The contributions of the sciences to Religion

[Ben Dhyan]

Wrong as the paper is about meta-analysis itself thus also about Utt's meta-analysis as well.


Research Evaluation http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/airreport.pdf

Irrelevant as that is not the paper I am talking about. You should also read the conclusion which even questions the few results produced are even demonstration of "ESP" (general term usage) in which Utts view is discredited, as in false, rather than discredited as in reputation.

You did not provide the specific quote that is supposed to discredit Professor Utts... And the paper I posted an excerpt from and again in this post is not irrelevant as it is the overall evaluation of the respective papers that Utts and Hyman provided...

I understand that Dr Hyman was critical of Dr Utts....after all he was chosen as the skeptic for Utts's meta analysis...that's not a scientific discrediting... Besides....Hyman is a psychologist...Utts is a statistician...who would be the best equipped to do a meta-analysis of the statistical probabilities of there being the existence of a significant statistical effect...

http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/airreport.pdf

Summary of Key Findings

Two expert reviewers, one known to be a sophisticated advocate of the study of paranormal phenomena and one viewed as a fair-minded skeptic, reviewed the laboratory experiments conducted as part of the current program that bear on the existence of the remote viewing phenomenon. They focused primarily on recent, better-controlled laboratory studies, drawing from other sources as needed to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the research literature. Although the reviewers disagreed on some points, on many points they reached substantial agreement

The first important point of agreement concerns the existence of a statistically significant effect, which leads to the following finding:
A statistically significant effect has been observed in the recent laboratory experiments of remote viewing. However, the existence of a statistically significant effect did not lead both reviewers to the conclusion that this research program has provided an unequivocal demonstration that remote viewing exists. A statistically significant effect might result either from the existence of the phenomenon, or, alternatively, to methodological artifacts or other alternative explanations for the observed effects.
-----------------------------------

 

[Shad]

You did not provide the specific quote that is supposed to discredit Professor Utts... And the paper I posted an excerpt from and again in this post is not irrelevant as it is the overall evaluation of the respective papers that Utts and Hyman provided...

No I provided a whole paper refuting meta-analysis which is what Utt's uses.

I understand that Dr Hyman was critical of Dr Utts....after all he was chosen as the skeptic for Utts's meta analysis...that's not a scientific discrediting... Besides....Hyman is a psychologist...Utts is a statistician...who would be the best equipped to do a meta-analysis of the statistical probabilities of there being the existence of a significant statistical effect...

Considering the program was shutdown it shows that her views have little merit.

Hyman is an expert statistical methods thus fully qualified


Summary of Key Findings

Two expert reviewers, one known to be a sophisticated advocate of the study of paranormal phenomena and one viewed as a fair-minded skeptic, reviewed the laboratory experiments conducted as part of the current program that bear on the existence of the remote viewing phenomenon. They focused primarily on recent, better-controlled laboratory studies, drawing from other sources as needed to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the research literature. Although the reviewers disagreed on some points, on many points they reached substantial agreement

The first important point of agreement concerns the existence of a statistically significant effect, which leads to the following finding:
A statistically significant effect has been observed in the recent laboratory experiments of remote viewing. However, the existence of a statistically significant effect did not lead both reviewers to the conclusion that this research program has provided an unequivocal demonstration that remote viewing exists. A statistically significant effect might result either from the existence of the phenomenon, or, alternatively, to methodological artifacts or other alternative explanations for the observed effects.
-----------------------------------

Which is merely Utts views which is refuted by Hyman

Executive summary:

The foregoing observations provide a compelling argument against continuation of the
program within the intelligence community. Even though a statistically significant effect has been
observed in the laboratory, it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal phenomenon,
remote viewing, has been demonstrated. The laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding
the origins or nature of the phenomenon, assuming it exists, nor do they address an important
methodological issue of inter-judge reliability

Here is the conclusion of the paper itself

Conclusions from the Expert Reviews
In the preceding chapter we noted the points of agreement and disagreement among the
reviewers. We tried furthermore to clarify and reconcile these points of agreement and
disagreement. With this background in mind, we now return to the basic questions presented to
the reviewers and attempt to draw some firm conclusions about the implications to be drawn from
this research review.

