Talk:Ganzfeld experiment/Archive 1

Question

I've edited this to weaken the assertion to a claim. Can anyone give a cite for this claim? The Anome 08:01 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Um, what are the claims? --Brion 04:14 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

The claims are that, over a very large number of individual tests (several thousand) the average "hit" rate is 33.2%, when 25% is expected (since the judge has to choose between one valid, and three dummy images). On the face of it, this claim actually seems to be correct, and certainly is statistically significant to a very high degree. However critics have noted quite a few problems which should be given more emphasis in the article, including:

• Most reported experiments seem to be uncontrolled. (Obviously if we repeat the experiment without the "sender" and get the same results, it is a clear sign something is wrong with the set-up);
• The design is overly complicated, making it harder to analyse and detect biases. In fact most of the changes introduced to eliminate "boredom" are changes that make errors easier. A better solution would be to simplify the experiment, but change subjects more often.
• The reliance on matching vague verbal descriptions to the "closest" image is particularly concerning.
• The so-called "auto-ganzfeld" experiments attempt to eliminate the possibility of conscious or unconscious biases on the behalf of the experimenters by computer automation of as much as possible of the process. However this in turn introduces the possibility of software errors - especially bearing in mind that less than a dozen labs have reported these experiments, and we don't know to what extent they shared software. Thus, the software should be audited.

Securiger 04:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What a disaster!!

Previously the article was brief but contained no glaring errors. Now with Martinphi's mass dumping of work from The Conscious Universe, we now have an article full of out-of-date, misleading or incorrect data! (edited to say: I'm working on an update) Ersby 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Much less relaince on a single text from ten years ago

In editing the article I made the following changes:

• Generally made it shorter
• Gave credit to Metzger for originating the process.
• Cut out things about Rhine - didn't impact on the adoption of ganzfeld for ESP tests
• Removed "highly significant" since ganzfeld experiments tend to be measured at p=0.05
• Most of what Radin say about pre-1985 meta-analyses is just plain wrong
• Removed Radin's misrepresentation of the debate over randomisation
• Removed Radin's claim that no one agreed with Hyman
• Edited Radin's wordy description of the protocol
• Introduced more recent work from Wiseman, Bem, etc
• Removed Radin's response to criticism since it's more of a non-sequitor
• Introduced section about Sargent

Please, no more work from The Conscious Universe, and that goes for The Entangled Mind, too. Ersby 09:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dumping

I think you did a good re-write, and from a brief reading, you have more and better sources. I would question some things, however:

• Removed Radin's misrepresentation of the debate over randomization

Do you have a source for saying that this is a misrepresentation?

• Removed Radin's claim that no one agreed with Hyman

Do you have a source for saying this?

• Edited Radin's wordy description of the protocol

It wasn't Radin's description per se, but a paraphrase. This article needs a through and readable description of the process, such that the reader can judge for him/herself whether the process is likely to permit fraud or sensory leakage.

• Most of what Radin say about pre-1985 meta-analyses is just plain wrong

Do you have a source for this assertion?

• Removed Radin's response to criticism since it's more of a non-sequitor

Why do you think this?

Remember Radin's credentials: past president of the PA, researcher etc. Also remember that Wikipedia articles follow the Scientific consensus of scientists in a particular field, see this. Unless you can come up with a peer-reviewed, well-documented source within the field, there is no reason to say that Radin is not a good source: his books summarize peer-reviewed sources. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no source to say that Radin has misrepresented the early history of ganzfeld experiments except the original source material which simply doesn't match up to what he said. You're right, his books summarize peer-reviewed sources, but they do it so badly that they're not worth a great deal, and whether or not he has qualifications has little to do with the argument. An example: In The Conscious Universe he makes a claim concerning the non-meta-analysed pre-1985 experiments, saying that they could not be included since they did not report results. This is wrong and there's no way he could have made that mistake if he'd read the original papers.

I don't know if Radin's views on the ganzfeld are necessarily the scientific concesus in parapsychology. He is not often quoted or referenced in parapsychological papers on the ganzfeld (unless in refernce to his contributions to the design of the autoganzfeld set up at Edinburgh). But Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of debate. If people want to find out enough so that they can decide for themselves security flaws or look at statistical data, they can follow the links at the bottom of the page. However, if we simply pass on Radin's erroneous data when better first-hand data are available is doing a disservice to the reader. Ersby 11:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You say that "saying that they could not be included since they did not report results"

I don't have the book right in front of me, but I though he said that they couldn't be included because they only reported results. I might want to expand the description so that the reader gets a good idea of exactly what the experiments are like. And, as you say, use the latest material. I thought the page, before I expanded it, didn't do a thorough enough job of presenting things.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I no longer have easy access to a copy of the book, but I'm quite certain Radin thought the experiments did not report results. Although if you are right, then Radin is still wrong. Ersby 08:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Newest version

I've restored some of the material. The reasons given previously for deleting it were that:

1) It is too long. I disagree. This is a normal-sized page, and it is all about the ganzfeld ESP experiments. Therefore, it needs a fairly thorough description of the experiments, and that description should be readable.

2) Radin is wrong. This assertion needs to be supported before things are deleted for this reason.

3) Radin is not a good source. Remember that this article is about a subject in the field of parapsychology, and Wikipedia articles follow the Scientific consensus of scientists in a particular field, see this. Thus, unless Radin does not present fairly this consensus, he is a good source.

4) Radin asserts that no one agreed with Hyman. Actually, Radin only says what I paraphrased, that is, that the particular group in question, with certain credentials, analyzed the data, and disagreed or did not agree with Hyman. I think that this is a fair check of Hyman's analysis.

I have seen Radin's papers cited in peer-reviewed articles in the field of parapsychology, for instance this one: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_2_68/ai_n16107398 Therefore, I believe that Radin is respected in the field, and especially in the absence of authoritative sources within the field of parapsychology refuting Radin's books, that Radin is a good source for this encyclopedia.

As for the other edits, sources, and additions, I thought they were very good, and I believe I kept them intact in the new version. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

When I say the description of the experimental procedure is too long, I mean it is too long to be easily and simply read by a newcomer to the issue. Radin's/your description of the ganzfeld procedure is so cumbersome as to be unreadable. Keep it simple. If you want to talk about how the ganzfeld can be psi conducive, you should put it in another section.

And I cannot, in all honesty, countenance an article that relies so heavily on just one source. You presented one paper which cites Radin as an example of how he is referenced in parapsychology, and of course he has a certain standing in parapsychology. But the citation you linked to was nothing to do with the ganzfeld. I don't doubt that, in other fields, he is something of an expert, but in this field I know that he is not. If he does represent the scientific consesus on this matter, it should not be too difficult for you to find other first-hand sources.

If you need more examples of Radin being wrong, this is in reference to the randomization issue. Radin's summary runs:

The reasoning goes like this: A person who has participated in the study tells a friend about her ganzfeld experience where the target was, say, a Santa Claus picture. Later, if the friend participated in the study, and he got the same target pool, and during the judging period he also selected the Santa Claus because of what his friend said, and the randomization procedure was poor, and Santa Claus was selected as the target again, then what looked like psi wasn't really psi after all, but a consequence of poor randomization.

