The criticism that there is no reliably reproducible demonstration of psi

By the way, did you really mean PEAR? That group was at Princeton, and its PK studies were mostly done using random number generators, and definitely relied on statistical analysis.

You've got to laugh sometimes. Steve001 throws in a reference that he clearly knows nothing about to start with but fails to check before clicking Post Reply. If he had, he would have realised that the P in PEAR stands for Princeton.

He's a double "oh" one, he has a licence to shill.

You've got to laugh sometimes. Steve001 throws in a reference that he clearly knows nothing about to start with but fails to check before clicking Post Reply. If he had, he would have realised that the P in PEAR stands for Princeton.

Sorry K. I did put a question mark because I wasn't sure. Anyway whay do you know about them?

Alcock's other suggestion was getting a psychic to predict lottery numbers, which would have the added virtue of solving the problem of research funding, if successful.

But I feel those suggestions - if they're really meant to be taken seriously - are a bit difficult to reconcile with Alcock's concern about replication. They would be testing for exceptional abilities, so I don't think anyone would expect ordinary members of the public to be successful. But then how would other workers go about replicating the results? They'd need access not only to "the appropriate skill, knowledge and equipment", but also to the same exceptional subjects. That dilemma has existed since the early days of Rhine's experiments.

By the way, did you really mean PEAR? That group was at Princeton, and its PK studies were mostly done using random number generators, and definitely relied on statistical analysis.

I haven't thought of them for a very long time. What do you know of their work?

I haven't thought of them for a very long time. What do you know of their work?

I've read a fair amount about it - some of which has stuck - partly because I'm interested in the Global Consciousness Project (which in a sense is an "Heir to Pear"). Although PEAR is defunct, it still has a website with quite a lot of information about its work:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

But I still don't understand why you thought PEAR was particularly relevant to this discussion. As the topic is replication, maybe you're being sly, and alluding to the large collaborative attempt to replicate their microPK findings, which failed with regard to the main hypothesis. If so, we partly go back to the point about the replication of results produced by exceptional subjects, because it's been suggested (plausibly I think) that the replication attempt may have been under-powered in a statistical sense, because the positive PEAR results had been largely due to a small number of unusually gifted individuals.

I've read a fair amount about it - some of which has stuck - partly because I'm interested in the Global Consciousness Project (which in a sense is an "Heir to Pear"). Although PEAR is defunct, it still has a website with quite a lot of information about its work:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

But I still don't understand why you thought PEAR was particularly relevant to this discussion. As the topic is replication, maybe you're being sly, and alluding to the large collaborative attempt to replicate their microPK findings, which failed with regard to the main hypothesis. If so, we partly go back to the point about the replication of results produced by exceptional subjects, because it's been suggested (plausibly I think) that the replication attempt may have been under-powered in a statistical sense, because the positive PEAR results had been largely due to a small number of unusually gifted individuals.

Your question: "A criticism often made by sceptics is that after a century or so of experimental psi research, there is still no reliably reproducible demonstration that psi exists."

I choose PEAR because they searched for pk. Pk is the easiest of all psi to demonstrate, either the object moves or it does not. After millions of trials, independent testing by two German labs which did not replicate the claimed PEAR results and PEAR itself failing to replicate successfully to build a robust result. Testing for any other form of psi such as precognition, remote viewing... is far more complicated do to the more subjective interpretive assessment. After 120 years of research without robust results you wonder why psi isn't taken seriously.

Your question: "A criticism often made by sceptics is that after a century or so of experimental psi research, there is still no reliably reproducible demonstration that psi exists."

I choose PEAR because they searched for pk. Pk is the easiest of all psi to demonstrate, either the object moves or it does not. After millions of trials, independent testing by two German labs which did not replicate the claimed PEAR results and PEAR itself failing to replicate successfully to build a robust result.

Evidently I guessed right that you had the collaborative replication attempt in mind. But you still don't seem to appreciate that these are all studies based on random number generators, which have to be interpreted statistically. They are quite different from the hypothetical macroPK experiment that Alcock was referring to (which was apparently originally proposed by Martin Gardner).

Here's a link to the report of that collaborative replication attempt, in case anyone is interested to see it:
https://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/200...cation.pdf

The suggestion that the replication attempt was under-powered was made in a chapter by Varvoglis and Bancel, in the "Handbook for the 21st Century", a draft of which is available here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...chokinesis

I'm not saying it was under powered.

No, that was a suggestion made by Varvoglis and Bancel, as I said.

Evidently I guessed right that you had the collaborative replication attempt in mind. But you still don't seem to appreciate that these are all studies based on random number generators, which have to be interpreted statistically. They are quite different from the hypothetical macroPK experiment that Alcock was referring to (which was apparently originally proposed by Martin Gardner).

Here's a link to the report of that collaborative replication attempt, in case anyone is interested to see it:
https://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/200...cation.pdf

The suggestion that the replication attempt was under-powered was made in a chapter by Varvoglis and Bancel, in the "Handbook for the 21st Century", a draft of which is available here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...chokinesis

I'm not saying it was under powered. I said after millions of trials their data was not robust. Why are random number generators needed when there are folks who claim pk strong enough to demonstrate it without  such devices. Some use Uri Geller for example. Someone posted video of table tipping. Poking around I came across this about PEAR. http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readin...20lab.html 
Keep in mind I'm not discussing the PEAR results. I'm pointing out how pk would be the least complicated of all psi to demonstrate if it's real.