Apr 20 2009
Occam’s Razor and Closed-Mindedness
An SGU listener by the name of Jenny recently sent me the following question:
When we skeptics are faced with an unexplained occurrence, we work up a list of possible explanations based on our knowledge of how the world works and then use Occam’s Razor to prune out the most unlikely ones.
We often preemptively wield the razor by leaving off the list supernatural explanations that have been tried and debunked dozens of times. This is a tempting time-saving measure, but it’s also a violation of our proclaimed skeptic’s creed of being open to ANY explanation that is supported by evidence.
I often wonder how Richard Saunders manages to stick to the creed with such good humor–I don’t have the patience, myself.This misuse of Occam’s Razor is, in a way, the reciprocal of the argument from ignorance–the argument from presumed knowledge, let’s say. For we skeptics to state categorically that a supernatural explanation CANNOT be true is just as much a logical fallacy as for a credulous person to state that our naturalistic explanations cannot explain the phenomenon in question. It also leaves us open to accusations of arrogance and closed-mindedness, which in this case actually have some basis.
This is a great question. While Jenny is a skeptic who is just trying to understand skeptical philosophy, similar arguments are often used by the proponents of various supernatural explanations, and so a detailed answer is helpful on multiple fronts.
Being Open
It is certainly a virtue to be open-minded, but trouble arises in how we define “open-minded”. It is often used by true-believers as an equivalent of faith, meaning that any odd belief must be accepted regardless of the logic and evidence against it. Whereas being open-minded in the scientific sense means treating all propositions fairly, without ideological bias. And then letting the empirical chips fall where they may – allowing science to function as a meritocracy of ideas.
In other words, we do not a-prior reject ideas, but once the evidence is in it is acceptable to reject failed notions in science.
Jenny is taking this principle but then making an unstated assumption that leads her astray. She is assuming that if we did not “preemptively wield the razor” by leaving off our initial list of possible hypotheses supernatural explanations, that the resulting list would be finite. Rather, if no filter or criteria were used in forming an initial list of hypothesis, the resulting list would be unending, limited only by our time and imagination.
One might then argue that only supernatural explanations which are already believed by some would need to go on the list, but this is just applying another criterion – popularity. It that not being closed-minded to ideas that are not popular? It is not the fault of an idea that no one has yet been clever enough to think of it.
We must apply some criteria in forming our list of possible explanations. Once this is recognized, we can then consider the appropriateness of popularity as a criterion. History has shown it is not a very good criterion.
What scientists generally do (and certainly within the applied science of medicine we take great pains to do) is to form a list of hypotheses from most likely to least likely. We then test the most likely explanations first (although sometimes we also go after the low-hanging fruit by testing the easiest to test hypotheses first, even if they are not the most likely).
But “least likely” trails off into infinity without objective end. So the real question is, how far down the list of prior probability are we going to go? That is a judgment call, but one that scientists have to make.
In practice what scientists often do is start testing hypotheses, starting with the most likely and most testable, until they find a hypothesis that is confirmed by evidence. But then they must also confirm this hypothesis by showing that alternative explanations are not true. But how many alternative explanations must be show to be untrue? As I argued above, the answer cannot be “all of them” because there is no limit to the number of alternate hypotheses unless we use some criteria of prior probability. In practice the answer is “all reasonable alternatives” with “reasonable” being a judgment call.
This is not only fair, it is necessary, otherwise science would grind to a halt testing an unlimited list of alternate hypotheses to each theory.
Further, it does not exclude even the most unlikely explanation from science. If such an alternate hypothesis turned out to be true, then the “more likely” hypotheses should all fail. Once scientists have exhaustively excluded their list of reasonable hypotheses, they will go back to the drawing board to see where they went wrong or too extend their list of hypotheses further down to previously considered “unlikely” alternatives.
Eventually they will get to the right answer, and they will already have done the necessary work of excluding more likely hypotheses.
Supernatural Hypotheses
The second problem with Jenny’s position is the claim that skeptics assume supernatural explanations cannot be true. Depending upon how one defines “supernatural” this statement may be little more than a tautology. But actually Jenny here is confusing philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism.
The scientific method is dependent upon methodological naturalism – meaning that we cannot invoke the equivalent of “magic” as an explanation. This is because all ideas in science must be testable – there must be a way to falsify any scientific hypothesis with evidence. A supernatural hypothesis by definition cannot be tested because it is not contained within the laws of nature.
