Nicht irgendwelche Studien, sondern Hortans eigene Versuche.Tajna schrieb: sich die meisten Studien an die Standards gehalten hätten.
Bishamon schrieb:Hyman analyzed these experiments and wrote they met most, but not all of the "stringent standards" of the joint communiqué.
Doch, das "Senden" der Informationen über das Zielobjekt erhöhte die Anzahl der richtigen Identifizierungen des Zielobjekts.Heide_witzka schrieb:Die kausale Verknüpfung der betrachteten Variablen kann nicht belegt werden
Bem, D.J., Palmer, J., Broughton, R.S.: (2001):
Updating the Ganzfeld Database: A Victim of Its Own Success?
I have since met Bem more than once, most recently at one of the Tucson consciousness conferences where we were able to have a leisurely breakfast together and discuss the evidence for the paranormal. I told Bem how shocked I was that he had included the Sargent data without saying where it came from and without referencing either Sargent’s own papers or the debate that followed my discoveries. He simply said it did not matter.
In his article, Vyse gives a quote from an interview in Slate magazine in which Bem describes his experiments as “rhetorical devices” and says he didn’t worry about replication: “I gathered data to show how my point would be made. I used data as a point of persuasion.” This, chillingly, reminded me of Carl Sargent telling me that it wouldn’t matter if some experiments were unreliable because, after all, we know that psi exists.
But it does matter. It matters that Sargent’s experiments were seriously flawed. It matters that Bem included these data in his meta-analysis without referencing the doubt cast on them. It matters because Bem’s continued claims mislead a willing public into believing that there is reputable scientific evidence for ESP in the Ganzfeld when there is not.
Wurde doppelverblindet getestet? Wo und wann?
So kann man auch belegen dass der Rückgang der Piraten für die Klimaerwärmung verantwortlich ist.
Nein leider nicht.
The first example was inadvertent on the scientist's part, and it is rather sad. Daryl Bem, a distinguished research psychologist at Cornell, garnered headlines two years ago when he published a paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (another leading journal in the field) purporting to find ESP. The paper included nine different experiments and many statistically significant results. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, for those of us who don't want the National Security Agency to be reading our minds as well as our emails), these experiments had multiple degrees of freedom that allowed Bem to keep looking until he could find what he was searching for. In his first experiment, in which 100 students participated in visualizations of images, he found a statistically significant result for erotic pictures but not for nonerotic pictures. But consider all the other possible comparisons: If the subjects had identified all images at a rate statistically significantly higher than chance, that certainly would have been reported. Or what if performance had been higher for the nonerotic pictures? One could easily argue that the erotic images were distracting and only the nonerotic images were a good test of the phenomenon. Or what if participants had performed statistically significantly better in the second half of the trial than in the first half? That would be evidence of learning. Or if they performed better on the first half? Evidence of fatigue. Bem reports, "There were no significant sex differences in the present experiment." If there had been (for example, if men had performed better with erotic images and women with romantic but nonerotic images), this certainly could have been presented as convincing evidence. And so on.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/07/statistics_and_psychology_multiple_comparisons_give_spurious_results.html
Lots of people want to believe in ESP. After all, it would be cool to read minds. (It wouldn’t be so cool, maybe, if other people could read your mind and you couldn’t read theirs, but I suspect most people don’t think of it that way.) And ESP seems so plausible, in a wish-fulfilling sort of way. It really feels like if you concentrate really hard, you can read minds, or predict the future, or whatever. Heck, when I play squash I always feel that if I really, really try hard, I should be able to win every point. The only thing that stops me from really believing this is that I realize that the same logic holds symmetrically for my opponent.
In the years since Bem's experiment, researchers have tried and failed to replicate his results. It is too bad that resources had to be wasted on this, but perhaps this is all worth it if it brings more attention to the ubiquitous problem of researcher degrees of freedom.
wusste ich nicht.
Was für Fehler sollen sie denn entdeckt haben?
🤔
Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman (1999) who discovered errors in Bem's research
Was für Fehler sollen sie denn entdeckt haben?
Tatsächlich waren sie es, die sich nicht an die Standards der Ganzfeldexperimente hielten, was dazu führte, dass ihre Untersuchung von 1999 von niemandem anerkannt wurde.
Und jetzt steht Kybela auf dem Schlauch ....
Tatsächlich waren sie es, die sich nicht an die Standards der Ganzfeldexperimente hielten, was dazu führte, dass ihre Untersuchung von 1999 von niemandem anerkannt wurde.
vielleicht nicht an den Standards von Honorton, sondern an Hyman + Honorton ("A Joint Communiqué")?
wenn sie nachweisen, dass es psi nicht gibt, wie kann das von niemanden anerkannt werden?
Hm .... wikipedia meint there is no reliable scientific evidence
wenn sie nachweisen, dass es psi nicht gibt, wie kann das von niemanden anerkannt werden?Ist ja auch falsch, aber Tajna arbeitet gerne mit diesem Trick - einfach mal eine Schlussfolgerung erfinden, die nicht von Fakten gestützt wird und die sich locker widerlegen lässt. Alleine schon hier gibt es unzählige User, die die Erkenntnis, dass es PSI nicht gibt, anerkennen. Alleine schon deshalb ist Tajnas Behauptung, nun, ja, wie sage ich es höflich, einfach nicht richtig.
Jetzt ignorierst du, was ich schon vielfach erklärt habe.Da Deine Erklärungen ja doch nur stets dieselbe alte Leier, nämlich Wiederholungen von nicht belegten Behauptungen sind, ist ein Ignorieren ja auch das sinnvollste, das man tun kann.
Beispielsweise solche Vorwarnungen vor Gefahren kann man immer brauchen, gerade als älterer Mensch mit höherem Unfallrisiko und höherem Krankheitsrisiko.off-peak schrieb:ich habe für unbrauchbare Fantasy keine Zeit mehr.
Das ist ausserhalb des Einbildungshorizontes Weniger allgemeiner Konsens.
Das ist inzwischen nicht mehr die allgemeine Ansicht.
