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

Kamarling · Kamarling 2017-09-11, 12:51 AM

I think you have the http:// bit of the address duplicated in your link, Malf.

E. Flowers · E. Flowers 2017-09-11, 01:33 AM

(2017-09-11, 12:51 AM)Kamarling Wrote: I think you have the http:// bit of the address duplicated in your link, Malf.

No, he is right, the link in the OP is not working. As to "why" that is, it's hard to know. It may be undergoing an edit or preparing for actual peer review. We will know eventually.

Roberta · Roberta 2017-09-11, 06:35 AM

(2017-09-10, 08:49 PM)Max_B Wrote: What else should I point at than noise artifacts which the authors haven't yet accounted, for as an explanation of their results.

Come on mate, both authors have responded to you and shown they took sound as a potential artifact seriously and took steps to mitigate it. At this point you're being disengenuous and a little dishonest.

Roberta · Roberta 2017-09-11, 06:36 AM

(2017-09-11, 12:41 AM)malf Wrote: I'm not sure about this. Seems a little precious to me. I didn't notice that practice here

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.

I agree. This is frustrating.

To respond to your second point this paper is going to be peer reviewed - the author won't grant us an interview until this has been done.

Roberta · Roberta 2017-09-11, 06:37 AM

(2017-09-10, 11:38 PM)malf Wrote: The link is now broken.

Thanks for letting me know mate - I don't know of any other links to it - if anyone finds one and sends it to me or if i find any I'll edit my OP and add it.

#286 · Chris 2017-09-11, 07:40 AM Unregistered

(2017-09-11, 01:33 AM)E. Flowers Wrote: No, he is right, the link in the OP is not working. As to "why" that is, it's hard to know. It may be undergoing an edit or preparing for actual peer review. We will know eventually.

I've been in contact with the author, and he did mention that he was planning to revise the preprint. I assume that's why it's been taken offline.

Doppelgänger · Doppelgänger 2017-09-11, 07:58 AM

(2017-09-10, 07:54 PM)Max_B Wrote: More Bailey control freakery... (as for the rest, it appears you've not read the paper).

I think you should let the DB thing go... Just forget he ever existed or something. Treat him here as any other poster, and let's go into the research/papers. Please.

***Laird*** · ***Laird*** 2017-09-11, 08:03 AM Administrator

(2017-09-11, 07:40 AM)Chris Wrote: I've been in contact with the author, and he did mention that he was planning to revise the preprint. I assume that's why it's been taken offline.

Am curious to know whether you shared your concerns over the statistical analysis with him?

E. Flowers · E. Flowers 2017-09-11, 08:16 AM

(2017-09-11, 07:40 AM)Chris Wrote: I've been in contact with the author, and he did mention that he was planning to revise the preprint. I assume that's why it's been taken offline.

Thank you for verifying. Also to Roberta for confirming that peer review is upcoming.

#290 · Chris 2017-09-11, 08:21 AM Unregistered

(2017-09-11, 08:03 AM)Laird Wrote: Am curious to know whether you shared your concerns over the statistical analysis with him?

Yes, that was why I contacted him. He'd evidently had other feedback on the preprint before that, though. My impression is that he is very receptive to constructive criticism.