(2018-10-09, 11:12 PM)Chris Wrote: No. I suspend judgment on what they've measured/not measured. Peter Bancel has made some strong arguments in favour of experimenter psi rather than global consciousness, but he had previously made what appeared to be equally strong arguments pointing in the other direction. Perhaps it's not cut and dried.
And you're criticising "skeptics" for not engaging with the data? I think at the very least it needs to be "cut and dried" before anyone is going to be that interested.
Quote:I really don't know why you should say "forgiving". I've never read anything to suggest that Bancel thinks there is anything to "forgive". He seems perfectly clear that he believes this is a psi effect.
Charitable then, given examples like I gave with the two aviation incidents. The fact that the data as a whole doesn't support a link between incidents and non-random outputs, yet their predetermined sample does, is worringly convenient. Does that not concern you at all?
Quote:I think if people are going to suggest there is elasticity in the interpretation of the data, it's reasonable to ask them where it is. If a hypothesis is stated, it's not much help to say "I can't see any elasticity in it, but maybe there's some subtle elasticity I can't see".
Given there isn't a graspable hypothesis on test here I sense a big "meh" from the skeptical community when it comes to the GCP. That and the scant prior plausibility means that it fails the critical thinking sniff test for them. I'm not saying I agree with that btw, I'd like to see more examination of the question, and a non psi friendly replication.
Quote:As for formal conclusions, as far as I can see, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the formal hypotheses is that observations like these are extremely unlikely to occur on the null hypothesis.
Yes, with the variable of psi sympathetic researchers.