Posted: Jan 31, 2013 7:01 pm
Transilvanian wrote:We can read a lot of researches online, whit statistically significant results. Why these results aren`t accepted? There are a lot of 40%+ Ganzfield results (25% by chance), and not too much negative.
SO what is the truth?
I have a single question:The significant results are "accustomed, regular ", frequent results, or they are rare, in very small ammount, and for this, if we unite every research, we will not find results bigger than chance?
Statistically significant results only show that the result is unlikely to be explained by chance. The question then is the source of the deviation - poor study design is the most common problem, poor statistical technique remains a factor, etc. In many 'psi' experiments a very small number of well conducted studies that on their own are inconclusive are 'supported' by large volumes of data from poorly conducted experiments. Only adequately sized, rigorously conducted, optimised experiments should ever be presented as evidence if you want to convince the general scientific community of something that has no mechanistic basis given current knowledge.
It is concievable that in time if current work on cerebral electrical activity and its manipulation pans out in the right direction, you would have somewhat less difficulty with the levels of evidence required before being taken seriously.