You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

JoshuaZ comments on Study shows existence of psychic powers. - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: bentarm 12 November 2010 01:46AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (26)
Tags: psi science

Comments (26)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 12 November 2010 01:58:18AM 3 points [-]

This has been discussed a few places on LW already. See for example here.

Comment author: Icelus 12 November 2010 07:03:37AM 3 points [-]

For this particular case I would also point people to the discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1878160

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 12 November 2010 11:01:30PM *  7 points [-]

This comment on HN, if true, seems pretty damning (emphasis added):

I went to Cornell and I'm one of the many students that participated in this guy's experiments (although not this particular one with the erotic pictures. I got regular pictures.)

I can tell you that every semester that I was there he was running a version of the "Are you psychic?" experiment. I'm sure he's been doing it every semester for a very long time. Undoubtedly there have been loads of experiments where it didn't pan out. (If you're curious about my results, I got 54% and a cheerful grad student greeted me after the fact by saying "congrats! you're psychic!")

The fact is, if you run an experiment like this enough times you are going to get a significant result eventually. That's why you have alpha values. If it's at .05, that means that 5% of the time you're going to get a false positive. I think that's what this is

Comment author: shokwave 15 November 2010 06:56:43AM 1 point [-]

Oh, wow. I read the article and the bit where he said "I waited for eight years so I'd have enough data to be sure it wasn't a fluke" sounded to me like it took him eight years to find a fluke big enough that it fell within the publishable p-value range - if this comment is true then he either doesn't understand statistics (bad), or is manipulating the statistics (very bad). One possibility is that he's doing this as a proof of concept that the p-value criteria is flawed: cognitive dissonance in academics trying to disbelieve a sound study showing psychic phenomenon would be a powerful force indeed to enact change.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit