From: BillK (pharos@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 02 2006 - 12:18:15 MST
On 1/2/06, Jeff Medina wrote:
>
> It isn't that positive and negative (i.e., any) results are
> interpreted as support. Richard is claiming specifically that:
>
> - Believers in such experiments have consistently positive results
> - Skeptics in such experiments have consistently negative results
>
> Chance would imply a lack of correlation between one's belief and
> one's results; there should be positive and negative variance in equal
> amounts for the believers and the skeptics, but there aren't,
> apparently.
>
> Not that I support his take on psi. But there is a critical
> distinction to be made between the object of your criticism and the
> claim Richard's making, no matter what the explanation of these
> experiments.
>
In that case the claim depends on the levels of 'belief' not on the
actual results of testing. So you need to have 'belief' tests done
first.
But do you really believe? Or are you just hoping it will work?
Let's have brainwave scans to detect the level of belief.
Of course, you know that's why prayers and magic spells fail to work, don't you?
You didn't believe strongly enough. ;)
BillK
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT