point. Alexander MacRae has conducted similar tests but using a multiple choice approach.
We have attempted to gather information about an unknown target using EVP with marginal success. It is relatively easy to ask the entity to recite something like "Mary had a little lamb" or "What is on my table" but we have had no success with finding missing people. The problem there is that we do not know when the response is correct, but I think we will figure that out in time. As has been reported in the 4Cell EVP Demonstration experiments. Using a not so stringent standard of "hit and miss" we are around 67% correct or at least reasonable responses to blind questions. For instance: "What is the name of our favorite restaurant?" Expected answer: "The Waterfront," EVP: "Has a view of the bay." (Note here that the answer is a conceptual representation of the concrete name.)
Following the rule of thumb that an EVP is always in a language understood by the practitioner or an interested observer, we have observed in one instance for example, that a Korean phrase was spoken which we did not understand (English only) but the Korean film crew did.
There have been several dozen cases that we know of in which forensic-quality voice analysis of an EVP and a recording of the person thought to be speaking, but made while still in the flesh, agreed better than 98%. This is high enough to be accepted as evidence in a court of law. These voices formed from noise also have formant structure similar to biologically formed speech, although it is usually oddly arranged and F0 is often fragmented or missing--no voice box.
So we can show experimentally that the "anomalous voices are sometimes found in recording media" are actually spoken language.
What we cannot show is that the voices are initiated by a dead person. We know they are not memories, because they are responsive. However, we know that it is possible to record the thoughts of living people--if we could not, then the whole metaphysics would need to be scrapped. We know of no way to shield a recorder from thoughts and distance and time seem to be irrelevant. All you need to know to impress your thoughts in my experiment is that I might conduct an EVP session someday. This is one of the reasons I say that we are studying a conceptual reality which needs different rules of study.
Let's put that a different way. Trans-etheric influences include any event in the physical thought to be initiated by an etheric awareness. That includes thoughts of living because our model is that we are etheric Self in a physical body. A trans-etheric influence is a subjective cause which produces an objective effect. EVP is just one form of this. If we can study the subjective cause-objective effect process using EVP as a "microscope," then we can know more about other forms of trans-etheric influence such as footsteps in an empty hallway.
I hope that makes a little sense. Tom Butler 01:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I will comment more soon, but when I read stuff like "as yet undefined quantum field" I cannot help but chuckle and stop reading. (that was in your first link) Human 06:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course I agree with you. You see the sarcasm in my reference to the proposed theories ... right? The quantum field theory is the one often proposed, especially by the founder of IONS and why I say IONS is a human potential society and is not really interested in survival of personality except as it may be evolved from the "primordial soup" of our ancestry. Tom Butler 16:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is abiogenesis an extraordinary claim?

Moved to this subpage.

[edit] Accepting pronouncements of science

Okay Sterile, then we have established that you prefer to accept the word of science as the final word, even though they have deliberately excluded even speculation about the implications of psi functioning research and reasonably well-documented postmortem influence on physical processes. Tom Butler 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll catch up on this later, but we should really try not to say "science," as if science is an institution. That is scientism. You just stuck yourself in the "pseudoscience" hole with that. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 20:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
As a chemist with an advanced degree, I have trouble understanding how ESP would work in terms of physical or chemical processes, or what a ghost physically is in terms of matter and energy. That is, the mechanisms by which they would have to work are difficult to understand in terms of standard concepts of energy and matter (bonding, structure, reactivity, etc.). I do not think the scientific method will ever be able to validate the existence or non-existence of a the supernatural, in particular. In terms of the the paranormal, it would depend on what aspect you are talking about, but I'm not really up on the evidence. I suspect that I would prefer more double-blind testing if I did read about the evidence to clarify cause and effect relationships and that I would want more confirmatory experiments, but as I'm not up on the evidence, it's hard to say. Sterile 21:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Sterile, I agree with you in the sense that physical mechanisms are pretty well defined. I cannot speak for others, but when I describe an instance of paranormal phenomena like a hauntings event or EVP, I presuppose that part of the event depended on known physical processes. This is important.
Where I think we disagree is when the discussion does not allow for anything but "standard concepts of energy and matter, " as you said. Using as many double blind restrictions as we can imagine, we have established that physical processes are influenced by whatever subtle energy is. In parapsychology, they refer to this energy as psi and have shown under pretty good laboratory conditions that it is capable of influencing physical processes.
A well-documented form of influence can be found in what is referred to as After Death Communication. In the spontaneous version, claims are cataloged with no replication involved; however, in induced versions, the influence is often replicated.
So what I am saying is that there is reason to consider an alternative explanation for some physical processes--not an explanation for the process, but the first cause and unexpected deviations. It is demonstrably easy to influence electronic devices with psi. We see intelligent influence all the time so why would I not suspect such influence in other systems that require similarly small influences to have major effects, such as a miner change in DNA producing a major evolutionary change.
If they do not include the possibility in the discussion, they are not considering all of the possibilities. This wiki is able to change that discussion a little. As such, "standard concepts of energy and matter" may not be a viable viewpoint. Tom Butler 23:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tom, in the above you have made some very strong claims about evidence for a few things. Is there somewhere on this site where I can find links to those evidences? Such as "Using as many double blind restrictions as we can imagine, we have established that physical processes are influenced by whatever subtle energy is", "A well-documented form of influence can be found in what is referred to as After Death Communication", "It is demonstrably easy to influence electronic devices with psi" particularly interest me. Thanks for you time. Human 04:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Human, I am sure he could give you a lot of sources. But answering this question, which happens over and over, is the purpose of this article. I have been asked this same question a dozen or so times in the last few weeks. If Tom could help fill it in that would be nice. It should probably cover what research people ought to have done before they render an opinion in certain areas, and hopefully give some essential sources. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 05:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't need "lots". Just, say, two of the best on each quoted topic. Or even just the best one. If the evidence is so concrete, that ought to be easy and convincing. Human 06:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the early studies on ADC is shown at http://www.after-death.com/ for the book, Hello From Heaven. It is important to note that the study is specifically for what is now considered "spontaneous" ADC. The researchers probably still do not acknowledge the possibility that EVP are induced ADC, so do not think the authors are anything more than highly qualified researchers. They really are not "proponents."

