God experience can change atheists

[charlie sc]

Since you've decided to consider Bem's review after all, I've decided that discussing this with you might not be a waste of my time.

Your first post made this claim:

Now, since you've changed your mind and given a response to Bem's review --- if you'd like to amend your claim to:

While scientific evidence of telepathy has been offered, none has been accepted by the leading mainstream scientific journals.

You'd then be making a claim that I agree is a fact.

Off the top of my head: J.B. Rhine and Charles Honorton, in addition to Bem have offered experiments which were rejected by the mainstream journals.

Bias on the part of mainstream scientists is only part of the problem. It's very difficult to test telepathy. You have a sender and a receiver but only the receivers see the visions. Without an advanced, yet to be invented, fMRI attached to their brains capable of seeing the same thing, other explanations for positive results are possible.

What I said is still correct. I'll explain. The reason I said no evidence is because of the questionable validity in these parapsychology/psi studies. For instance, some of the things to worry about are, are the methodologies well-designed enough to measure psi(remove confounding variables), is p hacking occurring, what are the results of the replications and are there any biases to worry about? Parapsychology studies have been going on for quite a while - as I recall, since the 50s. However, very little evidence has emerged from this. There have been constant changes in methodologies to try accurately measure this desired phenomenon. However, this is not how good science is performed. The data will always lead the researcher not the other way around. As an example, studies on IQ vs religiosity, health and religiosity or the dunning Kruger effect were so substantiated with evidence that they were unquestionable beyond a doubt. They also followed a two-tail approach, so not only could they be found to reject the alternate hypothesis but the reverse could be true(E.G. the religious could have high IQ), which increased it's reliability and validity. Subsequently, further additions increased their explanatory power. This is not the case for parapsychology. If a study is published(if at all: publishing bias)that failed a psi experiment, it just means, "oh, we'll try again because of course psi exists." This is quite a convenience for parapsychologists, because it means they'll always have faith something can be done and will try all sorts of methods to find this anomalous psi ability. Some psychologists use up their valuable time attempting to replicate Bem's psi experiments to no avail (1) (2) and in the meta-analysis they demonstrate those that found evidence and those that did not. Scientists become less and less bothered by these experiments and the need to coddle these ideas. Consequent studies have criticised the the Bayes factor model to be more rigid for larger sample sizes. If any available evidence gets published in psi/parapsychology, like in this case, the effect size is almost always small, which means, even if it's significant, it's questionable what exactly is being measured.

The reason why I said little evidence is because if we were to graciously grant something is going on we (a) need to determine it is actually psi and (b) see if there's another explanation, which why I pasted the quoted from the last reply. Psi is not the only explanation, but many people ignorantly want to believe psi is the only explanation or don’t consider others. There are other explanations for this phenomena, which I'd probably look into later - for fun. So, assuming something is going on, we need to examine the effect size. In Bem's 2011 study, he said, "cross all 100 sessions, participants correctly identified thefuture position of the erotic pictures significantly more frequently than the 50% hit rate expected by chance: 53.1%" This means that even if the there is some kind of psi it's barely by chance. You'd literally lose all your money at a casino if you'd have a 53% chance to win on the flip of a coin. On the 17th toss, you’d eventually get the right answer solely based on your psi powers. You'd have better luck with skill, theft or cheating. Note, the successful replications of his study had even less effect size. Is this really a comprehensible logical progression and good reason for psi/parapschology studies to continue their venture? No, of course not. This is a complete waste of time after years and years of anecdotal claims, psychics claiming all sorts of things as Ecoo pointed out and dead ends from the parapsychology sciences. Is it easy to test psi? It should be! Considering all the anecdotal evidence, this should be the easiest thing in the world, but it's not, apparently.

Undoubtedly, I'm sure there's biases in the scientific community but it's totally overshadowed by the biases portrayed by the people that want the data to fit their world-view. Does this phenomenon need to be studied further? Yes. Should this phenomenon get special privileges? NO, absolutely not. This is one of the weakest field in the sciences for the very fact it's bad science not because there's some conspiracy out to get them

 

[Shad]

What? Since DMT is common in an addict experiencing aliens ( as per your verbal report) and also in the God experiences referred in the subject study, the paper must be trashed?

