The Scientific Evidence for Parapsychology

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ah, I'm getting quite good at searching and here's the quote of Ray Hyman.

Here is Ray Hyman'’s exact quote (note he is still totally anti-paranormal but pay close attention to the last sentence):

Obviously, I do not believe that the contemporary findings of parapsychology, [...] justify concluding that anomalous mental phenomena have been proven. [...] [A]cceptable evidence for the presence of anomalous cognition must be based on a positive theory that tells us when psi should and should not be present. Until we have such a theory, the claim that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated is empty.[...] I want to state that I believe that the SAIC experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research.
—Ray Hyman, The Journal of Parapsychology, December 1995[22]

I own the paper. First, the line you wish me to pay close attention to merely says that the results don't "appear" to be from "the more obvious flaws of previous research", which could mean they result from flaws. Indeed, the very next line is "I have argued that this does not justify concluding that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated". Hyman writes in this paper ("Evaluation of the program on anomalous mental phenomena") that the SAIC program is too new, and too secretive to conclude much of anything and more investigation needed. That was in 1995, and in subsequent work he did indeed find problems as did others, and the program's flaws were explained.

Moreover, you are not quoting from him, but from a source that has deliberately chosen just which work and from it which words to quote. I know because whatever work you quote from cites this quote as reference 22 (of that chapter, article, paper, or whatever). When you are trying to determine what the opposition says, you don't look at what the proponents claim them to have said. You look at what they really say.

 

[George-ananda]

I own the paper. First, the line you wish me to pay close attention to merely says that the results don't "appear" to be from "the more obvious flaws of previous research", which could mean they result from flaws. Indeed, the very next line is "I have argued that this does not justify concluding that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated". Hyman writes in this paper ("Evaluation of the program on anomalous mental phenomena") that the SAIC program is too new, and too secretive to conclude much of anything and more investigation needed. That was in 1995, and in subsequent work he did indeed find problems as did others, and the program's flaws were explained.

Moreover, you are not quoting from him, but from a source that has deliberately chosen just which work and from it which words to quote. I know because whatever work you quote from cites this quote as reference 22 (of that chapter, article, paper, or whatever). When you are trying to determine what the opposition says, you don't look at what the proponents claim them to have said. You look at what they really say.

Ok, my opinion is people can move the goal posts outside the stadium if they want but I'm not going to argue with you guys endlessly that: something dramatic and not understood is happening; something that certainly seems to fit what is colloquially called paranormal.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ah, I'm getting quite good at searching and here's the quote of Ray Hyman.

First, you're quote is a blatant misrepresentation:

Obviously, I do not believe that the contemporary findings of parapsychology, [...] justify concluding that anomalous mental phenomena have been proven. [...]
Here's what he really said:
" However, I am willing to assume that the effect sizes represent true effects beyond inadequacies in the underlying model. Statistical effects, by themselves, do not justify claiming that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated - or, for that matter, that an anomaly of any kind has occurred."

Your source cut out the words "do not justify" to make Hyman appear to say something he never did.

Second, as for moving goalposts, that's what you've done:

Ok. Go through the studies and the critiques and show why the critiques fail and the studies are sound. It's that simple.

That was done by the most hard-core of skeptics, Ray Hyman, and he conceded that he has no explanation for the statistical anomalies.

He conceded no such thing:
"Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research." Where, in this (or any other part of your whole quote), has "he conceded that he has no explanation for the statistical anomalies". He doesn't, but says the results don't appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research. There is a vast difference between "I have no explanation" and "these studies don't have the obvious flaws the others did". He does, however, point out flaws in the study:
"From a scientific viewpoint, the SAIC program was hampered by its secrecy and the multiple demands placed upon it. The secrecy kept the program from benefiting from the checks and balances that come from doing research in a public forum."

As for the improvements:
"The commendable improvements in protocols, methodology, and data-gathering have not profited from the general shakedown and debugging that come mainly from other laboratories trying to use the same improvements. Although the research program that started in 1973 continued for over 20 years, the secrecy and other constraints have produced only 10 adequate experiments for consideration. Unfortunately, 10 experiments - especially from one laboratory (considering the SAIC program as a continuation of the SRI program) - are far too few to establish reliable relationships in almost any area of inquiry. In the traditionally elusive quest for psi, 10 experiments from one laboratory promise very little in the way of useful conclusions."

Even were we not to look at any other researcher by Hyman, you've provided no evidence whatsoever that Hyman ever actually conceded what you said. Rather, he conceded that (at that time) the researcher didn't have the obvious flaws of earlier research, but did point out flaws in that paper, never stated anything to the effect of "I concede I can't explain the statistical anomalies".

 

[Gambit]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

 

[Gambit]

“… there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images “projected” at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any way other than reincarnation.” - Carl Sagan

(source: p. 302, "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

something dramatic and not understood is happening

Not understood certainly, though I think "dramatic" is overstating it. "Puzzling" might capture it better.

 

[Araceli Cianna]

I do not deny the phenomena likely exists, but I do deny the 'mystical' associations with it. Science has an answer for everything.

 

[George-ananda]

I do not deny the phenomena likely exists, but I do deny the 'mystical' associations with it. Science has an answer for everything.

What do you mean by 'mystical associations'? I actually think some of the things that some call 'mystical' will be part of science someday.