Forum de parapsihologie

[Forever_Man]

Rezumarea primului mesaj :

Cred ca ar trebui creat un forum si pentru cercetari de parapsihologie, cum ar fi precognitii, telepatii, near-death-experiences, etc.

[Razvan]

Astea sunt concluziile tale de până acum în cercetarea parapsihologiei? Dăi înainte, eşti pe drumul cel bun!

...despite the fact that numerous important scientific phenomena such as cosmic gamma ray bursts and the Big Bang cannot be reproduced in the laboratory

Vezi că asta nu ţine; chiar dacă sunt fenomene încă nereproductibile în laborator, au fost observate în mod independent de mai multe echipe de cercetare.
În schimb, fenomenele psi care au fost studiate în laborator ar trebui să fie reproductibile, cu aceleaşi rezultate, de alte laboratoare. Şi nu sunt.

Tot n-ai citit linkurile din update-ul de la al doilea articol precizat de tine, nu-i aşa?  Normal, te rezumi doar la ce-ţi convine.
Iată-le aici, vezi ce spun:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1699970
https://www.essays.se/essay/fe6b43b515/

[Forever_Man]

Ba a fost replicat de 90 de ori, ce-ai ?

https://f1000research.com/articles/4-1188/v1

To encourage replications, all materials needed to conduct them were made available on request. We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma

[CAdi]

Imi pare rau dar ai fost pus rau de tot la incercare Cosmin Forever_Man  si nu ai
trecut examenul!
Razvan a vorbit cu calm, ti-a pus cateva intrebari provocatoare la care
nu ai dat un raspuns convigator si l-ai mai si  jignit!
Sunt 4 legi spirituale in filozofia hindusa, ti le spun pe a intaia si a treia
ca sa vezi unde ai gresit :

- prima lege spune: 
“Persoanele pe care le intalnesti sunt persoanele potrivite”. 
Cu alte cuvinte, nimeni nu intra in viata noastra din intamplare;
toate persoanele cu care interactionam se afla alaturi de noi cu un motiv,
acela de a ne ajuta sa invatam lectiile de viata care apar si sa continuam drumul personal; 
- a treia lege spune: “Orice moment in care un eveniment se produce este momentul corect”. 
Totul incepe in momentul potrivit, nici inainte, nici dupa;
cand suntem pregatiti pentru ca ceva nou sa apara in viata noastra,
exact atunci apare (incepe); 


Pentru Razvan :
Ca sa vezi despre ce vorbeste Cosmin Visan :
Cauta si descarca filmul :,,The man who stare at goats'' si ai sa intelegi
despre ce efecte parapsihologice vorbeste. Uite un link:

YTS - The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009) Download YIFY ...

[Forever_Man]

El i-a jignit pe toti oamenii de pe Pamant. I-a facut practic nebuni ca au halucinatii.

[Razvan]

Eviţi să comentezi cele două linkuri şi postezi în continuare doar ce-ţi convine. Frumos, aşa trebuie purtată o discuţie "academică"!

Ba a fost replicat de 90 de ori, ce-ai ?

https://f1000research.com/articles/4-1188/v1

To encourage replications, all materials needed to conduct them were made available on request. We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma

În care publicaţie peer review? Pe f1000research.com poate publica oricine, orice; aviz amatorilor!

Uite aici:



Şi ce ne spune Google Academic despre site:



Dă-i înainte! Eu îţi urez succes!

[Forever_Man]

Eviţi să comentezi cele două linkuri şi postezi în continuare doar ce-ţi convine. Frumos, aşa trebuie purtată o discuţie "academică"!

Selectezi din 90 de studii doar 2 care n-au reusit sa reproduca. Frumos, asa trebuie purtata o discutie "academica"!

[Razvan]

Asta ai înţeles? Alea două au încercat să reproducă experimentele descrise în linkul iniţial. Cu rezultate negative, sau cel puţin neconcludente.