DMT is the same drug as per my references to the HS mate talking to aliens. Do note you put stock into one experience due to your bias but not the other.

The referenced paper was authored by John Hopkins University researchers. I feel that you have not read the paper and do not have any idea of the rigorous methodology and validated questionnaire used. You may wish to at least see how the questionnaire was created.

I read it. You are misrepresenting my objection with a bluff, nothing more. Valid does not mean sound. Look it up.

Validation of the revised Mystical Experience Questionnaire in experimental sessions with psilocybin

Validation of the revised Mystical Experience Questionnaire in experimental sessions with psilocybin

Studies that show people doing drugs have hallucinations helps my arguments not your argument. Try again

 

[joe1776]

What I said is still correct. I'll explain. The reason I said no evidence is because of the questionable validity in these parapsychology/psi studies. For instance, some of the things to worry about are, are the methodologies well-designed enough to measure psi(remove confounding variables), is p hacking occurring, what are the results of the replications and are there any biases to worry about? ...

Susan Blackmore has for a few decades been the most stubborn of the skeptics on psi. You sound like you are more skeptical than she is. The link (Skeptic's Dictionary) to her full quote and a summary of the autoganzfeld method can be found on my earlier post to ecco. Blackmore: "The only honest reaction to the claims of psi in the ganzfeld is for me to say I don't know but I doubt it."

Parapsychology studies have been going on for quite a while - as I recall, since the 50s. However, very little evidence has emerged from this.

Your statement of "very little evidence" is not a fair assessment. If you want to say that J.B. Rhine's at Duke found strong evidence but his methods were criticized that would be fair.

There have been constant changes in methodologies to try accurately measure this desired phenomenon. However, this is not how good science is performed.

Again, that's not a fair statement. If the standards for evidence were no higher from psi than for other experiments in psychology, J.B. Rhine's results would have been found acceptable. Or, in the reverse, if experiments in psychology were scrutinized as rigidly as they have been for psi, none would survive the cut.

This is not the case for parapsychology. If a study is published that failed a psi experiment, it just means, "oh, we'll try again because of cause psi exists." This is quite a convenience for parapsychologists, because it means they'll always have faith something can be done.

The ganzfeld tests have been producing positive results for decades. That's why the methods were attacked. And when the autoganzfeld methods were found unassailable, the math was attacked.

Some psychologists have tried to replicate Bem's psi experiments to no avail (1) (2) and in the meta-analysis they demonstrate those that found evidence and those that did not.

Bem's psi experiments have been replicated and, according to this story, Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real. Which Means Science Is Broken.

So, assuming something is going on, we need to examine the effect size. In Bem's 2011 study, he said, "cross all 100 sessions, participants correctly identified thefuture position of the erotic pictures significantly more frequently than the 50% hit rate expected by chance: 53.1%" This means that even if the there is some kind of psi it's barely by chance.

On the link I provided Bem is being interview on TV by Steven Colbert. He explains why 53% is huge over a large number of transactions. It's the casino that takes the 53%. You win 47% of the time. That's why you'll lose your money.

. This is a complete waste of time after years and years of anecdotal claims, psychics claiming all sorts of things as Ecoo pointed out and dead ends from the parapsychology sciences. Is it easy to test psi? It should be! Considering all the anecdotal evidence, this should be the easiest thing in the world, but it's not, apparently.

How would you go about using anecdotal evidence in studying an topic scientifically?

Undoubtedly, I'm sure there's biases in the scientific community but it's totally overshadowed by the biases portrayed by the people that want the data to fit their world-view. Does this phenomenon need to be studied further? Yes. Should this phenomenon get special privileges? NO, absolutely not. This is one of the weakest field in the sciences for the very fact it's bad science not because there's some conspiracy out to get them

Here's my position: From one experience with each, I know that telepathy and precognition are real, but I don't care if science proves them real or not. But, knowing they're real gives me a catbird seat to sit on to understand human behavior with respect to beliefs.

For example, Michael Shermer is an articulate academic and probably the most vocal of the Skeptics. In Scientific American he wrote of an event that had "shaken his skepticism to the core." The event he described could easily be explained as a rare coincidence. There was nothing that couldn't be explained. Yet it "shook his skepticism to the core" because it was HIS experience! I'm sure he thought his skepticism was unbiased and purely rational. It wasn't.