A similar concern arises for the method of randomizing the sequence in which the experimenter presents the target and the three decoys to the receiver during the judging process. If, for example, the target is always presented second in the sequence of four, then again, a subject may tell a friend, and the friend, armed with the knowledge about which of the four targets is the real one, could successfully select the real target without the use of psi. (Radin 1997: 82)

Out of interest, do you know which experiments he's referring to here?

Here's a quote from Parker and Wiklund, published in 1987, about a randomisation flaw in an early ganzfeld experiment:

Two further Maimonides studies by Terry and Honorton in 1976 were judged to be flawed because of their procedure of eliminating each used target in the series from future selection. This could increase the chance expectation from 1/4 to 1/3 (or higher) if subjects gained knowledge of the target pool. Parker, however, calculated in a worse case analysis of the number of subjects relative to the number of target packs re-appearing, that such an effect would be negligible. Wiklund regarded it, nevertheless, as a serious methodological flaw. In addition to this, the series had other flaws concerning the randomisation of the target series and its reconstruction after viewing.

and from the same paper, referring to a different set of ganzfeld experiments:

Some of the early Maimonides experiments used, for instance, an incomplete series of binary target slides, where presence versus absence of specific characteristics (e.g. colour, movement, human figures) were matched with the subject's imagery. Since the series was incomplete, certain combinations of target characteristics being harder to depict than others, this naturally introduces a dependency between categories which can maximise the effect of a chance hitting on one category.

See anything about recievers comparing notes? Radin's description of the arguments surrounding randomisation is not one I recognise.

His summary of the 1985/1986 ganzfeld debate in the Journal of Parapsychology is also heavily skewed in a pro-psi direction (more on which at a later date). Rather than revert everything, I've added a NPOV:dispute template at the top of the page while we work through things at a slower pace. Ersby 09:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have better sources than I do. I cannot get to library (I live too far out in the country), and I can't get to a lot of sources online. It would be of great help if you'd help source- you already have, actually. When I started, the article basically had no sources! And now I give it at least one source, which at least is not a bad source, and you delete it because you don't like Radin??? I agree that it needs more sources, but adding (what I think is) a well-organized and informative, and actually sourced description and history of analysis is not dumping or a disaster. The article seemed a disaster when I started, because it wasn't sourced, and it wasn't complete.

I can't go over things now, but just a note on the length being "cumbersome." The description of the process is (lese than) 1,073 words long, that is, about 3.5 book pages. That's not long, that's short, especially for a description of a scientific procedure. I want it to actually give a feeling for what the procedure is like, and how it's organized. I find Radin's description very readable, and quite short. People who can't read 3 pages shouldn't bother consulting encyclopedias. And I don't discuss how it can be psi conducive, do I? No one knows how that can be, anyway. The analysis part is going to be long, because the argument is long. We could keep it short, but we could also keep it medium length and give some information people might find useful. How can you read all these scientific papers, and then think a 3-4 page description is long?

You're probably right that the details of potential flaws in the experiments are too cumbersome to go over here. So leave out the quotation. But I do think that unless there's a reason that it is untrue, that the claim that Hyman was alone in thinking that randomization flaws might be the reason for the results ought to be brought out. And I really like the structure which is given the article by the progress of the debates over the years. That makes it more readable, like a story or discussion.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 10:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You ask "Out of interest, do you know which experiments he's referring to here?"

I believe he's not referring to any studies, but describing a process whereby sensory leakage might enter the ganzfeld. He's describing Hyman's reason for objection in layman's terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 10:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't have time to work on it myself, but it does seem like a lot of the paragraphs end in (Radin 1997: 77-89). If I didn't know any better, just a cursory look at it might lead me to think either Radin came up with the experiment or is at least the foremost authority on it. I wish I had time to roll up my sleeves and take a hack at it. But if someone else wants to include more sources beyond Radin, there are 141 articles at FindArticles.com with the keyword "ganzfeld". Most of them are free articles from the Journal of Parapsychology, so I'm sure we can get a couple of different viewpoints in here. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?qt=ganzfeld

I can work on it some more, but I need some time- and patience. It's hard to integrate, and do justice to the contributions of everyone, when there are major changes being made, in a description which should maintain flow. Perhaps we need to work out basically what information is going to go in. I hate to do more work on the description of the procedure, or even the debate, if it would get deleted summarily. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow I shall attempt at putting right the section about the 1985/86 debate about the ganzfeld. To be honest, however, there are so many mistakes it'd be kinder to just take the whole thing out entirely. It'd also make the article more manageable. We should bear in mind this is an introduction to the subject and to go into endless detail about who said what to whom twenty years ago would be wasteful when clicking on a link at the bottom of the page can take readers to more indepth sources. Ersby 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, before I take time to write it up, I've decided to post here the major errors in the article as it stands, based on Radin's book. I personally think that something much shorter would be more suited to Wikipedia, perhaps only talking about Hyman, Honorton and Saunders since they make up the meat of the argument.

28 of these experiments were suitable for meta-analysis,

They were all suitable for meta-analysis, with the possible exception of three experiments which didn't report a result in a numerical form.

When Hyman and Honorton analyzed these studies the results of the 28 studies using meta-analysis, they returned odds against chance of ten billion to one.

Hyman did not analyse those 28 studies as a group.

The positive ganzfeld were determined to have been replicated independently by 8 other laboratories.

Honorton, JoP 1985: "Significant outcomes are reported by 6 of the 10 investigators"

Hyman and Honorton agreed that there was no systematic relationship between any such flaws in the studies and the outcomes of the studies.

Hyman & Honorton, JoP 1986: "The strongest disagreements between us might appear to be over the relationship in the data base between "flaws" and study outcome. Honorton finds no significant correlation between indices of study quality and study outcome. Hyman agrees that there is no significant correlation between study outcome and some procedural indicators, such as multiple analysis, sensory leakage, statistics, and security. But he finds a positive correlation between study outcome and other procedural indicators, such as suboptimal randomization, feedback, and inadequate documentation."

Isn't this what is already in the article? They agreed on pretty much everything except the correlation between outcome and randomization. But the "feedback, and inadequate documentation" could be added.

Hyman said that the ganzfeld papers did not describe optimal protocols, nor were they always accompanied by the appropriate statistical analysis.

Honorton agreed with this, but Hyman gets no credit in Radin's book.

Well, fine, you already inserted this. This was your writing.

None agreed with Hyman that randomization flaws could account for the results of the ganzfeld experiments,

None of them mention it, except Alcock: "A careful reading of Hyman makes clear that he does not view the various flaws and shortcomings that he reports as being necessarily causal with regard to the observed significant deviations from chance. Rather, he clearly specifies that they are to be considered symptomatic of poorly planned or poorly executed research, and although those flaws may be the only hints of possible sloppiness or ineptitude, there may be several or even many uncontrolled factors or errors of procedure or analysis that produced the apparent departures from chance but are not obvious from the reports. It is not too surprising that Honorton ignores this central point, for there is really no defense against it. All the reanalysis in the world cannot tell us whether there were uncontrolled (but nonpsychic) influences that produced the effects."