The first question presented to the reviewers was whether the evidence indicated the
presence of a statistically significant effect. This question was answered in a straightforward
fashion: the reviewers agreed that, considered broadly, statistically significant effects have been
obtained in these studies. It appears that viewers' descriptions produce hits more frequently than
would be expected by chance.

The second question presented to the reviewers considers the nature of these effects. The
question to be answered was whether the effects could be attributed to paranormal phenomena. In
this regard, the reviewers disagreed, with Dr. Utts arguing positively and Dr. Hyman negatively.

Our conclusion from the discussions is that direct evidence has not been provided indicating
that this paranormal ability of the remote viewers is the source of these effects.
Attribution in general is difficult to demonstrate; for the present set of laboratory experiments, a primary
concern for us is that the same viewers, the same judge, the same target set, and the same scoring
procedures were repetitively used. This makes it difficult or impossible to localize the source of
the phenomenon.

The third question presented to the panel asked whether we have obtained an adequate
understanding of the phenomenon. Do we know how the ability, if it exists, works? Here it is
clear that the present research program has failed to identify mechanisms explaining the source of
these effects.

The fourth and final question presented to the reviewers was whether the research
provides support for intelligence gathering operations. Here the magnitude of the observed
effects, their consistency and replicability, and the need for subjective interpretation all seem to
argue against potential applications.

Taken as a whole, these answers lead to relatively straightforward general conclusions:

•The laboratory research conducted as part of the present program has identified a
statistically significant "anomaly."

•However, the experiments have not provided a convincing demonstration that a
paranormal ability is involved.

•The research studies have not identified the nature and source of the effect.

•There is no evidence that the phenomenon would prove useful in intelligence
gathering

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No I provided a whole paper refuting meta-analysis which is what Utt's uses.



Considering the program was shutdown it shows that her views have little merit.

Hyman is an expert statistical methods thus fully qualified


Summary of Key Findings

Two expert reviewers, one known to be a sophisticated advocate of the study of paranormal phenomena and one viewed as a fair-minded skeptic, reviewed the laboratory experiments conducted as part of the current program that bear on the existence of the remote viewing phenomenon. They focused primarily on recent, better-controlled laboratory studies, drawing from other sources as needed to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the research literature. Although the reviewers disagreed on some points, on many points they reached substantial agreement



Which is merely Utts views which is refuted by Hyman

Executive summary:

The foregoing observations provide a compelling argument against continuation of the
program within the intelligence community. Even though a statistically significant effect has been
observed in the laboratory, it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal phenomenon,
remote viewing, has been demonstrated. The laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding
the origins or nature of the phenomenon, assuming it exists, nor do they address an important
methodological issue of inter-judge reliability

Here is the conclusion of the paper itself

Conclusions from the Expert Reviews
In the preceding chapter we noted the points of agreement and disagreement among the
reviewers. We tried furthermore to clarify and reconcile these points of agreement and
disagreement. With this background in mind, we now return to the basic questions presented to
the reviewers and attempt to draw some firm conclusions about the implications to be drawn from
this research review.

The first question presented to the reviewers was whether the evidence indicated the
presence of a statistically significant effect. This question was answered in a straightforward
fashion: the reviewers agreed that, considered broadly, statistically significant effects have been
obtained in these studies. It appears that viewers' descriptions produce hits more frequently than
would be expected by chance.

The second question presented to the reviewers considers the nature of these effects. The
question to be answered was whether the effects could be attributed to paranormal phenomena. In
this regard, the reviewers disagreed, with Dr. Utts arguing positively and Dr. Hyman negatively.

Our conclusion from the discussions is that direct evidence has not been provided indicating
that this paranormal ability of the remote viewers is the source of these effects.
Attribution in general is difficult to demonstrate; for the present set of laboratory experiments, a primary
concern for us is that the same viewers, the same judge, the same target set, and the same scoring
procedures were repetitively used. This makes it difficult or impossible to localize the source of
the phenomenon.

