Folks,
You might be interested in a comment Dave Myers sent me (quoting his
text). In addition to the Milton & Wiseman (1999) non-replication,
there is now apparently a replication of the ganzfeld effect that
Myers cites below as (Milton, In press). Upon looking it up in his
text, it is published in the journal of ParaPsychology. Here is the
reference
Milton, J. (1999). Should Ganzfeld research continue to be crucial in
the search for a replicable psi effect? Part I. Discussion paper and
introduction to an electronic mail discussion. Journal of
Parapsychology, 63, 309-334.
But I like more Myer's comment below that: "The scientific attitude
blends curious skepticism with openminded humility. It demands that
extraordinary claims be supported by clear and reliable evidence."
Humility seems an excellent scientific virtue.
-Chuck
>Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 03:08:20 -0500
>To: Chuck Huff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Dave Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: James Randi & Daryl Bem
>
>Hi Chuck,
>
>I'm in Scotland, and it's not convenient for me to look at Daryl's website
>right now. Is this an update of his Ganzfeld review? Here's what I say about
>it, and a recent UK review, in my introductory psych text. Feel free to pass
>along if this adds anything to the discussion (being out of touch with the web
>and the discussion I'm not sure it does).
>
>-------
> But some have become newly intrigued by findings published by social
>psychologist Daryl Bem and parapsychologist Charles Honorton (1994) using the
>ganzfeld procedure. The procedure would place you in a reclining chair, play
>hissing white noise through headphones, and shine diffuse red light through
>PingPong ball halves strapped over your eyes. Ostensibly, this reduction of
>external distractions would put you in an ideal state to receive thoughts from
>someone else, which you may hear as small voices from within.
> Building on earlier studies using this procedure, Bem and Honorton
>isolated a "sender" and "receiver" in separate, shielded chambers and had the
>sender concentrate for half an hour on one of four randomly selected visual
>images. The receivers were then asked which of four images best matched the
>images they experienced during the session. Over 11 studies, the receivers
>beat chance (25 percent accurately matched) by a bigger than usual margin (32
>percent accurately matched).
> Recall that psychology-based critical inquiry always asks two
>questions: What do you mean? And, how do you know (what's your evidence)?
>Parapsychologists say the ganzfeld tests of ESP offer clear answers to both
>questions. Skeptic Ray Hyman (1994, 1996) granted that their methodology
>surpasses that of previous ESP experiments, but he questioned certain
>procedural details that may have introduced bias. Intrigued, other
>researchers
>set to work replicating these experiments. Would this be the first reliable
>ESP phenomenon? Or one more dashed hope?
> Alas, Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman's (1999) statistical digest
>of 30
>follow-up ganzfeld experiments found no effect. "We conclude that the
>ganzfeld
>technique does not at present offer a replicable method for producing ESP in
>the laboratory." But--hold the phone--one very recent study does find an
>effect (Milton, in press).
> Stay tuned, and remember: The scientific attitude blends curious
>skepticism with openminded humility. It demands that extraordinary claims be
>supported by clear and reliable evidence. (If at 5'7" and age 57 I claim
>to be
>able to dunk a basketball, the burden of proof would be on me to show that I
>can do it, not on you to prove that I couldn't.) Given such evidence, science
>is open to nature's occasional surprises.
>---------------
>
>Cordially,
>
>Dave
>www.davidmyers.org
