Latent Psychic Ability in the Religious, and Athiest

I’m aware, at least to someone like Woobly, there is absolutely no way I will convince him through the citing of experiments.

I’m fully aware of that.

Push the limits. Discussion.

That might be because I have been “arguing” [pointing out] the issues of the very theories involved in any such studies.

The second experiment you have posted is far more interesting. And I am not at all surprised by the conclusions. I have no doubt that I could “mysteriously” cause the conclusions to change in any pre-determined direction. Every mind functions by specific causes in all it does. But that doesn’t take away from the intriguing and fascinating way a mind can know things that no one would think possible to know.

Fucking bizarre.

A report of the statistics is not sufficient to study the experiment. I think that was his point, to which I agree.
The details of the actual experiment need to be seen in detail (the devil is always in the detail).

Are you saying they don’t go over the methodology in study I posted?

That they only mentioned the statistical outcomes?

Is that what you’re saying? If so, it’s wrong.

Dude, it is an overview, do you know what that means…It is a description of various studies, and does not talk about the specifics of data collection.

Put your power-ego-boner away and choose one.

So…? They still lay out, in detail, the methodology. If you want all the specifics go look at the individual studies. She includes the summaries from them anyways.

If you want to say, ‘She is a statistician, and because I haven’t read all the details, it immediately invalidates everything presented’ that is a ridiculous statement. As far as I can tell, that is what you’re saying.

Why? It’s better to use the data collected from more than one study, as opposed to just one.

Absolutely, I am brushing it off and asking you to choose a study that I can focus on and investigate…

My god you are dense.

Uh-huh, but the data must be vetted in it’s manner of collection, you learned that in the trash study you originally posted.

You’re asking me to do more work than the work I’m already doing in this thread. I don’t need, or want to do that.

If you don’t want to look at the evidence I will just assume you don’t want to because it’s not the type of evidence you want to see.

Yeah, choosing a study from an already available list that I would then spend time analyzing is a lot of work on your part.

Can we cut out the ad hom and get to the actual details in question?
I really don’t care if Gobbo is an egotist or an altruist.
I don’t care what credentials anyone has who might be doing the experiment.

I agree that the exact details must be carefully scrutinized to verify the experiment.
I personally don’t care much which details were overlooked, if any, but anyone trying to prove anything must eliminate all possible alternatives else nothing has been proven at all.

Obviously a lot of effort was made to ensure sensory deprivation, which is an issue in itself, but as I said before, if you can show positive results that are valid, you have shown something. If they got negative results, nothing has been demonstrated except that by using sensory deprivation, such ESP effects are usually canceled.

Frankly, I would find it awkward to try to sense anything under such annoying and noisy conditions, but if they can show that someone has higher than 5% significance in detecting particular affects at a hidden or distant scene then they have an interesting story to tell.

So the real question is only whether there was some detail overlooked?

But it is a bit like looking at a magic show and trying to deduce how he did it. The ability to do such magic, regardless of how, is still of interest even to Science.

Just waiting for Gobbo to choose. It just requires a bit of work and hoops to jump through to pry it out of him, for whatever reason.

Did you see some detail overlooked?
Did you see the opening for the trick; the card up his sleeve?

I have no idea, the overview does not offer nearly enough detail to know. It’s all clear on P-values, statistical principles, possible problems, types of evidence, the history of the literature, the stated results, and brief overviews of each studies methodology. But as we know, untill the data collection is reviewed, that doesn’t mean anything.

Actually it does. You could have just picked one, or all, but instead you want to waste time.

Seeing as how no one wants to focus on the data, we’ll move onto another study.

LOL

Homework: pick a study and see if you can find something wrong with the methodology.

Na, I’m still trying to figure out why someone would read or post studies if the data doesn’t matter.

(btw the dude (Hyman) working with the statistician in these is a Psychologist)

No, you’re avoiding looking at data because it’s supporting a thesis you would rather not be correct.