Discussion: Causation

Make forum posts: 1

Discussion: Causation

Number of replies: 16

This passage is an excerpt from a report by the Arizona Daily Wildcat (June 16, 1999) concerning a study to show that certain people can communicate with the dead. Using what you have learned about causation, correlation, and causal fallacies, consider the potential flaws with the experiment. Assume that the report is mostly correct. Summarize your evaluation of the flaws in the experiment. Share your thoughts on the discussion forum. Make sure to review and respond to other students' posts, as well.

"Gary Schwartz, psychology professor and co-founder of the University of Arizona Human Energy Systems Lab, speaks about his work at the University of Arizona. A team of scientists and students conducted a unique experiment this weekend, probing the possibility of an afterlife by studying how mediums commune with the dead.

Researchers invited a panel of mediums to meet with 10 people whose loved ones had recently died. While under observation, the mediums tried to receive information from the deceased without prior knowledge about the deceased. Schwartz invited four mediums to participate in the study, including famous "superstars" of the psychic world, such as author John Edwards, and unknowns, such as California housewife Laurie Campbell. The medium sat facing a wall while a researcher looked on. A "sitter," who had recently lost a relative or friend, would then enter the room and sit six feet behind the medium. Schwartz acknowledged that a few of the sitters were acquaintances of the mediums.

For up to 10 minutes, the medium and the sitter would sit in silence. The medium, who could not see the sitter, would concentrate on receiving psychic impressions. A question and answer session followed, in which the sitter was allowed only to answer "yes" or "no." Schwartz said the study was set up to minimize communication between the medium and the sitter, avoiding conscious or subconscious prompting between the two. While the final results have not been written up, Schwartz said he was impressed with the mediums' performance. He said that on several occasions the mediums were able to pick out the names and personal information of the deceased."

In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Olha Semeniuk -
The experiment described in the passage has several potential flaws when it comes to evaluating the validity of claims regarding communication with the dead. Here's a summary of the flaws:

Selection bias: The mediums were handpicked by Gary Schwartz, potentially introducing bias towards those who already have a reputation or those Schwartz may be personally acquainted with. This could influence the results if certain mediums are more adept at cold reading or making general statements that could be interpreted as accurate.

Confirmation bias: The researchers and participants may have been inclined to interpret vague or general statements made by the mediums as accurate, due to a desire to believe in the existence of an afterlife or in the abilities of the mediums. This could lead to an overestimation of the mediums' performance.

Lack of controls: The experiment lacks adequate controls to rule out alternative explanations for the observed phenomena. For example, the mediums may have been able to pick up cues from the researchers or sitters inadvertently, or the sitters may have given subtle cues unconsciously. Without controls in place to prevent these possibilities, it's difficult to attribute any observed effects solely to communication with the dead.

Subjective interpretation: The evaluation of the mediums' performance seems to rely heavily on subjective impressions rather than objective criteria. Schwartz mentions being "impressed" with the mediums' performance without providing specific metrics or criteria for what constitutes success or failure. This lack of objectivity makes it challenging to draw meaningful conclusions from the study.

Sample size and composition: The study involved a relatively small sample size of 10 sitters and four mediums. Additionally, the composition of the sample is not described in detail, raising questions about its representativeness. For example, if the sitters were predominantly believers in psychic abilities, this could introduce bias into the results.