The third question presented to the panel asked whether we have obtained an adequate
understanding of the phenomenon. Do we know how the ability, if it exists, works? Here it is
clear that the present research program has failed to identify mechanisms explaining the source of
these effects.

The fourth and final question presented to the reviewers was whether the research
provides support for intelligence gathering operations. Here the magnitude of the observed
effects, their consistency and replicability, and the need for subjective interpretation all seem to
argue against potential applications.

Taken as a whole, these answers lead to relatively straightforward general conclusions:

•The laboratory research conducted as part of the present program has identified a
statistically significant "anomaly."

•However, the experiments have not provided a convincing demonstration that a
paranormal ability is involved.

•The research studies have not identified the nature and source of the effect.

•There is no evidence that the phenomenon would prove useful in intelligence
gathering

Shad...you have behaved badly with your claim that Dr Utts was discredited...there would not be a scientist anywhere who, based on the information you have quoted, reach that conclusion. Fyi, if a scientific paper has been successfully refuted by other peer reviewed paper/s, it is normal practice for the offending paper to be withdrawn by the publishers. As for everyday scientific papers published that are critical of, and try to refute another papers, that is common.....there is great disagreement between scientists in all disciplines to some extent, about many things...but successful refutations that lead to a paper's withdrawal are relatively rare.

As for the CIA and psychic research and practice....you are very naive if you imagine that they have ceased using psychically talented agents in their operations.. Most of the really dark scientific research never makes into the pubic domain...

 

[gnostic]

Shad...you have behaved badly with your claim that Dr Utts was discredited...there would not be a scientist anywhere who, based on the information you have quoted, reach that conclusion.

How is Shad behaving badly?

Whether Utts published a paper or not, it is not up to Utts to review her own work.

If her papers were refuted, then it is more than likely that her conclusion are not based testable evidences.

Peer review just don't read papers (articles, books, etc), they have to be repeat the same tests, Utts have done, and should get precisely the same results as she did, when she ran the tests. If the reviewers cannot repeat the same results as she have presented in her papers, then something is wrong on her end, then the reviewers have little choice other than review her papers as unacceptable or not conclusive enough, hence her work - refuted.

Besides....Hyman is a psychologist...Utts is a statistician...who would be the best equipped to do a meta-analysis of the statistical probabilities of there being the existence of a significant statistical effect...

Just because Utts is a statistician, doesn't make her expert in the field of anything other than statistics.

And who else would or could review the papers on the paranormal or the parapsychology, other than psychologists?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How is Shad behaving badly?

Whether Utts published a paper or not, it is not up to Utts to review her own work.

If her papers were refuted, then it is more than likely that her conclusion are not based testable evidences.

Peer review just don't read papers (articles, books, etc), they have to be repeat the same tests, Utts have done, and should get precisely the same results as she did, when she ran the tests. If the reviewers cannot repeat the same results as she have presented in her papers, then something is wrong on her end, then the reviewers have little choice other than review her papers as unacceptable or not conclusive enough, hence her work - refuted.



Just because Utts is a statistician, doesn't make her expert in the field of anything other than statistics.

And who else would or could review the papers on the paranormal or the parapsychology, other than psychologists?

Ok Yimmie Yoe....show me evidence on any retraction of the paper by the publishers if you claim it was refuted?

http://www.parapsych.org/users/jutts/profile.aspx

 

[Shad]

Shad...you have behaved badly with your claim that Dr Utts was discredited...there would not be a scientist anywhere who, based on the information you have quoted, reach that conclusion.

Except Hyman did so in the paper I linked. He reviewed Utt's claims and disagreed. The stargate program was still cancelled and it's own summary found Utt's views wanting. The report clearly shows that Utt's views and claims are unreliable which is still discrediting a view in the end.

Fyi, if a scientific paper has been successfully refuted by other peer reviewed paper/s, it is normal practice for the offending paper to be withdrawn by the publishers.

