From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Utts paper (part 1 of 3)
Keywords: PSI experiments, meta-analysis
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:47:53 GMT

Part 3: Quotes and Opinions

          Meta-Analysis of Psi Ganzfeld Experiments

Honorton (pro-psi) and Hyman (contra-psi) used the same data.
Honorton came to the conclusion that quality and ES are
not correlated, i.e. in a *very bad* experiment the measured
psi abilities are not greater than in a *bad* experiment.

Hyman, on the other side, found such a correlation, using
only those three flaws which had the highest correlation
with ES.  Then he showed, using linear regression, that the
measured effect should disappear when those flaws were
removed.

Honorton "objected that Hyman's analysis was faulty" and
"asked psychometrician David Saunders to write an appendix
[..]."  Saunders concluded that "the entire analysis is
meaningless", using a quite strange argument.

Hyman replies:
>Unfortunately, Saunders bases his criticism on wrong
>assumptions about what I did and why I did it.  His
>dismissal of the results as "meaningless" is based on
>mistaken algebra.

Then he explains the case (it's really a simple mistake)
and adds:
>However, I do not wish to defend this factor analysis.
>None of my conclusions depend on it.

The difference between Honorton's and Hyman's method is
essentially the same as between Radin and Nelson's method
on one side and Jim Giles' and my opinions on the other side
in the PEAR discussion we saw in sci.skeptic in February.
(I wrote a lengthy article then, getting no answer.)

The psi proponents want to mix up all possible flaws in one
parameter, thus diluting eventual effects single flaws could
have (increasing the noise until the signal disappears),
while the opponents want to 
 -look at those flaws that show the highest correlation, i.e.
  those that are most likely responsible for the effect,
 -count only "flawless" experiments, or
 -differentiate between several types of flaws which are
  logically interconnected.

Of course, experiments with no flaws would be best, and that
is what Honorton attempted with the autoganzfeld experiments
(see below).

So, this meta-analysis proves only that scientists tend to
get the results they wish to get, and it is no reason to
believe in psi.


            Automated Ganzfeld Experiments

Honorton eliminated the known flaws from the ganzfeld experiments
by automating the procedure.Then, 11 series of experiments
were made with *really* impressive results.
Instead of 25%, the hit rate was 34% (122 of 355)!

Utts writes:
>[..] 11 experimental series were conducted by eight experimenters
>between February 1983 and September 1989, when the equipment
>had to be dismantled due to lack of funding.In this section,
>the results of these experiments are summarized [..]

I found it a bit strange that only 355 trials had been made in
six years and a half.  That is one per week.  A trial shouldn't
take longer than half an hour, I think, so the lab was probably
unused most of the time.

The skeptics didn't have to say much on the results.
Diaconis criticised that there was no skeptic involved in
the experiment, and Hyman says:

>If, as Utts suggests, independent laboratories can produce similar
>results with the same relationships and with the same attention
>to rigorous methodology, then parapsychology may indeed have finally
>captured its elusive quarry."

Utts rebutts Diaconis' point by citing Honorton's paper:
Ford Kross, professional mentalist, stated that the automated
ganzfeld system "provide[s] excellent security against
deception by subjects."
Daryl Bem, psychology prof and former Honorton co-author, "visited
PRL for several days and was a subject in Series 101."

    ????? Series 101 of 11?????

Did they do more than those 11 series, then picked the best ones
for publication?  No wonder that they needed one week for one trial.

Or is it a code?  101 - first pilot series, 201 - first formal
series with novice receivers, 301 - first formal series with
experienced recievers?

I think the presentation of this experiment has a distinct smell
of bias.  The only "experts on simulation of psi ability" (whose
opinion on psi I don't know) looked at the experiment only for
some days, instead of watching al the time, and the Utts paper
presents the issue through the glasses of two psi proponents:
First the data run through the Honorton filter, and the outcome
runs through the Utts filter.  I couldn't get the "Journal of
Parapsychology" in the University library, so I can't reduce
the filter level for me.

As Hyman said, if this is replicable, we have something.
(And if it is really flawless)


The rest of the presented meta-analyses is not well documented
(half a page for each), but I noted that Honorton and Ferrari
in their precognition analysis used the same questionable
Signal Dilution Method for determining experiment quality as
Radin and Nelson:   There were 8 potential flaws coded in binary
flaw variables (R&N: 16), and they were simply added, giving
the total quality.

Radin and Ferrari (Attempts to Influence Dice) used 11 quality
measures which were "combined [..] with information on method of
tossing the dice," probably in the same way.

(Hyman in the above ganzfeld analysis did it more intelligently:
"Using cluster and factor analyses, the 12 binary flaw variables
were combined into three new variables, which Hyman named
General Security, Statistics and Controls".  That's not unlike my
proposition in February.)

-- 
-Caddy--(thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany)-----
The question of whether the electron is a wave or a particle
has a clear and definite answer:  No.