Are you sure you're looking at all the sources? I doubt Radin just made it up.

Ersby 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put in some comments above, highly indented.

Why don't you set the article right, I'll go over it, look at the sources etc. If it seems to be too cumbersome for the article, let's edit it out. But the changes above aren't major. I'm really mainly concerned here with putting in a thorough description of the procedure (I don't want people to have to go to technical papers for that). In terms of the debate, I want to make clear some of the process, but mainly I want to get the conclusion, which I think is (partly) nicely summed up by my last quotation of Hyman. In other words, even a determined skeptic had to say they were formidable studies, but there is still a lot of work to do.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, to make things easier (on myself, and any reader) I've reverted back to the earlier version. I don't think it's helpful to include the debate from JoP issue 50, since the problem is: why stop there? The debate still rumbles on today. You could go on for ages and never come to a sensible pace to stop. The ten commentaries didn't really add any data, and so for someone coming to this subject for the first time aren't really necessary. As for Martin's question Are you sure you're looking at all the sources, the article refers explicitly to the 1985/86 debate, so the sources are the Journal of Parapsychology issues 49 and 50, so yes, I am looking at all the sources.

I also deleted the section covering Radin's meta-analysis. Milton & Wiseman's and Bem, Palmer & Broughton's meta-analyses cover the same period with more thoroughness and it is these analyses that are cited in parapsychological papers, not Radin's. Ersby 08:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That was me removing the template, by the way. I could've sworn I was signed in. Ersby 17:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of POV template

I removed the POV template because I thought the article now gave a pretty good overview of the current state of affairs regarding the debate over the ganzfeld experiments.Ersby 10:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is in need of large revision to be anything close to Wikipedia style. In particular, the section describing the technique is far longer than necessary. At the moment, I lack the time to fix it. Michaelbusch 16:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of the sections look like they were written by a 10th grader. I'll be working on fixing tenses, removing redundancies, and making it just plain better to read. MachinaLabs (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)MachinaLabs

Unsourced paragraph

I'm removing this here because it has multiple unsourced claims. It seems to be OR, but in any case needs mulitple sources, or one source with multiple page numbers. It also uses WTAs.

There are reasons to doubt telepathy as the explanation, however. The results of the experiments are also unimpressive in the sense that one might expect genuine telepathy to function always or almost always, and that in any case statistically significant results should occur even if the sender's thoughts are not said aloud - and, so far, no Ganzfeld experiments achieve either of these. This suggests that, if the results are not a matter of chance, the cause is non-telepathic.

Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Ersby 07:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I found the switches between American English and British English spelling to be distracting. The MoS says that one style should be used consistently throughout an article. Where the article subject has no clear tie to a particular English-speaking country, the style should be that of the first substantial contributor. In this case, the article seems to have perked along for a few years without anyone using an AE or BE spelling. The first edit I found that took a side was this one in 2006, which referred to "Randomization", so I've standardized this article on AE spelling. Of course, that doesn't apply to the quotation from Blackmore, which must be presented exactly; I assume that "favour" is so in her original. (I'm surprised to see the AE spelling "randomization" in that quotation, but I don't have ready access to the source, so I'll leave it alone.) JamesMLane t c 09:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Studies have had significant results

This claim was recently taken out of the lead. It is/can be well sourced to skeptical and other sources. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture?

There ought to be an In Popular Culture area in this article. Like that movie Altered States back in the 1980s about sensory deprivation tank experiments that led to ripping a hole into another dimension? Or something like that. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Use a Neuroleptic Drug to Quiet Mental Noise

I have always proposed that fractional or very small amounts of neuroleptic drugs taken on a daily basis can work much better than sensory deprivation used on a relaxed person in a Ganzfeld Laboratory. The important thing to remember is to test an ESP subject several hours after the person has taken the drug. This is the point when the mind and body are quiet and the neuroleptic drug is just begining to weaken in strength creating a psychic-trance state of mind. Alcohol can be used to enhance the mental free flow response of the brain. It is important that the ESP test subject is checked for a telepathic response when he/she feels they are about to regain full cognitive and mental capacity. The creative visualization of picture imagery can be used to determine ESP force or precognitive ability in a test subject.

The size of dosage needed for ESP experiments using a neuroleptic drug is unknown, but maybe only a daily dose of 10 to 50% of the smallest tablet manufactured for any particular drug.

It's 2008, there are ways of using phamaceutical drugs, like neuroleptics to cancel or control mental noise in the brain of a test subject, instead of the methods required in the Ganzfeld Experiment. Psychiatrists use very large amounts of neuroleptics to control the noise in the brains of the mentally ill. It should be possible to check for the psychic threshold level in the brain of a test subject by applying fractional amounts of these drugs.KNeuroleptic1 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

great idea, since the drug-addled mentally ill are well known to be highly telepathic instead of just *thinking* they are telepathic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.245.13 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ganzfeld 2010

A meta-analysis of telepathy experiments, including ganzfeld, has recently been published by Lance Storm, Patrizio Tressoldi and Lorenzo Di Risio. Since this contains the most up-to-date information, I will be incorporating information from it and updating outdated info over time.

I hope to try to clean up the article in general, formalize a few sections that are currently too informal, and balance out the point of view. I feel that it is still very skeptic-heavy; most of the external links are to skeptic sites. This is an article on parapsychology, critiques should be coming primarily from active skeptical parapsychologists - Disagree if you will, but this is more representative of scientific consensus than The Skeptic's Dictionary or Entangled Minds. Published journal articles are better than links to TSD or EM, and mainstream journals are better than the Journal of Parapsychology (although all are still fairly good sources).

Obviously, the whole field is riddled with POV issues, which is why it is extra important to keep things as neutral, dry, and scientific as possible, and present a balanced view of the playing field.

Lots of juicy information in this article. I will be including some reply commentary by Hyman, once I find a good way to streamline it into the rest of the article without making it any more "he said-she said," which is difficult to read.

[1] Storm, Tressoldi, Di Risio (2010). Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology. Psychological Bulletin 136 (4): 471-485. doi: 10.1037/a0019457.http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaFreeResp010.pdf.

MachinaLabs (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)MachinaLabs

The first paragraph of Analyzing Results quotes some figures about ganzfeld experiments from Entangled Minds that are no longer up to date and of arguable accuracy. I'd like to update this number, but I don't want to run into the same issue that Radin brought up when he first used those numbers, which is that of inclusion criteria. Is there any single source (worthy of citing) that has a figure for all of the experiments conducted? I think it might be wise to break this up into two chunks: one sentence about the number of ganzfeld experiments conducted, and then go into detail about the results of each epoch of experiments later in the section.

Ersby, if you are still around, I'd really like your input on this.

