Brief reflections on replies to my last post

[Note: After posting this entry, Burk informed me that this entry left out some of his arguments. Please read the comments section for Burk's added details and for our additional responses to each other.]

After re-reading the exchanges with Burk here, I wanted to clarify a few things.

I repeatedly pointed out that statistically significant psi-demonstrating studies have been replicated by different investigators in the same areas (e.g. EEG-correlation studies by different scientists have shown the same results, and I cited three of those studies for Burk). I pointed out that the effects are neither "undetectable" nor "barely above noise", as Burk had wrongly suggested (apparently without reading the literature). I also pointed out that some of these studies have appeared in "mainstream" journals (and by "mainstream", I mean journals that are affirmed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine). In short, I argued that the plethora of data support the idea that psi functions actually do exist.

Burk suggested that if these effects were really due to genuine psi, then at least some individual subjects should be able to produce the effects reliably – and by that he meant that subject X should be able to produce the same effects in multiple studies under the investigation of different scientists. Burk also went further by insisting that subject X should "be tested by all the skeptics in the world".

I have three lines of thought.

First I want to say that some individual subjects have participated in multiple studies with success in each (or most) of those studies. I can cite examples if necessary. I should acknowledge that so far nobody has been "tested by all the skeptics in the world", but that hardly counts as evidence *against* the idea that psi phenomena are real, and I think Burk is being unfair here.

Secondly, and more broadly, if indeed psi phenomena are real, then we should see their effects in multiple studies by independent laboratories. And, in fact, that *is* exactly what has been published. Burk has still not given us a reason for rejecting the replicated data. He simply mischaracterizes the effects as being "barely above noise", which is false and in any case would be irrelevant (see below). When multiple skeptics in independent laboratories do their own psi research, and then produce highly successful results, and then shift perspectives, well, I think it should be taken seriously. (I should point out that some skeptics produce successful results and still remain skeptical, but without being able to explain away their results)

Third, it doesn't really matter whether an effect is "barely above noise" – what skeptics want to know is whether or not the effect IS above the noise level at all. After that question has been answered skeptics will want to find out whether any conventional explanation(s) can explain the results, which is why we need carefully-crafted studies that rule out conventional explanations. But in fact, we already have such studies. I don't mean any offense to Burk, but he appears to be only vaguely familiar with the relevant literature.

Aside from that, I want to talk about Burk's exchange with a fellow blogger named "Goonch", who agreed with me by citing the alleged remote viewer Joseph McMoneagle. Burk disagreed with that specific example and cited an online article as proof that McMoneagle is a "kook". McMoneagle may or may not be a genuine remote viewer (he may or may not be a kook), but the actual link that Burk provided does not offer *any* evidence against him. Here's the article that Burk gave us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McMoneagle

It's a Wikipedia entry. First of all, Wikipedia is not an acceptable academic source. But even if it were, I think it's remarkable that the wiki article doesn't contain any reasons for doubting McMoneagle's claims (or at least at the time of my writing: 8/10/09). In its section on "claims of accuracy" (the most important section for determining whether the man is a "kook"), Wikipedia says the following (quoted between the arrows):

>> McMoneagle provides a number of differing accounts regarding the accuracy of his remote viewing, varying from 5 to 95 percent[12] to between 65 and 75 percent.[13] McMoneagle has acknowledged that remote viewing is not always accurate, but says it was able to locate hostages and downed airplanes.[8] Of other psychics, he says that "Ninety-eight percent of the people are kooks."[8] <<

That's it. How did Burk arrive at the conclusion he offered?

Interestingly, wiki quotes McMoneagle's suggestion that most other psychics are kooks, but provides no reason for placing McMoneagle in that category.

My guess is that Burk's attitude comes from wiki's summary of McMoneagle's claims, and that his claims are *so* contrary to Burk's worldview(s) that Burk thinks his kookiness is just *obvious*.

In his book "Entangled Minds" (2006), Dean Radin claims that McMoneagle produced reliable effects in several double blind studies, and that these studies are available from the CIA upon making a formal FOIA request. I recently did just that, and am still waiting for an answer. I'll write a new entry after I receive a response. Right now I'm agnostic on whether or not McMoneagle is reliable.