Paranormal Start‑class

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I'd like to know if the fact that this article is in the 'pseudoscience' category does have any ground. As far as I know, the project does research related to statistics (which is a science). It does use abstract vocabulary at many points, but when it explains the experimental processes, it doesn't seem inaccurate or irrational to me. --TEO64X 09:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is pseudoscience because they measure an effect, but they are not looking for an explanation, they are prepossed with the idea that it is caused by collective consciousness in the world. Science would look for explanations, EGG Project only looks at its own explanation. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Arkesteijn's definition of pseudoscience is different most peoples'. In any case, much of the GCP's analytical work is focused on understanding the structure of the data in service of explanations or at least good models to guide further research. We think of "collective consciousness" in terms of operational definitions. Analysis-based modeling and unambiguous definitions are classic hallmarks of science. Roger Nelson (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find any information on your site that considers or investigates other explanations for this phenomenon, nor did I find any information that investigates the anomalies that are not somewhere near a major event, nor did I find any informations that would make it plausible that a random generator is in fact an antenne for consciousness, nor did I find any information about the verification and stamping of your EGGS, nor did I find any information about the trustworthiness of your partners where you place your EGGS, nor did I find any information about your efforts to see if you might be wrong. I could go on, but pseudoscience is written all over your organisation. Kind regards, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor experiment design, unclear objectives for confirmation of existence of phenomenon, lack of a mechanism for the proposed phenomenon, misinterpretation of stastical data all put this into the category of pseudoscience.Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge the effect they are hypothesising is impossible under the currently accepted laws of physics. Adding to that the poor application of the scientific process that Simonm223 noted above, firmly puts this subject in the realm of pseudoscience. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering precognition requires cause to come after effect, yes that is problematic. Unless, of course, they postulate that the psychic waves are the cause of the event and that's completely lacking in parsimony.Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sometimes the mechanism needs to come later; there is no any scientist on earth who knows the exact mechanism of gravity, but humankind accepts Law_of_gravitation as a physical law and continue to use gravitational constant and gravitational acceleration in engineering calculations. Due to the fact that we don't know the mechanism yet, should we stop using them? Would you care to state specifically which part of the design of the experiment is poor, and to give an example to the misinterpretation of statistical data? Logos5557 (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to start with the experiment is too vague. They look for anything they believe to be anomalous in a set of random numbers and then look around to see if it vaguely correlates to something important happening. It reeks of confirmation bias from stem to stern.Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems vague at first look, but after seeing the backgrounds of the people involved and the methodology used, it is not so easy to stick to the prejudice. They hypothesize beforehand that less randomness will be observed during the events which are known for sure to happen, like new year eves, eclipses, some gatherings, celebrations etc. And then they analyze the data and see that there were statistically less randomnesses happening during those hypothesized events. They say that those statistically less randomnesses may be correlated to the global consciousness. In order to be able to reach some definite conclusions, they need to continue to record and analyse. They also look at the data recorded during the catastrophic events (or the ones which nobody knows to happen) afterwards and see whether there is less randomness or not. Logos5557 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you sincerely not see the confirmation bias in that experiment structure? Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the nature of the phenomenon, it looks as if there is confirmation bias in this experiment, but actually there is not.

Nelson explains here; "Dr. Roger Nelson: Well, you’re really quite right. In my experience, they’re rare. Yes, I have encountered a few, mostly years ago, but rather recently in a guy named Jeff Scargle who I think may be blocked from ever believing this is real. But at least what he does is look at the situation and say, “You’re using an exclusive XOR to remove bias from your data,” and he says, “That means you are removing any possibility of affecting your data.” He says, “You’re throwing out the baby with the bath water, ” and so forth in that vein. The problem is that the data that we collect actually showed changes in spite of throwing out the baby with the bath water. So that means that his background of assumptions is wrong. But still, he’s asking a serious question which results in us stirring the pot a little deeper, trying to find out well, if his idea has merit at all, if he’s even half right, then maybe we are throwing half the baby out with the bath water. Let’s see what would happen if we try to understand how something could possibly get through the XOR.