MachinaLabs (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)MachinaLabs

I've split up the Analyzing Results section into three sublevels for the time being. The experiments conducted in recent history are vastly different and improved in many ways compared to the first experiments conducted. I've segmented this section into parts to reflect the three (Possibly four, depending on how autoganzfeld is addressed) major periods of research and experimental techniques therein. I also believe this makes this section easier to read and makes the whole page look a little cleaner. MachinaLabs (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)MachinaLabs

The stuff you've introduced is good, and pretty much sums up the current state of play with the recent meta-analysis from Storm et al.

There's no complete meta-analysis of the ganzfeld database in a peer-reviewed publication, so this method of splitting the data up into sections is the best answer, especially since that is how the database is generally discussed in parapsychological papers. Ersby (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Psi-Conducive Variables

I've added a section on Psi-Conducive Variables. This may get integrated with Experimental Results at some point, but for right now I feel it deserves its own section. Critics have argued for years that parapsychology needs a positive theory that generates directional hypotheses that are testable and falsifiable (see Alcock 2003), well, this is a strong example of exactly that. These factors may be crucial in determining whether a future ganzfeld experiment will succeed or fail. "Psi-Conducive" may sound a little wishy washy to those not acquainted with the literature, however, in the majority of the recent (past two decades) articles I've read, this is what it is called. It is also more formal than the "Sheep-Goat" effect; it is not quite the same, although it is very similar. Sheep-goat effect deals primarily with belief, which is one of several psi-conducive variables. Remember, this is what science does, it identifies variables, controls for them, manipulates them in certain ways, and determines how they affect the outcome of the experiment. MachinaLabs (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)MachinaLabs

POV

This article clearly presents a favourable view of what is generally considered pseudo-science. It shouldnt do that. One way of mending it would be to integrate the criticism section into the rest of the sections instead of segregating it in a section of its own towards the end (a common pov writing strategy). Then the content should be rewritten to make it absolutely clear that the standard viewpoint in Psychology and cognitive science is that there is no valid evidence for telepathy, and that the Ganzfeld experiments are fringe science way out of mainstream.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Where specifically is a bias-favorable view presented? The Ganzfeld experiments have been conducted many times and published several times in mainstream journals such as the Psychological Bulletin. They are mentioned in numerous primary and secondary sources. Parapsychology is certainly strongly contested, and considered by many to be pseudoscience, however, to classify it as fringe science way out of mainstream is at odds with the fact that these experiments have been through the peer-review process and garnered some actual mainstream discussion. I know of no other fringe theory that can make that claim. The article could use some clarification that the results are contested, I've tried my best to write sections to conform to WP:Undue and WP:Fringe, based on the mainstream discussions of the research. It is in fact not absolutely clear that there is zero valid evidence for telepathy, as the scientific discussions by experts in the field on the matter (including prominent skeptics as Richard Wiseman) indicate.

I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. - Richard Wiseman, UK Daily Mail, January 2008

Wiseman here is saying that a body of positive evidence for telepathy (remote viewing) exists, but it is insufficient for proof, given the gravity of the claim. It is indeed a very thin line to walk, and one must be careful in the wording of things. To claim that there is "no valid evidence for telepathy" is not NPOV and not in agreement with the skeptical discussion. To claim that the Ganzfeld experiments unambiguously demonstrate the existence of telepathy is also not NPOV. It is currently being actively scientifically investigated.MachinaLabs (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead suggests two equal viewpoints

The lead needs to be cleaned up so that it's providing a neutral rather than an equal-weight point-of-view.

The lead suggests that there are two, equally compelling viewpoints on the topic:

1. "Parapsychologists such as Dean Radin and Daryl Bem say that ganzfeld experiments have yielded results that deviate from randomness to a significant degree, and that these results present some of the strongest quantifiable evidence for telepathy to date."
2. "Critics such as Susan Blackmore and Ray Hyman say that the results are inconclusive and consistently indistinguishable from null results."

That makes it sound as if there have been any reproducible experiments at all and that there is actual scientific controversy. The point that so-called critics keep making is that, to-date, no one has run an experiment in which proper controls have been used. Observer bias is obvious in most of the documented tests and demonstrable in the others. "None of the above" is almost never an option and the experimenters don't try a control group in which no image is sent.

That doesn't mean that a ganzfeld won't help test for ESP, but it does mean that no one has scientifically demonstrated that it matters at all. The so-called two sides of the debate aren't equal: one is arguing that there is an effect because people we like say that there is and the other is asking for repeatable tests before agreeing that there is something worth debating. 75.36.182.46 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Outdated Critisisms

The two lead arguments presented are outdated. More recent views need to be presented from both sides of the debate.

For example, "Critics such as Susan Blackmore and Ray Hyman say that the results are inconclusive and consistently indistinguishable from null results." This is a misrepresentation of Ray Hyman's current attitudes toward the Ganzfeld experiment. He since said "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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwillard (talk • contribs) 08:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That quote is from 1996. Directly after it, Hyman continues, "I have argued that this does not justify concluding that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated. However, it does suggest that it might be worthwhile to allocate some resources toward seeing whether these findings can be independently replicated". (For some reason, people who quote what you quoted tend to omit that part of the quote.)

This agrees with what the article says: "Hyman wrote that the final verdict of whether psi can be demonstrated in the ganzfeld awaited the results of future experiments conducted by other independent investigators."

Not outdated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Nwillard also see Hyman, R. (2010). "Meta-analysis that conceals more than it reveals: Comment on Storm et al". (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136. 486-490. Hyman makes it clear the ganzfeld studies are not evidence for psi. Dan skeptic (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Storm et al. made a response to that: 69.14.156.143 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Dubious sources

We have to be careful about adding dubious sources. I removed a line citing the podcast "http://skeptoid.com/episode.php?id=4348" which was under the "Contemporary research" section. This doesn't qualify as "contemporary research" and is a dubious source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwillard (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not a dubious source, but I agree it could be put in a better place. I will move that line to the "criticism" section. Dan skeptic (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed factual errors

Just a note to explain my edits.

One paragraph removed since it simply repeated what the previous paragraph had already stated, except with more mistakes. The following quote is especially poor:

"Because of the flaws, Honorton agreed with Hyman the 42 ganzfeld studies could not support the claim for the existence of psi."

This is not an accurate representation of Honorton's views.

"The result of the collaboration was a process called the autoganzfeld study."

No. The Joint Communique was published in 1986, and the autoganzfeld experiments began in 1982.

"Bem and Honorton (1994) published a review of studies which concluded psi was operating in the ganzfeld but it was discovered their review contained serious errors."

Don't just prop up blanket statements with a bunch of references and hope that no one notices.

"Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman (1999) published a critique of Bem and Honorton"

No, it was a meta-analysis of post-joint communique ganzfeld work conducted by laboratories other than PRL.

"They discovered that Bem and Honorton had counted the results of some studies as being statistically significant when they actually were not significant."

No they didn't.

