View Single Post
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 06-30-2008, 08:45 AM
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Paul C. Anagnostopoulos is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,020
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
As Dean Radin points out, normal science often uses statistical results with smaller effect sizes than those typically reported in ? experiments. It would make eminent sense to expend some time and money exploring fringe phenomena. The expense is tiny and the potential gain enormous. Vast numbers of conentional experiments must be performed each day which fail to lead to a conclusive result for one reason or another.
By all means, experiment away. Just keep in mind that some experiment will be statistically significant at p < .05, even if there is nothing going on.

Quote:
I would have thought this was obvious. The essential gain is that you get a lot more data which can potentially build statistical significance faster. Automated measurements possibly also help by reducing the boredome of the experiments. Think of the presentiment experiment experiment (I don't know if you count skin conductance measurements as brain analysis, but the fMRI versions of this experiment must surely count) or the telepathy tests that have used EEG measurements to look for correlations.
And so what is the advantage of distinguishing mind from brain?

~~ Paul
Reply With Quote