Alex Tsakiris: Let’s take that example, because I read Scargle’s paper and one thing that I pointed out to Brian Dunning, who I had this conversation with, who is a skeptic and publishes a very popular skeptical blog and podcast called Skeptoid. In part of the dialogue he had referenced Scargle’s paper so I went and looked at Scargle’s paper. First thing, I need to kind of re-emphasize is that Scargle’s paper is published right alongside your paper and Raden’s paper in The Journal of Scientific Exploration. So sometimes when skeptics call out this paper as some kind of criticism, it seems to me like a pretty fair scientific debate. Everyone’s talking to each other, everyone’s publishing in the same journal, and everyone’s trying to figure out the truth.

Dr. Roger Nelson: Yes.

Alex Tsakiris: So that’s point Number One. Point Number Two, I read Scargle’s paper and I have to say personally, I think you’re being a little bit too generous.

Dr. Roger Nelson: [Laughs]

Alex Tsakiris: He seems to be nipping at your heels on some minor, minor stuff. The XOR stuff is really interesting, but the logic that he applies to why this is such a huge oversight is kind of strange, too. It’s this, oh, you guys claim that there’s this conscousness effect. Aren’t you eliminating it by XORing it out? The obvious argument to that is, well, what you just said. Perhaps some is being eliminated but still there is a lot there to look at. I don’t see that as a real substantive claim. Taking that all aside, here’s what I’d like to ask. What’s been the follow-up to that? Has Scargle come back? Has he collaborated? Has he retracted any bit on his stance or his position, or has he just gone away?

Dr. Roger Nelson: He has not retracted anything. In fact, because I kind of present him as a reasonable skeptic, he gets interviewed because I tell people who are interviewing me from NBC or whatever, they will want to know who can they talk to who’s a reasonable skeptic. So I give them Scargle’s name. He appears in one interview saying after things have been explained, how it all works and so forth, he says, “Well, unusual things will happen in random data. And so if you look long enough, you’re going to find something unusual.” So I get to respond to that in the interview saying, “All right, that’s true, but what we show in the data and the whole experiment is that the likelihood of this particular unusual thing happening is on the order of one in a million or some other large number.” So it becomes, I guess, your point is manifest in what he does in that. Now he’s not talking about XOR, he’s saying or implying at least, that we’re picking out the unusual bits and saying, “See? Here’s something unusual.” Which is, of course, not what we do.".