Hardly. Publishers are not always aware of independent rebuttals so have no basis to even think a previously published paper is still creditable or not. Journals always lag behind in 2nd reviews as information needs to be either provided to the publisher or found by the publisher. Besides the contention is not that the analysis is flawed but the conclusion that it is evidence of PSI which is. So Utt's paper is fine for statistic based journals but not necessarily in journals about the subject in question that statistics are based upon. It is the conclusion which is discredited.

As for everyday scientific papers published that are critical of, and try to refute another papers, that is common.....there is great disagreement between scientists in all disciplines to some extent, about many things...but successful refutations that lead to a paper's withdrawal are relatively rare.

See above

As for the CIA and psychic research and practice....you are very naive if you imagine that they have ceased using psychically talented agents in their operations.. Most of the really dark scientific research never makes into the pubic domain...

Tin hat speculation is not a supportive argument.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Except Hyman did so in the paper I linked. He reviewed Utt's claims and disagreed. The stargate program was still cancelled and it's own summary found Utt's views wanting. The report clearly shows that Utt's views and claims are unreliable which is still discrediting a view in the end.

Hardly. Publishers are not always aware of independent rebuttals so have no basis to even think a previously published paper is still creditable or not. Journals always lag behind in 2nd reviews as information needs to be either provided to the publisher or found by the publisher. Besides the contention is not that the analysis is flawed but the conclusion that it is evidence of PSI which is. So Utt's paper is fine for statistic based journals but not necessarily in journals about the subject in question that statistics are based upon. It is the conclusion which is discredited.

See above

Tin hat speculation is not a supportive argument.

Let's get the relevant inputs in proper sequence...
An Assessment Of The Evidence For Psychic Functioning .....Professor Jessica Utts

Professor Hyman's report.

Utts' reply to Hyman's report

Response by Dr. Edwin May, the lead investigator for the government-sponsored work and Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory

There is no discrediting of Professor Utts...yes the Stargate program was officially closed...but read Dr Edwin May's report and you will see there is more to it... And it seems Cognitive Sciences Laboratory is still the Stargate program under another name and private funding...

 

[Shad]

Let's get the relevant inputs in proper sequence...
An Assessment Of The Evidence For Psychic Functioning .....Professor Jessica Utts

Professor Hyman's report.

Utts' reply to Hyman's report

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/response.html

Yes, and?

Response by Dr. Edwin May

, the lead investigator for the government-sponsored work and Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/index.html

A lot of speculation about the goals of CIA backed by nothing. If the CIA wanted to shutdown the program, as May claims, they wouldn't need to do any review at all. Instead they reviewed and evaluated the program along with the evidence for PSI. It found it wanting in demonstrable evidence. May has a conflict of interest as his was part of the program itself. Hence why the CIA used people not part of the program to review it.

There is no discrediting of Professor Utts...yes the Stargate program was officially closed

That is a form of being discredited.

...but read Dr Edwin May's report and you will see there is more to it... And it seems Cognitive Sciences Laboratory is still the Stargate program under another name and private funding...

Which still has failed to produce result accepted by the scientific community. May's conlcusion is hilarious. He can not prove his speculation then claims conflict of interest with the reviewer while he ignores his conflict of interest as a member of the program itself...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, and?


A lot of speculation about the goals of CIA backed by nothing. If the CIA wanted to shutdown the program, as May claims, they wouldn't need to do any review at all. Instead they reviewed and evaluated the program along with the evidence for PSI. It found it wanting in demonstrable evidence. May has a conflict of interest as his was part of the program itself. Hence why the CIA used people not part of the program to review it.


That is a form of being discredited.


Which still has failed to produce result accepted by the scientific community. May's conlcusion is hilarious. He can not prove his speculation then claims conflict of interest with the reviewer while he ignores his conflict of interest as a member of the program itself...

Shad...you are in denial....every spy agency in the world uses sensitives...and has done so since forever... You know Uri Geller did work for them...

 

[mystic64]

Shad...you are in denial....every spy agency in the world uses sensitives...and has done so since forever... You know Uri Geller did work for them...

