Principles of Curiosity

I don't think many 'skeptics' (or proponents) are interested in 'small effect size psi' justified by mathematical significance. To paraphrase, there are lies, damn lies, and Radin analysis.

Sorry, you've lost me. Are you referring to a particular study by Radin, or all his work?

Sorry, you've lost me. Are you referring to a particular study by Radin, or all his work?

I'm referring to why many skeptics and proponents don't see Radin's (or Bem's or ganzfeld) experiments as a 'slam dunk' for psi. The issues that beset psychology more broadly have been exhaustively covered.

Perhaps the parapsycologists are on to something, but at the very least they need to work on their marketing.

I'm referring to why many skeptics and proponents don't see Radin's (or Bem's or ganzfeld) experiments as a 'slam dunk' for psi. The issues that beset psychology more broadly have been exhaustively covered.

Perhaps the parapsycologists are on to something, but at the very least they need to work on their marketing.

Don't you think the problem has more to do with reproducibility rather than small effect size in itself, though?

Don't you think the problem has more to do with reproducibility rather than small effect size in itself, though?

Both. It's hard to know exactly what goes on in any given experiment. Given the issues with researcher 'degrees of freedom", the appeal of small effect sizes is diminished. 

Reproducibility difficulties are also troublesome, but clearly not unrelated to the first issue.

I'm referring to why many skeptics and proponents don't see Radin's (or Bem's or ganzfeld) experiments as a 'slam dunk' for psi. The issues that beset psychology more broadly have been exhaustively covered.

Perhaps the parapsycologists are on to something, but at the very least they need to work on their marketing.

Surely you're not suggesting that, in terms of public acceptance (or "marketing", as you put it) parapsychologists are subject to the same exposure as any other field of scientific enquiry? It seems to me that there is a bevy of skeptics ready to pounce on any research suggestive of psi. 

The water is further muddied by professional skeptics who call themselves parapsychologists - Caroline Watt and Richard Wiseman to name a couple. Both of these have received or are receiving funding from the Arthur Koestler bequest and, I would suggest, doing so under false pretences. Koestler was a man who had a genuine interest in parapsychology and I cannot help but wonder how he would feel about his bequest being channeled into the pockets of dedicated debunkers. Watt claims to be following in the footsteps of Rhine, etc., but her involvement with Wiseman and various skeptical organisations such as Skeptics in the Pub, Edinburgh Skeptics and the so-called Good Thinking Society (along with Wiseman, Chris French and other skeptics) suggests otherwise.

So, even if Radin, Bem, etc. are on to something they cannot have the resources to counter the negative press they will inevitably encounter at every turn.

Both. It's hard to know exactly what goes on in any given experiment. Given the issues with researcher 'degrees of freedom", the appeal of small effect sizes is diminished. 

Reproducibility difficulties are also troublesome, but clearly not unrelated to the first issue.

Well, researcher "degrees of freedom" have to be excluded anyway, because that makes statistical analysis meaningless, whatever the effect size.

I'm afraid I just don't see any rational basis for rejecting a phenomenon purely on the basis that the effect size is small, if the statistical evidence is adequate.

[Laird]

Targ and Puthoff misrepresented the work with Nature regarding the nature of the target and what Geller said in response.

Can you elaborate on this please?

Well, researcher "degrees of freedom" have to be excluded anyway, because that makes statistical analysis meaningless, whatever the effect size.

I'm afraid I just don't see any rational basis for rejecting a phenomenon purely on the basis that the effect size is small, if the statistical evidence is adequate.

OK. I'm using 'degrees of freedom' to include practices around the statistical analysis... Which data to include, and even the type of statistical analysis applied etc.

OK. I'm using 'degrees of freedom' to include practices around the statistical analysis... Which data to include, and even the type of statistical analysis applied etc.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index...positives/

Can you elaborate on this please?

In the “Uri Geller – What do you think” thread I compare two documents both written by Targ and Puthoff on the Geller experiments: one original report for the CIA and then the Nature paper.

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-16...ml#pid2930

They differed in that the actual target words had sometimes been changed from one to the other, and in reporting which trials Uri Geller had actually not offered a guess for.