The
book is almost as good a book as you could ever hope for in terms of
supplying laboratory evidence for ESP. But the book has one
shortcoming, in that the evidence results are presented not quite as
clearly as they could be. The main evidence is reported in tables
with columns marked “Dev.” and “C.R.” Someone unfamiliar with
statistics reading these tables may not be able to understand how
dramatic the results were as evidence. Sometimes the results list a
standard deviation in a column marked S.D., but most non-scientists
cannot tell the difference between a standard deviation of 2 and a standard
deviation of 30 (the first is weak evidence, and the latter is very
strong evidence).
In
the year 2018 there is a way to show how dramatic the results in this
book are. The method is to run computer simulations that perform
random guessing. For example, let us consider a result reported in
the Extra-Sensory Perception After Sixty Years book. It is the
result presented in Table 11, that in 1939 Pratt and
Woodruff did 60,000 trials in which the deviation above the chance
result was 489. Using a
computer program I wrote, I can run 100,000 simulated runs that each
involve 60,000 guesses, and I can see whether in any of these runs
there is a chance result as impressive as Pratt and Woodruff got.
Below
is a table comparing the Pratt and Woodruff result with the computer
simulations I ran using a program I wrote (the text of which is at
the end of this post).
Experimenter(s) | Pratt and Woodruff |
Year | 1939 |
Source |
Extra-Sensory
Perception After Sixty Years, Table 11 (URL).
See also this URL.
|
Number of Trials | 60000 |
Special test conditions | “Two experimenters, independent recording, sensory cues excluded, official record sheets, triple checked.” Opaque screens used between subject and experimenter. |
Probability of random guess being correct | 1 in 5 |
Number of correct guesses better than the number expected by chance | 489 |
Number of computer runs, each consisting of 60,000 trials guessing a number between 1 and 5 | 100000 |
Maximum number of correct guesses better than the number expected by chance, in any of these runs | 426 |
Average guess in these trials | 2.999984948333333 |
Number of runs matching or beating the human experimental result | 0 |
Program arguments (use code below to reproduce) | 100000 60000 5 |
So
in my computer experiments there were 100,000 runs that each
consisted of 60,000 trials (the same number as in the historical ESP
experiment described above). In the run that was most successful out
of the 100,000, there were 426 more correct guesses than would occur
on average by chance. But this best random result out of 100,000 was
much less impressive than the actual experimental tests involving
human subjects guessing, for in those actual tests involving humans
there were 489 more correct guesses than we would expect by chance.
You
can reproduce this result by compiling the code at the bottom of this
post in a Java compiler, and using “100000 60000 5” as the
program arguments.
In
row 4 of Table 5 of the book we have data that corresponds to the top
rows of the table below. The data is for ESP experiments in which
the probability of guessing correctly was 1 in 5. The experiments
were done between 1934 and 1939, by a variety of experimenters
including Rhine.
Experimenter(s) | Rhine and others |
Year | 1934 to 1939 |
Source |
Extra-Sensory
Perception After Sixty Years, Table 5, Row 4 (URL)
|
Number of Trials | 2757854 |
Probability of random guess being correct | 1 in 5 |
Number of correct guesses better than the number expected by chance | 52720 |
Number of computer runs, each consisting of 2757854 trials guessing a number between 1 and 5 | 10000 |
Maximum number of correct guesses better than the number expected by chance, in any of these runs | 2113 |
Average guess in these trials |
2.999995953592902
|
Number of runs matching or beating the human experimental result | 0 |
Program arguments (use code below to reproduce) | 10000 2757854 5 |
So
in my computer experiments there were 10,000 runs that each consisted
of 2,757,854 random trials (the same number in the historical ESP
tests mentioned above). In the run that was most successful out of
the 10,000, there were 2113 more correct guesses than would occur on
average by chance. But this best random result out of 10,000 was very
much less impressive than the actual experimental tests involving
human subjects guessing, for in those actual tests involving humans
there were 52,720 more correct guesses than we would expect by
chance.
You
can reproduce this result by compiling the code at the bottom of this
post in a Java compiler, and using “10000 2757854 5” as the
program arguments, although when I did this using the NetBeans Java
compiler, it took 23 minutes for the program to finish.
Zener cards used in ESP experiments
I can only wonder how many runs I would have to do in excess of 10,000 to get a random result as good as the result produced by actual human guessers. Given the very large gap between the 2113 number reported above and the 52,720 number given above, I think I would have to let the computer run for so long that it produced millions or billions or trillions of runs. I would probably die before the computer simulated result reached an excess above chance as great as 52,720.
For the next comparison I will use a test Rhine made with Hubert Pearce, who produced astonishing results under ESP tests. I will only cite only the results produced under the strict condition of an opaque screen between the subject (Pearce) and the experimenter.