The problem is ben d, and you really need to understand this , if Shad and the other people like him actually had proof that they can not deny, they then would consider all folks that have any ESP abilities "mutants" and that these "mutants" should be hunted and contained for the safety of Mankind. I am not allowed around anybody who carries classified information . I am contained, which is ok with me because I like it that way . And if one were to go through the Freedom of Infomation Act with the right search parameters, relative to me anyway , what little they would recieve would be blacked out. And an other thing when they can closely measure the emf frequencies that the brains of folks with high esp abilities radiate/give off, I am good enough as a yogi to not radiate those frequencies. I can and will flunk any esp test that science will ever come up with. I know better now than I did in my younger days when I was a part of their program. Anywho ben d, people like Shad are the first one's that become witch hunters. I accuse him of being slow with the understanding that slow is "good" ! But at the sametime there are folks out there with esp abilities that are using these abilities to take advantage of folks with less abilities in a negative way. There are not very many of them, but at the same time something does need to be done about them if the community of humankind is ever going to be at peace with itself. But that is not my problem, that is the problem for the folks that are incharge of things. And I am happy being out of it.

 

[Shad]

Shad...you are in denial....every spy agency in the world uses sensitives...and has done so since forever... You know Uri Geller did work for them...

Uri Gellar has been shown to be a fraud. Hilarious

 

[Shad]

The problem is ben d, and you really need to understand this , if Shad and the other people like him actually had proof that they can not deny,

I deny the conclusion of that anomalies are evidence of PSI. The rest of your comment is hyperbole

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Uri Gellar has been shown to be a fraud. Hilarious

I once attended one of his seminars when he visited Australia and he showed us this photo of himself, Vice President Al Gore, Russian politicians, and respective intelligence agents and psychics that were present, taken when the US and USSR were doing arms talks. He explained that both the Russians and the Americans had their psychics..he pointed out the Russian psychic in the photo...

Uri Geller with Vice President Al Gore, Yuli M. Vorontsov,
First Deputy Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union
and Anthony Lake, then the National Security advisor, later the head of the CIA,
Senator Claiborne Pell, Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Now it is true that Uri picked up stage magic in addition to having psychic talents ...I think he started out that way...and he was a self promoter...he had to earn money like everyone else...he had his time with assisting the CIA, but it was never a career position.

 

[gnostic]

The problem is ben d, and you really need to understand this , if Shad and the other people like him actually had proof that they can not deny, they then would consider all folks that have any ESP abilities "mutants" and that these "mutants" should be hunted and contained for the safety of Mankind.

Oh, mine.

You seriously believe in sci-fi conspiracy theory. You have been watching one too many sci-fi movies. You really should wake up in the real world, instead of preaching this paranoia craps.

I had experience first-hand in the 70s and 80s, racist bullies in Melbourne neighborhood, and the last thing I would do is hunt people down, just because they are different to me.

This is straw man attack and paranoia.

I believe, that's as far I know, that everyone or most members here, are non-violent people, including you and ben. The difference between Shad and ben is that one preferred more evidences and the later rely on faith in what he believe in.

To say that just because Shad, I or other skeptics would resort to violence, hunting people down, because of this nonexistent "psychic mutant" problem, is downright absurd.

We are here to learn from others from whatever religious background we may have, and we are here to agree or disagree views, in this safe environment, where we can discuss or debate.

So don't accuse anyone of being violent, when you are merely spinning speculations of "what-if". You cannot know how Shad react, especially when nothing of the sort have happen, except in movies.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem is ben d, and you really need to understand this , if Shad and the other people like him actually had proof that they can not deny, they then would consider all folks that have any ESP abilities "mutants" and that these "mutants" should be hunted and contained for the safety of Mankind. I am not allowed around anybody who carries classified information . I am contained, which is ok with me because I like it that way . And if one were to go through the Freedom of Infomation Act with the right search parameters, relative to me anyway , what little they would recieve would be blacked out. And an other thing when they can closely measure the emf frequencies that the brains of folks with high esp abilities radiate/give off, I am good enough as a yogi to not radiate those frequencies. I can and will flunk any esp test that science will ever come up with. I know better now than I did in my younger days when I was a part of their program. Anywho ben d, people like Shad are the first one's that become witch hunters. I accuse him of being slow with the understanding that slow is "good" ! But at the sametime there are folks out there with esp abilities that are using these abilities to take advantage of folks with less abilities in a negative way. There are not very many of them, but at the same time something does need to be done about them if the community of humankind is ever going to be at peace with itself. But that is not my problem, that is the problem for the folks that are incharge of things. And I am happy being out of it.

