[ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology

[Isabelle Hakala]

Honestly, if they posted the code then *anyone* could repeat the
experiments, that is the whole purpose of getting published, isn't it?

Why does someone have to read the whole paper when if the first experiment
is flawed, then it doesn't matter what the rest of the experimentation is.

I actually BELIEVE in psi. I have had tons of things happen that have
freaked those out around me because I knew what was going to happen, before
it happened, and I had told those around me before it happened. My lack of
faith isn't in the psi. My lack of faith is in coming up with something that
can actually prove it exists.

Also, so far as I can see, the purpose of the experiment was to see if
people can see the future. However, these experiments actually could be
evidence that people EFFECT the future. And are more likely to effect it
when a positive stimulus is used. does that count as psi as well? I think it
does, but again, it shows flawed thinking on the part of the scientists if
they have assumed it means that it means the PRIMING is working. It could
mean that their decision is effect which thing is selected for priming.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isabelle Hakala
"Any person who says 'it can't be done' shouldn't be interrupting the people
getting it done."
"Do every single thing in life with love in your heart."


On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>wrote:

> On 10/20/2010 3:30 PM, Isabelle Hakala wrote:
>
>  I *did* read the paper, at least through the end of the first
>> experiment, and honestly, unless they post the CODE for the program,
>> there is no way to know if there is a cheat involved.... Since the program
>> chooses the placement of the
>>
>> picture AFTER the person inputs where they feel it will be, that could
>> be RIFE for cheating.
>>
>
> Where does this hermeneutics of suspicion cease? Suppose I obtained the
> code for you, what would you do with it? (Especially since you gave up after
> reading only part of the formal paper.) And if you examined it closely and
> found it acceptable, how would you know that some evil scientist hadn't just
> *pretended* to use that code while really just typing out 65 pages of
> invented results (John Clark's default claim) and sending them off to
> gullible editors and referees, for whom careful scrutiny is apparently a
> totally new concept.
>
> I'm serious. What would satisfy you? What *could* satisfy you in this
> instance?
>
>
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20101021/33dc329a/attachment.html>