Hi Olavi. I am not sure that increasing interest in process-oriented
research necessarily represents a move away from gathering evidence
for psi. You are right that, it is hoped, this type of research will
lead to breakthroughs in strengthening the often weak effects observed
in controlled experiments. To say this has not been achieved may be
premature. There are a number of promising avenues of research that
suggest it may be possible to strengthen psi effects in experiments.
Examples include sequential analysis (Puthoff, May and Thomson, 1985,
1986; replicated and extended by Dean Radin), precognitive 'engram'
feedback (Stevens, 1998), 'adaptive Psi' hypotheses (for instance,
Sanford and other researchers have had strong success on some of the
better conceptualized experiments testing the PMIR model), improvement
of Psi learning paradigms (for example Tart, 1966; his ideas on this
have still been hardly tested, but have yielded some encouraging
results), and better selection of participants (for example, Parker,
Grams, and Pettersson, 1998, found that subjects recruited through
'New Age' sources, who reported paranormal experiences and presumedly
incorporated these experiences into their larger understanding of
reality, scored 47% in the Ganzfeld compared to psychology students,
who scored at chance; because psychology students remain the most
common participants in psi-related research, this finding may prove
very important). I believe that, if Parapsychologists can start to
converge on some techniques for 'signal enhancement' and use these
techniques consistently, that we may yet achieve the larger effect
sizes that we have been striving for in recent years. As to whether
we can expect such a breakthrough to be forthcoming in the near
future, that depends on a lot of factors; but if it should take some
time to achieve, we should keep in mind what William James said about
the need to measure our progress not so much in years as in
generations. Still, I remain optimistic that, if Parapsychologists
can start to agree on a set of techniques to enhance our results, then
we may not be that far from a breakthrough after all.

While I agree that spontaneous cases must be the touchstones upon
which all psi theories must be based, I am not frankly sure that we
can get much further with them, let alone provide evidence that will
significantly strengthen the 'psi hypothesis'. For decades SPR
developed collections of spontaneous case reports, collecting by and
analyzed according to very specific guidelines that they developed.
Despite many technological breakthroughs, the problems of verifying
spontaneous cases are no less daunting than they ever were.
Spontaneous cases lack control of variables, and the details needed
for replicability; furthermore, we have learned since the days of SPR
just how potentially unreliable witness testimony is, yet we have not
made many developments insofar as being able to 'prove' whether a
particular piece of witness testimony can be taken as entirely
reliable, though there are ways of better filtering out the more
obvious cases of unreliable testimony (which is something, at least).
Furthermore, without being able to measure correlates of psi
properly, spontaneous cases grant little or no insight into the
underlying mechanisms involved. We can study a billion spontaneous
cases, but what good does it do if we can never use that information
to explain the 'hows' and 'whys' of the experience. It would be akin
to psychology having never proceeded beyond the days of early
observational psychoanalysis.

I do agree that spontaneous cases produce the strongest effects, but
not the strongest scientific evidence; clearly only experimental
research can fill that demand. As Bayesian analysis suggests, the
degree to which evidence is 'convincing' depends upon the the prior
subjective probabilities that each person assigns to the null and
alternative hypotheses. As some individuals, Michael Shermer for
instance, have pointed out, if you regard the probability of the psi
hypothesis being true as very low, then a million thoroughly
documented spontaneous cases will be no better convincing than one
poorly documented anecdote. However even Mister Shermer, if
confronted with dozens of replications of a given psi effect by a
large number of researchers and institutions, having an at least
moderate (i.e. greater than weak) effect size, with different
researchers achieving similar effect sizes (allowing of course for the
possibility of a few outliers), and doubtful researchers (i.e. 'goats)
getting about the same results as more believing researchers (i.e.
'sheep') or at least having a thorough and convincing explanation why
if they cannot (beyond vague suggestions about the 'power of belief'),
then even Shermer would have to concede a real effect. Even those
researchers who have said that no evidence could ever be enough
evidence would, I suspect, change their minds if given very strong
evidence that Psi effects are real, replicable, and of practical
value, especially the latter.

