Sigh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsCogan  Ok. Here's how this trick was done.
TK led the group that prayed for bottles A & B. TK was also the person who photographed the frozen water droplets. |
No,
M.E led the group that prayed. Not T.K.
T.K took the photos.
Quote:
|
He didn't send ALL the photographs to DR. He preselected the ones to be sent. He sent 12 of A, 12 of B, 7 of C and 9 of D. (For those of you playing along C & D were the un-prayed for control bottles.) In other words he sent 24 good ones and 16 bad ones. That alone tells me he knew which bottles were which.
|
No. Neither T.K nor M.E knew which 2 of the 4 bottles had been "treated" with thought. This is one of the crucial points of the whole experiment.
But of course, if all this is just way too inconsistent with your beliefs, you'd just say that in fact this experiment never happened at all; and all 4 researchers just made everything up from total scratch. Totally dishonest, fraudulent, can't-be-trusted-at-all folks. Right?
Anyway, let me explain a little about how it turned out that there were more photos from A & B.
Masaru's early research already indicated that the number of crystals that show up in water samples subjected to his freezing/thawing process varies a lot, depending on where the samples came from.
For example, pure, distilled, boiled water yields very few crystals; compared to water taken from natural, unspoiled sources (eg deep in the mountain areas, away from urban human populations).
Water subjected to a lot of intense human thought also yields more crystals, compared to water from the same source but which has not been subjected to such thought.
Etc etc.
Now, back to our experiment. T.K has four bottles; he does not know which two has been subject to "thought" and which two are the controls. His job is to subject all four bottles to the freezing/thawing process, and to take photos of whatever crystals he sees.
It turns out that he ends up taking more photos from A and B, than of C and D.
Oh well. Hardly surprising.
Quote:
|
Even if evaluating the crystals produced random results (which I think it did),
|
Huh? Photos from A, B, C and D were all jumbled up and given to the judges to rate. There were 100 judges judging 40 crystals, yielding 4,000 ratings.
The stat analysis reveals P at 0.001. The chances that this was NOT a random statistical fluke is therefore 99.9%.
Quote:
|
there was no way the experiment could turn out the wrong way.
|
Huh? How it could have "gone wrong" -
(1) the average ratings of the C and D photos are higher than those from A and B
(2) the average ratings of the C and D photos are equal to those from A and B
(3)the average ratings of the C and D photos are lower than those from A and B, but the difference is statistically insignificant.
Those are the three ways that the experiment could have "gone wrong".