Ganzfeld Experiments: Suggestions please.

Discussion in 'Critical Discussions Among Proponents and Skeptics' started by MasterWu, Jun 21, 2014.

  1. MasterWu

    MasterWu New

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    445
    My first introduction to parapsychology came at least 1 and a half year ago with the Ganzfeld Experiments. Since then, I've been studying both skeptical and pro-psi proponents, as far as my money, time and resources allow me (I don't have enough cash to buy expensive papers/books, and my language skills are limited to spanish and english). In the time, I've meet four different potential objections to it that I've been unable to find any reply from the pro-psi proponents, and one seems to be so obscure that I've actually never found anything at all in the Internet about it. Here I'll put them, for two reasons: (1) Further discussion and positive feedback, and (2) ask you, ¿what should I do next? I've find myself in a dead end concerning this issue. ¿Should I move into another parapsychology topic?

    So, here are the four potential objections:

    (a) Kennedy's paper concerning power size: This one is pretty recent, actually from last year. You can find it for free here (http://jeksite.org/psi/jp13a.pdf). I came to know about this paper by Prescott's blog where he (Kennedy) and Carter engaged a little bit with the topic. I've also seen Arouet use it in a post concerning the Ganzfeld in this forum, but there where no further replies I'm aware of. The central issue in Kennedy's paper is that under-power-sized meta-analysis tend to give incorrect data, specially if they are post-hoc.

    (b) Goodfellow's Objection: I've only found this particular objection in a book named "Introduction to Parapsychology" (5th edition) in the chapter concerning theories for psi. Sadly, my Kindle is death so I can't quote however I do recall a poster named "Linda" in the James Randi Foundation making a similar post. Namely, that the assumption that 25% is the expect chance may be wrong because people usually have a bias toward certain numbers, like the first and the last options showed, and the shuffling distribution of the target many not always follow a 25/25/25/25 pattern. Apparently Goodfellow found evidence of this effect (where people choose in a non-random way, like first, first, second, second).

    (c) Hardy's Objection: From this, I've only been able to found a small reference in the skepdic, which I'll quote directly (http://www.skepdic.com/psiassumption.html):

    d) Ioannidis/Ersby Objection: Ioannidis famous paper from Nature of why so many papers are false seems to give a series of criteria to discern the probability of a study or series of studies of having erroneous data, and I've read some quite convinging cases given as to why Ganzfeld may fit the bill to be labelled as the effect caused by different biases and errors leaking in the studies.

    Ersby makes a similar objection, which can be read at the end of his introduction to his work on the Ganzfeld in skeptic's report page. His objection is about his personal recollection of over 7000 Ganzfeld studies, and how, when put in line, they don't show a funnel graph, which is an indicator of a genuine effect. I've read that the file-drawer objection is mislabeled ( Randi has make this counter-objection), but I've also read that there is some controversy as to how exactly detect the file-drawer effect, and that some analysis may be give over-inflated results. Ersby objection can be found at the bottom, here (http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=316).

    So, those are the objections that I've found the strongest. ¿Any opinion, suggestions? Thanks in advance.
     
  2. ersby

    ersby Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    Well, since I'm mentioned by name, I may as well respond. And I'm quite honoured to find my name mentioned alongside Ioannidis.

    a) Power size.

    Kennedy is right, ganzfeld experiments tend to be under-powered. This is more to do with the lack of funding in parapsychology than any failings on the part of the researcher. The obvious answer is to change to a more sensitive measuring system (order ranking or have more decoys along with the target), but the 25% chance expectation has become almost sacrosanct in ganzfeld work. This is probably why the ganzfeld is being superceded by other protocols such as Bem's precognitive habituation and Radin's presentiment experiments.

    b) Goodfellow's objection: Judging bias.

    I've never of Goodfellow, so I've added the name I'm more familiar with. The idea that judges tend to choose the first target they see is true, but that has nothing to do with what the actual target is.

    For example, Ray Hyman noted that in Honorton's PRL data, judges tended to choose the 1st and 4th placed targets more than chance would suggest. But Bierman showed that, in practice, the target was mostly shown third in the judging procedure. In other words, judging bias would have decreased the expected hit rate by chance.