Experimenter(s) | Rhine |
Year | 1937 |
Source |
http://www.sacred-texts.com/psi/esp/esp14.htm (URL)
|
Number of Trials | 600 |
Special test conditions | Screen between experimenter and subject |
Probability of random guess being correct | 1 in 5 |
Number of correct guesses better than the number expected by chance | 95 |
Number of computer runs, each consisting of 600 trials guessing a number between 1 and 5 | 1000000 |
Maximum number of correct guesses better than the number expected by chance, in any of these runs | 50 |
Average guess in these trials |
3.0000910866666666
|
Number of runs matching or beating the human experimental result | 0 |
Program arguments (use code below to reproduce) | 1000000 600 5 |
So
in my computer experiments there were 1,000,000 runs that each
consisted of 600 random trials (the same number in the historical ESP experiment
mentioned above). In the run that was most successful out of the one
million runs, there were 50 more correct guesses than would occur on
average by chance. But this best random result out of these million
runs was much less impressive than the actual experimental tests
involving a human subject guessing, for in those actual tests there
were 95 more correct guesses than we would expect by chance.
ESP research didn't stop in the 1930's. There have been many ESP experiments in more recent decades. Some of the more successful have been tests using the ganzfeld sensory deprivation technique. In 2010 Storm and Tressoldi did a meta-analysis of ganzfeld ESP experiments, in a paper published in a scientific journal. The analysis summarized the results of 63 studies in which there were four possible answers. The studies involved 4442 trials and 1326 hits (correct answers), which was an accuracy rate of 29.9%, much higher than the 25% rate expected by chance. The table below compares this result with the result obtained in a computer test.
Experimenter(s) | Various |
Year | 1992 – 2008 |
Source | “Meta-Analysis
of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the Noise
Reduction Model in Parapsychology” by Lance Storm, Patrizio
Tressoldi and Lorenzo
Di Risio
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Storm2010MetaFreeResp.pdf
Page
475
|
Number of Trials |
4442
|
Special test conditions | Sensory deprivation of subjects |
Probability of random guess being correct | 1 in 4 |
Number of correct guesses better than the number expected by chance | 215 |
Number of computer runs, each consisting of 4442 trials guessing a number between 1 and 4 | 100000 |
Maximum number of correct guesses better than the number expected by chance, in any of these runs | 134 |
Average guess in these trials |
2.5000297208464657
|
Number of runs matching or beating the human experimental result | 0 |
Program arguments (use code below to reproduce) | 100000 4442 4 |
So
in my computer experiments there were 100,000 runs that each
consisted of 4442 random trials (the number in the set of ESP
experiments discussed above). In the run that was most successful out
of the 4442, there were 134 more correct guesses than would occur on
average by chance. But this best random result out of 100,000 was
much less impressive than the actual experimental tests involving
human subjects guessing, for in those actual tests involving humans
there were 215 more correct guesses than we would expect by chance.
You
can reproduce this result by compiling the code at the bottom of this
post in a Java compiler, and using “100000 4442 4” as the
program arguments.
These
computer simulations help show that the experimental evidence for
extrasensory perception (ESP) is overwhelming. In not one of the more
than 1,200,000 simulations did the computer guessing produce a result
anywhere near as high as was obtained using human subjects. Three of
the four experimental results involved special precautions that
should have excluded any reasonable possibility of cheating. In the
book Extra-Sensory Perception After Sixty Years the authors
address and debunk all of the common objections made against
laboratory research into ESP.
Very
many scientists reject the evidence for ESP, even though the evidence
for ESP is vastly stronger than the evidence for some of the things
that scientists believe in. Here is an example. Scientists tell us
in a matter-of-fact manner that the Higgs Boson exists. But the
wikipedia.org article on the Higgs Boson tells us that it was
established with experimental evidence that had a standard deviation
of merely 5.9 sigma, which corresponds to a probability of about 1 in 588 million of occurring by chance. That's an experimental result not nearly as strong as the Rhine result mentioned above.
Another book you can read online (at this URL) is the "Handbook of Tests in Parapsychology" by Betty Humphrey. We read on page 42 of that book that a Critical Ratio of 5.0 corresponds to a probability of 1 in 3,384,000. The Pratt-Woodruff experiment described above is listed in the Extra-sensory Perception After 60 Years book (Table 11) as having such a Critical Ratio of 5.0 (4.99 to be precise). The Humphrey book tells us that a Critical Ratio of 6 corresponds to a probability of 1 in 1,000,000,000. The Rhine set of 2757854 trials (discussed above) is listed in Table 5 of the Extra-sensory Perception After Sixty Years book as having an enormous Critical Ratio of 79. If a Critical Ratio of 5 equals a probability of 1 in 3,384,000, and a Critical Ratio of 6 equals a probability of 1 in 1,000,000,000, you can get an idea of what a "never by chance in the history of the universe" probability would correspond to a a Critical Ratio of 79. Such a result is vastly more impressive than the 5.9 sigma result cited for the Higgs Boson. In the Riess ESP test discussed here, a test in which the subject and the experimenter were in separate buildings, a young woman achieved a phenomenal 73 percent accuracy rate (making 1850 guesses that should only have been 20 percent accurate by chance). The Critical Ratio for that experiment was 53.