You must have an interesting story to tell Mystic....I would like to hear more if you would care to share. Who did you work with, what era, and that sort of thing?

 

[gnostic]

Anywho ben d, people like Shad are the first one's that become witch hunters. I accuse him of being slow with the understanding that slow is "good"

Witch hunters? Seriously?

You means those so-called or alleged "witches", sorcerers"

If history is any indication, those involved in witch hunts, the perpetrators of such hunts have often being religious people. Especially by those of the Abrahamic faiths.

Christians used to do a lot of torture and execution of those who commit heresy or practicing witchcraft, but none much in the last century or so.

Today, Muslims are getting the all headlines of witch hunts, executing those who are alleged to be witches or sorcerers.

Wasn't it last year, where a number of people were executed in Saudi Arabia, for allegedly practicing black magic?

If you are magician doing tricks, illusions or escapology, I would highly recommend not to do your shows in Saudi Arabia or say that you are fan of Harry Potter books or movies.

 

[Shad]

I once attended one of his seminars when he visited Australia and he showed us this photo of himself, Vice President Al Gore, Russian politicians, and respective intelligence agents and psychics that were present, taken when the US and USSR were doing arms talks. He explained that both the Russians and the Americans had their psychics..he pointed out the Russian psychic in the photo...

So what? These people are not above being fooled nor conned. Yet both nation shut their programs down. That speaks in of itself.

Now it is true that Uri picked up stage magic in addition to having psychic talents ...I think he started out that way...and he was a self promoter...he had to earn money like everyone else...he had his time with assisting the CIA, but it was never a career position.

So what? He has still been exposed as a fraud

 

[Shad]

The problem is ben d, and you really need to understand this , if Shad and the other people like him actually had proof that they can not deny, they then would consider all folks that have any ESP abilities "mutants" and that these "mutants" should be hunted and contained for the safety of Mankind. I am not allowed around anybody who carries classified information . I am contained, which is ok with me because I like it that way . And if one were to go through the Freedom of Infomation Act with the right search parameters, relative to me anyway , what little they would recieve would be blacked out. And an other thing when they can closely measure the emf frequencies that the brains of folks with high esp abilities radiate/give off, I am good enough as a yogi to not radiate those frequencies. I can and will flunk any esp test that science will ever come up with. I know better now than I did in my younger days when I was a part of their program. Anywho ben d, people like Shad are the first one's that become witch hunters. I accuse him of being slow with the understanding that slow is "good" ! But at the sametime there are folks out there with esp abilities that are using these abilities to take advantage of folks with less abilities in a negative way. There are not very many of them, but at the same time something does need to be done about them if the community of humankind is ever going to be at peace with itself. But that is not my problem, that is the problem for the folks that are incharge of things. And I am happy being out of it.

You watch way to much scifi and X-men. All you are doing is fear-mongering with a strawman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So what? These people are not above being fooled nor conned. Yet both nation shut their programs down. That speaks in of itself.

So what? He has still been exposed as a fraud

All intelligence agencies use psychics... Have you ever researched this stuff...gifted children when detected are always being screened for potential future resources...this was, is, and always will be the way it works... What do you know about Jack Sarfatti?

 

[Shad]

All intelligence agencies use psychics... Have you ever researched this stuff...gifted children when detected are always being screened for potential future resources...this was, is, and always will be the way it works... What do you know about Jack Sarfatti?

Agencies that shut down the programs due to lack of demonstrable evidence of their "powers"

I see no research demonstrating any of your claims. I see research that shows anomalies, methodology errors, bias and wishful thinking

Jack Sarfatti, another hack that had to go outside of academia when he couldn't demonstrate his claims. This is typical for people that can not meet the standards of their field so they abandon the field but still uses their titles as if their work outside academia means anything.