"Other meta-analyses were criticized for including all ganzfeld experiments"

This criticism has only been used against Milton and Wiseman's work. And you've written the opposite. That makes no sense. I also removed the quote from Brian Dunning, since there was already a quote from Hyman saying much the same thing, and because Dunning is in no way an authority on the ganzfeld. Ersby (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You are not reading the references, and please don't delete valid references and then put Dean Radin in the lead, this is in violation of Wikipedia policy on fringe theories. Wikipedia is not about your personal opinion. See Hines, 2003 for your above comments. This is part of Hines, 2003:

Hyman and Honorton (1986) agreed to disagree about whether the studies up to that point were or were not supportive of ESP, and they called for additional studies with better, more precise methodologies that would help rule out nonparanormal sources of above-chance results. Eight years later Bem and Honorton (1994) published a review of ganzfield studies not included in previous reviews that did not suffer from the type of methodological flaws noted by Hyman and Honorton. Bem and Honorton concluded that these new studies did, in fact, provide “replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer” (p. 4). In other words, they provided reliable evidence for the reality of ESP. But it turned out that there was a serious problem with the Bem and Honorton (1994) review. In 1999 Milton and Wiseman published a critque of that review and an analysis of additional new ganzfeld studies. In their review Bem and Honorton had counted the results of some studies as being statistically significant when they actually were not significant. This error led Bem and Honorton to conclude that the studies they reviewed had shown, overall, that ESP was operating in the ganzfeld situation. Milton and Wiseman then reviewed thirty ganzfeld studies that had been designed to meen the rigorous methodological standards set forth in Hyman and Honorton (1986); these studies showed no effect greater than chance.

Terence Hines. (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books.

So what is in the Wikipedia article is accurate from the reference. There are no "factual errors" from the Hines reference. I also suggest you read Wikipedia policy on reliable references. You are adding fringe parapsychology journals to other articles such as Charles Honorton and deleting reliable references. Goblin Face (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the error with the date you pointed out and two other things you correctly raised, I appreciate your work there but unfortunately you have not helped yourself by removing massive chunks from the article, claiming skeptical references are "POV" and placing Dean Radin in the lead. Goblin Face (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Terence Hines' version of events is wrong. Simply quoting is again does not make it true. This is taken from the abstract of Milton and Wiseman's paper:

"D. J. Bern and C. Honorton (1994) recently presented in this journal a set of ganzfeld extrasensory perception (ESP) experiments conducted by C. Honorton that appeared to support the existence of a communication anomaly. In this article, the authors present a meta-analysis of 30 ganzfeld ESP studies from 7 independent laboratories adhering to the same stringent methodological guidelines that C. Honorton followed."

The paper is not a review of Bem & Honorton's 1994 paper. It is a meta-analysis of data from other laboratories. They do not find fault with Bem & Honorton's statistics. If you believe this to be the case, please supply the quote from Milton and Wiseman's orginal paper and stop relying on poorly researched second-hand texts. Ersby (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The paper can be found here [1] as it says in the abstract "the authors found that D. J. Bem and C. Honorton were mistaken in describing the original effect as being statistically significant". And the conclusion says "Out of three autoganzfeld internal effects that the new database examined, only one effect was replicated, and it turns out to have been mistakenly reported by Bern and Honorton (1994) as having been statistically significant in the autoganzfeld studies." So Hines was not wrong. Please stop messing about Ersby. Goblin Face (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Look at that sentence in context: "The new studies included replication attempts of 3 out of 5 internal effects reported as statistically significant by D. J. Bern and C. Honorton. Only 1 was confirmed, and the authors found that D. J. Bern and C. Honorton were mistaken in describing the original effect as being statistically significant"

That quote refers to the internal effects (ie, using meditators, dynamic vs. static targets). It does not refer to the overall results of the meta-analysis. So Hines was wrong. If you want to change the article to include the finding that Milton and Wiseman couldn't replicate Honorton's results regarding internal effects, then be my guest, but please don't pretend Milton and Wiseman were referring to something else. Ersby (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see your argument because errors were found in Bem and Honorton's paper and their findings have never been replicated, and that's basically what all the reliable secondary sources have said. According to the Milton and Wiseman paper "The autoganzfeld results have not been replicated by a "broader range of researchers." The ganzfeld paradigm cannot at present be seen as constituting strong evidence for psychic functioning." That's little different than what Hines wrote. Here is what Scott O. Lilienfeld has written:

A re-examination of Bem and Honorton’s analyses revealed that this predictor was incorrectly identified as statistically significant in their original article, suggesting that the overall findings for the mental discipline variable in fact amount to another replication failure. In the words of baseball hall-of-famer Yogi Berra, Milton and Wiseman’s findings appear to be a case of “déjà vu all over again.” Seemingly replicable parapsychological findings have again proven to be disconcertingly elusive, and the experimental ESP literature has again proven to be consistently inconsistent.

Scott O. Lilienfeld. (1999). New Analyses Raise Doubts About Replicability of ESP Findings. Skeptical Inquirer.

And here is Brian Dunning " In 1999 the Bulletin published a thorough critique of Honorton and Bem's paper. Its authors were experimental psychologists Richard Wiseman and Julie Milton, and it focused on the failure of the popularly reported positive results to be replicated by independent researchers." [2]. End line is that the Bem and Honorton contained errors and their findings have never been replicated. I don't see the point in debating this. Are you claiming their results have been replicated and they made no errors? Your agenda seems to be defending Honorton from any kind of criticism. I am just going with what the references say, that's what Wikipedia does. There's nothing else that needs to be said on this. If you have a problem with what the references say (like Hines) then you would have to take it up with the authors off Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about reliable references not if you personally disagree with those references. You might want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Goblin Face (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with whether you or I personally agree with what Terrance Hines wrote (although, am I right in assuming you strongly agree with him?) but about what is written in the parapsychological and skeptical papers.

I'm not saying there are or aren't errors in the Bem and Honorton paper. I am saying that the quote from Terrance Hines is wrong and demonstrably so.

The quote from Terrance Hine is clearly referring to a problem with the overall results: "This error led Bem and Honorton to conclude that the studies they reviewed had shown, overall, that ESP was operating in the ganzfeld situation."

The error that Milton and Wiseman found was with regards to internal effects, so any error made in that aspect of Bem and Honorton's work had no bearing at all on the overall results. The article by Lilienfield also refers to the error with respect to internal effects, not the overall results. So Lilienfield's article agrees with me and not you. And Dunning's quote is about the lack of replication, not about statistical mistakes. The mistakes that Hines makes are verifiable. Going with "what the references say" leads to only one conclusion: that Terrance Hines is not a reliable source.

I will give you a chance to respond before I make any further edits.Ersby (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"I'm not saying there are or aren't errors in the Bem and Honorton paper." Sorry but we have four references saying that there were errors in their paper so what you say is irrelevant. Do you have a reference which shows Terence Hines is wrong for saying the overall results in the Bem and Honorton paper were not evidence for ESP? You seem to be doing a bit of original research here. Do you have any reliable secondary references to back up anything you are saying? Goblin Face (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my reference is the original Milton and Wiseman paper. I'm surprised you're having problems with this. Put it this way: if Terrance Hines is correct and Milton and Wiseman found a statistical mistake in Bem & Honorton's work that invalidated their overall results, you should be able to quote that section. And I don't mean rearranging sentences from the abstract, I mean from the main text of the paper. If you can do that, I will concede. But I know you cannot because Milton and Wiseman never say that. This is my point.

