Comments on: Telephone Telepathy. http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/06/telephone-telepathy/ The Neat Side of the Web Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:57:23 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Alex http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/06/telephone-telepathy/comment-page-1/#comment-35031 Alex Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:03:53 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/06/telephone-telepathy/#comment-35031 Weird experimental results are what make science fun! See also: <a href="http://www.neatorama.com/2006/06/27/things-that-dont-make-scientific-sense-4-the-homeopathy-experiment/" rel="nofollow">Things That Don't Make Scientific Sense</a>, about an experiment on homeopathy conducted by a scientist bent on debunking it - the only thing was, she actually got the opposite result! Weird experimental results are what make science fun!

See also: Things That Don't Make Scientific Sense, about an experiment on homeopathy conducted by a scientist bent on debunking it - the only thing was, she actually got the opposite result!

]]> By: Akiro http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/06/telephone-telepathy/comment-page-1/#comment-35000 Akiro Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:31:34 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/06/telephone-telepathy/#comment-35000 In response to Erik, A study being double blind has to do with the researcher knowing what condition the participant is going to experience. Although, Sheldrake's experiement seems to have the researcher informed, the random selection of whom is called is most likely not handpicked. Research in remote viewing and telepathy involves random number generators for chooseing levels of a variable, in this case who is called. In response to Ted, I would agree this experiment clearly does not prove telepathy, but its purpose is to investigate a specific phenomenon with telephones. People cannot be proven as "good guessers". Guessing 1 correct answer out of 4 possible should always result in about 25% accuracy. That is probability. Anything statistically significantly higher would mean something is influencing the choice. Is it a telephone telepathy phenomenon? perhaps poor research design? We cannot say for sure without replication. At any rate take the results with a grain of salt, but don't discredit it the US Government researched remote viewing extensively and so do many scientists today. I myself have worked on the research at Eastern Illinois University and we found some interesting results. Sadly no telepathy or other fun mind powers proven yet. We shall continue to be skeptics. In response to Erik,
A study being double blind has to do with the researcher knowing what condition the participant is going to experience. Although, Sheldrake's experiement seems to have the researcher informed, the random selection of whom is called is most likely not handpicked. Research in remote viewing and telepathy involves random number generators for chooseing levels of a variable, in this case who is called.

In response to Ted,
I would agree this experiment clearly does not prove telepathy, but its purpose is to investigate a specific phenomenon with telephones.

People cannot be proven as "good guessers". Guessing 1 correct answer out of 4 possible should always result in about 25% accuracy. That is probability. Anything statistically significantly higher would mean something is influencing the choice. Is it a telephone telepathy phenomenon? perhaps poor research design? We cannot say for sure without replication.

At any rate take the results with a grain of salt, but don't discredit it the US Government researched remote viewing extensively and so do many scientists today. I myself have worked on the research at Eastern Illinois University and we found some interesting results. Sadly no telepathy or other fun mind powers proven yet. We shall continue to be skeptics.

]]> By: ted http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/06/telephone-telepathy/comment-page-1/#comment-34888 ted Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:36:28 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/06/telephone-telepathy/#comment-34888 I just lost a little respect for the respected Trinity College. This doen't prove telepathy. It just proves that people are good guessers when it comes to who's calling, especially when you narrow it down to one of four people. At least they didn't waste their research money on something silly, like a cure for cancer or ways to reduce greenhouse gases. I just lost a little respect for the respected Trinity College.

This doen't prove telepathy. It just proves that people are good guessers when it comes to who's calling, especially when you narrow it down to one of four people.

At least they didn't waste their research money on something silly, like a cure for cancer or ways to reduce greenhouse gases.

]]> By: Erik http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/06/telephone-telepathy/comment-page-1/#comment-34827 Erik Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:08:21 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/06/telephone-telepathy/#comment-34827 There's nothing here about it being double blind, so if the researchers did anything screwy with the data they received (for instance, calling the first of the four names listed a disproportional number of times, or subconsciously picking up on respondents' perceived level of affinity for the four people listed, etc), there's trouble. (And since half these trials were done over email, I'm less than inclined to believe that this was anything but a farce) Even disregarding tha, if you assume that all the variables were in fact controlled, the claim about "a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 chance!!~1!eleven" is still utterly absurd, given the small number of respondents. If he's serious, have him take a shot at the JREF prize; I'm sure randi would have a field day with it. There's nothing here about it being double blind, so if the researchers did anything screwy with the data they received (for instance, calling the first of the four names listed a disproportional number of times, or subconsciously picking up on respondents' perceived level of affinity for the four people listed, etc), there's trouble. (And since half these trials were done over email, I'm less than inclined to believe that this was anything but a farce) Even disregarding tha, if you assume that all the variables were in fact controlled, the claim about "a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 chance!!~1!eleven" is still utterly absurd, given the small number of respondents.

If he's serious, have him take a shot at the JREF prize; I'm sure randi would have a field day with it.

]]> By: Alex http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/06/telephone-telepathy/comment-page-1/#comment-34771 Alex Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:15:33 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/06/telephone-telepathy/#comment-34771 Not quite, Marco - the experiment was basically this: you're asked to give the name and number of 4 people that you know. The researcher will then call one person out of that 4 and tell that guy to call you. You don't know which of the four is called. Then, your phone rings, and you say "ah, it's so-and-so". So, you'd expect to "guess" right 25% of the time (1 out of 4). But the experiment's result is 45% of the time, the subjects get it right. Not quite, Marco - the experiment was basically this: you're asked to give the name and number of 4 people that you know.

The researcher will then call one person out of that 4 and tell that guy to call you. You don't know which of the four is called. Then, your phone rings, and you say "ah, it's so-and-so".

So, you'd expect to "guess" right 25% of the time (1 out of 4). But the experiment's result is 45% of the time, the subjects get it right.

]]> By: Marco McClean http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/06/telephone-telepathy/comment-page-1/#comment-34750 Marco McClean Thu, 07 Sep 2006 00:33:25 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/06/telephone-telepathy/#comment-34750 "Each person in the trials was asked to give researchers names and phone numbers of four relatives or friends." This biases the results. Who is most likely to call you? A friend or relative. Who are you most likely to think will call you? A friend or relative. It's not unlikely at all for you to guess correctly. In fact, the odds are good that you will, not billions to one against. Also, were callers and guessers alike told the purpose of the experiment before participating? If so, they all thought first of their friends who believe in telepathy, both the ones who gave names and phone numbers, and the ones who guessed who was calling. This isn't experimental proof of telepathy. It's a magic trick dressed up as science, and, sadly, reported as science. But you knew that. "Each person in the trials was asked to give researchers names and phone numbers of four relatives or friends." This biases the results. Who is most likely to call you? A friend or relative. Who are you most likely to think will call you? A friend or relative. It's not unlikely at all for you to guess correctly. In fact, the odds are good that you will, not billions to one against.

Also, were callers and guessers alike told the purpose of the experiment before participating? If so, they all thought first of their friends who believe in telepathy, both the ones who gave names and phone numbers, and the ones who guessed who was calling.

This isn't experimental proof of telepathy. It's a magic trick dressed up as science, and, sadly, reported as science. But you knew that.

]]>