    Judging bias is only applicable after the experiment is done. If the results are strongly positive or negative, the data should be checked to see if this artefact had an impact on the results.

    c) Hardy's objection: the psi assumption

    Well, yes. Coincidences can happen if you look hard enough. So what?

    d) Ioannidis/Ersby objection

    Not sure what we have in common but, again, thanks for putting our names together.

    Ioannidis' paper is relevant to parapsychology, but it is mostly about mainstream peer-reviewed science. A lot of the issues he brings up in his paper are well known in parapsychology and have been known for several decades.

    As for my part of this objection: it's true, the ganzfeld experiments don't form a funnel plot as far as I can tell. Radin has a graph of the ganzfeld data in Entangled Minds that does have a typical funnel shape, but he doesn't specify which effect size he uses.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2014
    Trancestate likes this.
  3. http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Williams2011Ganz.pdf

    http://www.noetic.org/library/publi...ld-psi-performance-within-artistically-gifte/
     
  4. fls

    fls Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,658
    With respect to b)...

    While there are position preferences, the research suggests that preferences with respect to target content may have a larger effect. For example, in Bem's analysis of Honorton's auto ganzfeld trials, position biases had little effect, but content biases seemed to account for at least part of the effect. And Wackermann found target preferences in his research (when looked for specifically). As he points out, this prevents us from ruling out stacking effects (instead of 'anomalous cognition').

    http://deanradin.com/evidence/Bem1994-2.pdf

    http://www.anomalistik.de/images/stories/pdf/sdm/ejpv22-1_puetz%20et%20al.pdf

    Linda (former JREF poster)
     
  5. MasterWu

    MasterWu New

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    445
    I have many questions to you, so stay tuned :P


    ¿Is there a value in the current evidence of Ganzfeld (in your opinion) fi they are down-powered?


    ¿How pervasive is this effect in the Ganzfeld? I've check some papers but I can't find the part where they put the place the target received in the experiment. My claim was more a sort of fussion between Goodfellow's claim and Hardy's claim. If the targets don't receive a 25/25/25/25, ¿is it possible that in some cases, some specific targets get to be more in first or fourth positions, and be selected much more, merely by it's position?

    I also recall that Honorton, in his PLR trials, seem to mention something about how "watery" targets tend to be chosen more, and Linda's paper on Wackermann (if I'm reading well) seems to indicate that "elementary" targets ( water, air, fire, earth) tend to be much more chosen than regular ones. ¿Can this account for part of the data?

    BTW, IIRC in your "Psi in the Ganzfeld" script, you put that Hyman found evidence for the video degradation hypothesis in the PLR trials, but a personal talk with one of the designers of the PLR trials told you that the videos were played uniformly, but only one was shown in the camera. ¿How did all that end?, Or, in other words, ¿is Hyman hypothesis refuted by this?



    I think this may be better seen in conjuction with Goodfellow's hypothesis.


    Had they been adressed in the modification the Ganzfeld has received across the decades?


    ¿Have you asked Radin for such information? would be interesting to know what he thinks about the issue.

    Also, a last question that I've had since I started reading your posts: ¿Do you believe in psi? and ¿Do you believe there is good evidence for psi in the scientific literature of parapsychology?
     
  6. MasterWu

    MasterWu New

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    445
  7. MasterWu

    MasterWu New

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    445
    Same as with Ersby, I encourage you to stay, since I have many questions to you also :P

    Now to the topic. I can't find Wackermann acknowledgmenet of the judging bias, but on the other hand, the language he engages in is quite complex so I don't fully understand everything he says. ¿Can you point to me where it is? Also, ¿what do you think about Biermans analysis of Honorton data (as put by Ersby)? ¿Do you think it fits your hypothesis that judging bias may account only partially for the hits in the Ganzfeld?

    Also, IIRC, you had in the James Randi Foundation forum a discussion with a poster that, IIRC again, was named Elizabeth, who made a program to check if your hypothesis was correct. ¿How that ended, where can I get that program, and how much of the effect of the Ganzfeld do you think can be explained this way?
     
  8. fls

    fls Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,658
    "Target specific identification rates", page 64.

    I'm not familiar with that analysis. Perhaps a reference could be given.

    A poster named Beth made a program, but it did not model my idea.

    The best/easiest way to tell how much of an effect it has is to measure the hit rate in the absence of the effect (or rather, alter the design and analysis of the experiment so that these biases would not affect the hit rate).