The ADC pointed out in Hello From Heaven are interesting anecdotal evidence, some of which require manipulation of technology to for them to happen. More specific evidence of manipulation of technology is found in EVP, and more generally in ITC. There are a number of studies both under way and finished that relate physical and postmortem voices of the same speaker within 98%+ agreement. Virtually all of aaevp.com is about such evidence. Good articles to consider are http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_evp10.htm, http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_evp11.htm, http://aaevp.com/articles/articles_about_itc5.htm and http://ethericstudies.org/journal/online_listening_trials.htm.

We have also funded a study by Windbridge Institute which is currently in data analysis. For that, a very careful acquisition of recording session using a computer program and synthesized voice fragments was attempted to determine whether or not real-time, two-way trans-communication is possible. We are not optimistic that the study will be favorable, but you can review the example that started the whole thing here. It is the EVPmaker example. if voice is present, the technology assures that it is not stray rf and the listening panel will show whether any possible utterances are recognizably voice and appropriate. If so, then the primary explanation is mind-physical influence.

Psi functioning provides important clues as to how mind interacts with substance. I am not a parapsychologists and do not wish to spend time proving their field, but with a simple search for "psi functioning" on the Internet, you should be able to find plenty of support for the idea that there is some form on mind-physical interaction. The Global Consciousness Project is a compelling example.

Without going into whether or not the case for mind-physical interaction has been proven, there is sufficient empirical and anecdotal evidence that a rational person should feel compelled to make allowances for its existence when doing a lifetime of work studying theoretically susceptible processes. I know that I am sufficiently convinced that there is some amount of intelligent mind-physical interaction. Since there may be, it is irrational to ignore the possible implications.

One of the more obvious breaks from Newtonian physics is chaos theory. In that, we see that systems that appear to be mono-state are, in fact, chaotic. Even more interesting is that the math for a mono-state system can usually be applied to a chaotic system without undue error, making the math effective, even if it does ignore reality. Chaose theory is pretty new. Prior to its realization, mainstream scientists were happy thinking mono-state was reality. What else are they dumb but happy about now? Tom Butler 23:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for an attempt to answer me, I'll have to spend some time exploring the links you have provided. One minor comment, however. Your last paragraph is a logical fallacy (the Galileo fallacy). Not that you were using it to "support" your point, really, but be careful with that one. Yes, they laughed at Galileo, and they laughed at the plate tectonics guy. But they laughed at Bozo the clown, too. Doesn't make Bozo a great scientist. Gene Ray makes the same argument somewhere on his magnificent web site. Human 23:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Your comment is rather irritating. The Galileo fallacy can be applied to everyone working with frontier subjects, but only as a way of ignoring the evidence. If you did that with chaos theory, then there probably is no hope.
You have got to stop thinking of mainstream scientists as some kind of infallible gods. People are learning new concepts all the time. Yes, there is a school of thought that insists that everything has been discovered and all we are doing now is filling in the spaces, but I think they are mostly retired these days. To say they are mistaken does not mean that I have some kind of a sense of persecution by the mainstream. It means that I am proposing a different view.
Can you say "myopic"? Tom Butler 00:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The Galileo fallacy is not a valid argument. A valid argument is presenting reproducible experimental results and formats that support one's hypothesis. Calling someone "myopic" is rude, rather than collegial. Also, testing whether many people hear the same "human language" phrases in pre-approved noise is not an "experiment" that tests anything. Human 04:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, you guys have gotten a bit off track. (I tend to agree with Human--the fallibility or infallibility of scientists has nothing to do with the validity of paranormal--but I digress.)

