stekas@hou2g.UUCP (01/23/84)
Nova made much about the "tight" control Schmidt had, but all I saw
were some counters flipping while the announcer mentioned "tamper
proof" circuitry.
The obvious control would have been to have each subject make the lights
circle in one direction, then the other. What we saw was the data from
two subjects trying to make the lights flash clockwise, one with success
and one with "anti-success". Were those runs taken the same day? The same
year? Were those data runs selected from many other less impressive ones?
The statistical significance of all the experiments on Nova are in
doubt. Take the most impressive result on the entire show, the remote
viewing of a dock, boats and restaurant. This was all the more
astounding because the driver of the car had no particular destination
in mind when he left.
But was the result statistically significant? Consider that the area where
the experiment was done was near the coast, so at least half of the aimless
paths would end at the water. And if a road on the coast comes to a dead end,
what's there? - A marina, which almost always has a restaurant. I'm not saying
that this "viewing" wasn't remarkable, but surely the statistical significance
is not as iron clad as was presented.
Not too long ago an article was posted about people finding patterns in random
sequences. PSI experiments seem to be a manifestation of the same process.
A subject gives a vague description of a view, and the experimenter finds the
correct pattern. I see rectangles and hear a low humming where you are now.
Am I psychic?
Jim