[ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer
pharos at gmail.com
Sat Dec 4 23:30:23 UTC 2010
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:
> Terrible article, filled with errors and disgraceful innuendo, including
> unjustified imputations of dishonesty ("one cannot help but wonder if two
> experiments were indeed run, and each failed to produce significant results,
> and so the data from the two were combined, with the focus shifted to only
> the erotic pictures common to all participants," even though Alcock adds
> disingenuously, "Surely that was not done, for such an action would make a
> mockery of experimental rigor").
Well, surely his original description must have been very badly
written to allow interpretations that he disagrees with so strongly?
Perhaps he should do a complete rewrite.
But whether or not his statistical findings prove psi is still an
entirely open question.
Perhaps he was praying very hard for a good result?
Or perhaps Mercury was in a good aspect with Uranus at the time of his
Or perhaps his candidates had a few lucky guesses that a longer
experiment would negate?
As I quoted, a statistical bias has no preference for which theory
might or might not have been the cause when no mechanism can be
demonstrated. Choose your favorite theory.
More information about the extropy-chat