Overall, while the experiment described in the passage is an intriguing attempt to investigate claims of communication with the dead, it suffers from several methodological flaws that undermine the reliability and validity of its findings.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Catherine Quinn -
1 Confirmation Bias: One significant flaw in the study is the presence of confirmation bias. This cognitive bias occurs when individuals interpret or recall information in a way that confirms their preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. In this experiment, the mediums may unconsciously interpret vague or ambiguous cues from the sitters as confirming evidence of communication with the deceased. The restricted format of the question and answer session, limited to "yes" or "no" responses, may inadvertently reinforce this bias, as the sitters may provide affirmative responses in hopes of validating the mediums' statements. This dynamic can lead to a feedback loop where the mediums' statements align with the sitters' expectations, creating an illusion of successful communication with the deceased.
2. Lack of Control: Another flaw in the experiment is the lack of control over potential sources of influence on the mediums' performance. The presence of acquaintances among the sitters introduces a confounding variable that may bias the results. If the mediums are familiar with some of the sitters, they may subconsciously draw upon prior knowledge or cues from these individuals to tailor their responses. Additionally, the absence of strict protocols to prevent unintentional cues or prompting during the experimental sessions increases the risk of contamination from extraneous factors.
3. Ambiguity in Mediums' Performance Evaluation: The criteria used to assess the mediums' performance lack objectivity and rigor. The subjective nature of psychic impressions makes it challenging to establish clear metrics for evaluating the accuracy of the mediums' communications with the deceased. Without standardized measures or independent verification of the information provided by the mediums, the reliability and validity of the findings are called into question.
In summary, the experiment described in the report is susceptible to several methodological flaws that compromise the integrity and validity of its results. Confirmation bias, lack of control, and ambiguity in performance evaluation undermine the scientific rigor of the study and raise doubts about the purported evidence for communication with the dead. A more rigorous experimental design incorporating rigorous controls and objective measures is essential to address these shortcomings and advance our understanding of paranormal phenomena.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by asifa shaikh -
1 Confirmation Bias: One significant flaw in the study is the presence of confirmation bias. This cognitive bias occurs when individuals interpret or recall information in a way that confirms their preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. In this experiment, the mediums may unconsciously interpret vague or ambiguous cues from the sitters as confirming evidence of communication with the deceased. The restricted format of the question and answer session, limited to "yes" or "no" responses, may inadvertently reinforce this bias, as the sitters may provide affirmative responses in hopes of validating the mediums' statements. This dynamic can lead to a feedback loop where the mediums' statements align with the sitters' expectations, creating an illusion of successful communication with the deceased

2. Lack of Control: Another flaw in the experiment is the lack of control over potential sources of influence on the mediums' performance. The presence of acquaintances among the sitters introduces a confounding variable that may bias the results. If the mediums are familiar with some of the sitters, they may subconsciously draw upon prior knowledge or cues from these individuals to tailor their responses. Additionally, the absence of strict protocols to prevent unintentional cues or prompting during the experimental sessions increases the risk of contamination from extraneous factors.
3. Ambiguity in Mediums' Performance Evaluation: The criteria used to assess the mediums' performance lack objectivity and rigor. The subjective nature of psychic impressions makes it challenging to establish clear metrics for evaluating the accuracy of the mediums' communications with the deceased. Without standardized measures or independent verification of the information provided by the mediums, the reliability and validity of the findings are called into question.

In summary, the experiment described in the report is susceptible to several methodological flaws that compromise the integrity and validity of its results. Confirmation bias, lack of control, and ambiguity in performance evaluation undermine the scientific rigor of the study and raise doubts about the purported evidence for communication with the dead. A more rigorous experimental design incorporating rigorous controls and objective measures is essential to address these shortcomings and advance our understanding of paranormal phenomena.

In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Rehan Ullah -
The experiment described in the passage has several potential flaws related to causation, correlation, and causal fallacies:

1. Lack of control group: The experiment lacks a control group to compare the mediums' performance against individuals who do not claim to communicate with the dead. Without a control group, it is challenging to determine whether the mediums' abilities are genuinely exceptional or merely the result of chance or other factors.

2. Confirmation bias: The researchers' involvement in the experiment, including inviting mediums and overseeing the sessions, introduces the risk of confirmation bias. They may unconsciously influence the mediums or sitters, leading to the perception of successful communication with the deceased where none exists.

3. Acquaintances among sitters: The presence of acquaintances of the mediums among the sitters introduces a potential source of bias. These sitters may consciously or subconsciously provide cues or information that could influence the mediums' responses, confounding the results.

4. Limited response options: Restricting the sitters' responses to "yes" or "no" during the question and answer session may limit the information provided, potentially leading to ambiguous or misleading interpretations by the mediums.

5. Lack of blinding: The mediums were aware of the nature of the experiment, which could have influenced their behavior or responses. A double-blind setup, where neither the mediums nor the researchers know the identities of the sitters or the deceased individuals, would help mitigate potential biases.

Overall, while the experiment attempts to rigorously investigate the possibility of communication with the dead, its design and implementation contain several flaws that undermine the reliability and validity of the results. Engaging in discussions about such experiments allows for critical evaluation of the methods used and encourages a deeper understanding of scientific reasoning and skepticism.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Sanika Bari -
The experiment described in the passage has several potential flaws when it comes to evaluating the validity of claims regarding communication with the dead. Here's a summary of the flaws:

Selection bias: The mediums were handpicked by Gary Schwartz, potentially introducing bias towards those who already have a reputation or those Schwartz may be personally acquainted with. This could influence the results if certain mediums are more adept at cold reading or making general statements that could be interpreted as accurate.

Confirmation bias: The researchers and participants may have been inclined to interpret vague or general statements made by the mediums as accurate, due to a desire to believe in the existence of an afterlife or in the abilities of the mediums. This could lead to an overestimation of the mediums' performance.

Lack of controls: The experiment lacks adequate controls to rule out alternative explanations for the observed phenomena. For example, the mediums may have been able to pick up cues from the researchers or sitters inadvertently, or the sitters may have given subtle cues unconsciously. Without controls in place to prevent these possibilities, it's difficult to attribute any observed effects solely to communication with the dead.

Subjective interpretation: The evaluation of the mediums' performance seems to rely heavily on subjective impressions rather than objective criteria. Schwartz mentions being "impressed" with the mediums' performance without providing specific metrics or criteria for what constitutes success or failure. This lack of objectivity makes it challenging to draw meaningful conclusions from the study.

Sample size and composition: The study involved a relatively small sample size of 10 sitters and four mediums. Additionally, the composition of the sample is not described in detail, raising questions about its representativeness. For example, if the sitters were predominantly believers in psychic abilities, this could introduce bias into the results.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Michael Starnes -
The experiment described in the excerpt from the report by the Arizona Daily Wildcat raises several potential flaws related to causation, correlation, and causal fallacies:

Causation vs. Correlation: The experiment aims to study whether mediums can communicate with the dead by observing their interactions with sitters who have recently lost loved ones. However, the mere correlation between the mediums' statements and the deceased individuals' personal information does not establish causation. Just because the mediums provide accurate information does not necessarily mean they are communicating with the dead. There could be alternative explanations, such as cold reading techniques or lucky guesses.
Selection Bias: The mediums invited to participate in the study include both famous "superstars" and unknowns. This selection process may introduce bias if the famous mediums are more skilled or experienced than the unknowns. Additionally, acknowledging that some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums raises concerns about potential biases or pre-existing beliefs that could influence the outcomes of the experiment.
Confirmation Bias: The experiment relies on a question and answer session where sitters are only allowed to respond with "yes" or "no." This setup may inadvertently encourage confirmation bias, where sitters unconsciously provide positive feedback to affirm the accuracy of the mediums' statements. This could inflate the perceived success rate of the mediums' performances.
Lack of Controls: The experiment lacks adequate controls to rule out alternative explanations for the mediums' apparent success. For example, there is no control group of sitters who interact with individuals pretending to be mediums but have no psychic abilities. Without proper controls, it is challenging to isolate the effects of mediumship from other factors that could influence the outcomes.
Subjective Evaluation: The assessment of the mediums' performance is based on Schwartz's subjective impression rather than objective criteria or rigorous statistical analysis. This subjective evaluation introduces the potential for bias and makes it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about the validity of mediumship.
In summary, while the experiment described in the report may appear well-intentioned, it is susceptible to several potential flaws related to causation, correlation, and causal fallacies. These flaws raise concerns about the validity and reliability of the findings, highlighting the need for more rigorous experimental design and analysis in studies of paranormal phenomena.
In reply to Michael Starnes

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Shaqoria Hay -
You went to great detail with you post about the passage. From the passage stating that the mediums were picked how do we know the people they were paired with the did not have a relationship at one point of time or crossed paths. I believe that some one responding yes or no can give any one hints to assume something to gain information needed about anything.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Shaqoria Hay -
This pass contains several flaws. Reading the passage, it will have user thinking the mediums are communicating with the dead, but we cannot for sure know the mediums were connecting with the dead because the information provided in the passage was not creditable. This is when we must look at scientific reasoning and not that things are not adding up and can be found as bias.
Confirmation basis: There were mediums incited to speak with 10 people whose loved one had recently passed. Being that some of the medium may know the people they were observing it can cause this to be a bias situation.
Lack of control/Control: Being that some of the mediums lack experience we then must wonder are the really reconnecting with the dead. Then that make use wonder are they basing their response of person response of “yes” or “no”. This would lead us to think that there will be some misleading result at the end of the reading by the mediums.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Leslie Tapper -
Confirmation Bias: There's no concrete evidence to back up the claim more so than him looking for instances to prove his theory. For example, it could just be probable guesses.
Cluttering Illusion: There were no specific patterns mentioned that were out of the blue or noted recognition.
Lack of a Control group for alternate explanations
Personal/Accquaintanceship Biases.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Tiffany Jones -
The experiment described in the report on mediums communicating with the dead appears to have several potential flaws related to causation, correlation, and causal fallacies. Here's an evaluation based on the information provided:

Confirmation Bias: There is a risk of confirmation bias, where researchers and participants may unconsciously favor or interpret information that supports their belief in psychic abilities. If the researchers are already inclined to believe in the afterlife or psychic phenomena, they might interpret ambiguous results in a way that supports their preconceived notions.

