What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
22 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I knew you were going to say that.
- lostluck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's why they do the experiment multiple times with different objects and different people, if I understand the article correctly. I'm pretty sure they'd have taken into account simple coincidences of probability.
- Dotnetsky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4My telepathic powers tell me that you need to learn how to spell. It's TELEPATHY.
- Goplat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This experiment is flawed. They are assuming that people choose objects totally randomly which may not be true. If 10% of people pick object 1, 20% pick object 2, 30% pick object 3, and 40% pick object 4, the probability of both people picking the same object is .1*.1 + .2*.2 + .3*.3 + .4*.4 = .3 or 30%, which is higher than the expected 25%.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Speaking (very) generally, you go like this:
(1) If telepathy were a real phenomenon, what would we expect to see?
(2) What observations would directly refute telepathy?
(3) Design an experimental setup that could provide either corroborating evidence or contradictory evidence. This is difficult, since you want to also make sure to eliminate sources of false positives and false negatives.
(4) Perform experiment.
In other words, you don't need to believe in telepathy to test for its existence; you just need to predict what you'd observe if it actually were real and then see if you really do observe that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@hWolff
Of course the test is rigged toward the skeptical side. It's not up to Randi to disprove applicants' claims; it's up to the applicants to support their claims. The whole idea behind creating a well-designed test is to eliminate any loopholes so that the applicant can't achieve an effect with mere tricks. When JREF dismisses claims, it is never because they can't explain it and therefore they've been 'tricked' somehow; it's because the applicant could not demonstrate any powers under a controlled setting.
An open mind does not mean that one uncritically accepts every silly claim that makes its way to one's ears. It means being willing to evaluate and re-evaluate conclusions based on evidence. Randi is open to new evidence. However, more often than not, it is his detractors who refuse to consider the possibility that their beliefs may be flawed in some way. In other words, the accusation that Randi is somehow closed-minded is very often projection. - trollick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Did they really need that "virtual reality" thing to test something that simple???
- phronko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In parapsychology experiments such as this, having control over every aspect is crucial. Even more so than most science (unfortunately). This control needs to be used to rule out all alternative explanations. For example, if this was done in the real world, using the same objects with both the sender and receiver, skeptics would (rightly) point out that the sender could have touched the objects and left more fingerprints on the one they chose. Virtual reality makes it easier to control absolutely everything.
I think this is a good move, and if it works out, could start bringing parapsychology the respect it deserves. - phronko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm sure the procedure will be something like that. The VR probably just adds additional levels of control to please critics, leaving only pure statistics to back up the telepathy claim.
- BetaMe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, the subjects recruited for the study might have read this story, and have secretly agreed on things like "let's choose things with red color, round shape, edible, spells with a, over those without those properties." It will not make the choise of the second person perfectly in agreement with the first, but the chance of such agreement will certainly increase. Telepathy confirmed this way is of course not real telepathy. They need to work more on research design. Not letting the first person to choose an object, for example, is a good idea.
- richardathome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Coo dietCoke, how lucky you are to live in a world of absolutes. Prove that telepathy doesn't exsist and then you can save those scientist an awful lot of messing around. Prove it to me first before you go hassling the poor, overworked, underfuned scientist though ;-)
- alexjohnc3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2First you assume it exists then you try to disprove it. Obviously, this follows Scientific principal.
- phronko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Randi's heart is in the right place, but he has become as closed-minded and dogmatic as the people he set out to debunk. His task is flawed because he has not specified what "proof" would entail. For example, would the alpha level traditionally used in psychology (chance that the result would happen if only chance were operating is less than .05) be acceptable? Obviously not, since plenty of experiments have found evidence for telepathy at that level of "proof" and Randi still has his million.
Without clear boundaries, he's essentially created an unfalsifiable theory, which is a scientific sin. - phronko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This will be dealt with. If it is not, then it will be rejected before publication.
- hWolff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Randi's mad cuz all his tricks he did in his heyday were merely tricks. He's angry that he does not have real 'magic' powers.
And that 1 mill offer is rigged towards the skeptical side of the experiment. He's looking to disprove any signs of telepathy so, gee, he's going to always conclude that there was some loophole in the experiment that allowed the psychic in question to 'trick' Randi. If you close your mind nothing new can come in, and Randi's mind is closed like a vault. Someone must crack the vault one day. - abrupt219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can't help but offer this to the discussion, now that Randi's been brought up:
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2006/7/10dziura.html - kurtu5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well I don't see the need for VR. Just have two seperate rooms with the same set of random objects in them.
Have an experimenter in the sender room pick a object for the sender to "send". Lets say she has this printed random list of objects and after she tells the sender to use it, she calls an experimenter in the "receiver" room and says, "Trial 1".
The experimenter in the "receiver" room, simply records the pick the telepathic hopefull indicates. The only communication is "Trial X" and the pick is random.
Then get you statisticians on the data and draw a conclusion. - phronko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1These people have PhDs. I'm pretty sure they thought of that. There are statistical techniques to differentiate telepathy from chance in such a situation, which they will put to use.
If they miss anything, the peer review process will catch it before it gets published. - aquafire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here's something that could possibly discredit this experiment. If both people collaborate beforehand and decide to choose the same objects each time, then the experiment is broken. For example, my sister and i want to prove we're telepathic. We decide beforehand that we will start by choosing objects that begin with the letter A. If there are no such objects, then we proceed to B, etc. If the objects themselves are all different except for the one we want to choose, then we could go by color and still guess right more than 50% of the time.
Any collaboration before the experiment will render the results useless. And if people claim to have telepathic powers only to people they know, this experiment unfortunately will not be able to refute that. - DangerMouse9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1James Randi. His offer of $1,000,000 that can show abilities like that is yet unclaimed.
If someone had telepathic powers, they'd be enjoying that cool, easy million. - boytelep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Book him Dano , telepathic one!"
- Merrick015, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0im sensing this is stupid.... no digg.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is