[extropy-chat] Bayes, crackpots and psi

[BillK]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:55:57 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote:
> I do concur with Eliezer that real evidence will need to be p < 0.001, or
> less. This is increasingly a view shared by paranormalists like Professor
> Ertel.
> 

Ertel is well-known to Randi. He has been trying for years to convince
people that bits of astrology have a scientific basis (and failed).
Then he tried to prove that dowsing really worked by re-examining data
and doing really, really, complex statistical analyses that even the
original dowsing supporters disagreed with. This attempt also failed.
He also apparently thinks Uri Geller is a real psychic !!!!!
  
Now he has gone back to the 1970's (pull a rabbit out of a hat style). 
His students pick a number one to five, put their hand into a bag, and
pull out a table tennis ball (or a pearl), show it to the recorder and
put it back in the bag. The possibilities for elementary
sleight-of-hand (or other trickery) should be obvious. The students
only have to get away with it a few times in each set of 60 trials to
show significant results.

This type of 'evidence' is worthless. You have to physically separate
the guesser from the numbers. If these students actually can predict
numbers in advance. then the lottery is a really excellent
demonstration of their psi powers. No pressure - nobody is watching -
just get the numbers right. No need to try for the Randi prize.

BillK