    Linda
     
  9. IA14A

    IA14A New

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2014
    Messages:
    15
    If I may ask, what is the reason for considering more decoys/order ranking? I honestly don't see what difference it will make given that the hits and misses will average out closer to the probability of hit as more trials are included, unless of course, you assume there is a randomization error or flaw in the study. You're right that Ganzfeld experiments tend to be under-powered; however, combining them into a meta-analysis will eventually add more power and better accuracy than the individual studies themselves.

    True, but such coincidences occur based on the Type I Error probability (which is based on the ά of the test), so if we reject the null when p < 0.05 then we should expect, by average, 5% of studies to be statistically significant when they are nothing but statistical flukes.
     
  10. IA14A

    IA14A New

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2014
    Messages:
    15
    Yes. It is important to ensure that the four pictures are equally selected. Any non-random selection, subtle or large, might reveal patterns that could be noticeable consciously or unconsciously, which will eventually inflate the hit rate and skew the results.

    Not if the four pictures had an equal 25% chance of being the target. Otherwise, yes.
     
  11. ersby

    ersby Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    I think the ganzfeld work has value, sure. Not as much as some commentators say, but something interesting is certainly going on.

    It's hard to tell, since very few papers include this kind of analysis.

    Possibly yes. But equally possibly no.

    The video degradation hypothesis is weakened by the fact that the target and decoys are all played equally during the sending period, but there's still that odd pattern in the data that targets were identified more often if they'd already been used as targets previously.

    I took a look at his paper again. These are the six main part of his conclusion:

    The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. - - This is still a problem for the Ganzfeld.

    The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. - - This is linked to the one above, and effect sizes in the Ganzfeld tend to be quite small.

    The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. - - This isn't a problem. While a lot of researchers investigate other hypotheses in their work, the main measure of success is pretty much always the same.

    The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. - - Again, not a problem. Designs, definitions and outcomes are all well understood in the Ganzfeld work.

    The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. - - Financial interests are not a problem at all. Prejudices may come into play - this is a controversial subject, after all - but there are prejudices on both sides.

    The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true. - - This is a problem. Parapsychology is a very small science.

    I believe that something's going on.
     
  12. ersby

    ersby Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    To increase the statistical strength of individual studies. Meta-analyses are all well and good, but they have their problems too.
     
  13. ersby

    ersby Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    147
    Dick J. Bierman, Richard S. Broughton, and Rick E. Berger, “Notes On Random Target Selection: The PRL Autoganzfeld Target And Target Set Distributions Revisited”, Journal of Parapsychology vol 62, no 4, December 1998, pp 341-348
     
  14. fls

    fls Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,658
    Thank you.

    Linda
     
  15. fls

    fls Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,658
    I think you are referring to Ioannidis' paper in PLOS medicine (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124).

    With respect to the corollary "The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true", we went through the process of assessing the risk of bias in included studies for some of the parapsychology research on the old forum (http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_8/8_assessing_risk_of_bias_in_included_studies.htm). Doing so for the ganzfeld (surprisingly) revealed that there are still issues present which put included studies at a higher risk of bias. My recommendation all along has been to use this information and, going forward, to design, implement, and analyze ganzfeld experiments in a way which puts them at low risk of bias. The handbook I referenced provides an overview of methods which improve reliability and validity.

    Linda
     
  16. MasterWu

    MasterWu New

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    445
    I see. However, IIRC, you made a program to test your idea, and you get positive results towards your hypothesis, is that correct? ¿How can I run the program myself for further development on this idea?
     
  17. MasterWu

    MasterWu New

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    445
    Has this possible failure been adressed in the Ganzfeld? I recall quite a few Ganzfeld papers where this option is being analyzed.
     
  18. MasterWu

    MasterWu New

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    445
    What do you think is the best explanation to account for all the data concerning said issue?


    In a GRADE scale, how much do you think the Ganzfelds should receive, and why?

    Do you think it's possible to discern between those two options with the avaible information?

    Thanks. ¿But do you think it's something paranormal or some quirk in the design of the experiment?
     
  19. MasterWu

    MasterWu New

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    445
    Where can I find that thread? BTW, thanks for the Cochrane link, though I must admit I don't understand everything in it.
     
  20. MasterWu

    MasterWu New

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    445

    I've never fully understood the power-analysis objection. ¿Is it possible you could flesh it out in a layman terms?, ¿Why is it so important?
     

Share This Page