I'm not sure why I didn't read this thread before. It seems to me that the one thing this study proved is that studies like this need to be double-blind. It almost appears it was set up for that specific purpose.Originally posted by Zero
I think the methodology in both cases is flawed by interference from teh testers. It was just as bad for the woman to tell the subjects that she was supporting the idea, as it was for the man to say he was trying to disprove it.
A few years ago a teenager did an experiment for a science fair where she tested "touch therapist's" (misnomer - they don't actually touch their subjects) ability to sense when their hands were in close proximity to another person's. Since "touch therapy" was the profession of the subjects, all of them believed they had such an ability. The test was double-blind and considered of good enough scientific merit to be published in the NE Journal of Medicine.