Radin adresses confirmation bias issue in his blog here. Logos5557 (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radin's interpretation is flawed. The use of an exclusive or does not eliminate the risk of bias. In fact it remains as biassed as this interview snippet you posted.Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the rest of the dialogues are in the link given. Radin's interpretation is quite neutral. They're presenting their arguments against confirmation bias claims in neutral ways. Note that, discarding the statistically less random data which coincide with global events, with the belief of there can be no correlation, is the real confirmation bias. Logos5557 (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any evidence that this so-called study is even blinded. I have seen nothing to suggest that their "anomalies" are at all statistically significant. What I see is people looking for "anomalies" and, surprise! finding them. The dialogues have a heavy POV and are proof of nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent the study is blinded; the people in the world who affect random number generators are blinded to the study, to the experiment, to the existence of RNGs etc. This paper talks about experiments carried out with portable RNGs. These are the results of the study. As far as I know, they do not claim that their "anomalies" are all statistically significant, either. Logos5557 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't blinding at all. And that assumes that random people in the world have an effect again with the confirmation bias. The more you tell me about this "project" the stronger the case for it being pseudoscience becomes. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're just throwing some concepts (confirmation bias, poor experiment design, blinding etc.) without arguing in detail how this project does not conform to those, and when you're not satisfied with the answer, you shortcut to the judgement (which is confirmation bias by the way) and claim that it is pseudoscience. Would you mind stating how blinding would apply in this case. How could this study be blinded? This is not a drug trial. What would double-blinding this study change or bring? Logos5557 (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In specific, in order to be valid, an experiment such as this would have to be at the very least properly double-blinded. In other words the researchers should not be able to know ahead of the experiment which "spikes" correlate with "important events" and which do not. This is not at all the case. This would provide minimal protection against confirmation bias though, as demonstrated through criticism of the MBTI this would not be entirely sufficient to ensure a valid design. The experiment also suffers from serious design issues over the nature of an important event. Events important to whom? This is another place in which serious bias creeps into the work as the nature of an important event is decided by the researchers and is not dependent on specific criteria. They will even shift the time frame in order to correlate "anomalies" with "important events". It's just a mess and it is clearly pseudoscience. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree completely. Double-blinding is not always required for validity; it can not be applied in all situations. You can talk about blinding and double blinding necessities for psi experiments, where individuals are tested for their psi abilities to affect randomness (in case of random number generation) or to predict somethings in advance. When there can be no interaction between RNGs and the "researcher/experimenter" and between RNGs and the "subjects" (unlike in psi experiments), blinding should not be a concern too much. There should be no argument over the importance of some events such as 9/11 terrorist attacks, new year eves, and the ones which pick extensive attention from all the world. I see the rest as just "experiences" for the project; when you have the data available why not look at others for which initial guess would be that those would get little attention. I don't think that, the researchers' not being able to know ahead of the experiment which "spikes" correlate with "important events" and which do not, would be double-blinding. Nevertheless, they have a dot as you may know, which provides the result of real time data analysis, that independent "experimenters" can check during "important" events. Logos5557 (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which new years eve? What makes Sept. 11, 2001 more important than Sept. 13, 2004?? And "no it's not" is not a valid reason for not-blinding. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All new years eves, when people stop doing what they routinely do and celebrate the coming year. Nothing seems to have happened in September_2004#September_13.2C_2004 as important as September 11 attacks. Logos5557 (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... what date is that for New Years? Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I can't think of anything important that happened on September 13, 2004, it's not like 1.5 million people had to be relocated because of a category 5 hurricane or something. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't get your point regarding new years. Do you mean new years are known beforehand and therefore should not be analysed? Do you really think, that's detrimental? Actually eclipses and new year eves are excellent chances to test global consciousness and locality. When statistically meaningful deviation from randomness travel across time zones the same as new year transition, that's something. Apparently, sept. 13 2004 was not as important as sept. 11 2001. It seems relocated 1.5 million people were not as impressive as the death of some thousands people in 9/11 attacks (at least 200 by jumping to their deaths from towers) and collapsed world trade center(which was unique in human history), to the billions of people on earth. Logos5557 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant literally which new years celebration. In the last year there have been various new years celebrations in various places on:

• Oct 31, 2008
• Dec 31, 2008
• Jan 1, 2009
• Jan 7, 2009
• Jan 26, 2009
• March 27, 2009
• April 13-14, 2009
• Sep. 18-20, 2009

So which one are you referring to? And the cultural centerism of assuming 1000 deaths are more important than millions of displaced people and billions of dollars of damage from one of the 10 worst recorded hurricanes ever is, again, bias. Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had you stated the numbers of people celebrating each of those different new years, it would be much easier for me to choose the one I am referring to. It was a typo, more than a thousand people died in 9/11 attacks. Well, it works almost as you mentioned; people of the world do not care for mass sufferings much (especially if it is a recurring event) but instead focus on the ones during which casualties are high. There were lots of hurricanes but only one 9/11 attacks. Have you seen any palestinian dancing and celebrating the hurricane? Logos5557 (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{undent} there is no need for further debate. The information you have provided supports the argument that this is a pseudoscience by any reasonable definition. I am sorry if you fail to see that but we are just arguing in circles. Your bias about a single bombing being more important than other major disasters because it happened to Americans doesn't change anything. Furthermore you have demonstrated the vagueness of claiming something like "new years" for an "important event" since you don't even know which new years was being discussed. I'm done with this. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other new year in the world which is celebrated by millions? No, the study checks the data for the ones happening at December 31s of each year. We are arguing in circles because you will not at all accept that your pseudoscience claim is not (and can not be) justified. You're creating or making up some strange connections between being not scientific and blinding, lack of a mechanism (I see that you no longer defend your position on this by the way; why?) etc. You also make some vague weasel assertions like misinterpretation of statistical data (have you analysed the statistical data) without even bothering to proove your claims. This is plain pseduoskepticism. Either proove your claims or do not make any baseless points. Logos5557 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other new year in the world which is celebrated by millions?