You seem to think that by criticising Hines, I'm somehow undermining every piece of evidence against ESP. That is not my intention. I'm just trying to improve this article by removing erroneous material. Terrance Hines is wrong when he says a statistical mistake is responsible for the overall effect reported in Bem and Honrton's 1994 paper "Does PSi Exist." My argument is entirely within the spirit of Wikipedia, contains no original research, and can be verified. All of your references so far have either agreed with me or been irrelevant. Ersby (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

the original Milton and Wiseman paper which has been found to make inappropriate and inaccurate conclusions cannot be used as a source to show that its reviewers were somehow wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I will contact Terence Hines about the subject. I have requested for other users to look into this matter. I would appreciate others perspective on this. One problem is that not many reliable sources (apart from Lilienfeld and Wiseman) discuss the Bem and Honorton paper in depth. David Marks updated his book The Psychology of the Psychic in 2000 it might be worth tracking down as it has a section on the ganzfeld errors. A source I recommend that is already on the article is Ray Hyman. Evaluating Parapsychological Claims in Robert J. Sternberg, Henry L. Roediger, Diane F. Halpern. (2007). Critical Thinking in Psychology. Cambridge University Press. pp. 216-231. I am reading over this source now to see if it can be of any help here. Goblin Face (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What's on the article now is "Bem and Honorton (1994) published a review of studies which concluded psi was operating in the ganzfeld but it was discovered their review contained errors." I think that's more than fair considering what the sources say. Errors were found there's no dispute there, but we won't go into detail. I have removed the Hines quote for now. I will search for other references that may of be of use here. Goblin Face (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Contacting Hines himself constitutes original research. Please supply the quote in full from Hines where he describes how results disappear as methodological rigour increases.Ersby (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've taken out the section about "the review contained errors". As it stands, it appears that the article is suggests these errors are somehow fatal to Bem and Honorton's conclusion (something that Golblin Face is keen to assert) but that would be disingenuous. Milton and Wiseman said they were statistical errors regarding a secondary hypothesis. Hyman's quote about video degradation is good, and quite sufficient to raise doubts about the PRL work without having to invent new reasons that don't exist.Ersby (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bem and Honorton review did contain errors, we have reliable sources saying this (Hines, Lilienfield and Wiseman) so it doesn't matter if you disagree. Please stop trying to delete mention of this. You also claim in your edit summary the Wiseman et al paper on sensory leakage did not mention Bem or Honorton, well it did because it's right here [3]. Let's not waste anymore time on this. I get it, you want criticism of Honorton removed from the article like you have done elsewhere but it isn't going to happen because there's reliable references that talk about his errors. Like I said we have been more than fair here considering your other suggestions. Goblin Face (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Who is this "we"? Do you believe you are speaking for the Wikipedia Foundation?

The Wiseman paper "Exploring possible sender-to-experimenter acoustic leakage in the PRL autoganzfeld experiments" was previously linked to this sentence: "Bem and Honorton (1994) published a review of studies which concluded psi was operating in the ganzfeld but it was discovered their review contained errors."

Wiseman's paper does not discover any errors but, as you now admit in a recent edit, it discussed a potential sensory leakage. The paper concluded: "Despite the problems outlined in this paper, we believe that the autoganzfeld studies (and the resulting database) represent an impressive achievement. The studies achieved a very high level of methodological sophistication. However, just as the autoganzfeld studies built upon the shortcomings of past studies, so future work should aim to identify and eradicate any errors contained in the autoganzfeld studies. Indeed, to a limited extent this has already started to happen. Discussions with one laboratory currently attempting to replicate the autoganzfeld studies (the Koestler Chair of Parapsychology at the University of Edinburgh) have resulted in various design modifications (see Dalton, Morris, Delanoy, Radin, Taylor, & Wiseman, 1996)." Shall we add this to the article?

We have already established that Hines is not a reliable source (again, please quote the section where Hines talks about results declining. I'd like to see that in full). The only reason I have not removed him entirely from the article is because I fear it would cause you genuine pain. You seem to believe that because Bem & Honorton had some errors regarding a secondary hypothesis, that ANY error, fact or fiction, must be correct. I do not agree with this, and I am quite sure it is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia.Ersby (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hines is not being removed from the article. There's no evidence he is an unreliable source, only your personal opinion. I doubt you have read his book. I am not quoting his entire section on the ganzfeld, I already quoted a section from him above, you can easily locate this source yourself and see what he has to say about ganzfeld pseudoscience and other failed parapsychology experiments. You seem to have a history of ignoring skeptical references and wanting them removed. Koestler Chair of Parapsychology is a pseudoscience parapsychology organization, not science. There's no scientific evidence for the ganzfeld. I know you have strong beliefs on this subject but independent replication of ganzfeld experiments has not been achieved and research in the subject has declined. If you have peer-reviewed scientific papers then add them, but please no more parapsychology journals. Goblin Face (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not skeptical sources I want removed, but inaccurate ones. Is this really so hard for you to understand? If something is wrong, then it shouldn't matter whether or not it agrees with you. It is wrong. I have demonstrated this, and you have conceded the point by not being able to find any supporting evidence (and, before you say anything, simply posting references and hoping no one will check them doesn't count as supporting evidence) As for my beliefs, please scroll up and read my efforts to save this page for Radinisation several years ago. I've noticed another mistake where a reference is paired to an unrelated sentence, but I'm patient and I realise this is causing you distress so I'll take it easy on you. One point at a time. I will give you one last chance to support Hines before I remove him as an unreliable source as per Wikipedia rules as stated on the Verifiability, not truth page.Ersby (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

But it's not inaccurate from how the source is being used because Hines states the Bem and Honorton (1994) review contained errors (it did) so your comments are irrelevant. I have already quoted Hines above. We haven't gone into any detail on this which isn't needed. All that is stated is that errors were found in the Bem and Honorton review which even you acknowledged at one point and is supported by the Wiseman paper, and the Lilienfield article. So what is the problem? Nothing is in violation of Wikipedia policy here. The Ben and Honorton article contained errors (mistakes as Wiseman called them) and that's what the references say. Goblin Face (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for not reading every inch of the above discussion which seems to veer off into WP:OR and other tangents. If the arguments by Ersby boil down to "Terence Hines' version of events is wrong" then we should not be indulging this line of thought unless we have very strong independent sources saying as much. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The initial issue with Hines was due to a section attributed to him that read "Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman (1999) published a critique of Bem and Honorton and a review of new ganzfeld studies. They discovered that Bem and Honorton had counted the results of some studies as being statistically significant when they actually were not significant. This error led Bem and Honorton to conclude overall, that a psi effect was operating in the ganzfeld."

This is not correct and my independent sources are the original paper by Milton and Wiseman and the article by Lilienfield. Both are clear - the statistical error found was with respect to a secondary hypothesis and it had no effect on the overall conclusion of Bem and Honorton.

