Remote viewing/astral projection study

[Suncross74]

I or you send 2 distinctive, landmark pictures to the skeptic or third party and ask him/her to flip a coin. If the coin lands on heads, picture 1 would be the target and 2 for tails. Once we have the discription from the psychic, we bring out those 2 pictures (without knowing the actual target) and have the psychic or us to decide which one of these 2 pictures is the most likely to the description. Afterwards, we send the decision to the skeptic and if the skeptics finds that the decision matches the actual target, it's a direct hit otherwise a miss.

I like it! And yeah, we'll have full disclosure on this one, because statistics are always too arguable. Hard results are what's gonna matter. If we get x significance level, it's gonna be another "oh, that's not THAT significant" vs. "yes, it is" debate, but if we publish the actual pictures and descriptions, that is hard evidence that there were good results (or not, of course - we'll publish whatever we get).

I like, I like, I like. I think we're set. We can consult with the psychics on what to do with the decoy situation as well. Or like you say, just use two pics. We'll discuss with them.

Now, the problem is finding skeptic and psychic volunteers...

By the way, sir Arouet, do you have Skype? You shall need it for this one, if you're going to participate.

-Suncross74

[_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_]

I like it! And yeah, we'll have full disclosure on this one, because statistics are always too arguable. Hard results are what's gonna matter. If we get x significance level, it's gonna be another "oh, that's not THAT significant" vs. "yes, it is" debate, but if we publish the actual pictures and descriptions, that is hard evidence that there were good results (or not, of course - we'll publish whatever we get).

Excellent! So I guess we're ready then?

Nothing in statistics is 100% certain when it comes to analyzing quantitative data and the use of p-values/hypothesis testing have been widely abused by many conventional researchers. One of the common problem with finding "statistical signifcance" is that researchers generally exagerate the effect. For example, if cancer/cellphone research found statistcal significance at the 0.05 significance level, its quite likely they will conclude "Using cellphones causes cancer" This conclusion is not what statistical significance says at all. Statistical significance simply means that the data you got from your study is unlikely due to chance, not that the effect you found has any practical applications. The question of whether or not an effect has any practical applications relies on the effect-size (which is why effect-size will be reported in this study)

By the way, if our data reaches an x significance level, it will always be statistically significance because p<x significance level. Those who argue that it's not stat. significant obviously have no idea what they're talking about.

Now, the problem is finding skeptic and psychic volunteers...

Maybe if we post this in a forum more active than this one we might get more volunteers? Or Youtube?