I think it should absolutely be our goal to develop clearer evidence
of psi, evidence that cannot be waved away with the panacea argument
that "weak effects, by themselves, prove little or nothing". Process
oriented research may not only lead to techniques for obtaining
stronger and/or more reliable evidence of psi, but it also strengthens
the claim that the observed effects are due to the presence of an
agent (i.e. participants). Without some evidence of the process, then
Susan Blackmore might just as well be right that the agent may have
little or nothing to do with the effect. Without knowing the process,
to be able to link it to processes in the agent, perhaps the
'effects' merely represent unrecognized natural anomalies in so called
'random' processes, or maybe psi is not actually an ability of the
agent but, as was snidely suggested in the Skeptic's Dictionary, an
effect caused by beings from the Pleiades. No field of research can
progress without identifying underlying processes for the observed
effects; all the measurements of winds, and reports of storms, in the
world will not prove the existence of air molecules, and being able to
perfectly describe the effects of gravity has not led researchers to a
final understanding yet of what the ultimate causes of gravity are or
what the 'substance' of gravity really is (though there is now
intruiging evidence that it is somehow related to Zero Point Energy).
It seems silly for Parapsychologists to encourage trying to get at
the truth by going around the truth, instead of by striking for the
heart; and suggestions by researchers like Kennedy, or Lucadou &
Zahradnik, that psi is innately and unavoidably elusive and
uncontrollable do not seem helpful, rather they sound like cries of
surrender. Okay, to be fair, those researchers have not quite 'thrown
in the towel', but to listen to them, one wonders what they think the
point of it all is if every time we try to find proof, some innate
characteristic of psi changes the behavioral principles of the
phenomenon to prevent us finding proof. Successful fields of research
drive relentlessly forward, converging closer and closer to proximate
and ultimate mechanisms for the observed effects. They have not given
up, and neither should we.

--- In PSI_research@yahoogroups.com, "Olavi Kiviniemi" <okivi@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all here!
>
> My reading of new articles in parapsychology has been rather poor
during the
> last year, but after all I dare to write about a topic that is very
> important in my opinion.
>
> As I understand it, the area of priority in parapsychology has
already for a
> long time been shifted from research trying to get more evidence for
psi to
> process-oriented research, trying to understand the underlying psi
> processes. This in hope that the field would have much stronger
development
> with this policy. Has this hope been realized? No, in my opinion.
>
> The psi processes are unreachable to our sense organs and measuring
> instruments, and it is possible to get information of the processes
only
> indirectly. All information that has been gathered is naturally very
> important and valuable. But for the time being we are still fumbling
in the
> dark, because we cannot know for sure what _really_ happens. The
task has
> turn out to be much more difficult than has been assumed. Therefore
I don't
> expect any scientific breakthrough in parapsychology in the near future.
>
> Concentrating on the process-oriented experimental research has been so
> strong that the research of spontaneous cases has been left aside.
Adrian
> Parker tells us in his important state-of-the-art article
>
> www.zem.demon.co.uk/parker.htm
>
> that Ian Stevenson retired from the membership in PA in protest to
> neglecting the spontaneous phenomena by PA.
>
> Experimental research yields nearly without exception only very
small effect
> sizes, that are not interesting to the general public. Perhaps it is
> therefore the PEAR institute is now closing. In my opinion, the
> parapsychologists are too much concerned within their internal
affairs to
> notice what is happening in the world outside. What is needed is really
> strong evidence to show that psi-phenomena really exist in the real
world.
> When there is more interest in the topic, there is also more funding
and
> more progress. And spontaneous cases yield by far the strongest
phenomena
> and strongest evidence for psi.
>
> Good New Year to all!
>
> - Olavi
>