(2017-11-26, 01:55 PM)Chris Wrote: No - those comments relate to Watt, Wiseman and Vuillaume (2015). They include the Watt study I referred to (2014), and indeed they regard to it as one of the "short-list of impressive precognition studies".
Ahh, didn't notice that they were talking about two different papers (and was lead astray even more because they mentioned the Watt paper was not peer reviewed but I see now they were just referring to a note in the paper),
I'll have to look at that paper and it should be added to the list of bigger studies, But I think we have to look closely at these studies. This is an issue I have with ganzfeld as well: the results tend to be all over the place. I'm not sure what to do with that but it raises questions for me. Also the heterogenity of the studies: how should this impact how we view the results?