[extropy-chat] Re: Damien grants psi evidence

[BillK]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:18:58 +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> I think that your line of reasoning is obvious, but what is not obvious is
> that the same facts and experimental conditions you are describing either
> (a) matches exactly any average case that Utts is reporting on; 
> (I don't think you are claiming it does) or  
> b) could not potentially be better explained
> by a hypothesis other than that psi phenomena exists even in a weak form
> (I don't think your claiming that either).
> 

Perhaps wishful thinking is (in this case) weakening Damien's normally
excellent critical thinking.

See: <http://skepdic.com/tipara.html>
for entries on almost 100 types of paranormal activities (I've never
heard of some of them!)

Especially:
<http://skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html>          Ganzfeld experiments
<http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html>         Remote viewing
<http://skepdic.com/psiassumption.html> The psi assumptiom

This last article says:
"The psi assumption is the assumption that any significant departure
from the laws of chance in a test of psychic ability is evidence that
something anomalous or paranormal has occurred."

In our universe a 'chance in a million' things happen every day.
Life's like that.

If you do 10,000 tests and find a 'slight'  positive effect, then the
next 10,000 tests might find the opposite. This logic applies no
matter how many tests you do. And within those test runs you will find
short runs of 100% success and short runs of zero% success.

That's what happens in a random universe. 'Random' doesn't mean
'always different' or 'no occasional patterns'. The 'laws of chance'
do not stop a punter from sometimes picking eight winners in a row.
And it doesn't mean he could tell the future either.

BillK