 

[charlie sc]

Sorry for the delayed response. While digging around I just now saw your post.

By all means, please show how you got...

​

Survey of subjective "God encounter experiences": Comparisons among naturally occurring experiences and those occasioned by the classic psychedelics psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, or DMT
21% of 3476 vs 8% of 3476.
minus the 8% of 21% and you have your answer.

I just wanted to add, I don't think this is a particularly good study, and I've seen a few methodological problems, which would probably influence the results. Though, I'm much more curious if this study can be replicated and if this'll even happen. One of the reasons I didn't mention my critique of it is because this phenomenon, if it exists, is not something to be proud about. Someone needs to take strong hallucinogenics to not only convert an atheist, but also a monotheist. I find it quite funny actually

 

[atanu]

DMT is the same drug as per my references to the HS mate talking to aliens. Do note you put stock into one experience due to your bias but not the other.

I read it. You are misrepresenting my objection with a bluff, nothing more. Valid does not mean sound. Look it up.

Studies that show people doing drugs have hallucinations helps my arguments not your argument. Try again

I need not try again. The linked papers are available for people to evaluate.

 

[Milton Platt]

In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God, Johns Hopkins researchers report that more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter, regardless of whether it was spontaneous or while taking a psychedelic.

Experiences of 'ultimate reality' or 'God' confer lasting benefits to mental health


Survey of subjective "God encounter experiences": Comparisons among naturally occurring experiences and those occasioned by the classic psychedelics psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, or DMT

...

As I always say the stupendous taste of mango can be known only by eating a mango.

How was it determined that a god was involved? Are we just taking unfalsifiable claims and calling it research here?

 

[atanu]

How was it determined that a god was involved? Are we just taking unfalsifiable claims and calling it research here?

I can only suggest reading the paper.

 

[charlie sc]

Your statement of "very little evidence" is not a fair assessment. If you want to say that J.B. Rhine's at Duke found strong evidence but his methods were criticized that would be fair.

If you want to only think of what people thought in the past, then I could say 600 years ago there was good evidence for Humorism, though this is not what I'm talking about nor do I think it's a good idea. I'm talking about what is the evidence today and can it be examined? Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of Rhines experiments have been replicated? The evidence today for parapsychology is not telekinesis, pschokineses, making objects explode or anything reliable about future events. What's limited to parapsychology nowadays are dubious small effect sizes and failed replications for inconsequential experiments and correlation studies. This is what I mean by very little evidence, but this is only my opinion.

The ganzfeld tests have been producing positive results for decades. That's why the methods were attacked. And when the autoganzfeld methods were found unassailable, the math was attacked.

I disagree. There were too many methodological flaws, too many failed replications, too many potential biases and confounding variables. Your point of view is a possibility, but it's highly unlikely. If a researcher publishes an experiment that shows powerful data(i.e. strong effect sizes) other scientists will want, nay, feel compelled, to replicate/critique the results beyond a doubt. However, this is not the case anymore. Similarly, like Rhines, too good to be true is just that. The best parapsychology can offer is dubious and weak results. Why the heavens would mainstream scientists even bother?

The Ganzfield experiments are equally dubious. For one, their p-value is questionable, but more importantly, there is strong criticism against their results. To prove my earlier point on how biased and manipulating parapsychologists can be, here's a quote to show the dubious nature of these studies and the ganzfield experiments, "While 97% of the original 100 studies were statistically significant, only 36% of the 100 replications were. No explanation is given for the failures to replicate but no signs of deception or methodological errors were found in the original reports. QRPs are seldom reported of course." With all the methodical issues, it's difficult to take this subject seriously. If you want, we can examine them. Even the CIA wanted to get in on the hype, but they found it to be a complete waste of time and resources.

Bem's psi experiments have been replicated and, according to this story, Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real. Which Means Science Is Broken.

