[ExI] Psi (no need to read this post you already knowwhatitsays)
pharos at gmail.com
Fri Jan 8 11:42:40 UTC 2010
On 1/8/10, Damien Broderick wrote:
> Thus far, the proponent and the skeptic had agreed that the results could
> not be attributed to chance or to selective reporting practices.”
Just because I can't work out how the trick was done, doesn't validate
the magic trick. Magicians are experts at their trade.
(Though people can be quickly trained in how to do psychic 'cold readings').
Similarly, it is not down to me to try to examine the experimental
protocol, double-blind checks, honesty or self-delusion of
participants, flawed statistical analysis, bias in testing, etc. etc.
Other scientists have to able to replicate the experiments.
Short tests that involve guessing one of four numbers (or one of four
people phoning in), or one of five shapes, are very susceptible to
producing runs of 'above or below average' results. That's why when
very long runs are done the results do approach the expected average
(or the psychics get so bored that their powers fade out).
Odd things happen all the time. One man has been struck by lightning
ten times, somebody has to win the lottery (sometimes more than once),
some gamblers get lucky streaks and other gamblers get losing streaks,
and so on. These things happen in a random universe. Random doesn't
mean always average.
But, anyway, what's the point? If the psi effects are pretty much
unpredictable / random then they cannot be used for anything. I want
psi powers that are usable and practical. If I could think hard to get
friends to phone me, it would save me a fortune in phone bills.
Similarly, they ought to know not to phone me when I'm in the shower
or in the middle of dismantling a motorcycle engine in the middle of
More information about the extropy-chat