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.

To Burk

[Note for confused readers: A while back I posted a comment over at Eric Reitan's blog, in which I asked Burk Braun if he had a chance to read a book called "Irreducible Mind" by Kelly and Kelly et al. I asked him in response to his comment on the possibility of an afterlife, which he summed up by saying: "'afterlife?' Come on". He replied to me on his blog, and I am replying here. This exchange is mostly for the two of us, but people will still be able to get the gist of it].

Hi Burk

>> This [the book Irreducible Mind edited by Kelly an Kelly et al.] is a very apposite suggestion, citing possibly the most comprehensive work available <<

It may be the most comprehensive book on whether the mind is reducible to the brain, but it is certainly not the most comprehensive book on parapsychology. I recommend the following books (among others):

- Radin, D. Entangled Minds, published by Pocket Books in 2006

- Radin. The Conscious Universe, published by HarperCollins in 1997

- Carter, C. Parapsychology and the Skeptics, published by PAJA Books in 2007. This book is the first in a series.

- Broughton, R. Parapsychology: The Controversial Science, pubished by Ballantine Books in 1991

- Sheldrake, R. The Sense of Being Stared At, published by Crown Publishers in 2003

Those books broadly cover non-"afterlife" aspects of parapsychology and don't deal with the afterlife question all that much (I'll recommend some other books on that topic later on, aside from "Irreducible Mind"). If you have not read these books yet, then I strongly recommend reading them carefully and adding them to your library. I also recommend carefully listening to three lectures (including question and answer sessions with skeptics) when you have time:

1. Dean Radin's 2008 lecture here (and see the Q and A session). I'll get to Ray Hyman later on.

2. Sheldrake's 2003 lecture on the extended mind (MUCH better than his recent 2008 lecture on the same topic) here (see the Q and A session)

3. Sheldrake's recent lecture on dogmatic skeptics (some of whom replicated his data): here (scroll down until you see "Spotlight on Sceptics Day. The SPR Study Day on Skeptics - London. October 25 2008. Rupert's lecture: How Skeptics Work"

If you don't have time to listen carefully, then please don't worry about having to comment.

And please don't assume that everything Sheldrake says is wrong just because of his theory of morphic resonance (which may or may not be "stupid"). (I'm not saying that you would; I just want to address that right off the bat). Darwin had some dumb ideas, but he was correct (overall) about evolution.

>> I have not read this book, <<

I think that's where you should have left it, with the added detail of, "but I would be happy to read it when I have time to". I don't think you should comment on a book you haven't read. Instead, you appear dismissive based on hearsay – based on somebody else's attempt to explain away the book. A lot of naïve Christians seem content dismissing Dawkins' work on evolution without ever reading it – at least not carefully and with an open-mind. But similarly, I've seen a lot of dogmatic skeptics make all kinds of false claims about the *replicated* data from parapsychology, and that includes Ray Hyman making inexcusable errors. (I will give a link later on)

At any rate, I'm particularly interested in your careful analysis of the Irreducible Mind's discussion on NDEs (I don't really want to delve into the other things discussed by the authors, except parapsychology). The authors, I think, do a decent job arguing for veridical details that are hard to explain naturalistically. They interact with counterarguments offered by skeptics such as Susan Blackmore. It's the sort of treatment you'd expect from open-minded scholars who do their homework.

Along the same lines, also carefully read David Fontana's 2005 book "Is There An Afterlife?", Stephen Braude's 2003 book "Immortal Remains", and PMH Atwater's "Complete Idiot's Guide to NDEs". Also, have you read Schwartz and Bieschel's 2007 triple-blind study on "Anomalous Information Reception by Research Mediums"?

[3/10 Update: Also read Sage and Robertson's 2009 book on "Mrs. Piper and the Society for Psychical Research"]

These works are long, but of generally high quality, and therefore deserve careful treatments – not dogmatic, ill-informed dismissals. I'm not looking for such dismissals; I'm looking for truth, but people like Ray Hyman don't help. Instead, help in our search for truth can come from *open-minded* skeptics (e.g. Professor Chris French).

Anyway, you said:

>> Please see this review, noting additionally its link to the topic of "explaining away". <<

Sorry, but that is a terrible review that doesn’t really engage any relevant data. The author of the review appears to chalk up the arguments in Irreducible Mind to "coincidences":

>> Just to be clear, exceptional events happen all the time and should be expected from normal random processes. <<

Yes, which is why controlled trials are necessary.

