ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags parapsychology , dick bierman , deepak chopra , clairvoyance

Reply
Old 1st June 2007, 06:07 PM   #1
normdoering
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 656
Anyone know about Dr. Dick Bierman?

Woo woo master Deepak Chopra is touting him:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak...y_b_50389.html

Dr. Dick Bierman is using real-time brain scans to see if people sense things before they happen.

Sounds like something that needs to be given Randi's attention.
normdoering is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2007, 06:47 PM   #2
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,012
IIRC this has been done before, flopped. D-Pack tout..tout..tout.
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2007, 07:11 PM   #3
normdoering
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
IIRC this has been done before, flopped. D-Pack tout..tout..tout.
Any information on the web you can link?
normdoering is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2007, 04:20 AM   #4
Ersby
Fortean
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,871
Bierman's quite an interesting guy. He's been working in parapsychology for years, and has done quite a bit of ganzfeld work. He's written a couple of nice debunking papers, most impressively about Sheldrake's staring experiments, and how the results Sheldrake got were probably due to a simple guessing technique and an imbalance in the "random" patterns used. He's certainly someone I pay attention to, even if I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions. I'm looking forward to the paper.
__________________
"Once a man admits complete and unshakeable faith in his own integrity, he is in an excellent frame of mind to be approached by con men." David W. Maurer, "The Big Con"
Ersby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2007, 05:56 AM   #5
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,709
If Chopra is touting it, it's quite possibly a benign report that has been entirely misconstrued, mined, and selectively quoted, etc.
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2007, 08:19 AM   #6
normdoering
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Ersby View Post
Bierman's quite an interesting guy. He's been working in parapsychology for years, and has done quite a bit of ganzfeld work. He's written a couple of nice debunking papers, most impressively about Sheldrake's staring experiments, and how the results Sheldrake got were probably due to a simple guessing technique and an imbalance in the "random" patterns used. He's certainly someone I pay attention to, even if I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions. I'm looking forward to the paper.
Wow, that's not the impression I got reading this article Deepak linked:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1965

I gave the article a read and looked for The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science.
http://skeptically.org/skepticism/id1.html

The first warning sign is that the discovery is pitched directly to the media.

And what do we find in the article? This brief paragraph:
Quote:
For the results - released exclusively to the Daily Mail - suggest that ordinary people really do have a sixth sense that can help them 'see' the future.
The third sign is that the scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. This sign is also there in the article:

Quote:
Bierman looked inside the brains of volunteers using a hospital MRI scanner while he repeated Dr Radin's experiments….
Although extremely complex, and with each analysis taking weeks of computing time, he has run the experiments twice involving more than 20 volunteers.
The forth sign is the use of anecdotal evidence. And if you read the article you'll see plenty of that with no hint of all the things that go wrong with anecdotal evidence.
normdoering is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2007, 10:04 AM   #7
davidsmith73
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,697
This has been covered three times now with not one thread giving a link to the actual scientific experiment behind the Daily Mail article.

First rule of critical thinking - always go to the primary source:

http://m0134.fmg.uva.nl/publications...ent.pa2002.doc

A 2002 paper, so I expect he'll be submitting one to peer-review which may have more results. Very exciting since it is another conceptual replication of presentiment.

So there's the basic experimental design. Lets see some real criticism please, without the ad hominem.
davidsmith73 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2007, 10:04 AM   #8
Ersby
Fortean
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by normdoering View Post
Wow, that's not the impression I got reading this article Deepak linked:
An article that wasn't written by Bierman. I'll wait for the paper to be published.
__________________
"Once a man admits complete and unshakeable faith in his own integrity, he is in an excellent frame of mind to be approached by con men." David W. Maurer, "The Big Con"
Ersby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2007, 10:06 AM   #9
davidsmith73
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,697
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by Ersby View Post
An article that wasn't written by Bierman. I'll wait for the paper to be published.
hooray, at least there one person here who can tell the difference between bad journalism and scientific research.
davidsmith73 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2007, 10:32 AM   #10
Ersby
Fortean
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,871
Thanks.