Therefore supernatural notions are not scientific hypotheses because they cannot be tested, and they therefore do not belong on a list of alternate hypotheses. These are the rules of science – if you don’t play by these rules, you are not doing science.
But “supernatural” does not merely mean currently unknown. Science explores news laws and new types of explanations all the time. Again, once we exhaust our list of possible explanations based upon current knowledge, we then need to seek new knowledge. This is often the most difficult, and creative, part of science – coming up with entirely new ideas and then (sometimes even harder) figuring out a way to test these ideas.
But science is actually agnostic toward the question of whether or not there are supernatural forces at work in the universe. Again – definitions get tricky here, because one could argue that any force at work in the universe is by definition natural. But let’s say that a supernatural notion would include the claim that there is an undetectable agency at work in the universe that could arbitrarily suspend the laws of nature. Such a claim is untestable. At best science could detect enduring anomalies – observations that forever defy scientific explanation. But science could never confirm that a supernatural explanation were correct.
From a practical point of view we keep coming back to the primary criterion of a scientific hypothesis – it must be testable and falsifiable. If it is, then it can go on the list of possible hypotheses. If it isn’t, then it is not scientific and it does not go on the list. The “natural vs supernatural” distinction is ultimately meaningless except for this feature. This is methodological naturalism, and science requires it to work. For any ideas outside of methodological naturalism, science does not hold that they are false, just unknowable to science.
Conclusion
Finally, it must be recognized that science builds upon itself. With each new question or idea we are not starting from scratch, as if we have no prior knowledge. It is not only practical, it is necessary, to approach questions in light of what has already been well-established. Only when that approach fails should we consider alternate explanations – but any testable hypothesis is ultimately fair game.
49 Responses to “Occam’s Razor and Closed-Mindedness”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think it’s also important to note that even though scientists aren’t considering and retesting “supernatural phenomena” all the time, there are a host of “believers” who are. If real evidence surfaces these people will certainly let us know. Debunkers will notice if there isn’t anything to debunk, and someone will contact James Randi for the $Million.
The issue is really that even when science considers something case closed, the pseudo-scientists disagree. This leads to a situation in which the believers are constantly renewing old arguments. Ignoring such arguments makes the skeptic look like close minded when of course it is really the believer who is being close minded about the negative evidence.
I read a major flaw in Jenny’s argument:
“We often preemptively wield the razor by leaving off the list supernatural explanations that have been tried and debunked dozens of times. This is a tempting time-saving measure, but it’s also a violation of our proclaimed skeptic’s creed of being open to ANY explanation that is supported by evidence.”
What evidence supports any ‘supernatural’ explanation. In the absence of evidence, what compels us to support a ‘supernatural’ explanation?
‘Supernatural’ and ‘paranormal’ are nonsense terms which presuppose any effect or observation that has as yet defied scientific explanation must emit from a ‘super’ science or from a ‘different’ science, one that, of course, allows the reality of the belief in play, be it ESP, psi, RV, ghosts, etc.
This is just special pleading for an argument from ignorance.
Ever and always, it’s about the evidence. As forensic scientists like to say, the evidence never lies (though bias and error in interpretation of it may confound).
Occam’s Razor is not for eliminating explanations based on their likelihood of being correct. It eliminates an explanation if a simpler explanation exists. i.e. One that requires fewer assumptions or other aspects. For example, if a phenomenon can be explained by already-verified knowledge, we don’t need to consider an explanation that includes something as yet unverified, such as the supernatural.
Jenny’s plea for supernaturalism reminds me of a Tim Minchin song: If You Open Your Mind Too Much … Your Brain Will Fall Out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w
Enjoy!
We were talking about the presentiment evidence in another thread. You denied there is any positive evidence, even though there is. There is no reason to use the word “supernatural,” which is never clearly defined. Parapsychologists usually refer to “paranormal” or “psi,” meaning things not yet explained by science. There is plenty of scientific evidence for these.
You can’t explain away the evidence but you won’t accept it. The skeptic who wrote to you was correct.
pec – you seem incapable of seeing that we simply disagree on how to interpret the evidence. I do not find it compelling, due mainly to very small effect sizes, poor methods, and poor replicability. You, apparently, find the evidence compelling. That’s fine – I have no problem disagreeing with how to interpret evidence.
But you insist on claiming I am a biased ideologue and implying that you are not. This is simply absurd, and reveals nothing but your own bigotry.
You assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be a materialist ideologue, and that ad hominem logical fallacy is the main ammo in your arsenal.
It’s why no one here takes you seriously.
