[ExI] NYT reports criticisms of Precognition article

[Damien Broderick]

On 1/6/2011 8:43 AM, BillK wrote:
> Quote:
> Many statisticians say that conventional social-science techniques for
> analyzing data make an assumption that is disingenuous and ultimately
> self-deceiving: that researchers know nothing about the probability of
> the so-called null hypothesis.
>
> In this case, the null hypothesis would be that ESP does not exist.
> Refusing to give that hypothesis weight makes no sense, these experts
> say.
> ------------------------------

Exactly. Since we know "radio-activity" does not exist, Madam Curie, it 
follows that your experiment is meaningless and foolish. Why, if these 
magical "rays" were part of the world, they would have been known since 
Aristotle; gamblers in casinos would have used them to see through the 
backs of their opponents' cards! Yet we know that Aristotle said nothing 
about such an absurdity, and casinos thrive. Trust Bayes and your 
prejudices over empirical data every time!

Damien Broderick