After the above comment I need to step back because if I don't my WP:SPADE will beat my WP:CIVIL to death and that would be bad. When I think of a way to formulate a response without breaking WP:CIVIL I will do so. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there any other new year in the world which is celebrated by hundreds of millions?" or "Is there any other new year in the world which is celebrated in all over the world?" or "Is there any other new year in the world which is celebrated by billions?". Happy now? The study checks December 31s of each year. So what's your point, if there is any? Logos5557 (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is all I'm going to say on your new year comments. Approximately 2.05 billion people celebrated new year on Jan. 26, 2009 this year. That is just under 1/3 of the world population. The cultural centerism in your recent arguments has reached the point where I am not comfortable continuing this debate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GCP is clearly very bad science and seems to be just general nuttery, but despite the obviously flawed design of their experiments they seem to be acting in good faith to perform a scientifically viable experiment and relatively small changes to their experimental procedure would result in a viable experiment. Actually calling it a "pseudoscientific experiment" in the article seems presumptuous and may violate wp:undue since why GCP may be considered pseudoscience isn't really clearly explained in the article. I suggest fleshing out the article more to show the flaws in GCP's methods rather than simply pronouncing editorial judgment on the subject. I suggest you both review wp:civil before continuing to pursue this argument. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to argue emotionally and concur I'm treading a thin line with WP:CIVIL here. I'm going to bow out for a while until I cool my jets and may come back when I can participate on this topic more constructively. Sorry. Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I couldn't make myself clear on palestinian remark; as most will remember some palestinians were dancing & celebrating 9/11 attacks since it was an attack by some arabs to Americans. Hurricanes on the other hand, frequently occur and generally other people in the world tend to halt their hatred and anger and tend to feel compassion. That's why I think 9/11 attacks were unique in human history considering the type of attack, casualties, the shock created etc. when compared to natural disasters. Chinese people use several calendars; Chinese calendar. Gregorian calendar was officially adopted, effective 1 January 1929. As far as I know they celebrate gregorian new year, too (Chinese New Year). Another point is; there are not much EGGs in China and considering the fact that locality was heavily observed during new year transitions, eclipses, etc., it can be said that the "consciousness" of chinese people are not reflected much in this project. Logos5557 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please stop this discussion. The measurements simply prove that the used RNG's are not really RNG's. My guess is that they just measure the correlation in the electro-magnetic noise generated by the abundantly available tv- or radiosets. They all transmit a tiny electro-magnetic signal, which in global events are correlated, only separated by a time delay. This is it. Nothing more, nothing less. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which measurements prove that? If there is a possibility of a RNG to be affected by "consciousness", which this project is researching, one should carry out testing RNGs' truly randomness in Mars or Moon.. If you carry out the study in a highly populated place, how can you be sure that RNGs you're testing were not "affected" by "consciousness". Regarding your guess (the correlation in the electro-magnetic noise generated by the abundantly available tv- or radiosets); remember that RNGs used in this study are shielded in order to protect them against such external effects. The last thing to be mentioned is; unless somebody come up with a source (not a lame skeptic blog or something, should be either a published paper or a reliable book) stating that this project is a bad science or pseudoscience with some valid arguments (not sweeping emotional personal opinions), I'm going to remove pseudoscience categorisation from the article. Logos5557 (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The measurements that are conducted world wide for some years now prove that. People behind this experiment are biased in saying this must be consciousness. Instead they would have to say, my RNG's are not random enough. Look, if this would be science, a proper approach would be to go into a lab and design a sensor that could detect consciousness, proven. Only then you would go out to conduct an experiment on global consciousness. Not the other way around, like is done here. "Oh look, we have a device, it seems to be doing something, we don't know how it works, but what comes out of it sure must be consciousness!" The RNG's are shielded, you say. I say, the RNG's are not shielded enough. Anyway, the researchers did not make any attempt to determine the influence of the electro magnetic noise, caused by daily life, on their results. If they would, they would probably find it is of much greater influence than consciousness, especially that noise that is caused by millions of TV-sets displaying the same image at more or less the same time. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your ideas are stranger than butterfly effect. "The measurements that are conducted world wide for some years now prove that"; still not clear which measurements are you talking about. People behind this experiment are saying that this may be correlated with global consciousness, there is no "must" in the equation. This is science because, they first went into the lab and carried out experiments on individuals. Results of those experiments inspired them to turn that into a global experiment. You're simplifying excessively (unsurprisingly) what they had done. How can someone summarize this project with such sentence "Oh look, we have a device, it seems to be doing something, we don't know how it works, but what comes out of it sure must be consciousness!", after looking at the list of GCP team? How do you know that the researchers did not make any attempt to determine the influence of the electro magnetic noise on RNGs? Why did they shield those RNGs? Do you think that a scientist who has some titles and degrees, would risk those by popping up on science arena without even bothering to make the preliminary checks on the equipment they would use. If you say RNGs are not shielded enough, where is your proof, or is there any proof published by somebody? You're just making up a story here; "If they would, they would probably find it is of much greater influence than consciousness". You should know that wikipedia is not a proper arena for OR and synthesis. That's why, users can't just base/justify their edits they make in articles on debates made in talk pages. Users should bring reliable secondary sources. Sorry but, statements full of "guess"es, "would"s, "could"s do not qualify as sources in wikipedia. I'm repeating once again; unless somebody come up with a source (not a lame skeptic blog or something, should be either a published paper or a reliable book) stating that this project is pseudoscience with some valid arguments (not sweeping emotional personal opinions), I'm going to remove pseudoscience categorisation from the article. Logos5557 (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The literature shows clear evidence of significant (by experiment standards) non-randomness in the baseline tests; at the time when the RNGs should have not had significant non-randomness. Rather than questioning if the RNGs were properly randomizing the researchers just said "well we must have psychically influenced the RNGs during calibration" as if that somehow circumvented the glaring flaw in the experiment equipment. Simonm223 (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started out asking to stop this pointless discussion, and now I am discussing. So this is my last response on the matter. You know what measurements I mean; they have been running these measurements for years now, sometimes picking out a sequence connecting it to a global event, when it seemed appropriate. But their flagship, the WTC-attack, crumbled in the hands of May and Spottiswoode.
I know they went into the lab, but what they designed is not a consciousness-sensor that answers to any scientific standard of quality. You are asking me a lot of questions, how do you know this, how do you know that. I can only respond, by saying, why don't they show this, why don't they prove that. It is not up to me, It is up to them. I am not credulous, they should be thorough. Any good scientist only publishes his findings after a solid research; it is a sign of pseudo-science to publish seemingly spectacular results up-front outside the scientific domain on a popular science style website. The truth is, real science doesn't want to touch projects like these with a ten-foot-pole, because they don't want their good name dirtied. But the lack of criticism leaves the general impression that this is real scientific research. Unless you find a scientific publication that discredits (and I mean discredit, not criticize) the results of May and Spottiswood, I am not responding anymore to this pointless argument. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since there seems no reputable source on the horizon stating that this study is pseudoscience, I'm removing the pseudoscience category from the article. Once somebody come up and justify with evidences instead of personal opinions on the subject matter, he/she can add it again. Where are the evidences/literature about the non-randomness in the baseline tests? Don't forget, if there is any, the tests should be on the equipment used in GCP not on some others used in some other experiments. Logos5557 (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was here to remove the pointless/baseless categorisation of pseudoscience, which is not backed by any source (not even by May and Spottiswoode). Users can not synthesize "things" out of publications, or from their ingenious "would"s, "could"s and "probably"s. I don't think that users claiming pseudoscience here, spent enough time for checking the findings before coming up with such judgements, that's what should be opposed. The latest edits you made, have nothing to do with the project, as you're very well aware; there is no mention of the project in Stanley's article and in fact that article is about another study. Therefore, please do not edit war any more and accept this plain fact. Logos5557 (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did any of these researchers bother coming up with strict standards for what defines a significant event? No, they didn't. Did they define how long readings should be considered related to those events? No, they didn't. Did the researchers account for and weigh misses the same as they did for hits? No, they didn't. Did the researchers compare those supposedly statistical readings to a random sample of readings, in order to account for random pools of apparent statistical significance? No, they didn't.