[Forever_Man]

Da, 2 n-au reusit si 88 au reusit. Deci ce facem ?

Aaa... si vezi ca aici:

Pe f1000research.com poate publica oricine, orice; aviz amatorilor!

Ai folosit regula 7 din ghidul micutului habotnic materialist:
7. Imply that the researcher is a careless or easily-duped fool, even if he is an ultra-methodical person with a PhD.

Ti se pare ca Bem e "oricine" ? Ia uite acilisea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Bem

Daryl J. Bem (born June 10, 1938) is a social psychologist and professor emeritus at Cornell University.
Bem received a BA in physics from Reed College in Portland, Oregon, in 1960 and began graduate work in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The civil rights movement had just begun, and he became so intrigued with the changing attitudes toward desegregation in the American South that he decided to switch fields and pursue a career as a social psychologist specializing in attitudes and public opinion. He obtained his PhD in social psychology from the University of Michigan in 1964.[2]

Ai invatat bine pe de rost ghidul tau preferat.

[Abel Cavaşi]

Asist la această ceartă cu plăcere, în măsura în care ea rămâne constructivă și bine argumentată, așa cum e până în prezent. În schimb, îi rog pe cei care jignesc să înceteze.

[Razvan]

Citând aceaşi sursă despre Bem:

Ganzfeld experiment

 In parapsychology, Bem is known for his defense of the ganzfeld experiment as evidence of psi, more commonly known as extrasensory perception or psychic phenomena.[13]  Bem and Charles Honorton (1994) reviewed the experimental arrangements of the autoganzfeld experiments, and pronounced them to provide excellent security against deception by subjects and sensory cues.[13] However, Ray Hyman disagreed with Bem and Honorton as he had discovered some interesting patterns in the data that implied visual cues may have taken place in the experiments. Hyman wrote that the autoganzfeld experiments were flawed because they did not preclude the possibility of sensory leakage.[14] Bem and Honorton's review was criticized by the scientific community as it contained errors.[14][15][16][17] Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman (1999) who discovered errors in Bem's research carried out a meta-analysis of ganzfeld experiments in other laboratories. They found no psi effect, the results showed no effect greater than chance from a database of 30 experiments and a non-significant Stouffer Z of 0.70.[15]  Psychologist Susan Blackmore criticised the review of the Ganzfeld literature in 1994 as not explaining that of the nine studies that were used for review, five came from one laboratory, Chuck Honortons. Also Bem used experiments from Carl Sargent, whom Blackmore had found to had "deliberately violated his own protocols and in one trial had almost certainly cheated." Psychologists reading Bem's review in Psychological Bulletin would "not have a clue that serious doubt had been cast on more than a quarter of the studies involved". Blackmore recounts having a discussion with Bem at a consciousness conference where she challenged him on his support of Sargent and Honorton's research, he replied "it did not matter". Writing for Skeptical Inquirer Blackmore states "But it does matter. ... It matters because Bem's continued claims mislead a willing public into believing that there is reputable scientific evidence for ESP in the Ganzfeld when there is not".[18]

