Dangerous subject.
Good if kept at scientific / engineering level.
Easy to slip.


> http://www.rdmag.com/Community/Blogs/RDBlog/Psi-paper-entangled-in-contro=
versy/
>
> Psi paper entangled in controversy
>
> The paper, which was described last month, is about to be published in a =
respected journal of pyschology, and is already available at Bem=92s websit=
e.

Haven't looked at it.
May not get to.

Experiment design and interpretation are utterly key here.
When you measure woolly things, if you then apply woolly metrics you
get, at best,  a nice rug.

Double blind crossover, concise prior definition of expectations,
tight control of any known-possible confounding factors. Independently
reproducible results (often  a fatal hurdle in such areas).  Pass
those and you have the start of a ball game.

Claimed results are possible but unlikely. If ~1% of normal population
showed advanced Esper capabilities it is exceedingly unlikely that it
would only be thought of as it is now. The capability is so 'useful'
that a 1% extremely capable component would stand out severely.

Interestingly, if about 1% showed a 50% gain over random (whatever
that means) may there be a continuum or is it a step function?

I see there is no pre-emptive  message waiting on this thread as I
finish this (GiggleMail knows) so none of Y'All can be in the 1%.

  Russell

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.