Joe McMoneagle wrote:
>
> The target was later independently judged by a person who was not
> participant to the experiment, producing a significant effect size
> of 0.710 +/- 0.289 (p=0.007).
How on Earth do they judge the significant effect size without a control
group? Did they try having the judge check the guy's drawings against a
randomly selected photograph as well as the target? Not as far as I can
tell. If so, the whole experiment is entirely meaningless.
And the other thing to remember is that sometimes psychic researchers,
especially the ones writing books, will outright lie! If you read
something and think "There's no way this could be faked," sometimes it
just never happened.
CYMM wrote:
>
> I see it as possibly a consequence of quantum nonlocality; and
> emergent wavefunctions (QWFs) of complex adaptive systems. Such
> systems may generate QWFs coupled to an emergent system potential."
Cosma Shalizi wrote:
>
> Q: What are the "intuitive and metaphyscal arts"?
> A: The gods alone know. Probably the old tired con-acts of
> fortune-telling and putting the hex on your neighbor's goat,
> glossed up with gibberish borrowed from pop science tracts in
> the last two centuries.
-- http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/aleph-anti-FAQ.html
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://singinst.org/beyond.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:26 MDT