Posted on 01/15/2011 11:19:28 PM PST by neverdem
They should have seen it coming.
In recent weeks, editors at a respected psychology journal have been taking heat from fellow scientists for deciding to accept a research report that claims to show the existence of extrasensory perception.
The report, to be published this year in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, is not likely to change many minds. And the scientific critiques of the research methods and data analysis of its author, Daryl J. Bem (and the peer reviewers who urged that his paper be accepted), are not winning over many hearts.
Yet the episode has inflamed one of the longest-running debates in science. For decades, some statisticians have argued that the standard technique used to analyze data in much of social science and medicine overstates many study findings — often by a lot. As a result, these experts say, the literature is littered with positive findings that do not pan out: “effective” therapies that are no better than a placebo; slight biases that do not affect behavior; brain-imaging correlations that are meaningless.
By incorporating statistical techniques that are now widely used in other sciences — genetics, economic modeling, even wildlife monitoring — social scientists can correct for such problems, saving themselves (and, ahem, science reporters) time, effort and embarrassment.
“I was delighted that this ESP paper was accepted in a mainstream science journal, because it brought this whole subject up again,” said James Berger, a statistician at Duke University. “I was on a mini-crusade about this 20 years ago and realized that I could devote my entire life to it and never make a dent in the problem.”
The statistical approach that has dominated the social sciences for almost a century is called significance testing. The idea is straightforward. A finding from any well-designed study — say...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
All creatures have instincts or intuition. i.e. birds before a hurricane - dogs before a thunderstorm and cats before everything;0
The ‘Gift of Fear’ is a great book I often reference.
It describes the sense of danger that we often ignore at our peril.
IMHO, such intuition does not allow us to read or influence another’s mind, but it is an ‘extra’ 6th sense - or perception.
A 4 wheel drive can indeed go to Texas!
If it stays in Illinois , it can go to Taxes.
I couldn’t agree more. ESP = Extra Stupid Perception.
I think that everyone on this thread has forgotten the AMAZING work of Dr. Peter Venkman; who can forget how he proved that students who are attractive and gullible are 10 times more likely to have ESP than nerdy guys? This breakthrough work lead him to discover hidden ghosts in NYC, none of whom had any political intentions or voting patterns.
I remember him. Dr. Peter Venkman was genius. Wasn’t a movie made about his work?
If that was the case, wouldn't the rulers disguise their magick?
That's exactly what I was thinking--if the Harry Potters who ruled us were at all skilled in their magic, you'd probably never have more than the slightest suspicion that magic existed. And if you did have such suspicions, there would likely be government agencies that would work to dispel such suspicions as . . . uh . . .
Come to think of it, isn't that exactly the premise of the Harry Potter books?
Therapies that are no better than a placebo. My ESP tells me that shrinks disagree.
Well statistics was the point of my posting the article, not ESP. It's my impression that only a small percentage of folks study statistics, and it's only because it's required in college. It's not that easy. It's spelled Bayesian often used with the words analysis, probability or statistics. It's used a lot in medicine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.