Part of the problem is your terminology is hard to follow. Above, you write "Using as many double blind restrictions as we can imagine, we have established that physical processes are influenced by whatever subtle energy is. In parapsychology, they refer to this energy as psi and have shown under pretty good laboratory conditions that it is capable of influencing physical processes." This brings a number of questions to mind:

  • What does the word "subtle" mean in reference to energy? Is it something to do with magnitude or distribution?
  • Energy as defined by most textbooks is the "ability to do work or transfer heat" (with work and heat being even more scientific jargon). Are we talking about the same energy? Does it take the form of kinetic, potential, chemical potential and electromagnetic? Or is it something outside of those scientific terms? (Which is fine, as long as you can define it, although I'd prefer a different term.) If you have trouble defining it, can you tell me what are examples of psi and what are examples that are not psi, and what differentiates between the two?
  • Effectively your statement says that "psi causes physical effects." How do you know when you are observing psi? Does it have a magnitude, and can you measure it? How do we know that psi is associated with the physical effects let alone causes them? How can we isolate psi as the best or only possibility for causation? (I'm assuming you can tell me this you say the evidence is established.)

Sterile 01:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not read all of this. It looks as if it might be the case that the arguments going on here are similar to those which have gone on in the journals for over half a century. If that is so, it might be better to stick to arguments which the people here can help with: what I mean is, we have people here who do not know the first thing about the paranormal, but do have technical expertise in science and the critical perspective. It is probably much easier to get meaningful help on basic subjects like Standards of evidence and such. They might be able to improve Federlein's arguments if you asked them to. I am just repeating what Sterile said above, really. If you all just want to discuss, it is fine. I am just saying that we might have more luck bringing a chemist in on basic science or chemistry of NDEs than on a subject where we have to make reference to dark matter or quantum chance (not requiring energy to produce an effect) as an analogy, thus taking him utterly outside his expertise and really getting nowhere in terms of articles anyone will read. Go ahead and discuss. But don't come whining to me if you all end up wasting your time and getting nowhere (; My job is to try and push people into a state where they will produce a site that reflects the best of skepticism and fringe ideas. That probably requires focus on each idea individually. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 05:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the people who edit here seem to think "people ... who do not know the first thing about the paranormal" is anyone who disagrees with them. In other words, one is only allowed to be an "expert" in the paranormal (whatever that is) if one is utterly wedded to at least some part of paranormal hypotheses as being absolutely true and correct. Human 05:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
If true, that only matters in discussion, not article writing. Wikis thrive on contention, and my hope is to get people to write contending articles debunking each other. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 23:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Time enough for change

Chance news had a few interesting quotes this morning that agree with my worldview. The quote, "Bueno de Mesquita does not express his forecasts in probabilistic terms; he says an event will transpire or it won't." is another way of saying that the result of a process should be decisively there if it is to be studied. This gives meaning to the prior quote, "If your experiment needs Bayesian statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."

Human, you accused me of a logical fallacy and then said that I am not really guilty because I was not making a claim. Do you wonder that I find that irritating?

Purple, maybe it is time to revisit the definition of "frontier subject." Science has not served frontier subjects. By that I mean that people experience things and wonder what they are. Scientists tell them it is their imagination. They keep experiencing those things, so lacking guidance from the experts, they begin to study those things themselves. They eventually define a theory of what those things are and now you have a frontier subject. No one is necessarily saying that they are actually experiencing something unusual, jut that someone with the training should have done more than prescribe valium.

If you are going to talk about the scientific method on a wiki said to be interested in frontier subjects, then do not expect a person who studies one to want to perpetuate what looks like a failed system. Also, do not be dismayed if I expected editors interested in the wiki to be informed. If they are skeptical, then I expect them to be informed about that which they are skeptical. I am not speaking a foreign language. Terms such as "subtle energy," "psi" and "etheric" are common to many frontier subjects. The total and absolute dismissal of the same is also common to mainstream science.