Their methodology appears strict only on the surface, but they fail to account for bias or follow all the rigors of the scientific method. So I ask you, why is the subject article not considered out-and-out pseudoscience? How is this listed alongside such things as consciousness studies and futurology?

I'm further adding a neutrality dispute flag, because criticisms and skeptical views have not been given nearly enough space in the article. 150.254.181.174 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Anon[reply]

The project actually gives thought for all of these subjects, but not necessarily very strict. The significant event definition seems most dubious, and there seems to be no real standards for it, only try at being objective. There is given thought on how long the readings should be related to the event, and the issued is adressed on the project page. Misses and weights are also accounted for. What comes to be the statistical analysis itself (excluding the subjective definition of significant event) it seems to be very rigorously controlled and mathematically sound. This of course is my impression, but the project does describe these things, so they aren't ignored.

[1] Lists as it getting support from 75 respected scientists from 41 different nations. Of course I have no clue what the definition of respected scientist is, but in my mind with possible support from scientific community on least part of the methodology and the fact that there is documentation on these issues, it's not valid to state that none of the above subjects weren't adressed.

I agree there not being lot of criticism of the project. Especially since this kind of project will likely attract a lot of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.15.97 (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No indication on reference page or on gcp homepage who these 75 "respected" scientists are. We should be careful about that source; let's not forget that huge list of human-cause climate change deniers who were presented as "respected scientists" and it turned out over half the list were TV weather men. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find an answer for this so far, but what does a random number generator have to do with human consciousness or traumatic global events? Why would the RNGs generate more 0s/1s in case of a global event? The GCP page talks about operators trying to influence the outcome of the RNGs, but what is the basis for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.50.207 (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They suggest that if they think really hard at the numbers they will become infinitesmally less random.Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no logical connection. There's no real sense in the project, it's cargo cult science. But it's a notably crack-pot project at a major university... Fences&Windows 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur entirely. If I thought otherwise there would be a PROD up by now. As has been noted previously I tend to be a bit of deletionist and tend to propose the deletion of borderline articles based on the postulate that the ones worth keeping will get fixed faster if there is a deadline.  ;) Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they're summing up the results of all 65 RNGs. Or do they compare performances of each or closely located RNGs? Is there any method to "shield" these from the outside world? Are the ones protected by tinfoil hats revealing similar peaks? How about seasonal effects? Though a bit like hundredth-monkey effect, stunning I must say: "a few minutes around midnight on any New Years Eve". Santa Claus? Logos5557 (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering of Global Mind by Roger Nelson, early 2002 gives some answers to the above. It seems they're able to observe locality during some major events; "Although some other cases suggest otherwise, these eclipse results indicate that the REGs are most sensitive to relatively local influences, in apparent contradiction of one of our in-going assumptions, which says that the location of events relative to the eggs should be unimportant. If this indication is confirmed in other assessments, it means that although the anomalous interaction of minds and machines that we use for our measure is nonlocal, it isn't unboundedly so. The intensity of regard, or the concentration of attention may have an effect that is stronger on machines least distant from the people who generate the group consciousness. At the same time, we must emphasize that other evidence suggests a different relationship. We have to learn much more before drawing conclusions in this deeply complex area.". They were also able to observe "less random" performances from RNGs during new year transition in a "zone by zone" fashion; "New Years, 1998, presented an excellent opportunity to test the essential notion that large numbers of us joining in a mutually engaging event may generate a global consciousness capable of affecting the EGG detectors. Of course New Years doesn't happen all at once, but again and again as the earth turns and brings the end of the old and the beginning of the new to each time zone. Our plan was to gather the data surrounding each of the midnights, and to compound all of the time zones into a single dataset that would represent a brief period marking the height of celebration -- everywhere. When this was done, the result was a spectacular confirmation of the prediction: data from the ten-minute period around midnight differed from what theory and calibrations predict, with a probability of three parts in 1000 that the deviation was just chance fluctuation. The scores were slightly, but consistently less random than at other times; they were more structured than they were supposed to be. Figure 4 shows the composite trend, which steadily departs from the expectation for a typical random walk such as that shown in the previous figure for calibration data". Contrary to the critic here, it seems that the earthquake in Turkey, 1999 resulted in deviation from randomness in the data given by RNGs; "It is worth noting that the composite of US eggs shows stronger deviation than those in Europe in Dick's detailed analysis of the Turkey quake. Interestingly, the individual egg showing the largest effect was one of the most distant, in Fiji. Interpreted literally, this suggests the opposite conclusion to that of the last example with regard to nonlocality. Again, we have much to learn before reaching strong conclusions." Logos5557 (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the article needs a criticism section which would address issues about design of the experiment, misinterpretation of the data etc. However, the critics should be from real experts not from the ones who seem to have no background to understand and interpret what's going on.