"Feeling the ****" controversy  

In 2011, Bem published the article "Feeling the ****: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect" in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that offered statistical evidence for psi.[19] The article's findings challenged modern scientific conceptions about the unidirectional nature of time. Its presentation by a respected researcher, and its publication by an upper-tier journal, engendered much controversy. In addition to criticism of the paper itself,[20] the paper's publication prompted a wider debate on the validity of peer review process for allowing such a paper to be published.[21] Bem appeared on MSNBC[22] and The Colbert Report[23] to discuss the experiment.  Wagenmakers et al. criticized Bem's statistical methodology, saying that he incorrectly provides one-sided p-value when he should have used a two-sided p-value.[24] This could account for the marginally-significant results of his experiment. Bem and two statisticians subsequently published a rebuttal to this critique in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.[25]  Jeffrey Rouder and Richard Morey, who applied a meta-analytical Bayes factor to Bem's data, concluded, "We remain unconvinced of the viability of ESP. There is no plausible mechanism for it, and it seems contradicted by well-substantiated theories in both physics and biology. Against this background, a change in odds of 40 is negligible.[26][27]  After evaluating Bem's nine experiments, psychologist James Alcock said that he found metaphorical "dirty test tubes," or serious methodological flaws, such as changing the procedures partway through the experiments and combining results of tests with different chances of significance. It is unknown how many tests were actually performed, nor is there an explanation of how it was determined that participants had "settled down" after seeing erotic images. Alcock concludes that almost everything that could go wrong with Bem's experiments did go wrong. Bem's response to Alcock's critique appeared online at the Skeptical Inquirer website,[28] and Alcock replied to these comments in a third article at the same website.[29]  One of the nine experiments in Bem's study ("Retroactive Facilitation of Recall") was repeated by scientists Stuart Ritchie, Chris French, and Richard Wiseman. Their attempt to replicate was published in PLoS ONE and found no evidence of precognition.[30] Several failed attempts by the authors to publish their replication attempt highlighted difficulties in publishing replications, attracting media attention over concerns of publication bias.[31][32][33] The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Science Brevia and Psychological Science each rejected the paper on the grounds that it was a replication.[34] A fourth journal, the British Journal of Psychology, refused the paper after reservations from one referee, later confirmed to be Bem himself, who "might possibly have a conflict of interest with respect to [the] ... submission."[34] Wiseman set up a register to keep track of other replicating efforts to avoid problems with publication bias, and planned to conduct a meta-analysis on registered replication efforts.[35][36]  In 2012, two independent articles found that the number of rejections of the null hypothesis reported by Bem (nine out of ten test) is abnormally high, given the properties of the experiments and reported effect sizes (Francis, 2012; Schimmack, 2012[37]). Schimmack (2015) [38] used a more powerful test to reveal selection for significance, The Test of Insufficient Variance, and found even stronger evidence that the reported studies are biased in favor of supporting ESP. These findings imply that studies with non-significant results are missing and the reported evidence overstates the strength of the effect and evidence. According to Francis, this suggests that Bem's experiments cannot be taken as a proper scientific study, as critical data is likely unavailable.[39]  The publication of Bem's article and the resulting controversy prompted a wide-ranging commentary by Etienne LeBel and Kurt Peters.[40] Using Bem's article as a case study, they discussed deficiencies in the accepted methodology most commonly used in experimental psychology. LeBel and Peters suggest that experimental psychology is systemically biased toward interpretations of data that favor the researcher's theory.  In 2012, the same journal that published Bem's original experiments, The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 103, No. 6), published "Correcting the Past: Failures to Replicate Psi" by Jeff Galak of Carnegie Mellon University, Robyn A. LeBoeuf of the University of Florida, Leif D. Nelson of the University of California at Berkeley, and Joseph P. Simmons of the University of Pennsylvania. The paper reported seven experiments testing for precognition that "found no evidence supporting its existence."[41]  In 2016, Bem and several coauthors published a meta-analysis of experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random **** events.[42] The database comprised 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries, including Bem's original "Feeling the ****" experiments, subsequent replications of those experiments, and independently designed experiments that assessed the ability to anticipate randomly-selected **** events in some alternative way. The overall effect was greater than 6 sigma, with z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10-10, and a Bayes factor of 5.1 × 109 in favor of the psi hypothesis.  Later in 2016, at a meeting of the Parapsychological Association, Bem and coauthors reported the results of a new multi-laboratory precognition study designed to test whether replications were more likely to succeed when performed by believers rather than skeptics.[43] Their pre-registered analysis did not show a significant psi effect. After adding further statistical tests, the authors concluded that the evidence for precognition was "highly significant".[44] No correlation was found between study outcome and experimenter belief in psi.

