[ExI] Precog PCs
thespike at satx.rr.com
Sun Oct 24 20:03:00 UTC 2010
On 10/24/2010 1:43 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote:
>> The question you ask is very tricky. How to distinguish peformance due to
>> > the PC from performance due to experimenter? Unless you can get the PC (it
>> > would have to be an AI) to devise, execute and publish the research by
>> > itself.
> The performance of the experimenter in developing a guessing program?
No, the possible influence of the experimenter directly and by
(da-da-DA-da da-da-DA-da) the very same mysterious psi process you're
trying to investigate.
Experimenter effects are quite frequent in psi research; famously, a
joint protocol devised and followed exactly by both skeptic Richard
Wiseman and parapsychologist Marilyn Schlitz got null results for
Wiseman's cohort and positive effects for Schlitz.** There was no
indication of cheating by Schlitz (Wiseman would have been quick to crow
had he found any).
The implication is that any psi experiment is always subject jointly to
at least the influence of the agent or subject (who should be double
blind) and the experimenter (who should be blind to the target).
With a program devised to "guess" (whatever that means for an
algorithm--do you throw in some sampling of quantum noise?), any
significant effect could always be attributed to the desires of the
More information about the extropy-chat