I am happy to take time to define these terms, but I have no time for editors who put assumed knowledge above inquiry. Tom Butler 15:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, why the hostility? And I would hope that a wiki such as this one would do the job of informing us of the about the paranormal. I honestly do not know what these terms mean (except for energy). You will have an uphill battle with this wiki if you're unwilling to help the uninitiated. It really isn't unreasonable to expect a wiki that specializes in such topics to define them. Sterile 16:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"If they are skeptical, then I expect them to be informed about that which they are skeptical" Such an idealist. "I am happy to take time to define these terms, but I have no time for editors who put assumed knowledge above inquiry." This is why I came in and said, Try and get them to improve the skeptical sections of articles. Challenge them to do that, put up sections and articles for them to help work on, rather than discuss with them on a talk page. Because like you say, it is obvious that they know mainstream science, not fringe/frontier. So help them to help WikiSynergy.
Sterile, you are correct but the wiki is just too undeveloped at this time. We cannot do those articles till the community grows, and I hope to do that by promoting controversy articles and specializing in certain terms which are unusual (in articles), such as "woo" and "pseudoskepticism." We have done well with that so far, and traffic is growing well (about 100 megabytes more of transfer each month, more this month). PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I do understand the "young wiki problem", and I acknowledge that I (and others) are asking questions before articles are written. I guess it's just frustrating because the conversation moves and broadens rather quickly here. Sterile 00:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks :) Tom, I didn't "accuse" you of a logical fallacy, I pointed one out that you presented. Then I said the use of it was basically irrelevant since it was just appended on the end of your comment, not used as a basis for an argument. Anyway, on to more of what you say above. If I am a skeptic, does that mean I have to be well-informed on anything I might hear of before I can be skeptical about it? Before, perhaps, I even ask a proponent of it for examples or explanations or evidence? Heck, I only heard of EVP last year (ok, maybe two years ago). Yes, I would expect articles on here explaining in as much detail as needed some of the terms of art used by frontier topic proponents. And if I thought some of the explanations were unclear or made unstated assumptions, I'd ask about it on the talk pages, and I would, I think, be being reasonable to expect a polite reply, not a brush-off for not being an "expert" yet - or ever. Oh, and Purple, I think a term like "etheric" deserves a good article ASAP if it doesn't already exist. Human 01:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, PS, for aquaing that red link. Human 08:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving part of this page

We are way past the suggested size limit of this page. We may be making it impossible for some people to view (having PDA's or whatever). I don't know how to archive them. Maybe someone could do that for any inactive sections. Lumenos 01:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Create a link like this Talk:Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence/archive1 at the top of the page, then edit the entire page and cut out the older sections and paste them in the "new" subarticle. I don't know if PS has set up any automated archiving toys on here, I rather doubt it. Oh, and everyone ignores that 32k page size warning on every wiki in existence these days. Human 01:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and considering that the oldest stuff on this page is barely two weeks old, it might be a bit premature to archive them (unless they were completely resolved?) Human 01:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I've got a different problem now that would kill two birds with one stone...

[edit] Create subpages for different conversations

I keep getting edit conflicts. Sterile would you be up for continuing this on a subpage or something? Lumenos 02:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was probably my fault, since I edited 2 or 3 times in quick succession. I'm all for moving debates/discussions to subpages or new pages. Just leave a link to them behind when you cut/paste the convo to a new space. Human 08:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Subpages might be a good idea. I just thought that I'd have a look at this debate but found the page too long to get into. Cutting it up a bit with an indication of the issue might make it more accessible for newcomers.--Bob M 11:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Subpage is fine.Sterile 02:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cut from article

[Here is the quote in context Lumenos 18:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)]

"Origins: Claims regarding origins of the universe, life, or certain (perhaps all) species. [This section is under construction. It is also being debated. Please help improve it if you feel qualified.] There is some ambiguity as to whether the following claims are defined as purely naturalistic or if they may include supernatural "explanations" but either way, this author (Lumenos) defines these as extraordinary claims: Numerous specific hypotheses which claim to explain the Big Bang, or abiogenesis. Additionally hypotheses claiming to explain macroevolutionary events (ie speciation events), for example, by gene duplication, especially in a sexually reproducing species. Respective creationist claims are agreed to be extraordinary, including "cosmological arguments", and various "teleological arguments" that attempt to explain a fine-tuned universe, the origin of life, and the origin of species."

This appears to be one person's opinion and isn't even clearly written. Since it says it is "under construction" and "being debated" let's do it here before posting it in the article. Also, what's with all the "secure" WP links? Those locks just look silly. Human 09:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems you are not an Internet Explorer user. :-) It is indeed one person's opinion (unless anyone happens to agree). Here is the debate on the subject if you are interested. Just when I thought I may have had them stumped, with my last question, that has been sitting out for a while. But apparently I was all wrong. :-) Lumenos 13:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wikisynergy.com/wiki/Talk:Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence"
Personal tools