Here; "My background is in computer science. I was doing early stuff in developing XML specifications and advanced Java application architecture, stuff that’s more conceptual rather than sitting down and programming. I was always a skeptical person, from being dragged kicking and screaming to church as a little kid through I loved reading Bigfoot stories and ghost stories and all that stuff. I went to film school, also. That was my minor, I guess, in college, was writing for film and television. So I always had these two things. I loved technology and skepticism and I loved writing and entertainment, but there was really no way to put those two things together until podcasting came out." says Brian Dunning.

Sometimes being a skeptical, who was once dragged kicking and screaming to church as a little kid, is not just enough. Skeptical people (like Scargle) mentioned in here and the papers published by The Journal of Scientific Exploration (published by Society for Scientific Exploration) would be better choices.

"Alex Tsakiris: There’s a couple of points that I just want to pull out and kind of clarify, maybe in simpler terms. One thing, this whole idea of there lacking a theory, I think that’s just ridiculous. A couple of things I want to point out. One is, there is an established theory in physics, a fundamental theory that there shouldn’t be any structure to random data. So, if you’re doing nothing else other than testing the validity of that theory, that’s a pretty fundamental kind of physics thing to do." Logos5557 (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read John Allen Paulos. He is a mathematician. In Irreligion, on page 51-59 he treats interpretation of meaning in random data at some length and in plain language. There are perfectly valid reasons to criticize a design that is based around seeking patterns in randomly generated numbers. Also, on page 113-114 of the same book, he provides an experiment for creating complex patterns (by certain rather specific definitions of complexity) from completely random data.Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, I was able to take your advice and could reach pages 51-59 and 114 of Irreligion by John Allen Paulos on amazon.com. Page 113 is not available, but that does not matter in the context of this global consciousness project because; he does not attribute any statement in those pages to this project and in fact he argues coincidence on 51-59 (from a perspective of 9/11 oddities, numerology etc.) and cellular automaton on 113-114 in the way layman would grasp. As it is explained in the article, the hardware used in this project are true random number generators (electronic-noise based) not pseudo ones (softwares). There is no fixed rule (mathematical function) in action as in automatons. There is no arguable relation between coincidence, numerology etc., cellular automaton and global consciousness project. There is real statistics here. Normal distribution is a natural phenomenon and significant deviations from that may be correlated with consciousness. I suggest this presentation to the ones who want to dig a bit further. I fully agree with you on your statement that "there are perfectly valid reasons to criticize a design that is based around seeking patterns in randomly generated numbers", however I think that should come from real experts who have knowledge of statistics, not from the ones who apparently do not know the basics but instead try to synthesize some other concepts, that have no relevance, into the topic as falsifications/rebuttals. Logos5557 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he isn't arguing specifically about this project in his book - the book is about religion. And the part on coincidence is the one I really think you need to read. It is relevant to the discussion at hand. Simonm223 (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he can't argue specifically about this project with that trivial stuff in his book. The second he does, he sees all his reputation buried under the well constructed valid arguments coming from real experts. If you can really specifically point why I need to read (actually I did, do I need to do something else) the part on coincidence, we can discuss in detail. Also if you can specifically point how it is related to the discussion at hand, we can see what to discuss. Otherwise, any incapable user can come and leave something (some implication, some synthesis) here which has no relevance whatsoever with the project. Logos5557 (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following (copied from this) are the primary contributors of the project:

Roger Nelson: GCP Director 1997 to present; Princeton University, PEAR, 1980 to 2002

Peter Bancel: Experimental physicist, Paris, France; formerly at U. Penn and IBM Research

Dean Radin: Laboratory director, Institute of Noetic Sciences Research (IONS)

Dick Bierman: Professor, University of Amsterdam and University of Utrecht

John Walker: Founder and retired CEO, Autodesk, Inc.

