It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I really tried hard to explain that in my post so you may want to read it again.
Originally posted by EthanT
So, do you have to be the Michael Jordan of psychics to pass Randi's test?
Originally posted by Headcrusher23
In topic title it also says eve along with occult power, what is eve?
Originally posted by Ryanp5555
reply to post by Arbitrageur
If you can call it 15 out of 20 times why can't you call it 75 out of 100 times? Or just continue to increase the number of times and get x percentage in order to remove any statistical anomalies.
Originally posted by EthanT
Check out Daryl Bem's study that was published recently in a respectable journal. It has positive results with a very high statistical significance, indicating that something ESP-like is going on - specifically, retrocausal influences. Yet, if you look at the individuals ESP skills in the test ... well, quite frankly, they suck!
Bem also says how important that is, and the replication attempts at his experiment weren't looking too good last I heard.
(9) Scientific papers have been written supporting paranormal events and talents. Therefore, how can you deny them?
....there is not a single example of a scientific discovery in the field of parapsychology that has been independently replicated. That makes parapsychology absolutely unique in the world of science.
You mean you might be interested in taking the test? Or you're just curious about it?
Originally posted by EthanT
I do seem to remember that card counting, or similar tests, showed low statistical significance compared to other ESP tests. I think more creative, or engaging, tasks would bring about better results.
Hmmmmm, I'm starting to get the urge to look into all this again ....
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Daryl Bem is a respected researcher. I did read most of his paper including the part where Bem himself said that unless his results can be replicated, they probably aren't valid. He's well aware of the need to be able to replicate results, and makes a big point of that in his paper, which I give him credit for saying because a lot of papers ignore this and seem to feel their results mean something without replication. He made replication kits available for other researchers, and in fact I personally participated in one of the replication experiments.
....there is not a single example of a scientific discovery in the field of parapsychology that has been independently replicated. That makes parapsychology absolutely unique in the world of science.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Your points about low statistical significance are well-placed because I don't know how much you know about statistics but that's exactly one area where Bem's paper has been criticized, for using the wrong type of statistics for this type of research.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I think Bem's paper indicates he may have fallen prey to the same types of flaws that cause people to think they have an ability, that his, he'd sometimes stop the test when he saw a significant result and go ahead and report that. That's a poor scientific method that he's been criticized for. The proper method is to design the test with the number of trials needed, and complete the designed number of trials. In some cases, that's not what he did.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And let's say that maybe some type of ESP exists but it's flaky, of low statistical significance, and can't be replicated. In that case, it may never be scientifically proven. And in that case, nobody will win the Randi challenge. But then, maybe nobody's ability is all that great. .
"not that different", well there you go. It's not a replication, is it? I thought a replication means the test is conducted exactly the same way with the same methods, etc.
Originally posted by EthanT
Well, it's very important to realize that Bem's experiment is itself a replication of prior successful ESP tests. It's far from the first test on ESP. He mentions this in his paper, as well as briefly outlines past studies. His tests are not that different from Dean Radin's tests that were done prior to Bem's.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
"not that different", well there you go. It's not a replication, is it? I thought a replication means the test is conducted exactly the same way with the same methods, etc.
Originally posted by EthanT
Well, it's very important to realize that Bem's experiment is itself a replication of prior successful ESP tests. It's far from the first test on ESP. He mentions this in his paper, as well as briefly outlines past studies. His tests are not that different from Dean Radin's tests that were done prior to Bem's.
But I found some of the other comments in your post helpful and I'm going to follow-up with some research on those so thanks for the thoughtful and informative reply!