6.37 sigma replication of Dean Radin's double slit consciousness experiments

An article of interest I think.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-ste...88798.html

Nice job Steve001, you found an old article which was written by a guy Victor Stenger, who late in career became known a a famous religious and spiritual (I'm sure he saw them as the same thing) skeptic. He was famously sued by Uri Geller for liable. Oh,, keep in mind, this was written in 1992, so is 25 years old. Not exactly up to date in terms of our knowledge of things. I'm sure you dug it up out of your skeptics dictionary, or encyclopedia or bible or whatever you guys call it. 

Great job steve001 you brought some important and objective new information to the table for us to all see and digest. Soooo helpful.

On to the merits of what was said ...
The author provides a detailed history of modern science. Very well done, in terms of the raw dry facts of one particular point of view but totally wrong in terms of the quotes and thoughts about some of the greas in QM. In addition it fails to touch on a single one the huge number of things we well know of that show conventional thinking is in error.  

Also the author states in his pissy, and dismissive way, that the only reason Lanza and his type hold these views because:  "The myth of quantum consciousness sits well with many whose egos have made it impossible for them to accept the insignificant place science perceives for humanity". What a misinformed, close-minded, intentionally misleading, arrogant dickhead.

He then says- If Bohr and Heisenberg had spoken of measurements made by inanimate instruments rather than “observers,” perhaps this strained relationship between quantum and mind would not have been drawn. For, nothing in quantum mechanics requires human involvement. Given his PhD, he knows perfectly well that we have proven beyond a doubt that somehow these measurements DO require a conscious observer. He has decided to ignore that fact and pretend it doesn't exist because, well see note above...

This author is a good example of what Max Planck said: "science progresses one funeral at a time". This guys died in 2012 RIP. So one idiot down. Unfortunately people like Steve001 are trying to keep the rotting corpse alive on life support.

I will not go any further into the merits Steve001, but if this article reflects your view on things, you have a lot of blanks to fill in with your story, as this article ignores a lot of proven work. It's like you are arguing in support of the traditional model of the atom with a nucleus and orbiting electrons.  Wake up man: that was proven wrong decades ago.

I think there are a number of problems involved in dissecting a paper in this way.

1) Researches may check for a possible problem without actually stating that fact in the paper. I think it is only fair to ask the author of the experiment for his response before discussing the supposed flaw on the internet.

2) Reports of experiments supporting a ψ effect can expect to be rigorously refereed. If the referees didn't find fault, it is rather unlikely that others will.

3) Ideally (in normal science) if a potential explanation for an effect is suggested, another experiment would be performed to test if the explanation was adequate to explain the effect. When discussing ψ, it all too often seems that a potential flaw - however implausible - is enough to allow sceptics to abandon the research with a sigh of relief.

It is unclear to me, why we would expect the sound level to vary between the periods of mental focus, and the relaxation periods. I mean, given the number of replications, the sound explanation doesn't seem likely unless there is a specific reason to expect more sound (less efficient interference) while the mediators were focussed.

David

More Bailey control freakery... (as for the rest, it appears you've not read the paper).

Have you not found something else to do other than pretending that sound is the explanation?

What else should I point at than noise artifacts which the authors haven't yet accounted, for as an explanation of their results.

  might you consider the possibility that it is real?

https://osf.io/zsgwp/

Very interesting and I think it's an independent replication as well - exciting stuff!

The link is now broken.

I think there are a number of problems involved in dissecting a paper in this way.

1)           Researches may check for a possible problem without actually stating that fact in the paper. I think it is only fair to ask the author of the experiment for his response before discussing the supposed flaw on the internet.

I'm not sure about this. Seems a little precious to me. I didn't notice that practice here  

2)           Reports of experiments supporting a ψ effect can expect to be rigorously refereed. If the referees didn't find fault, it is rather unlikely that others will.

I assume you're talking about the peer review here. As far as I can make out an OSF preprint has undergone no peer review. Under those circumstances the author should be much more grateful for any forum critiques.

3)           Ideally (in normal science) if a potential explanation for an effect is suggested, another experiment would be performed to test if the explanation was adequate to explain the effect. When discussing ψ, it all too often seems that a potential flaw - however implausible - is enough to allow sceptics to abandon the research with a sigh of relief.

I agree. This is frustrating.