I found this paper that discusses how much of an effect expectation bias could have on his 2002 results:

http://m0134.fmg.uva.nl/publications...ias_PA2002.pdf
__________________
"Once a man admits complete and unshakeable faith in his own integrity, he is in an excellent frame of mind to be approached by con men." David W. Maurer, "The Big Con"
Ersby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2007, 11:04 AM   #11
normdoering
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by davidsmith73 View Post
This has been covered three times now with not one thread giving a link to the actual scientific experiment behind the Daily Mail article.
Link them.

Quote:
First rule of critical thinking - always go to the primary source:

http://m0134.fmg.uva.nl/publications...ent.pa2002.doc

A 2002 paper, so I expect he'll be submitting one to peer-review which may have more results. Very exciting since it is another conceptual replication of presentiment.

So there's the basic experimental design. Lets see some real criticism please, without the ad hominem.
What ad hominem?

Thanks for the link. It's easier to do this research with the help of people who know where to dig this stuff up. This may have been covered three times here before but I wouldn't know where to find those threads. Is there a search feature anywhere on this forum? I didn't see it.

I plan to do something on my blog about this:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

Your help will be noted.
normdoering is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2007, 11:13 AM   #12
strathmeyer
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by davidsmith73 View Post
This has been covered three times now with not one thread giving a link to the actual scientific experiment behind the Daily Mail article.

...

So there's the basic experimental design. Lets see some real criticism please, without the ad hominem.
Are you saying we should repeat our criticisms from the past three threads?

Please, I'm tired.
strathmeyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2007, 11:51 AM   #13
normdoering
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by strathmeyer View Post
Are you saying we should repeat our criticisms from the past three threads?

Please, I'm tired.
No, do you not pay attention? I said link them. Just link the threads to this one. I'll read those threads if I can find them.
normdoering is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2007, 12:12 PM   #14
davidsmith73
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,697
Originally Posted by Ersby View Post
Thanks.

I found this paper that discusses how much of an effect expectation bias could have on his 2002 results
Great paper.

Although I haven't read it thoroughly, it seems expectation bias is a probable cause if arousal levels are not pooled across subjects before an average is calculated. If means are calculated after pooling across subjects then the expectation bias is "extremely small". According to this paper, most published presentiment experiments calculate means after pooling.

I do think the authors are a bit over cautious though. Ok, they have demonstrated that an expectation bias, although very small, is very likely to exist within the real experimental data. And because of that, they say that statistical analyses of real data is "very difficult or impossible to perform". I presume this is because it is very difficult to calculate the precise contribution of the expectation bias to a statistically significant result. But surely, if the expectation bias is extremely small and the real presentiment effect relatively larger, then we could safely assume that the bias did not contribute to the results. Thats just my view on things but I am no statistician.

Interestingly, in the discussion section they mention an alternative experimental design proposed by James Spottiswoode that would get round the bias. I believe Spottiswoode has now done an experiment using this design with Edwin May using acoustic stimuli and got positive results. Think its this one:

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/MPZjacm.pdf

Who says parapsychologists don't respond to criticism

I hope that Biermans next paper on fMRI presentiment will address these expectation bias problems.
davidsmith73 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2007, 12:16 PM   #15
davidsmith73
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,697
Originally Posted by strathmeyer View Post
Are you saying we should repeat our criticisms from the past three threads?
All I read in those past threads were criticisms of the Daily Mail article, not the science behind the article.
davidsmith73 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2007, 12:49 PM   #16
strathmeyer
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,380
Wasn't paying attention, sorry, will look at the PDF when I have time. (Right now all I have time for is flaming, apparently.) I hope it explains it better than "we showed people pictures, some of them horrible, and then some people started to react right before we showed them more pictures."
strathmeyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2007, 10:47 AM   #17
normdoering
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by strathmeyer View Post
... will look at the PDF when I have time.
But not soon enough to contribute your insights to my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007...a-woo-woo.html
normdoering is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:36 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.