Şi acum, doar spicuind la întîmplare câteva "experimente" din alea 90, vedem că nu toate confirmă, ci unele chiar infirmă sau au rezultate neconcludente. Mai jos aveţi câteva exemple:


Abstract  
Numerous experiments have been conducted in recent years on anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect (Bem, 2010), yet more data are needed to understand these processes precisely. For this purpose, we carried out an initial retro-priming study in which the response times of 162 participants were measured (Rabeyron and Watt, 2010). In the current paper, we present the results of a second study in which we selected those participants who demonstrated the strongest retro-priming effect during the first study, in order to see if we could replicate this effect and therefore select high scoring participants. An additional objective was to try to find correlations between psychological characteristics (anomalous experiences, mental health, mental boundaries, trauma, negative life events) and retro-priming results for the high scoring participants. The retro-priming effect was also compared with performance on a classical priming task. Twenty-eight participants returned to the laboratory for this new study. The results, for the whole group, on the retro-priming task, were negative and non-significant (es = -0.25, ns) and the results were significant on the priming task (es = 0.63, p < 0.1). We obtained overall negative effects on retro-priming results for all the sub-groups (students, male, female). Ten participants were found to have positive results on the two retro-priming studies, but no specific psychological variables were found for these participants compared to the others. Several hypotheses are considered in explaining these results, and the author provide some final thoughts concerning psi and replicability.

Abstract  
Nine recently reported parapsychological experiments appear to support the existence of precognition. We describe three pre-registered independent attempts to exactly replicate one of these experiments, 'retroactive facilitation of recall', which examines whether performance on a memory test can be influenced by a post-test exercise. All three replication attempts failed to produce significant effects (combined n = 150; combined p = .83, one-tailed) and thus do not support the existence of psychic ability.

Abstract  
Across 7 experiments (N = 3,289), we replicate the procedure of Experiments 8 and 9 from Bem (2011), which had originally demonstrated retroactive facilitation of recall. We failed to replicate that finding. We further conduct a meta-analysis of all replication attempts of these experiments and find that the average effect size (d = 0.04) is no different from 0. We discuss some reasons for differences between the results in this article and those presented in Bem (2011).

Abstract  
In two self-paced reading experiments, we investigated the hypothesis that information moves backward in time to influence prior behaviors (Bem Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100:407-425, 2011a). In two of Bem's experiments, words were presented after target pictures in a pleasantness judgment task. In a condition in which the words were consistent with the emotional valence of the picture, reaction times to the pictures were significantly shorter , as compared with a condition in which the words were inconsistent with the emotional valence of the picture. Bem Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100:407-425, (2011a) interpreted these results as showing a "retroactive priming" effect resulting from precognition. To test the precognition hypothesis, we adapted a standard repetition priming paradigm from psycholinguistics. In the experiments, participants read a set of texts. In one condition, the participants read the same text twice. In other conditions, participants read two different texts. The precognition hypothesis predicts that readers who encounter the same text twice will experience reductions in processing load during their first encounter with the text. Hence, these readers' average reading times should be shorter than those of readers who encounter the target text only once. Our results indicated that readers processed the target text faster the second time they read it. Also, their reading times decreased as their experience with the self-paced reading procedure increased. However, participants read the target text equally quickly during their initial encounter with the text, whether or not the text was subsequently repeated. Thus, the experiments demonstrated normal repetition priming and practice effects but offered no evidence for retroactive influences on text processing.

Ei bine, cam aşa trebuie făcut un studiu ştiinţific: prin prezentarea tuturor rezultatelor şi dovezilor experimentale, nu alegând doar ceea ce convine şi afirmând că s-au reprodus rezultatele studiului iniţial de 90 de ori în nu ştiu câte laboratoare, de parcă toate l-ar fi confirmat.
Cine doreşte poate continua căutarea pe baza linkurilor din articolul prezentat de Forever_Man şi publicat pe f1000research. Din păcate, pe peer-review n-am găsit nimic. Poate sunt alţii mai norocoşi sau au mai multă răbdare.
Eu voi urma sfatul lui Abel şi încetez aici această discuţie (mai am şi viaţă personală), cu speranţa că măcar ceilalţi au înţeles că la o cercetare trebuie prezentate toate rezultatele, indiferent că ne convin sau nu, iar discuţiile purtate pe baza argumentelor.
Desigur că atunci când acestea nu există sau sunt şubrede, se poate recurge şi la invective, ca şi metodă de convingere!

