Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoDan  Yep.
Then you are objectively wrong. I suggest going back to college and taking some introductory math and/or philosophy classes. |
Maybe we can actually discuss this now that we've established that we disagree. What I am saying is that negative results in research are often filed away, forgotten or deliberately hidden (actually in a lot of areas, but, from what I understand, it is a particular problem in psychic research when it is done under less than scientific, double blind randomised trial (DBRT), circumstances with some checks and balances). The typical scenario is that some believers in psi set up an experiment or a whole institute and begin to gather data. Let's say they're checking whether Adam is psychic or not. Adam prepares and sits to do his test of his abilities. The study begins. He has agreed that predicting the cards that will be drawn from a pack should demonstrate his abilities, since he has done it casually with a few people and was convinced he was doing it more than chance would predict, although he accepted that sometimes the spirit guides were distracted and he got some wrong.
His test is not bad. He did get more than chance might predict (although, by the nature of chance, this is not a simple matter - getting more than the mathematical probability suggests does not actually prove anything at all, and evidence must accumulate over time or be particularly significantly in excess of the chance prediction or the control). It's noted down for the report, but it's not convincing enough for the sceptics yet. There are more trials.
The next one seems to be going badly. It's not a DBRT, and he's getting some feedback about whether each prediction is right or not. He's having an off day. He asks the examiners if he can stop, since clearly his guides are busy with some other pressing business. Sure. Let's all have a cup of tea and try later.
Later, things are going much better. The guide has finished with Silvia Browne or whoever, and can focus on telling him what's on the other side of cards. Those results are 'promising' and get noted in the record. No-one mentions the
stopping and starting or records the negative data.
Finally, the report is published, showing a small degree of significance and adding to the pile of small significant differences that will later be swept up by someone doing meta-studies, amplifying the effect. Thus, to save time, I said that the basements were groaning with negative evidence. I didn't say that the basements were groaning with Objective Proof.
The phenomenon happens at all stages. Even when we try to influence the tossing of a coin with mind power, it is very common experience for people to start to wonder whether they can do it, just toss heads, for instance, and the less scientific and objective they are, the more they will shrug and forget the tails and remember the heads. Every tail, I am arguing, is evidence against psychic ability, but they get ignored in the search for 'success'. A hard view would even say that a single tail result proves that someone is not psychic. This happens in playgrounds all over the world. Some kid says they can tell you something that's hidden, like the result of a coin you toss while their eyes are closed, they get it wrong and just do it again. This is a serious point. We seem to give psi such a benefit of the doubt that it always has to have another go when it fails to prove that has any basis in fact. It happens all the way up to the cultural level, clearly, since we're still arguing about it and people are still doing research trying to establish it.
Now, I'm prepared to be educated. I think I'm a fair philosopher and mathematician, but please, do explain why I'm objectively wrong. No, let me do a bit of divining myself and see if I can guess. I'll seal the reason you're going to tell me in an envelope...
BTW, that site is a
very good resource generally, explaining a lot of similar effects that add to the strong suggestion that psychic abilities and other forms of woo are complex illusions we create by poor thinking and desire. I've only mentioned one or two. Perhaps you could read some of it while I go and do Math 101. BTW, I've been programming in BASIC, 6502 Assembly and one or two other languages for about 25 years and studied geology at Oxford.