Comment on Existential Risk and Public Relations

Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:36:41 GMT

Right, like I said, publication bias is a possibility. But in Honorton's precognition meta-analysis the results were strong enough that, for them not to be significant, the ratio of unpublished studies averaging null results to published studies would have 46:1. That seems too high for me to be comfortable attributing everything to publication bias. It is this history of results, rather than Bem's lone study, that troubles me.

Bem has effectively been getting a group of students to flip a bunch of coins for the last eight years.

What evidence is there for this?

Discuss