[Forever_Man]

Cum te simti stiind ca persoanele din viata ta personala sunt doar niste automate de carne ? Cum te simti atunci cand sotia iti zice "te iubesc", dar tu stii ca asta e doar o comanda automata care vine de la sistemul central de procesare si care activeaza muschii gurii sa se miste astfel incat sunetele "te iubesc" sa iasa pe gura ?

Probabil esti mandru: "ce sistem central de procesare performant are sotia, nu tresa ii fac upgrade!"

[Forever_Man]

"We remain unconvinced of the viability of ESP. There is no plausible mechanism for it, and it seems contradicted by well-substantiated theories in both physics and biology."

Ce logica de 2 bani. Asta e ca si cum: "Ramanem neconvinsi ca Pamantul nu e plat. Nu e niciun mecanism plausibil pentru a fi rotund, si este contrazis de versete bine-stabilite atat din Biblie cat si din Coran." =)))))))))))))))))))

[Forever_Man]

Şi acum, doar spicuind la întîmplare câteva "experimente" din alea 90, vedem că nu toate confirmă, ci unele chiar infirmă sau au rezultate neconcludente. Mai jos aveţi câteva exemple:

Pai ce faci ? Le iei doar pe alea care iti convin ? Tocmai daia studiul a fost facut pe toate 90, ca sa dea un raspuns general clar. Iar raspunsul general clar e ca precognitiile se confirma la 6 sigma.

Nici macar nu inteleg ce te agiti atata. Rezultatul e clar si tu scormonesti in noroi doar-doar sa gasesti ceva ce iti convine. Ca si cum: "Da, o fi votat toata tara cu PSD, dar uite, Bartolomeu a votat cu USR, deci Romania se indreapta in directia buna!". Esti total irational.

[Razvan]

Uite cuvintele tale de mai sus:

Da, 2 n-au reusit si 88 au reusit. Deci ce facem ?

Cu toate că era vorba de alte 2 experimente cu privire la alt articol, tu le-ai considerat ca făcând parte din cele 90, pe deasupra afirmând că restul de 88 au avut rezultate pozitive.
Ţi-am demonstrat că şi din alea 90 nu toate au confirmat fenomenul psi, cum susţii tu!
Şi nu sunt numai 4. Doar 4 am găsit eu, la repezeală. Dacă vrei să afli exact câte dintre ele au confirmat şi câte nu, analizeazăle tu pe fiecare în parte.
Despre 6 sigma nu mă pronunţ, dar dacă Bam a folosit aceaşi tactică ca şi tine, ignorând cu bună ştiinţă rezultatele negative, mă mir că nu i-a dat chiar mai mult!
Oare de ce la 6 sigma n-a reuşit să publice într-o revistă peer-review? Întrebarea e doar retorică.

[Forever_Man]

Oare de ce la 6 sigma n-a reuşit să publice într-o revistă peer-review? Întrebarea e doar retorică.

Pai da, asta vroiam si eu sa-ti zic: ca sa te intrebi tu. Si nu stiu de unde ai scos-o ca F1000Research nu e peer-review. Probabil din reflex aplicand regula 7.

https://f1000research.com/about
"F1000Research is an Open Research publishing platform for life scientists, offering immediate publication of articles and other research outputs without editorial bias. All articles benefit from transparent peer review and the inclusion of all source data."

[Forever_Man]

Ah... si e si pe:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26834996

Probabil ca "US National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health" e o organizatie pseudostiintifica care permite publicarea de articole din jurnale care "nu sunt" peer-review, asa ca F1000Research. Se duce lumea asta de rapa...

[Continut sponsorizat]