Inexplicably, many a physicist believes in the Higgs Boson, but not in ESP, even though the experimental evidence is incomparably stronger for ESP. The evidence for ESP includes other experimental results even stronger than the ones mentioned here (see the table at the end of this post for examples), along with a vast amount of anecdotal evidence in which people sensed or had thoughts of things that had not been revealed by their senses.
Another book you can read online (at this URL) is the "Handbook of Tests in Parapsychology" by Betty Humphrey. We read on page 42 of that book that a Critical Ratio of 5.0 corresponds to a probability of 1 in 3,384,000. The Pratt-Woodruff experiment described above is listed in the Extra-sensory Perception After 60 Years book (Table 11) as having such a Critical Ratio of 5.0 (4.99 to be precise). The Humphrey book tells us that a Critical Ratio of 6 corresponds to a probability of 1 in 1,000,000,000. The Rhine set of 2757854 trials (discussed above) is listed in Table 5 of the Extra-sensory Perception After Sixty Years book as having an enormous Critical Ratio of 79. If a Critical Ratio of 5 equals a probability of 1 in 3,384,000, and a Critical Ratio of 6 equals a probability of 1 in 1,000,000,000, you can get an idea of what a "never by chance in the history of the universe" probability would correspond to a a Critical Ratio of 79. Such a result is vastly more impressive than the 5.9 sigma result cited for the Higgs Boson. In the Riess ESP test discussed here, a test in which the subject and the experimenter were in separate buildings, a young woman achieved a phenomenal 73 percent accuracy rate (making 1850 guesses that should only have been 20 percent accurate by chance). The Critical Ratio for that experiment was 53.
Inexplicably, many a physicist believes in the Higgs Boson, but not in ESP, even though the experimental evidence is incomparably stronger for ESP. The evidence for ESP includes other experimental results even stronger than the ones mentioned here (see the table at the end of this post for examples), along with a vast amount of anecdotal evidence in which people sensed or had thoughts of things that had not been revealed by their senses.
Below is the simple Java code I used for these experiments. You can run these experiments (using the program arguments listed above) by compiling this code with a Java compiler (I used the Net Beans compiler).
import java.math.*;
import java.util.Random;
/**
*
* @author Mark
*/
public class RandomNumberTrials {
/**
* @param args the command line arguments
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
if (args.length < 3)
{
System.out.println("Must supply 3 program arguments:");
System.out.println("Number of runs, number of trials per run, max guess per trial");
return;
}
long numberOfRuns = Long.parseLong(args[0]);
long numberOfTrials = Long.parseLong(args[1]);
int maxGuessPerTrial = Integer.parseInt(args[2]);
double averageResult = 0;
long maxNumberOfSuccesses = 0;
long totalTrials = 0;
double resultTotal = 0;
for (long i = 0; i < numberOfRuns; i++)
{
Random rand = new Random();
int numberOfSuccesses = 0;
for (long j = 0; j < numberOfTrials; j++)
{
int randomInt = getRandomNumber(rand, maxGuessPerTrial);
int guess = getRandomNumber(rand, maxGuessPerTrial);
if (randomInt == guess)
numberOfSuccesses++;
if (numberOfSuccesses > maxNumberOfSuccesses)
maxNumberOfSuccesses = numberOfSuccesses;
totalTrials++;
resultTotal += guess;
}
}
System.out.println("Ran " + numberOfRuns + " each with " + numberOfTrials + " trials.");
System.out.println("Highest number of successes: " + maxNumberOfSuccesses);
double averageExpectedResult = numberOfTrials / maxGuessPerTrial;
double deviation = maxNumberOfSuccesses - averageExpectedResult;
System.out.println("Highest deviation above expected result: " + deviation);
averageResult = resultTotal/totalTrials;
System.out.println("Average result = " + averageResult);
}
static public int getRandomNumber( Random rand, int highestNum)
{
int retVal = rand.nextInt(highestNum+1);
while (retVal == 0)
// This function returns a number between 0 and highestNum
retVal = rand.nextInt(highestNum+1);
//System.out.println("Random number = " + retVal);
return retVal;
}
}
Postscript: I have had many personal experiences strongly suggestive of extrasensory perception. I'll give just one example, not at all the most impressive one. I once asked one of my daughters to fill in the statement "Why is there ___ rather than ___?" I was thinking of the classic philosophical question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" but also thought of the question, "Why is there war rather than peace?" My daughter answered, "Why is there fighting rather than peace?" I asked her to ask my wife the question over the phone, and my wife said that there was too much noise where she was, and she needed a peaceful place to think about it. She later answered, "Why is there so much death rather than life?" which is pretty much the same as "Why is there war rather than peace?" I then asked the question by email to my other daughter, and she answered, "Why is there war rather than peace?" You can try this with your friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment