Quote:
Originally Posted by Ersby  If the scoring system is blind, I can't see how anyone could bias their ratings in favour of the genuine reading over the control ones. |
Hi Ersby, nice to see you back here. I certainly wouldn't put you in the category of the pseudo-skeptics at the psychic fair, you have read much of parapsychology and psychical research literature, you know the real debate is over weak effects and if these are real.
Correct me if I'm wrong ........
5 psychics give 5 readings to 5 unknown recipients without sensory clues. Now lets look at the extremes of bias ....
The point is that a 5 cynical recipients might not score properly and think something like
'none of this crap fits me much at all, bloody idiot mediums, I'll just choose this worst funny one, I have no dog but I had a plastic dog as a child, near enough match'
Now if you run this experiment over and over again often enough the outcome should be close to chance expectation, even if the mediums is giving information slightly better fitting to targets?
Now lets imagine 5 unbiased recipients just judging it as best they can. If the medium can truly give vague information that slightly better fitting the target recipient better it can show up to be statisically significant over a long enough trial.
Now lets imagine, 5 totally biased psychic believers (the sort that makes anything and everything fit perfectly) . They will try to manipulate any of the messages to fit but ultimately (I think) they will still have choose the one they feel fits better rather than choose the worst fit. So even if they mark worse than the unbiased, I think the effect should still show up over a long enough trial
Psychical experiments should IMHO use open minded skeptics or believers and generally avoid cynics (to last), not just for the above reason but due to longstanding claims of sheep, goat and experimenter effects. The fundamental thing is to stop cheating and remove sensory clues.