“we simply disagree on how to interpret the evidence. I do not find it compelling, due mainly to very small effect sizes, poor methods, and poor replicability.”
You admitted yourself that Radin’s experiments are very tightly controlled. So why are you still resorting to the old “poor methods” complaint? Parapsychologists tend to be more careful than researchers in mainstream areas, since they know they will be examined under a microscope for poor methods or cheating.
And furthermore, meta-analyses have shown very good replicability.
Small effect sizes and variance are just the nature of certain kinds of research. That’s why inferential statistics were developed. You will see small effect sizes in mainstream research, such as some areas of psychology, for example.
A big effect size is simply not necessary for positive results — and I doubt any methodology expert would claim that it is. What is important is effect size given variance and N, not effect size alone.
Ah – now we’re talking about how to interpret the evidence again. But I notice you did not even address my points about your style.
When I referred to small effect sizes, poor methods, and poor replicability – I mean that one or more of those problems plague this research, not that every study has all of them.
What we do not have is a psi protocol that has an effect size that is large enough so that the signal to noise ratio is reasonable, that has tight methods, and is also replicable. Overall the evidence is weak, and prior probability is low.
If this were a drug and a drug company were trying to sell it to me with this evidence, I would not buy it. In fact I have rejected drug claims with much better evidence than this.
Dr. N I want to add to your reply that for the purposes of this discussion “Noise” means sources of a false positive signal rather than the more intuitive notion of inaccurate measurements.
Pec, it is simply the truth that the smaller the effect size, the higher the probability that the effect is caused by some unaccounted source. This makes it harder to design tight controls and account for all possible sources of error. It is not bias that leads one to this conclusion, just understanding of the scientific metod.
I’d advise throwing out any hypothesis that involves the testing of what can first be determined a logical impossibility. Saves a hell of a lot of time if nothing else.
“What we do not have is a psi protocol that has an effect size that is large enough so that the signal to noise ratio is reasonable, that has tight methods, and is also replicable.”
Wrong. The whole purpose of inferential statistics is to see if the signal to noise ratio is reasonable or not.
“If this were a drug and a drug company were trying to sell it to me with this evidence, I would not buy it.”
The criteria for clinical significance are very different from the criteria for theoretical significance.
“it is simply the truth that the smaller the effect size, the higher the probability that the effect is caused by some unaccounted source.”
No, effect size is a relative concept. I am sure you can think of important mainstream research areas where effect sizes are small. Materialists will grasp at any straw in trying to deny the reality of psi effects.
“What evidence supports any ’supernatural’ explanation. In the absence of evidence, what compels us to support a ’supernatural’ explanation?”
+1
Some people seem to have a problem with the fairly simple concept that absence of scientific evidence or explaination is not evidence of supernatural forces or paranormal activity. (god of the gaps fallacy)
“You assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be a materialist ideologue”
+1
PEC is one of the most closed minded people I’ve run across both here and over at SBM. PEC’s confidence in what he/she knows is absolute and invariant.
I’m the Jenny of the original question, and while I appreciate the really detailed explanation of where I went wrong, some of the comments are just insulting. “Special pleading for an argument from ignorance”? “Jenny’s plea for supernaturalism”?
Steve got it right: “Jenny is a skeptic who is just trying to understand skeptical philosophy”.
Can’t someone ask an honest question (one which gets leveled at _WE_ skeptics fairly often) without ridiculed as a true believer? Geez.
And from Steve’s reply, “The second problem with Jenny’s position is the claim that skeptics assume supernatural explanations cannot be true.” Well, sometimes we do. But I had forgotten the requirement that a potential explanation be testable, which provides an acceptable reason for doing so.
medmonkey, your video was great and on target! The phrase “If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out” brings back memories of mentally retarded kids with mental plate shunts in their heads. That was a technique used to relieve pressure on the brain a few years back. I checked with a neurosurgeon in the nineties about this and he said that this technique was passe`.
“Parapsychologists tend to be more careful than researchers in mainstream areas, since they know they will be examined under a microscope for poor methods or cheating.”
LOL. Yeah, that’s what the record shows.
Dr. Novella try applying Occam’s Razor to these experiments:
-Roy, A. E. and Robertson, T. J.. (2001). A double-blind procedure for assessing the relevance of a medium’s statements to a recipient. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
-Roy, A. E. and Robertson, T. J.. (2004) Results of the application of the Robertson-Roy protocol to a series of experiments with mediums and participants. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
There hasn’t been a word from any skeptic on these experiments. I’m in the process of getting information, but as far as I can tell these are very well controlled experiments with highly significant results.