Hines' sentence was so wrong that it gave me genuine cause for concern that the rest of his writings on the ganzfeld were wrong too. I asked Goblin Face for more details, but he refused. My concerns remain, and Goblin Face's bizarre belief that I'm about to turn Wikipedia into a hotbed of superstitious nonsense is, I hope, plainly wrong to anyone who cares to read further up this page.

I am trying to remove a (very probably) inaccurate source from Wikipedia. I have demonstrated its flaws and had nothing substantive in reply.Ersby (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying that you studied the original (primary source) paper that (secondary source) Hines critiqued and have formed an opinion based on certain nuances that it was inaccurately criticized by Hines. If that is the case, it's not sufficient grounds to throw out the Hines source and I doubt you'll gain support for something like that. I see the sentence you said you object to is no longer in the article, so I'm not sure what further improvements you'd like to see. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A minor point - Hines was not critiquing the Milton & Wiseman paper, nor the Lilienfield article. He was misquoting or misunderstanding them while writing about the Bem & Honorton paper.Ersby (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ersby what I quoted from Hines above (in the box) is all that he wrote on the Bem and Honorton review in his book so I am not sure why you keep asking for more. That is basically it. He then concludes by saying:

One finding that is so common in science that it is almost a general principle is that as research on new phenomena that actually exist progresses from initial discovery to detailed analysis, it becomes easier and easier to obtain the phenomena. At first, researchers aren’t sure about just which variables affect the presence, absence, or strength of the phenomena. But as research progresses, these variables become clearer and clearer as more studies are published that describe under just what specific condition that particular effect can be demonstrated. Note how different this scenario is from that seen in the more than twenty-five-year history of the ganzfeld studies and, indeed, the more than one-hundred-year history of ESP studies in general. After all this time, there is no clear way to obtain results showing any psychic phenomenon reliably. By far the most reasonable conclusion is that such effects do not now and never have existed.

Your argument seems to be that only erroneous statistics for internal effects in the Bem and Honorton review occurred, you then seem to make a jump by claiming those errors have nothing to do with Bem and Honorton over-all results. As discussed already Wiseman says "Out of three autoganzfeld internal effects that the new database examined, only one effect was replicated, and it turns out to have been mistakenly reported by Bern and Honorton (1994) as having been statistically significant in the autoganzfeld studies." [4] and the article by Scott O. Lilienfeld. (1999). New Analyses Raise Doubts About Replicability of ESP Findings also says similar things about how their alleged ESP findings have not been replicated. So even if you are right, it's a bit of a semantics dispute because there's little difference between what Hines and the Lilienfeld have written. You are pinning down Hines for half a line that you believe has got wrong. The end line is that errors were found in the Bem and Honorton review and none of their results have been replicated so the Hines reference is not wrong to be used there because we have not gone into specific detail, neither is Wiseman or Lilienfeld wrong. All the references match the text. The sentence you objected to was already removed so I don't see why you keep going on about this. Goblin Face (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that Hines is not a reliable authority on the subject of the ganzfeld. For Hines (and Goblin Face) to misinterpret Milton and Wiseman's statement about a mistake in a secondary analysis in Bem and Honorton's paper is not a "nuance" nor is it a "semantic dispute". It's pure fiction. And given that Hines has already got one thing wrong, then how can we be sure that he's correct when he talks about results declining with methodological rigour? It might be exactly what Goblin Face and others want the article to say, but we cannot be sure about its veracity when our sole source is Hines. I asked Goblin Face for more detail on Hines' statement on the declining results, but he clammed up.

It is true that the original sentence has been removed, and the article is no worse for it (in fact, it's now better) so it should be no problem to remove the rest of the statements attributed to Hines. The article will not be worse. In fact, it will be better. There's no other reason to keep him in other that "Well, he kind of says what I want to be true, so he must be right" which is, frankly, not a good enough reason.Ersby (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested in your original research, if you have a reliable secondary source that says Hines is wrong then add it but you don't so all we have is your personal opinion which is useless for the article. I am looking for other sources that discuss the errors of Bem and Honorton's review. Here is what Michael Shermer says:

The meta-analysis and ganzfeld techniques have been challenged. Ray Hyman of the University of Oregon determined that there were inconsistencies in the experimental procedures used in different ganzfeld experiments (which were lumped together in Bem’s meta-analysis as if they used the same procedures). He also pointed out flaws in the target randomization process (the sequence in which the visual targets were sent to the receiver), resulting in a target-selection bias. Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire in England conducted a meta-analysis of 30 more ganzfeld experiments and found no evidence for psi, concluding that psi data are nonreplicable.

Psychic Drift: Why most scientists do not believe in ESP and psi phenomena. Goblin Face (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not original research - at least no more than any Wikipedia page is original research. And I have primary sources directly contradicting Hines. Please post up the section where Hines talks about the decline in results so I can take a look.

As it stands, I strongly believe that Hines' understanding of the ganzfeld debate is inadequate, as I have demonstrated, and it would only improve the article if it referenced other more reliable sources. I'm happy to do that, if I can have assurances from Goblin Face that he will not simply revert these edits in one of his temper tantrums. He seems to be giving Hines' opinions far more weight than is reasonable. I don't understand why Hines is getting preferential treatment like this.Ersby (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There are only two places I see Hines being used. First is in the lead: "Consistent, independent replication of ganzfeld experiments have not been achieved" and this is backed by reliable sources Frazier, Smith and Dunning. Second is in the Criticism section where his opinions are attributed quite clearly: "According to Hines…" and "Hines has written…" I honestly don't see any evidence of either misuse or demonstrated unreliability. Perhaps WP:RSN is a better venue for wider opinion regarding your complaint. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, quite. It would hardly make any difference at all, which is why I'm so surprised that Goblin Face is so set against it. It does seem odd, though, that as long as something is clearly flagged as opinion in a Wikipedia article, then it is allowed to stand even once the source of that opinion has been shown to be lacking. Is that really the case?Ersby (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What other reliable sources do you have. It may be worthwhile adding them here so we can see if they are reliable. Goblin Face (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, Hines can simply be removed, with no detrimental effect to the article as a whole. I personally would also remove Dunning, since I do not see how running a podcast makes you an expert any more than, say, running a talk show or a radio phone-in.

As for the other mistakes I mentioned, I may as well talk about them now.

Regarding the sentence in the opening section that reads: “Consistent, independent replication of ganzfeld experiments has not been achieved.” There are some issues with the references supplied to support that statement.

One of them is for a book by Jonathon C. Smith. In Smith’s book, his statement that “Consistent, independent replication has yet to be achieved” actually references two other sources: Hyman 2008 and Palmer 2003. Wouldn’t it make more sense to reference those two papers in place of Smith?

Having said that, I would not reference Palmer at this point since in Palmer (2003) he wrote: “Some critics of psi research have insisted that results be replicable on demand, but this requirement is usually not realistic for research involving psychological processes such as psi. Most commentators are willing to accept statistical replication, which essentially means that replication is successful more frequently than expected by chance.”

Clearly, to list him as someone who believes that consistent replication has yet to be achieved would be distorting his viewpoint somewhat. At the very least, simplifying it beyond recognition. I suggest the line about “replication has not been achieved” be referenced to Frazier, Hyman (Hyman, R. (2008). "Anomalous Congnition". Skeptical Inquirer. 32 (4).), Dunning (if you must, I suppose) and Christopher French. (French, Christopher (2010). "Chapter 4: Reflectioins of a (Relatively) Moderate Skeptic". In Krippner, Stanley; Friedman, Harris (eds.). Debating Psychic Experience. Praeger. pp. 53–64.)

Smith also notes that “The jury is still out” regarding the ganzfeld results, indicating that there is still a controversy. In that case, shouldn’t this page should report that, rather than assuming the debate is over?

The reference of Blackmore after the quote “The results are inconclusive and consistently indistinguishable from null results” is misplaced. Blackmore doesn’t mention the ganzfeld other than her own part in the Sargent controversy at Cambridge (already covered on the Wiki page). The ten years of negative research refer to her own work, not the ganzfeld database as a whole.

Any thoughts? Ersby (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes the jury is still out on the ganzfeld I suppose but research in the subject has declined due to no independent repeatable data and all the errors over the years from parapsychologists, so I doubt anything positive ever will come out of it, Robert Todd Carroll states:

Actually, what we know is that the jury is still out and it probably will never come in if the best that parapsychologists can come up with is a statistic in a meta-analysis that is unlikely due to chance. Even if we take the data at face value, we know that no matter how statistically significant the results are, the actual size of this psi effect is so small that we can’t detect it in a single person in any obvious way. We have to deduce it from guessing experiments. What hope do we have of isolating, harnessing, or expanding this power if a person who has it can’t even directly recognize its presence?

Ganzfeld at the Skeptic's Dictionary. I don't agree with removing Hines, Smith or Dunning from the article they are all reliable references. I agree with your point about Blackmore being incorrectly cited in the lead. That can be fixed. I would recommend also citing Carroll and Shermer in the article. Goblin Face (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

In science, a field that is no longer actively investigated other than be a few individuals committed to the cause, is pathological science and the jury is no longer out, it has been discharged after the prosecution (i.e. the proponents) has failed to produce any evidence to support its case. This is a classic WP:FRINGE case. Ersby's edits are not compliant with policy. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that Goblin Face wrote on an admin page for help with me removing "skeptical" sources. This may be why you have the wrong idea about my motives. I'm not trying to give prominence to a fringe theory, rather I'm trying to remove an unrelaible source. Despite me demonstrating beyond doubt that Hines is contradicted by primary sources, and Goblin Face being unable to support Hines with anything more than his own personal preference, Goblin Face has dug his heels in and refused to see my point. I'm trying to improve the page and make it more reliable, but as long as Goblin Face is treating it like his own territory, it simply isn't possible. Ersby (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ersby, you removed the fact that Charles Honorton was deceived by a simple piece of magicians thread from his article. When you do such things you demonstrate your motives quite clearly. Please read the “Pseudoscience Discretionary Sanctions” template that I left on your talk page. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoever you are, I changed the page on Charles Honorton because I thought it was a disgusting piece of work and that Goblin Face should be ashamed of himself. However, I recognise that this is just my personal opinion, and I have not gone back to change the page again. This nonsense about my "motives" is pure fiction. Please don't mention it again. Ersby (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not write on an admin page I wrote on the fringe noticeboard. The reason for doing this is because you have come back to Wikipedia on two articles deleting (whitewashing) skeptical references and adding unreliable sources (fringe journals) and being rather rude in the process which is unfair considering I have corrected some of the things you asked for. You then claim it's disgusting that references have been inserted which indicate some errors Honorton made. Listen the entire field of parapsychology is gullible researchers making all kinds of errors and that is what is found in the reliable references on the topic, opinion doesn't come into it (read Alcock, Gardner, Hansel, Hines, Hyman, Marks, Neher, Rawcliffe etc). Your idea of improving this article was putting Dean Radin and Charles Honorton in the lead claiming the ganzfeld has proven psi. I know who you are as probably do other users on here and have read your stuff about the ganzfeld on the internet going back ten years or more on various blogs, forums and websites. I know you have a big opinion about this subject and some of your work on the history of the subject is to be well respected but your opinion does not represent the scientific consensus and some of your suggestions about deleting reliable references are against Wikipedia policy on fringe theories. Goblin Face (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say that inventing an opinion and then suggesting I hold it is also very rude. You seem to think that you cannot write respectfully about someone you disagree with. That was my reasoning on changing the not-very informative page on Charles Honorton. The quote on this page from Radin and Honorton was clearly expressing their opinion and was immediately followed by the opposing view. Is this really so ghastly?

But this is getting further and further from the issue at hand. Hines's work has not been supported in any substantive way. And, unable to refute my points, Goblin Face called for support and made this into an attack on my "motives".

I'm glad that at least some of what I said has been heard and edits have been made, and I should point out that I commended you on the quote from Hyman regarding video degradation. Nevertheless, you have been far too territorial over this issue. Now you have muddied the waters by calling for help and labelling it a "pseudoscientific" issue, it's unlikely that we will get much further on this, especially now other editors and administrators with little knowledge on the subject are joining in. As you said: "the entire field of parapsychology is gullible researchers making all kinds of errors". I couldn't have put it better myself. Ersby (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ersby, It’s not “pure fiction”. Here is a diff of you doing it. Here is a diff of you doing it again. And here is a diff of you doing it a third time. This is Wikipedia were everything you do is recorded. Your repeated attempts to whitewash the fact that Honorton was deceived by a parlor trick do betray your intentions.

You should also be aware that deleting that template from your talk page will not alter the fact that you have received the warning. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I stopped on the 24th, two days ago. I know about the deletion. I thought it was just there for my attention. Ersby (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In your edit summary you claimed that you thought the template was “anonymous vandalism”. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder of the talk page guidelines. That means: 1) this page isn't for discussing user or editing issues. 2) personal attacks are wholly unacceptable under any circumstances. 3) the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussion of the subject. 4) the article is "Ganzfield experiment", not "Charles Honorton". Discussion of the latter should take place on his talk page.

To get back on track, please specify what concrete proposal is being suggested. Please keep the suggestion brief (i.e. "change the 2nd sentence to "this wording", per this source" Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ersby you may be interested in this paper Ganzfeld-induced hallucinatory experience, its phenomenology and cerebral electrophysiology by Wackermann et al [5], see the section near the end on the ganzfeld studies. Goblin Face (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Other references

It might be worth adding this reference [6] by Luigi Garlaschelli. It's in Italian but it can be translated. It mentions the ganzfeld studies of Dick Bierman and how they were not replicated. Goblin Face (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I added the source Spencer Rathus. (2011). Psychology: Concepts and Connections. Cengage Learning. p. 143 [7] which discusses errors in the ganzfeld and other psychic phenomena and how they have not been replicated. Goblin Face (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)