Chance News 70: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(→Item 1) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Forsooth== | ==Forsooth== | ||
== | ==New ESP study raises ruckus== | ||
Read about a new study in which a Cornell psychologist claims to have verified "ESP":<br> | |||
[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/extrasensory-perception-scientific-journal-esp-paper-published-cornell/story?id=12556754 “ESP Study Gets Published in Scientific Journal], by Ned Potter, <i>ABC World News</i>, January 6, 2011 (including 2-min video interview).<br> | |||
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html?_r=1&ref=benedictcarey “Journal’s paper on ESP Expected to Prompt Outrage”], by Benedict Carey, <i>The New York Times</i>, January 5, 2011.<br> | |||
Read the study:<br> | |||
[http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf “Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect”], by Daryl J. Bem, Cornell University, <i>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</i>, 2010.<br> | |||
Read a rebuttal:<br> | |||
[http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1018886/Bem6.pdf “Why Psychologists Must Change the Way They Analyze Their Data”], by Eric-Jan Wagenmakers <i>et al</i>., University of Amsterdam.<br> | |||
<blockquote>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.</blockquote> | |||
Submitted by Margaret Cibes based on an ISOSTAT posting by Randall Pruim | |||
==Item 2== | ==Item 2== | ||
Revision as of 21:01, 7 January 2011
Quotations
Forsooth
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