Assuming it’s not logically impossible to converse with inanimate and unopinionated material.
straightgodless
Here’s a start :
http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/robertsonroy1.htm
http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/robertsonroy2.htm
Ouch.
The second skeptical review: http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/robertsonroy2.htm said the improved controlled protocol seemed good, but the results weren’t in at the time. When the results eventually came out they were supposedly positive, with odds against chance of a million to one.
There has been other successful medium research besides this. I’m sure “skeptics” will insist that someone must have been cheating or mistaken. But if you automatically dismiss all scientific research that makes you unhappy, then you are not being scientific!
Numenaster,
I think you’re right that sometimes we do dismiss off-hand supernatural stuff, but I would also argue that isn’t entirely in a vacuum. I mean, it’s not as though most of these paranormal/supernatural explanations haven’t been investigated at some point in time. Besides that, I hold that using Occam’s Razor to remove a lot of this stuff is pretty valid.
For example, I’ve got this friend, person I do some writing with, she’s recently gotten into all this spirituality (which I’m ok with) and Indian mysticism stuff (which I find to be… annoying). Anyway, we’re walking around the other day, and she tells me that the next stage in human evolution is telepathy. I disagree (as I assume most people on this blog would). And so I’ve been spending the past couple days thinking about what I want to say to her next time we talk about this one, because I know it’s going to come up again. Occam’s Razor is a good tool for this one, because she doesn’t understand that human’s developing telepathy is not one entire new part of the brain developing, but two. One to send out the waves of whatever and one to receive them. She hasn’t explained how this telepathy would work, whether it’s about sending out alpha waves or being able to determine what neurons are firing and when, or if there’ll be some new form of energy that carries though or what not, she hasn’t explained what the hell telepathy will be but she insists it’s the next thing. I say no, and I say that Occam’s Razor’s a good indicator of why we shouldn’t worry about it happening.
Anyway, just my personal thoughts on this one. I like Occam’s Razor. I think it’s a good tool. I like how it’s used, figuring that if something requires too many new assumptions about the universe, it’s probably not correct. But hey, that’s just me.
Thank you, pec. We had no idea about how it works.
An improvement to the suggested protocol would be to at times add a non-existent person, as a “control”.
Using true-false questions and answers is an excellent idea. That allows unambiguous statistical analysis of the results. If there isn’t a clear signal to noise ratio, then it is just noise.
Odds against the chance of what at a million to one? That a medium actually communicated with some remnant of a formerly living human?
Otherwise we have a series of time wasting steps toward the search for a proof that everything must be true because one cannot falsify the proposition that nothing is impossible.
Numenaster (aka Jenny),
I sincerely was not attacking you personally, and I apologize if that is how my post was interpreted! I was merely referring to your claim about how Occam’s Razor is used by skeptics towards supernatural claims. “Special pleading” is a form of argumentation that alleges the need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of the considerations themselves. Asking to consider debunked supernatural claims over the infinite other claims out there can be seen as a form of special pleading. I hope it is clear that my comment was not a personal attack but only an attempt to categorize your claim! Good luck with the skepticism. I promise it really is a welcoming community with some of the nicest people in the world!
All the best,
MM
Effect size is a relative concept, in that you are correct. But relative to what? When your effect size is on the same order of magnitude as your noise, it’s worthless. And by noise, I mean all possible sources of false signal.
I wonder Pec. Is there any psi that you don’t believe is true?
and yes, this is a serious question
The scientist assumes certain ‘metaphysical’ truths to do science.
For example- if a phenomena is to be considered it must be testable experimentally. This assumes that all phenomena are repeatable under the right conditions. This assumes that there are no ‘miracles’. (See Hume)
But this is a ‘metaphysical’ assumption about the nature of reality. It is certainly a useful one, in that it helps us find repeatable and therefore controlable aspects of nature.
The question of ‘miracles’ or if the ‘laws of nature’ are all revealed by experiment has no testable or logical answer.
When one goes from accepting the limits of science as a means of discovery to asserting that all truth is scientific truth- this is where the trouble ‘Jenny’ seems to be pointing out manifests.
-When one goes from accepting the limits of science as a means of discovery to asserting that all truth is scientific truth- this is where the trouble ‘Jenny’ seems to be pointing out manifests.-
Just as well no self-respecting scientist would say that…
Occam’s razor may occasionally mean we miss something. But the amount of drivel it removes and time saves is well worth it.
