rb@cci632.UUCP (07/03/86)
In article <1292@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <3719@decwrl.DEC.COM> cooper@pbsvax.dec.com (Topher Cooper) writes: >>>In general, parapsychologists are unwilling to accept *any* results until >>>they have been replicated. This is in stark contrast to other fields where >>>(at least the publication of) replications of existing results are almost >>>never done (I know that doesn't agree with what you were taught in junior >>>high science, but it seems to be true). > > I think there are several aspects to this. > > 1) *Successful* exact replication of an experiment is >relatively uninteresting, and if the original results are not >extraordinary or important enough, it is simply not worth the effort >to *publish* a replication. This does not mean that replications are >not being done, only that they are not being published. Many >experiments get turned into undergraduate class assignments or >incorporated as part of other experiments. Believe me, if they failed >to replicate, *that* *would* be published. > 2) For sufficiently unusual or important results, *published* >replication is required for acceptance. Look at Particle Physics and >see how much replication there is when a new particle is announced! Or >see what happened when the intron/exon structure of Eukaryote DNA was >discovered! > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > It is interesting that many psi experiments, particularly those involving psychokinesis (sp?) and telepathy, 1: Base their results on statistical evidence (which is acknowledged to be less than conclusive). 2: Are expected to yield the same statistical results with a different set of subjects, yet providing little, if information about the subjects. Think of how obsurd this might be. A researcher in San Francisco, attempting to duplicate Kinsey's research would very likely get a different result than a similar research effort in Houston Texas. In addition, filtering of subjects is considered dubious at best, fraud more often. Remember, PSI research is research of the para-Normal. You might find to "textbook paranoids" in two different mental hospitals, but what are your odds of finding two hospitals with the exact same mix of disorders? What PSI research needs is more classification and organization of the factors that appear to effect results. Unfortunately, attempts to do this to any significant degree tends to be treated as "bogus science". Are there any such "classification" efforts under way?
dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Gryphon) (07/23/86)
Phone : (617) 937-0551
Usenet: ...!{wanginst,masscomp}!ulowell!dobro
Flame-To: /dev/null/...
Reply-To: dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Gryphon)
USMail: P.O.Box 8524, Lowell, Ma. 01853
From article #647 by rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) :
>What PSI research needs is more classification and organization of the
>factors that appear to effect results. Unfortunately, attempts to
>do this to any significant degree tends to be treated as "bogus science".
>
>Are there any such "classification" efforts under way?
Local, there is one. MOD.PSI
It's purpose: to logically and scientifically come up with
defintions, explanations, limits, criteria, etc.
I wish more people were interested in thinking baout a topic as opposed
to talking about a topic (yes, I'm a fine one to talk, but...)
'Nough said.
Gryphon
-------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am simply a figment of my immagination,
and cannot therefore have and opinion.
"Far beyond human ability to classify, or comprehend..."