Chance News 70: Difference between revisions
(→Item 1) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Quotations== | ==Quotations== | ||
==Forsooth== | ==Forsooth== | ||
From a novel, <i>The Kills</i>, by Linda Fairstein, Scribner, 2004: | |||
<blockquote>“Hey, how many people do you need to have in a room to guarantee the chance that at least two of them would have the same birthday?”<br> | |||
“I don’t know. Three hundred sixty-four.”<br> | |||
“Hah! Twenty-three. At least two out of every twenty-three people will have exactly the same birthday. Statistical odds. A lot of life is coincidence.”</blockquote> | |||
Submitted by Margaret Cibes | |||
==New ESP study raises ruckus== | ==New ESP study raises ruckus== | ||
Revision as of 01:37, 10 January 2011
Quotations
Forsooth
From a novel, The Kills, by Linda Fairstein, Scribner, 2004:
“Hey, how many people do you need to have in a room to guarantee the chance that at least two of them would have the same birthday?”
“I don’t know. Three hundred sixty-four.”
“Hah! Twenty-three. At least two out of every twenty-three people will have exactly the same birthday. Statistical odds. A lot of life is coincidence.”
Submitted by Margaret Cibes
New ESP study raises ruckus
Read about a new study in which a Cornell psychologist claims to have verified "ESP":
“ESP Study Gets Published in Scientific Journal, by Ned Potter, ABC World News, January 6, 2011 (including 2-min video interview).
“Journal’s paper on ESP Expected to Prompt Outrage”, by Benedict Carey, The New York Times, January 5, 2011.
Read the study:
“Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect”, by Daryl J. Bem, Cornell University, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010.
Read a rebuttal:
“Why Psychologists Must Change the Way They Analyze Their Data”, by Eric-Jan Wagenmakers et al., University of Amsterdam.
We reanalyze Bem’s data using a default Bayesian t-test and show that the evidence for psi ["ESP"] is weak to nonexistent. …. We conclude that Bem’s p-values do not indicate evidence in favor of precognition; instead, they indicate that experimental psychologists need to change the way they conduct their experiments and analyze their data.
Submitted by Margaret Cibes based on an ISOSTAT posting by Randall Pruim