Here's a rather strange article by Mark Boccuzzi entitled "Using a Symbolic Hieronymus Machine to Predict the Future", on the Windbridge Institute website. It's based on a presentation given at a joint meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration and the International Association of Remote Viewing (SSE/IRVA) earlier this year:
http://windbridgeinstitute.com/build-you...he-future/
The Hieronymus Machine is a device patented in 1949, which was supposed to be able to analyse materials but Wikipedia tells us "Skeptics and scientists [sic] consider the devices to be an example of pseudoscience and quackery". The interesting twist is that in the 1950s the science fiction editor John W. Campbell claimed that the machine not only worked, but still worked if parts of it were replaced by cardboard cut-outs, because it all depended on a psi effect produced by the operator.
Boccuzzi tested the device by trying to predict the results of the US Presidential election in 6 "battleground states". The predictions were correct for 5 of the 6, which Boccuzzi evidently considers a success, though he emphasises the test was exploratory and "fun" rather than a formal experiment.
The probability of this or a better success rate happening by chance is about 11%. There was an initial "calibration" of the device with safe states, which produced very scattered results. In fact I wonder whether the difference between red and blue states at the calibration stage was statistically significant*. Given the scatter, if it were a genuine effect I reckon 5 out of 6 is a better result than could reasonably be expected, so probably Boccuzzi just got lucky.
(* Edit: It doesn't look as though it is to me, and if it were it would be as remarkable as correct predictions of battleground states, as the calibration was done blind.)
http://windbridgeinstitute.com/build-you...he-future/
The Hieronymus Machine is a device patented in 1949, which was supposed to be able to analyse materials but Wikipedia tells us "Skeptics and scientists [sic] consider the devices to be an example of pseudoscience and quackery". The interesting twist is that in the 1950s the science fiction editor John W. Campbell claimed that the machine not only worked, but still worked if parts of it were replaced by cardboard cut-outs, because it all depended on a psi effect produced by the operator.
Boccuzzi tested the device by trying to predict the results of the US Presidential election in 6 "battleground states". The predictions were correct for 5 of the 6, which Boccuzzi evidently considers a success, though he emphasises the test was exploratory and "fun" rather than a formal experiment.
The probability of this or a better success rate happening by chance is about 11%. There was an initial "calibration" of the device with safe states, which produced very scattered results. In fact I wonder whether the difference between red and blue states at the calibration stage was statistically significant*. Given the scatter, if it were a genuine effect I reckon 5 out of 6 is a better result than could reasonably be expected, so probably Boccuzzi just got lucky.
(* Edit: It doesn't look as though it is to me, and if it were it would be as remarkable as correct predictions of battleground states, as the calibration was done blind.)
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)