In all cerals people, If we had an extra sense I am sure it would have been proven before.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?Someone once said "For a believer no proof is needed and for a skeptic no proof is enough". Truth be told, no matter how much evidence of the paranormal people manage to find, there's still going to be those who refuse to believe it. Personally I'm willing to believe in pretty much anything that makes sense and has got even a bit of evidence to back it up (except for ghosts; I know those exist so belief is somewhat redundant). As the song says; "Half this crap has turned out true /If you close your mind at this point, the only fool is you!"
"In all cerals people, If we had an extra sense I am sure it would have been proven before."
(Firstly, 'cerals'? Gotta be the worst typo I've seen in a long time.
)
Well, there is pheromones. Most men probably don't realize they can sense when a woman's ovulating, but they actually can.
If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.Pheromones require no extraordinary explanation; we have ample evidence of their existence and function.
ESP defies known laws of physics, in that the human brain simply does not use or generate enough power to broadcast signals from person to person. And the notion of an "ESP signal" that is somehow distinct from any known forms of radiative energy is preposterous.
So, extraordinary evidence is now required. I don't consider a 3% statistical anomaly extraordinary. Interesting, maybe, and worthy of further research, but extraordinary? Nope.
edited 21st Jan '11 7:46:32 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Or repeated tests. Sometimes tests this large show effects that aren't actually there (the "fake" effects being ones with a small effect size, like this one). Alternatively, it might be that some students picked up on other cues to figure out which curtain had the erotic content behind it (ie. the person giving them instructions for the test knew. There's a reason even the doctors aren't supposed to know which pill is the placebo in double-blind studies after all).
Again, though, standard binomial distribution with 50% chance of success either way, 53.4% is pretty much spot-on 0.01 p-value — which is actually a good part of what has me worried. The reason I say this needs peer review is because it handles all these issues — the problem of improperly tested results (lack of double-blind leading to "tells" from experimenters), the possibility of fabrication of data (to produce "just enough" difference for the desired p-value), possible confirmation bias in outlier removal (more common than you'd think), etc etc.
The problem with the images on screen is probably not affected by the experimenters directly, since it's done using computers randomly choosing one or the other to show. However, that doesn't rule out confirmation bias or deliberate fabrication.
Sakamoto demands an explanation for this shit.^^ As far as I can tell, the expirimenters were not present, it was all done by computer. So no Clever Hans effect.
Biases in outlier removal seem to be the most likely explanation to me, especially with such a small effect size. I doubt it was actually fabricated though.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayThis might clear things up a bit.
If you wanted to be really nice, you could express the prior via indifference, i.e. 50% likelihood that the results are due to ESP, and 50% that they are not.
Assuming you want to take into account ESP as having a relatively high likelihood of generating a correct answer, say, 70%, then the value for the conditional probability would be... rather low, honestly. If you assumed that it was only capable of a small difference, such as, say, 53% of the time it's correct, then the probability would be close to 50%, versus random chance. Not very informative.
Basically, any more modern statistical assay that does not rely on the classical method would result in such a small effect being meaningless.
Sakamoto demands an explanation for this shit.I think the authors actually talked about bayesian analysis briefly in the paper.
edited 22nd Jan '11 9:35:14 PM by storyyeller
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayHe does, he acknowledged that if you hold a low Bayesian prior for ESP existing, then it does make sense to assume some flaw in the study rather than supposing that it actually demonstrates ESP.
...eventually, we will reach a maximum entropy state where nobody has their own socks or underwear, or knows who to ask to get them back.The article also observes that past studies that demonstrate no probability of ESP are less likely to be published in mainstream media, which causes a confirmation bias in the ones that are.
Put another way, if 10 tests find no statistical evidence of ESP, and one does, the one that does is more likely to be an outlier and therefore flawed.
edited 23rd Jan '11 12:14:15 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well I didn't see any obvious flaws in the paper, but then again, a single study is also not conclusive proof. There's a good chance that results are due to some subtle flaw in the experimental procedure. It's happened before, many times.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play