Persze, és ha csak ezeket veszik tekintetbe, akkor hibás az eredendő statisztika. Erre van az a becslés, hogy vajon mennyi negatív kimenetelű kísérletnek kell a fiókokban heverniük, hogy az ismert pozitívakat ellensúlyozva inszignifikánsnak kelljen tekinteni az összeredményben a hatást. Ha ez túl nagy szám, akkor feltesszük, hogy nem a válogatott eredményeknek tudható be a pozitív kicsengés.Ha elegendoen sok kiserletet vegeznek, akkor lesz koztuk olyan sorozat is, amelyik szignifikansan elter a veletlen alapjan varhatotol.
The results of the overall SRI analysis are
consistent with results of similar experiments in other laboratories. For instance, an overview of
forced choice precognition experiments (Honorton and Ferrari, 1989) found an average "effect
size" per experimenter of 0.033, whereas all forced choice experiments at SRI resulted in a similar
effect size of .052. [...]
Methodologically sound remote viewing has not been undertaken at other laboratories, but a
similar regime called the ganzfeld (described in more detail in Chapter 5) has shown to be
similarly successful. The largest collection of ganzfeld experiments was conducted from 1983 to
1989 at the Psychophysical Research Laboratories in Princeton, NJ. Those experiments were also reported by separating novices from experienced subjects. The overall effect size for novice
remote viewing at SRI was 0.164, while the effect size for novices in the ganzfeld at PRL was a
very similar 0.17. For experienced remote viewers at SRI the overall effect size was 0.385; for
experienced viewers in the ganzfeld experiments it was 0.35. These consistent results across
laboratories help refute the idea that the successful experiments at any one lab are the result of
fraud, sloppy protocols or some methodological problem and also provide an indication of what
can be expected in future experiments.
How is possible, that overall results have found 0.052 effect size, but separately, novice and experimented have found bigger effect size??
whereas all forced choice experiments at SRI resulted
in a similar effect size of .052
The overall effect size
for novice remote viewing at SRI was 0.164
For experienced remote viewers at SRI the overall effect
size was 0.385;
The most suspicious pattern was the fact that the hit rate for a given target increased with the frequency of occurrence of that target in the experiment. The hit rate for the targets that occurred only once was right at the chance expectation of 25%. For targets that appeared twice the hit rate crept up to 28%. For those that occurred three times it was 38%, and for those targets that occurred six or more times, the hit rate was 52%. Each time a videotape is played its quality can degrade. It is plausible then, that when a frequently used clip is the target for a given session, it may be physically distinguishable from the other three decoy clips that are presented to the subject for judging.
PEAR's results have been criticized for deficient reproducibility. In one instance two German organizations failed to reproduce PEAR's results, while PEAR similarly failed to reproduce their own results. An attempt by York University's Stan Jeffers also failed to replicate PEAR's results.
Wiseman stated, “I think that parapsychologists by not far from 100 years of research have failed to come up with that level of evidence. It’s not to say they couldn’t in the future, but to me there just hasn’t been the level of progress that you would expect given the amount of work that’s been put in… that strength of evidence simply isn’t there.”
But I do think it’s the case that if the evidence were extremely strong, if it were overwhelming, if it was extremely convincing, then there would be a shift within mainstream science. I don’t think that shift is impossible. I think the database just doesn’t justify it at the moment.
But if you take the general ESP claim, which might include Ganzfeld and some of the other ESP paradigms as well, I think it’s true – I don’t know there’s any kind of objective way that could be measuring this, but my feeling is if that were a claim about the effect of alcohol on memory, then we’d go, yeah, there’s probably something to it. But the claim here is far more radical than that. It would lead to a massive shift within science. It would overturn most of what we know within psychology. I don’t know about other areas, but certainly within psychology. So for me the evidential bar, as it were, needs to be much higher than that.
Szabolcs írta:Hozzászólás forrása Következtetésképpen:
Nekem egyértelműnek tűnik, hogy a Ganzfeld nem bizonyította egyelőre a psi létezését. Ettől függetlenül attól még létezhet, talán majd egyszer sikerül
Jelenlévő fórumozók: nincs regisztrált felhasználó valamint 2 vendég