quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Ok, If you insist... we're dealing with 59 anomolous succesful trials. That's on the edge of statistically significant... Then we move on to the next experiment... the much reduced hit percentage remains anomolous but...

Give me a break, you can't even spell "anomalous" correctly...

A meta-analysis of all forced-choice precognition experiments appearing in English language journals between 1935 and 1977 was published by Honorton and Ferrari (1989). Their analysis included 309 experiments conducted by 62 different investigators involving more than 50,000 participants. Honorton and Ferrari reported a small but consistent and highly significant hit rate (Mean z = 0.69, combined z = 12.14, p = 6 × 10-27). They also concluded that this overall result was unlikely to be significantly inflated by the selective reporting of positive results (the so-called file-drawer effect): There would have to be 46 unreported studies averaging null results for every reported study in the meta-analysis to reduce the overall significance of the database to nonsignificance.

Just as research in cognitive social psychology has increasingly pursued the study of cognitive and affective processes that are not accessible to conscious awareness and control (Bargh & Ferguson, 2000), research in psi has followed the same path, moving from explicit forced-choice guessing tasks to experiments using subliminal stimuli and implicit, indirect, or physiological responses. The trend is exemplified by several recent "presentiment" experiments, pioneered by Radin (1997), in which physiological indices of participants’ emotional arousal were monitored as participants viewed a series of pictures on a computer screen. Most of the pictures were emotionally neutral, but a highly arousing negative or erotic image was displayed on randomly selected trials. As expected, strong emotional arousal occurred when these images appeared on the screen, but the remarkable finding is that the increased arousal was observed to occur a few seconds before the picture appeared, before the computer has even selected the picture to be displayed. The presentiment effect has also been demonstrated in an fMRI experiment that monitored brain activity (Bierman & Scholte, 2002) and in experiments using bursts of noise rather than visual images as the arousing stimuli (Spottiswoode & May, 2003). A review of presentiment experiments prior to 2006 can be found in Radin (2006, pp. 161-180).

Maybe there's something going on here that you just don't want to acknowledge.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Mostly, it shows that we cling to assumptions as fact and apply them to paradigms where they don't apply.

At the speed of light, time is irrelevant. There is no future, only "now." Yet we discuss this as if applies in daily life--a fallacy of composition (atoms are colorless, cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless).

We also know atoms are mostly space, and we are made of atoms, and are hence mostly space--energy, really. Yet this clearly is not our experience.

Capra has a long explanation for this--temporal/spacial probabilities are hard to collapse. Hence, the physical world--and linear time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Ok, If you insist... we're dealing with 59 anomolous succesful trials. That's on the edge of statistically significant... Then we move on to the next experiment... the much reduced hit percentage remains anomolous but...

Give me a break, you can't even spell "anomalous" correctly...

A meta-analysis of all forced-choice precognition experiments appearing in English language journals between 1935 and 1977 was published by Honorton and Ferrari (1989). Their analysis included 309 experiments conducted by 62 different investigators involving more than 50,000 participants. Honorton and Ferrari reported a small but consistent and highly significant hit rate (Mean z = 0.69, combined z = 12.14, p = 6 × 10-27). They also concluded that this overall result was unlikely to be significantly inflated by the selective reporting of positive results (the so-called file-drawer effect): There would have to be 46 unreported studies averaging null results for every reported study in the meta-analysis to reduce the overall significance of the database to nonsignificance.

Just as research in cognitive social psychology has increasingly pursued the study of cognitive and affective processes that are not accessible to conscious awareness and control (Bargh & Ferguson, 2000), research in psi has followed the same path, moving from explicit forced-choice guessing tasks to experiments using subliminal stimuli and implicit, indirect, or physiological responses. The trend is exemplified by several recent "presentiment" experiments, pioneered by Radin (1997), in which physiological indices of participants’ emotional arousal were monitored as participants viewed a series of pictures on a computer screen. Most of the pictures were emotionally neutral, but a highly arousing negative or erotic image was displayed on randomly selected trials. As expected, strong emotional arousal occurred when these images appeared on the screen, but the remarkable finding is that the increased arousal was observed to occur a few seconds before the picture appeared, before the computer has even selected the picture to be displayed. The presentiment effect has also been demonstrated in an fMRI experiment that monitored brain activity (Bierman & Scholte, 2002) and in experiments using bursts of noise rather than visual images as the arousing stimuli (Spottiswoode & May, 2003). A review of presentiment experiments prior to 2006 can be found in Radin (2006, pp. 161-180).

Maybe there's something going on here that you just don't want to acknowledge.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
I dont have time to review the original article, but if the numbers DK posted regarding the numbers of trials and the outcomes is accurate the results are 2.5-3 times the standard deviation of totally random picks. That means the outcomes are non-random with greater than 99% confidence.

However that assumes that the trials are indeed independent and properly controlled.

quote:

DK's suggestion that the first trials be used as a screen for those with psychic ability and that group tested further for significance would be interesting, but it is a different study than is indicated by the excerpts in this thread to be the intent. It is stated that the purpose was to identify if an average group of people exhibits some pre-cognitive ability, which the study clearly supports (again given the caveats above). DK's suggested study is whether there are groups of people with greater than average pre-cognitive ability which is totally different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Give me a break, you can't even spell "anomalous" correctly...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
I dont have time to review the original article, but if the numbers DK posted regarding the numbers of trials and the outcomes is accurate the results are 2.5-3 times the standard deviation of totally random picks. That means the outcomes are non-random with greater than 99% confidence.

However that assumes that the trials are indeed independent and properly controlled.

That is a big if.

quote:

DK's suggestion that the first trials be used as a screen for those with psychic ability and that group tested further for significance would be interesting, but it is a different study than is indicated by the excerpts in this thread to be the intent. It is stated that the purpose was to identify if an average group of people exhibits some pre-cognitive ability, which the study clearly supports (again given the caveats above). DK's suggested study is whether there are groups of people with greater than average pre-cognitive ability which is totally different.

You don't find the drastic reduction in successes in the large experiment very troubling?