View Single Post
dm4b
dm4b is offline
#157
Mar22-11, 08:06 PM
P: 315
Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post
If your methodology is flawed, your findings are flawed. AKA, you've come up with nothing.
Unfortunately, it never seems to be that black and white. Have you seen the back and forth between Bem and Wagenbacher on the (lack of) use of Bayesian statistics, because it's a good example?

You've got expert statisticians on both sides, one side saying the methodology is sound and the other saying it is flawed. Bem got positive results, but one side says it's nothing, while the other says it's something.

There are several studies that have been sitting around for a while, that have not been this heavily scrutinized. So, I don't think enough has been done to say the methodology is definitely flawed on these past studies. Bem cites some of them in his paper.

Maybe the attention Bem has drawn will put these old cases to rest too, one way or the other.

Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post
There was nothing I saw in the paper that suggested anything psychic (heck one of the tests was recall words).
Well, it dealt with retrocausality though, so it wasn't simple recall