Scientific take on telekinesis

  • Thread starter Snip3r
  • Start date
  • #26
102
0
It implies ghostly interference in lab studies ...
does it imply an inclination towards telepathy cos i see Einstein quoting a physicist about that.any one?
 
  • #27
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,754
706
does it imply an inclination towards telepathy cos i see Einstein quoting a physicist about that.any one?
No. Accepting the methodology of the paper to be sound (which is never a given, when properly reading a paper you should read through the method to determine if it is correct) and accepting this to be true all it shows is that there is an unexplained statistical effect that should be investigated more. It is not evidence for the existance of anything on its own.
 
  • #28
102
0
No. Accepting the methodology of the paper to be sound (which is never a given, when properly reading a paper you should read through the method to determine if it is correct) and accepting this to be true all it shows is that there is an unexplained statistical effect that should be investigated more. It is not evidence for the existance of anything on its own.
i agree to that. Btw any idea why this became defunct? and any where is the further investigation carried upon?
 
  • #29
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,754
706
i agree to that. Btw any idea why this became defunct?
You mean why did PEAR close? Short answer is that the department head considered their job done with the publication of the paper we're talking about.
and any where is the further investigation carried upon?
I looked up the paper on ncbi and found many papers citing it however I was suspicious when many of them seemed to be pro-ESP papers published in a small variety of journals including the Journal of Scientific Exploration, the Journal of Consciousness Studies and the Journal of Science and Healing. All of these are frindge journals with very questionable credibility so bear that in mind when you read further into this.

One paper that is quite interesting however is this meta-analysis on so-called Decision Augmentation Theory evidence that claims that the statistical significance seen in papers like the PEAR one are a result of publication bias.
 
  • #30
Evo
Mentor
22,880
2,381
This is a good article on PEAR.

According to John McCrone, "Operator 10," believed to be a PEAR staff member, "has been involved in 15% of the 14 million trials, yet contributed to a full half of the total excess hits" (McCrone 1994).

Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about PEAR is the fact that suggestions by critics that should have been considered were routinely ignored. Physicist Bob Park reports, for example, that he suggested to Jahn two types of experiments that would have bypassed the main criticisms aimed at PEAR. Why not do a double-blind experiment? asked Park. Have a second RNG determine the task of the operator and do not let this determination be known to the one recording the results. This could have eliminated the charge of experimenter bias. Another experiment, however, could have eliminated most criticism. Park suggested that PEAR have operators try to use their minds to move a "state-of-the-art microbalance" (Park 2008, 138-139). A microbalance can make precise measurements on the order of a millionth of a gram. One doesn't need to be clairvoyant to figure out why this suggestion was never heeded.
http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html
 

Related Threads for: Scientific take on telekinesis

Replies
7
Views
707
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
23K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
58
Views
29K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
10K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
971
Top