Greg Nelson: Senior scientist, Princeton Gamma Tech Instruments

Paul Bethke: Windows developer, Network management

Rick Berger: Founder, Innovative Software Design, Website development

Marilyn Schlitz: Director of Research at IONS; Senior scientist, California Pacific Medical Center

York Dobyns: Physicist, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, Princeton University

Mahadeva Srinivasan: Senior scientist, Indian Nuclear Research, retired

Dick Shoup: Director, Boundary Institute, Saratoga, CA

Jessica Utts: Professor of Statistics, University of California at Davis

Tom Sawyer: Founder, Santa Rosa Internet Group, E-commerce systems

Jan Peterson: Executive director for public relations, APA, retired

Ed May: Director, Laboratories of Fundamental Research, Palo Alto, CA

Ralph Abraham: Professor, University of Santa Cruz, retired; Founder, Visual Math Institute

Adrian Patrut: Professor, Babes-Bolyai University, Romania

Johannes Hagel: Professor and Founder, Institut fuer Psycho-Physik, Koeln, Germany

Logos5557 (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to list them all, are we? Fences&Windows 22:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just wanted to point out the quality of the team, because this list is not in a visible, easily accessible place on the project website. There was another page listing these people with their more detailed backgrounds (education and other things), but I am not able to find it again. Logos5557 (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Bragg, Roy (18 January 2005). "Flouting probability: Global Consciousness Project is out to measure something - if researchers can figure out what it might be". San-Antonio Express. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Jurgensen, John (13 August 2004). "NUMBERS GAMES ; CAN SMALL DATA-GATHERING DEVICES INSTALLED AROUND THE WORLD QUANTIFY GLOBAL CONSCIOUSNESS DURING EVENTS LIKE THE OLYMPICS?". Hartford Courant. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• "Global Consciousness Project Index". Dashboard Widgets. Apple Inc. 31 May 2005. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Berman, A.S. (6 December 2001). "Did Sept. 11 events refocus global consciousness?". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Kizilos, Katherine (28 April 2007). "Mind Over Matter". The Age. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Garofoli, Joe (19 November 2006). "Anti-war couple conceive new way to generate peace". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Matthews, Robert (9 February 2009). "Does mind affect matter". The Nation. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Strauss, Stephen (8 March 2005). "Bouncing to a higher consciousness". CBC News Viewpoint. cbc.ca. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Shamah, David (23 December 2008). "Digital World: I have seen the future,and it's on the Web". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Lucas, Jessica (20 April 2006). "Project gauges impact of global news". Daily Princetonian. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Reed, J.D. (9 March 2003). "So Just What Makes the Earth Move?". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Chang, Kenneth (11 November 2003). "Do Paranormal Phenomena Exist?". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Pilkington, Mark (24 July 2003). "The Global Mind". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Mullis, Kary B. (8 December 2006). "25 Greatest Science Books Introduction". Discover Magazine. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Tsakiris, Alex. "Skeptoid's Brian Dunning Finds Global Consciousness Project Lacking". Skeptiko. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• "Dr. Dean Radin And Dr. Roger Nelson Respond to Global Consciousness Project Criticisms". Skeptiko. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
• Park, Robert L. (2008). "Schrödinger's Grave". Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton University Press. p. 215. ISBN 0691133557.
• Dunning, Brian (10 June 2007). "Unconscious Research of Global Consciousness". Skeptoid. Retrieved 2009-09-18.

Is an associate professor in physics at York University, very valid source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt about that, but we have to remove the section (and the reference) you added into the article. Because this article is completely about the first study of PEAR, which was carried out with individuals to test their "mind powers". It is even not about the latest findings but about the ones dating 1982 or something, as stated by our respected scientist Stanley Jeffers "However, in this article I will take a critical look only at the first group of experiments.". Anyway, Jeffers' article is not about GCP, the hardware, the methodology used and the results. Therefore we should remove it. Would you like to do that by yourself or would you like someone else to get involved? You can relocate that part into a relevant article like this one Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab. Logos5557 (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GCP is a continuation of PEAR. Please cease POV edits. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you and some others are the ones who should cease from POV edits. The material you're trying to insert is completely a synthesis WP:Synthesis. Logos5557 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who believe "truly random number generators" is a pleonasm, should see, as an initial step, these links [2], [3] before reverting my justified edits. Industry, names pseudo-random generators as "pseudo-random", and truly random generators as "truly random", not as "non-pseudo-random". Please also stop shoving irrelevant material into the article. I'm stating once again; Stanley's article has nothing to do with GCP. Stanley criticises the first group of experiments performed on individuals in PEAR lab. PEAR does not exist any more, and GCP is a different project built by completely different individuals. Adding that material into the article is plain synthesis and OR, insisting on to refuse this fact is not a proper conduct/behaviour. Logos5557 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]