I wound't say science is broken. If something like psi is going on, then scientists HAVE to accept it. However, it needs to be substantiated without a doubt. If this phenomenon is really happening, it can survive more rigid p-value calculations. Remember, these changes don't just occur here, they occur everywhere - making all scientific theories equally difficult to demonstrate. However, if the theory is correct then this won't be a problem. From 1st link I gave, they tested Bem's experiment vs 3000+ participants and found negligible results. This does not help the psi cause, in the least.

On the link I provided Bem is being interview on TV by Steven Colbert. He explains why 53% is huge over a large number of transactions. It's the casino that takes the 53%. You win 47% of the time. That's why you'll lose your money.

If this is the case, then it literally becomes 50/50 lol. I assume you're talking about roulette wheel, where you can make an almost 50/50 bet. However, if you're going to bet like this and you want to win, you'll probably be using some sort of method. This doesn't change what I said, skill becomes more important. Not all gambling will give the option to bet on 50/50 odds. Assuming you have some 3% extra gain, you'd need some kind of method included However, if you were to go in a casino all willy nilly, with your 3% extra precognition, you'll most likely lose your house unless you're a skilled gambler

How would you go about using anecdotal evidence in studying an topic scientifically?

I wouldn't. I was trying to say that we need a logical and rational reason to perform experiments. Since magic, angels, demons, miracles, witches, spells, superstition and so on, were common place in the past, it makes logical sense why we'd attempt to study these phenomena. However, to say these things exist now and they're measurable, especially now, is irrational to me. These things are either things of the past or just don't exist. Therefore, to attempt more resources on something unsubstantiated is unrealistic, irrational and a waste of time. The amount of dubious magic we're now privy to is, at best, 3% above average chance to unconsciously predict a certain stimuli(erotic ) behind a binary choice. Great. If I were to test these phenomena, I'd make it more than just a binary choice(like 10) and retest the participants that scored well to determine it was not an anomaly.

Here's my position: From one experience with each, I know that telepathy and precognition are real, but I don't care if science proves them real or not. But, knowing they're real gives me a catbird seat to sit on to understand human behavior with respect to beliefs.

For example, Michael Shermer is an articulate academic and probably the most vocal of the Skeptics. In Scientific American he wrote of an event that had "shaken his skepticism to the core." The event he described could easily be explained as a rare coincidence. There was nothing that couldn't be explained. Yet it "shook his skepticism to the core" because it was HIS experience! I'm sure he thought his skepticism was unbiased and purely rational. It wasn't.

If this is a real thing, it'll eventually show its head. If not, things will go on as before. Would I like to see a person use telekinesis or telepathy reliably and incontrovertibly? Yes, I think that would be pretty cool. Am I holding my breath that it'll happen? No. As much as I love superhero movies, especially Deadpool, I'll keep my reservations to suspension of disbelief until an actual superhero shows up or actual evidence presents itself.

 

[Milton Platt]

I can only suggest reading the paper.

I read the paper elsewhere. There was no evidence that a god had anything to do with it.

 

[atanu]

I read the paper elsewhere. There was no evidence that a god had anything to do with it.

There is a validated MEQ 30 questionnaire (and similar others) that you may see for answer to your question. The paper was linked in a previous post by me.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

It's amusing that people who label themselves "skeptics" were never skeptical of the million dollar challenge despite the fact that James Randi made his living as an expert in deception for years before he began his debunking gig and made the challenge. That fact alone should have been enough to cause doubt. That's why critics refer to them as pseudoskeptics.

If that wasn't enough, the fact that disputes were to be settled by what Randi called "negotiation" was a tip-off to anyone with a little expertise in negotiation.Whether someone passed or failed a test is not a matter for negotiation. The only fair way to settle such disputes is via independent arbitration -- which wasn't included in Randi's offer.

What is truly amusing is that since the 60's, no one has yet been able to provide any evidence for the existence of anything paranormal or supernatural. Yet people still believe that they exist. It is also amusing that despite every paranormal claim being debunked, by over 500 foundations challenges throughout the world(not just the late Randi), in the last 60 years, people are now blaming the scientists(skeptics) because they can't accept this failure rate. Are you suggesting that we should express skepticism, when all evidence suggest that humans cannot fly? Why should anyone be skeptical about results we would expect to see? Just how hard is it to prove claims of levitation, psychic ability, telekinesis, mind reading, clairvoyance, etc.? Seems straightforward to me. I also think the overwhelming majority of skeptics here are true skeptics(open minded), not "pseudo-skeptics"(closed minded). http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/characteristics.php

The true reality is, that since no one has yet demonstrated their supernatural or paranormal claims, they are reduced to casting aspersions on the testers. Or trying to imply some grand conspiracy theory of falsifying results. This is done only to support their own "identity defective cognition", or their own "confirmation bias". Skeptic do not make this assumption, since it would violate all the basic laws in physics. If these other realities do exist, you need to clearly demonstrate that these claims fall well above merely chance. So far, no one has done this.

Science does not negotiate the facts. It explains and interprets the facts. What might not be fair to your presuppositions, is still objective to science.

 

[Shad]

I need not try again. The linked papers are available for people to evaluate.

Considering you babbled about points I never made you should really try again. Start with reading my posts. You also distorted the study to say something it never said namely that God experience means anything.

 

[joe1776]

If you want to only think of what people thought in the past, then I could say 600 years ago there was good evidence for Humorism, though this is not what I'm talking about nor do I think it's a good idea. I'm talking about what is the evidence today and can it be examined? Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of Rhines experiments have been replicated? The evidence today for parapsychology is not telekinesis, pschokineses, making objects explode or anything reliable about future events. What's limited to parapsychology nowadays are dubious small effect sizes and failed replications for inconsequential experiments and correlation studies. This is what I mean by very little evidence, but this is only my opinion.


I disagree. There were too many methodological flaws, too many failed replications, too many potential biases and confounding variables. Your point of view is a possibility, but it's highly unlikely. If a researcher publishes an experiment that shows powerful data(i.e. strong effect sizes) other sciences will want, nay, feel compelled, to replicate/critique the results beyond a doubt. However, this is not the case anymore. Similarly, like Rhines, too good to be true is just that. The best parapsychology can offer is dubious and weak results. Why the heavens would mainstream scientists even bother?

The Ganzfield experiments are equally dubious. For one, their p-value is questionable, but more importantly, there is strong criticism against their results. To prove my earlier point on how biased and manipulating parapsychologists can be, here's a quote to show the dubious nature of these studies and the ganzfield experiments, "While 97% of the original 100 studies were statistically significant, only 36% of the 100 replications were. No explanation is given for the failures to replicate but no signs of deception or methodological errors were found in the original reports. QRPs are seldom reported of course." With all the methodical issues, it's difficult to take this subject seriously. If you want, we can examine them.


I wound't say science is broken. If something like psi is going on, then scientists HAVE to accept it. However, it needs to be substantiated without a doubt. If this phenomenon is really happening, it can survive more rigid p-value calculations. Remember, these changes don't just occur here, they occur everywhere - making all scientific theories equally difficult to demonstrate. However, if the theory is correct then this won't be a problem. From 1st link I gave, they tested Bem's experiment vs 3000+ participants and found negligible results. This does not help the psi cause, in the least.


If this is the case, then it literally becomes 50/50 lol. I assume you're talking about roulette wheel, where you can make an almost 50/50 bet. However, if you're going to bet like this and you want to win, you'll probably be using some sort of method. This doesn't change what I said, skill becomes more important. Not all gambling will give the option to bet on 50/50 odds. Assuming you have some 3% extra gain, you'd need some kind of method included However, if you were to go in a casino all willy nilly, with your 3% extra precognition, you'll most likely lose your house unless you're a skilled gambler


I wouldn't. I was trying to say that we need a logical and rational reason to perform experiments. Since magic, angels, demons, miracles, witches, spells, superstition and so on, were common place in the past, it makes logical sense why we'd attempt to study these phenomena. However, to say these things exist now and they're measurable, especially now, is irrational to me. These things are either things of the past or just don't exist. Therefore, to attempt more resources on something unsubstantiated is unrealistic, irrational and a waste of time. The amount of dubious magic we're now privy to is, at best, 3% above average chance to to predict a certain stimuli behind a binary choice. Great. If I were to test these phenomena, I'd make it more than just a binary choice(like 10) and retest the participants that scored well to determine it was not an anomaly.


If this is a real thing, it'll eventually show its head. If not, things will go on as before. Would I like to see a person use telekinesis or telepathy reliably and incontrovertibly? Yes, I think that would be pretty cool. Am I holding my breath that it'll happen? No. As much as I love superhero movies, especially Deadpool, I'll keep my reservations to suspension of disbelief until an actual superhero shows up or actual evidence presents itself.

If Daryl Bem found only 53.1 percent of a couple hundred people tested randomly, the finding would be statistically insignificant. But the large number of college students he tested has convinced other scientists that there's a statistically significant ability in average humans. From there, it's logical to assume that, like any other ability, there are some born with more talent. And, if given the funding to find and test those people, more impressive numbers would result.

I've had a lot of experience dealing with lawyers in my work. I have the highest regard for about 10% of them. Because of their bias against studies of telepathy, I have a high regard for about the same percentage of scientists.

 

[joe1776]

What is truly amusing is that since the 60's, no one has yet been able to provide any evidence for the existence of anything paranormal or supernatural.

IMO, your opinion marks you as uniformed, biased or both. Since I've been here too long already debating the topic with two other posters, most of my thoughts on this have already been posted.

 

[charlie sc]

like any other ability, there are some born with more talent.

Yes, this may be the case and I'd like to see this research. Parapsychologists are still around and hopefully they can find the people they need. I always found it weird why they'd test random samples. This always made no sense to me.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

IMO, your opinion marks you as uniformed, biased or both. Since I've been here too long already debating the topic with two other posters, most of my thoughts on this have already been posted.

How long you have been here, or who you are debating is irrelevant. And in no way justifies your dismissive response. Are your previous thoughts just as dismissive, uninformed, and biased? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal

You clearly tried to mischaracterize and smear Randi, who made his living as a magician entertaining millions. Not as, "an expert in deception for years". You then tried to imply that because of his experience in deceiving others, we should all be skeptical of his motives and integrity. You then double down by labeling him as a "pseudo-skeptic", in an effort to demonize his valuable worth as a true open-minded skeptic and rationalist. Of course you ignore that the results are still the same with all the other prized challenges. Unclaimed. Who do you think would be the most qualified to debunk supernatural and paranormal claims? Professional magicians, conmen, and scientists, or pre-fundamentalists and occultists? Your "straw man("expert in deception.."), and mischaracterization("pseudo-skeptic"), are deceptive and intellectually dishonest.

Maybe you can provide just one example of any verifiable paranormal or supernatural activity? Only then can you call me biased or uninformed. Since the burden of proof is always on those making paranormal and supernatural claims, my position is well-informed and totally objective. Maybe you can explain why since 1922, there has never been any scientifically verifiable paranormal and supernatural experience, under the various categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoryaranormal Surely, you could point to just one? Why are we not seeing the impossible, made clearly possible?

 

[ecco]

You, of course have something to back up your assertion that is was possibly worthless bonds, not cash.

It's amusing that people who label themselves "skeptics" were never skeptical of the million dollar challenge despite the fact that James Randi made his living as an expert in deception for years before he began his debunking gig and made the challenge. That fact alone should have been enough to cause doubt. That's why critics refer to them as pseudoskeptics.

If that wasn't enough, the fact that disputes were to be settled by what Randi called "negotiation" was a tip-off to anyone with a little expertise in negotiation.Whether someone passed or failed a test is not a matter for negotiation. The only fair way to settle such disputes is via independent arbitration -- which wasn't included in Randi's offer.

First, you said that the prize money was in possibly worthless bonds. I asked you to show evidence for your claim. You didn't / couldn't.

You also said you and your daughter could not get tested because they didn't allow pairs. You provided no support for that either.

Now you make another assertion while showing nothing to support it. I guess you expect everyone to accept your version of everything. That's pretty typical of Woosters. You have nothing, so you spout your nonsensical claims and hope no one bothers to check.

There is certainly one thing I have become very skeptical of in the past few days - your ability to support anything you say with actual evidence. But, realistically, that's not even skepticism, at this point that's knowledge.

It really is time to put up. If you can't... But, since you can't...

 

[ecco]

Wikipedia lists prizes being offered to those who can prove they have paranormal powers.
Make note of that bottom link. There are many, many places you and your daughter can go and win some big bucks.

What? Not even a thank you for showing how your and your daughter can make lots of easy money.

 

[ecco]

Do you want me to just take your word for it? Can you not show the actual testing procedure? Do you even know what the actual testing procedure is?

There's this thing called a search engine...nevermind I'll do it for you. Here's an explanation of it from The Skeptics Dictionary so you will be reading of a description of the auto-ganzfeld from the skeptic's perspective.

Duck and dodge, duck and dodge.

I asked...

Can you not show the actual testing procedure? Do you even know what the actual testing procedure is?

Two simple questions. Instead of answering them, you link to a site that also does not answer them.

So,
Can you not show the actual testing procedure? The answer is you cannot.

So,
Do you even know what the actual testing procedure is? The answer is you do not.

 

[ecco]

Bem's psi experiments have been replicated and, according to this story, Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real. Which Means Science Is Broken.

What science is broken? Did Daryl Bem prove ESP?

joe1776 proudly posted this link to make his point: ESP, et al is really re4al.

Like many woosters, he found a provocative headline and linked to it. Unfortunately, the article does not support what joe1776 thinks it does. This is something a lot of woosters fall prey to. Like many woosters, he did not bother to actually read the article. Perhaps he hoped the article supported his views. Perhaps he believed others would be as lazy and sloppy and not bother to read it.

Sorry, Joe, I did read it. Here's some of what it had to say...(Sorry for the long post - my emphases in red)

Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real. Which Means Science Is Broken.

Meanwhile, in 2010, a former student of Bem’s had passed along an early version of the ESP paper to a young University of California–Berkeley business school professor named Leif Nelson. Within a few weeks, Nelson and another professor, Carnegie Mellon’s Jeff Galak, had coded up an online version of Bem’s word-recall study, the one in which people practiced for a test after having taken it. Within a couple of days, they had results from more than a hundred people. On Oct. 14, 2010, Galak sent Nelson an email with the subject line, “There is no such thing as ESP.”



Bem would later argue that you cannot do this kind of work with online samples. He also says the word-recall test may not work as well for ESP as the erotic-picture task or any of the others in his paper.



When he (Bem) pooled all those studies with his own, creating a pool of more than 2,000 subjects, he found a positive effect. In his view, the data showed ESP was real.

Others have disputed this assessment. Wagenmakers notes that if Bem restricted his analysis to those studies that came out after his—that is to say, if he’d looked at the efforts of mainstream researchers and skipped the ones by fellow travelers who’d heard about his work at meetings of the Parapsychological Association—the positive effect would disappear.


Ironically, Schimmack argued, the success of all those extra studies made Bem’s finding less believable.

To distinguish this replication from earlier attempts, Bem, Schlitz, and Delorme took extra steps to rule out any possibility of bias. They planned to run the same battery of tests at a dozen different laboratories, and to publish the design of the experiment and its planned analysis ahead of time, so there could be no quibbling over the “garden of forking paths.”

They presented their results last summer, at the most recent annual meeting of the Parapsychological Association. According to their pre-registered analysis, there was no evidence at all for ESP, nor was there any correlation between the attitudes of the experimenters—whether they were believers or skeptics when it came to psi—and the outcomes of the study. In summary, their large-scale, multisite, pre-registered replication ended in a failure.

“Credit to Daryl Bem himself,” Leif Nelson told me. “He’s such a smart, interesting man. … In that paper, he actively encouraged replication in a way that no one ever does. He said, ‘This is an extraordinary claim, so we need to be open with our procedures.’ … It was a prompt for skepticism and action.”

Bem meant to satisfy the skeptics, but in the end he did the opposite: He energized their doubts and helped incite a dawning revolution. Yet again, one of the world’s leading social psychologists had made a lasting contribution and influenced his peers. “I’m sort of proud of that,” Bem conceded at the end of our conversation. “But I’d rather they started to believe in psi as well. I’d rather they remember my work for the ideas.”​

The article refuted any and all positive findings for ESP. Primarily, it pointed out the many shortcomings in the methodologies ESP proponents use. Shortcomings that Bem himself alluded to. When the headline screamed "Science Is Broken" it was referring to the testing protocols used by psi proponents. Joe would have known that if he had bothered to actually read the article.