We do not have infinite time to go search for fairies at the bottom of our gardens everyday.
Occam’s razor gives the best shave. If someone wants to delve into what was removed by it, they are welcome to look in the sink.
Sonic, you don’t seem to appreciate that if reality is sufficiently inconsistent that the scientific method doesn’t work to figure it out, than no method can work to figure it out.
That was something that was pointed out in some undergraduate philosophy courses I took many years ago. That we can define a scientific method, call it “scientific induction” where if reality is sufficiently consistent that any “other method of induction” will work to understand and predict reality, then by “scientific induction”, we can use that “other method of induction”. If “scientific induction” is sufficiently accurate that it predicts the reliability of the “other method of induction”, then “scientific induction” is sufficiently reliable to use also.
If there is no method that is reliable, then no method will work including “scientific induction”.
We may not know precisely what “scientific induction” is, but we can approximate it.
Ockham’s Razor removes NOTHING from the menu of choices as to how to proceed with a scientific inquiry. It merely arranges the choices from most to least likely per the reductive criteria of plausibility and minimal assumptions.
My two cents, which I’ll offer at the bargain-basement price of 1 cent, payable through paypal, mastercard, or credits to Barnes & Noble.com:
The more you know, the more you wonder why supernatural forces tend to work within the limits of the natural world!
A skeptic’s definition of the supernatural is decidedly skewed by how educated she is. How much you know about the natural world inevitably correlates to your threshhold of what’s supernatural.
Even a little bit of knowledge is exceedingly powerful in opening minds (and yet it’s, bizarrely, considered CLOSING minds) to what is truly supernatural, to which there is precious (NOT sacred) miniscule, and no real good evidence.
So, surviving a fall from a great height, while amazing, doesn’t strike the skeptic as evidence of the hand of God, or intervention by angels. If the person falling was inexplicably transported to a radically different location, or gravity was suspended in his case, that would raise a brow! Even then, I’d lean towards a previously unknown natural phenomenon, as who’s supernatural explanation could be determined plausible? Did Jesus do it, or Vishnu? Was it aliens, or some kind of psychic ability? Angels or demons?
People do survive horrific accidents, dream about relatives who die the same night, have diseases spontaneously remiss, get a “feeling” about something when it’s useful, get calls from old friends they were just thinking about, or any number of strange, miraculous, or seemingly supernatural occurances. Being that there are 6 billion people on the planet, the odds require coincidences like that to occur daily. Knowing theories of large numbers, even casually, immunizes you from leaping to paradigm-changing conclusions.
So it would take something truly, unambiguously “supernatural” to even get me to consider in passing a supernatural explanation. The tortilla with Jesus on it would have to start talking, and even then would have to convey information that could only be known by a “higher”, non-human entity, and even then it would still have to fly itself from location to location, and do all of this repeatedly. That would be pretty inexplicable, and might allow a supernatural explanation.
Someone surviving a nuclear exploasion at ground zero, unprotected, yet unscathed, would certainly turn my head.
Someone who could, in controlled clinical conditions, lay hands on ill people who then healed, time after time after time, would at the least get me to consider more radical physics.
“No, effect size is a relative concept. I am sure you can think of important mainstream research areas where effect sizes are small. Materialists will grasp at any straw in trying to deny the reality of psi effects.” pec.
Well, I’d contend that effect size is relative to the phenomenon, not to the hopes, or aims of the observer, and consistently psi research has effect threshholds no better than experimental noise. It’s not materialists who are holding straws.
The Journal of the Society for Psychical Research quoted by straightgodless: quote some brow-raising research in journals devoted to physics, chemistry, neuroscience, and biology (if psi were real, it would certainly affect the real world, wouldn’t it, transporting it out of the realm of supernatural?), and then I’ll give you a listen.
“The criteria for clinical significance are very different from the criteria for theoretical significance.” pec. Don’t you think it’s telling that psi research hasn’t even made it out of the realm of theoretical significance yet? After nearly 50 years of research, no mechanism, no new physics, no testable theory, and every study, or experiment still starts from first principles, none of which pan out. The research hasn’t gone anywhere! Ours is a civilization built upon invisible phenomenon, and ever-growing branches of scientific discipline based on experimental evidence. Psi research doesn’t even mimic this kind of progress. It’s still stuck in park, and we can’t even get the engine to turn over. This car doesn’t appear to work.
