[ExI] NYT reports criticisms of Precognition article

[Adrian Tymes]

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> 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!

That's not how I read it.  I think they're saying, the analysis fails
to evaluate the
probability that ESP does not exist, and only evaluates the probability that it
does.