The Cornell University Psychic Study

[ProfWag]

This study suggests that psi, or some form of it, may (and I repeat...may...) actually exist.

http://www.cornellsun.com/section/news/ ... tudy-finds

[Arouet]

Here's a good discussion on it over at JREF: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188366.

Replications are under way. There is much discussion about this. You can see a critique study linked in that thread (though not yet peer reviewed). Some preliminary replication has failed to replicate.

But this is certainly an interesting study and worth following up on.

[derrida]

at least he is right about the replication being the acid test
i hope he gets lucky!
that would be awesome if he can get the replication to the test.
maybe with even more people

[Craig Browning]

[derrida]

then there´s no such thing as PSI

you just wanna call it that when you are lucky
and you dont wanna call it that when you fail

psi doesnt exist
is nothing but a made-out word for the wishful thinkers
who wanna think they are x-men when they are nothing but humans

[ProfWag]

[derrida]

[ProfWag]

Here is part of an interesting article from: http://www.trimberger.org/programs/obse ... redict.htm

"OK, so you've observed something. How do you know it is right? How do you know you observed it correctly? Or wrote it down correctly? Or there wasn't something else happening that you didn't notice (like someone bumped the table or something) that messed up your observation? Why, you just do it again. This is the second important part of science: replication. Do it again. If we observe something, and we describe what we did and other people can repeat our experiment and observe the same result, then we can conclude we've correctly observed what is true.

This is a big deal and it is the reason why scientists don't care much about reports of ESP (Extra-Sensory Perception), mind reading and stuff like that. Not because they don't like the people doing it, not because the people doing it aren’t smart, not because they don’t use big words, but because other people are unable to repeat the experiment and get the same result. It's that simple. In science, if you can't replicate it, then you don't understand it. It isn't science. Accidents and coincidences happen all the time. Nobel Prize-winner Richard Feynman said science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves."

[Arouet]

[ProfWag]