As for Occam, I had always thought it was used between explanations on reasonably equal footing. If the choice is between the natural, and the supernatural, the disparity of explanatory power is so great, I wouldn’t have thought Occam needed to be brought into the picture. Interesting.
“I wonder Pec. Is there any psi that you don’t believe is true”
I don’t believe any of it is true. I think there is a great quantity of evidence for some of the phenomena we might call “paranormal.” My personal experience of life is that there is more going on than what our senses can detect. But personal experience is not scientific evidence.
Karl Withakay-
I’m aware of those articles. But the third triple-blind 2004 study has not been critiqued.
I want to amend my statement. It is certainly possible to have an effect size that is the same order of magnitude as your noise. However, whenyou get to the very tiny SNR that radin has, interpreting the data starts to become impossible.
“whenyou get to the very tiny SNR that radin has, interpreting the data starts to become impossible.”
You are wrong. When the p value is low, that means the signal to noise ratio is high. A T test, for example, determines the effect size (signal) relative to the variance (noise).
pec,
Is there even the remotest possibility that the noise you hear comes from the attempts by the widely dispersed remnants of the various neurons of zillions of disestablished cognitive systems trying in concert to remember an experience sufficiently well and of significant interest to respond with opinions added to questions emanating from an earthly medium with the proper apparatus to receive the answer?
Or could the noise be from similar entities not yet but at the same time already gathered together in both the anticipation of an impending insemination somewhere as well as in celebration of its success?
pec, your statement about p values and signal to noise ratio is simply nonsense. That makes the assumption that all “noise” is of a certain type (random white noise) and that there is a “signal” and that the “signal” can be statistically recovered from the “noise”. Those are assumptions. Sometimes they are good assumptions, as when we know that what we are measuring actually exists and can provide standards and controls which can be reliably measured.
If there is no “signal”, then the signal to noise ratio is always zero. If we look for something like unicorn trumpeting, using ever more sensitive equipment and looking for statistical anomolies in the unicorn trumpeting detector doesn’t demonstrate that unicorns exist, no matter what the p value is.
It would keep hope alive, however.
““I wonder Pec. Is there any psi that you don’t believe is true”
I don’t believe any of it is true. I think there is a great quantity of evidence for some of the phenomena we might call “paranormal.” My personal experience of life is that there is more going on than what our senses can detect. But personal experience is not scientific evidence.”
Prove it.
“If we look for something like unicorn trumpeting, using ever more sensitive equipment and looking for statistical anomolies in the unicorn trumpeting detector doesn’t demonstrate that unicorns exist, no matter what the p value is.”
That’s right. So when statistics show a reliable difference between experiment and control groups, we suspect the phenomenon might really exist. That is how experimental research works. But, oddly, pseudo-skeptics are willing to deny that experimental research has any validity, and to say that inferential statistics are worthless.
“no matter what the p value is.”
Actually, the p value is the probability that the results happened by chance and are meaningless. When the p value is low, the odds of a meaningful effect are high. So it does matter what the p value is, if you are concerned with the probability that something really exists.
thank you daedalus2u, I was trying to make that point but you did a better job than I.
Yes his P values are good. That means what he is measuring is a real signal. But P values don’t tell you what the signal means or where it comes from. Radin assumes they come from psi effects but he does not effectively control for all possibilities.
“Yes his P values are good. That means what he is measuring is a real signal. But P values don’t tell you what the signal means or where it comes from. Radin assumes they come from psi effects but he does not effectively control for all possibilities.”
It will be a long time before my comments show up, because they could be hazardous to your pseudo-skepticism. But what you just said is nonsensical. No one has said Radin’s presentiment experiments are not well controlled, because they are well controlled. And low p values mean a signal is detected, and it is not all just noise. So now the complaint is that the effects are small — but the low p value means that the signal is NOT small, relative to the noise.
And now your comment is saying that even though there were real effects, we can’t believe them because, well .. because … well we just don’t believe them. That is the usual last resort of pseudo-skeptics. Oh, and why didn’t Radin win the Amazing Randi prize? — you forgot that one.
It is not clear from the structured experiment that Radin is measuring what he intended. You cannot take his intention at face value. His materials are not clear. These stimuli had to be repeatedly tested to make sure that your subjects can distinquish extreme emotions. Past personality research found that subjects cannot make a distinction with faces to distinquish emotion. His results are confounded. His testing equipment failed repeatedly. The end product that he decided to measure does not show esp. Its an anticipatory response to his stimuli. This is a noisy experiment. Not publishable material in a reputable journal.