Lack of Control Group: The experiment lacks a control group against which to compare the mediums' results. A control group is essential in scientific experiments to rule out alternative explanations and to establish a baseline for what would happen without the experimental intervention. Without a control group of non-mediums or sham mediums, it's challenging to determine if the information provided by the mediums is genuinely beyond what could be explained by chance or general knowledge.

Possible Cold Reading Techniques: Even if the mediums were genuinely trying to communicate with the deceased, there's a risk of cold reading — a technique where practitioners use subtle cues, body language, and general statements to elicit responses from sitters. While the setup tried to minimize direct interaction, the fact that some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums could still influence the results through unintentional cues or prior knowledge.

Ambiguous Results and Criteria: The report mentions that mediums were able to pick out names and personal information of the deceased. However, the criteria for judging the accuracy of this information are unclear. What counts as a correct "hit" by the mediums? Without predefined and objective criteria, there's a risk of subjective interpretation of the results.

Psychological Factors: The psychological state of the sitters and the mediums could also influence the outcomes. For example, sitters who are grieving may be more susceptible to interpretations that seem to provide comfort or closure, even if the information conveyed by the mediums is general or inaccurate.

In summary, while the experiment may have been conducted with genuine scientific intent, it appears to have several methodological weaknesses that could undermine the reliability and validity of its findings. These include issues with control groups, potential biases, and the lack of clear criteria for evaluating the mediums' performance. To improve the experiment's rigor and credibility, future studies would need to address these flaws by incorporating better controls, blind testing procedures, and rigorous criteria for evaluating the results.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Hudson Harper -
The first issue I see is the very low sample size. 10 people is not sufficient enough. We also do not know how the 10 people were picked. This could also lead to confirmation bias. There is also not a hypothesis stated to be tested. How can the hypothesis be correct or incorrect? There is not any signs of rigorous testing. I do not see any correlation or causation in this experiment.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Aedan Masker -
I saw quite a few issues with this study.
No control group, small sample size, Bias to famous "psychics" , some of the psychics having prior knowledge of the sitters. No formal evaluation. Which ocassions were they able to pick out the names and personal information? The cases they already knew?
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Saanvi Kundu -
The experiment by Gary Schwartz and his team has a few notable flaws. First off, they didn't have a control group to compare the sitters who used mediums with those who didn't. This makes it hard to say if the mediums were actually doing something special or if it was just coincidence. Plus, some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums, which could lead to unintentional cues. The study also aimed to limit communication, but it's tough to eliminate all non verbal signals completely. With such a small sample size, it’s tricky to generalize the results to a wider audience. Overall, while it's an interesting idea, the methodology raises a lot of questions about the findings.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Cecily Acevedo -

The experiment led by Gary Schwartz and his team at the University of Arizona raises several regarding its design and interpretation of results. Here are some potential flaws in the study, considering concepts of causation, correlation, and causal fallacies:

Lack of Control Group: The study does not mention whether a control group of sitters who did not consult with mediums was included. Without a control group, it is difficult to ascertain whether the mediums' performance was significantly different from random chance or other forms of communication.

Sample Size and Selection Bias: With only ten sitters and four mediums, the sample size is quite limited. Moreover, some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums, which introduces a bias. This connection could result in unintentional cues or influence that could affect the responses and interpretations of the mediums.

Confirmation Bias: There is the possibility that both mediums and sitters may have engaged in confirmation bias. Sitters might selectively remember instances where the medium provided accurate information while ignoring inaccuracies. Similarly, if the mediums sensed any cues from sitters or had pre-existing knowledge, they might unconsciously tailor their readings accordingly.

Questionable Methodology: The structure of the interaction, which allowed only "yes" or "no" answers, could lead to ambiguous interpretations. The limitation on responses might prevent a nuanced evaluation of the mediums’ abilities. Additionally, this format doesn't allow for more detailed exploration of the information provided.

In reply to Cecily Acevedo

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Dominique Vittorio -
I agree with your point about the lack of a control group. Without a control group, it’s challenging to determine if the mediums' performance was truly extraordinary or if the results could be attributed to random chance or other factors. Including a control group would provide a baseline to compare and assess the mediums' accuracy more effectively.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Causation

by Dominique Vittorio -
The experiment has several flaws that could impact its validity. Some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums, which introduces potential bias and subconscious communication. The lack of a double-blind design, where both mediums and researchers are unaware of the details, weakens the study's credibility. The response options being limited to "yes" or "no" might restrict the assessment of the mediums' accuracy. These factors suggest that the experiment's results may not reliably demonstrate the ability to communicate with the dead.