“Those gifts paid for a small staff and a gallery of random-motion machines, including a pendulum with a lighted crystal at the end; a giant, wall-mounted pachinko-like machine with a cascade of bouncing balls; and a variety of electronic boxes with digital number displays.
In one of PEAR’s standard experiments, the study participant would sit in front of an electronic box the size of a toaster oven, which flashed a random series of numbers just above and just below 100. Staff members instructed the person to simply “think high” or “think low” and watch the display. After thousands of repetitions — the equivalent of coin flips — the researchers looked for differences between the machine’s output and random chance.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/s...princeton.html
This article is intended for general audience.
Here is the link to the original article which is intended for the professionals with engineering and scientific background.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...00010004-6.pdf
There are several objections to this research; I am going to go over them:
1. Incorrect statistical methods were used to analyze the data.
2. The methods of analysis are correct, but the results were interpreted incorrectly
3. The results of the experiment are irreproducible.
The first two objections are nonsensical, people who raised them do not know what they are talking about. As a data analyst, I use similar, although not exactly the same, methods to analyze stock market data, manufacturing data, advertisement campaigns data, etc., (I work for a consulting company)
The third objection deserves more attention. Statistical methods are used to analyze experiments that cannot be reproduced exactly the way they happened. Take, for example, the famous two-slit experiment with a beam of electrons coming out of the electron gun and forming interference pattern on the screen. If you run this experiment for some time, then stop, recharge the gun, change the screen and run second experiment, the results won’t be exactly the same. However, the interference pattern will remain unchanged.
The same applies to this telekinetic experiment, so its data and the scientists’ conclusion are valid.
In one of PEAR’s standard experiments, the study participant would sit in front of an electronic box the size of a toaster oven, which flashed a random series of numbers just above and just below 100. Staff members instructed the person to simply “think high” or “think low” and watch the display. After thousands of repetitions — the equivalent of coin flips — the researchers looked for differences between the machine’s output and random chance.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/s...princeton.html
This article is intended for general audience.
Here is the link to the original article which is intended for the professionals with engineering and scientific background.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...00010004-6.pdf
There are several objections to this research; I am going to go over them:
1. Incorrect statistical methods were used to analyze the data.
2. The methods of analysis are correct, but the results were interpreted incorrectly
3. The results of the experiment are irreproducible.
The first two objections are nonsensical, people who raised them do not know what they are talking about. As a data analyst, I use similar, although not exactly the same, methods to analyze stock market data, manufacturing data, advertisement campaigns data, etc., (I work for a consulting company)
The third objection deserves more attention. Statistical methods are used to analyze experiments that cannot be reproduced exactly the way they happened. Take, for example, the famous two-slit experiment with a beam of electrons coming out of the electron gun and forming interference pattern on the screen. If you run this experiment for some time, then stop, recharge the gun, change the screen and run second experiment, the results won’t be exactly the same. However, the interference pattern will remain unchanged.
The same applies to this telekinetic experiment, so its data and the scientists’ conclusion are valid.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2PpVFVQ
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire