Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot  No, M.E led the group that prayed. Not T.K.
T.K took the photos. |
you are correct. My bad.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I agree it's a crucial point. They SAID they didn't know. But DR and GK new so the test was not double blind. Nobody--not nobody no how--should have known which bottles were which. All four should have been stored in identical conditions and randomized in such a way that none of the four experimenters knew which was which until all the data was collected. TK should not have preselected which photographs were to be evaluated. He should have submitted every single photograph for evaluation and taken the same number of photographs for each bottle. Also, there should have been 100 bottles and not just 4.
Quote:
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?  |
I don't like for people to pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. The experiment was so poorly designed, they might as well have saved the trouble and just written a work of fiction.
Quote:
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).
|
in other words water that has a lot of minerals in it forms better crystals.
Quote:
|
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.
|
that is the claim. However, that doesn't explain why he didn't submit every single photo for evaluation and submit the same number of photos for each bottle. Or why there were only 4 bottles. Such a low number of test subjects would yield any results insignificant.
Quote:
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.
|
yes, especially since he knows in advance how the experiment must turn out.
Quote:
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".
|
(1) and (2) are the "wrong" answers and this experiment was arranged so that only (3) could be the result.