No one, including Dean Radin, would not say that it wouldn't have been nice to exclude expectancy from the results a priori, whether by controls or by analysis (it is routine, of course, for a design to be such that alternatives are excluded by analysis). This is the case with later presentiment experiments and yet, somehow, though the Skeptics claim to reject this experiment because this was not done in the original, they are not enthusiastically embracing the experiments for which it does not hold.
You will note that I always refer to these people as Skeptics with a capital "S" or occasionally as pseudo-skeptics but never as skeptics small "s". Any issue of Skeptical Inquirer could stand, for example, as a textbook of logical fallacies and rhetorical dirty tricks -- and not by pointing out those flaws in others. |