>> In a world of about seven billion people, there are about seven thousand one-in-a-million cases for each and every one-in-a-million chance. When millions of people have cancer, we should expect some spontaneous remissions, including some very quick remissions. <<

Yes, but when we have two groups of cancer patients (all matched for severity, age, locations, type of cancer etc.), and then one group receives medicine X but the other group receives placebo, and then the patients receiving X recover faster than the control group... then it means that X probably "works" – especially if the finding is replicated. Right? Here's the thing: Statistically significant results in methodologically-sound trials have indeed suggested the reality of ESP/ psi phenomena. I will gladly cite studies for you to review for yourself, and I will gladly accept any genuine flaws you can point out in those studies.

Burk, how much data have you actually read? If I askd you to comment on the replicated EEG-correlation studies, what would you say? Would you know what I'm talking about? Would any researcher names come to mind? For example, have you read any of these:

- Standish et al. Electroencephaolographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, volume 10, 307-314.

- Radin, D. (2004). Event-related EEG correlations between isolated human subjects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, volume 10, 315-324.

- Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J. et al. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in the brain: The transferred potential. Physics Essays, volume 7, 422-428. (and others could be cited)

Have you read those? EEG correlations are just one area of psi research, and I'd be happy to cite perhaps more relevant data (since the above data could perhaps be explained away as macro manifestations of quantum entanglement). I don't want to come close to be condescending, but I also don't want to discuss this with somebody who isn't willing to look long and hard at all (or at least most) of the data.

Anyway, the author of that review goes on to say:

>> Have you ever thought of someone then received a call from them? Odds are, neither of you are telepathic. <<

Has this guy done any research? Sheldrake has done over 1,000 telephone telepathy trials where the subject has to name which 1 of 4 persons is calling on a phone without caller I.D. By chance alone, the expected outcome would be around 25%. Instead, the average is over 40%, way above chance level.

Admittedly, Sheldrake needs to improve a few things and do *better* experiments. He plans on doing work with Prof. Chris French (the aforementioend skeptic who denies the reality of psi...). But my point here is that the author of that review doesn't even mention a single study by Sheldrake. He seems to be a typical in-your-face dogmatic skeptic who reviews 5% of the literature and thinks he's an authority.

>> The broader your range of "notable," the more successes you get. So if a "staring study" counts it as a success if the subject becomes uncomfortable, comfortable, anxious, relaxed, or aroused, you have many chances to show an "effect." <<

I refer you back to Sheldrake's 2003 lecture, but also see the following publication in the Journal of Consciousness Studies: "Sheldrake and his critics: the sense of being glared at", volume 12, number 6, 2005.

>> Having a paragraph saying, "This can't just be chance!" does not change the probability. <<

No, statistical analyses do that...

>> The authors frequently say, "There is a wealth of evidence," without actually presenting it <<

Actually, the authors present the evidence in painstaking detail. Did that reviewer really read the book? At any rate, readers can look at the additional sources I gave earlier in this reply.

>> I should also be able to find someone who has won the lottery more than once or who has been struck by lightning a few times. <<

Okay, but if there are two people (matched for age, race, sex etc.) standing in an open field during a thunder storm, and if one of them is holding a metal rod and the other is not holding anything, and if the man holding the metal rod gets struck more frequently, then it probably means that the metal rod played a role – especially if the effect is replicated. Right? The author seems to think that psi-demonstrating data come from bad studies, but actually many such studies are well-constructed and performed, and sometimes even replicated by skeptics (by people who don’t expect replication).

>> This book appears to be the last stand by a couple of psychic phenomena researchers (interview here), and better titled an approach to a nineteenth century psychology, than to one of the twenty first century (note the fringe media it is popular in- Esalen, Skeptiko.com, Institute of Noetic Sciences, etc. Stigmata, reincarnation? Please. <<

See my earlier comments on parapsychology. Also, why do you dislike skeptiko? Have you heard this pod cast? In that pod cast, Alex Tsakiris of skeptiko offers a response to Steven Novella (host of skeptics guide show), and he lists some of the errors made by Ray Hyman.

>> This is not to say they are necessarily wrong, but that this campaign has very strong signs of crack-pottery, similar to AIDs-not-caused-by-HIV, classical ESP research, and the like. <<

Comparing parapsychology to “crack-pottery” reveals ignorance of the data. Open minded skeptics (including Chris French) acknowledge that there is at least some evidence that should be taken seriously.

okay, I have rambled on long enough.

Peace and best wishes

- Pat