Posted: Feb 05, 2013 5:59 pm
by BlackBart
Transilvanian wrote:There are a lot of meta-analyses which suggest, that there is something...
There are a lot of researchers who made a lot of test, mostly with positive results. Skeptic sciencists are saying that these researches are not replicated, but institues with the same 35% results are replicating each other. But if some institutes accepted by "science" made some tests with negative results, this can really disprove their results. But I still don`t find too much negative results, most of them, so far I see, are positive.

Can you show me these negative results? A meta-analyses of them? :
"Eventually, positive findings using yet another novel paradigm are reported, followed by another round of replication failures, and so on. Moreover, in contrast to the argot of what Imre Lakatos termed “progressive” scientific research programs, the lexicon of parapsychology is replete with terms describing the absence of effects. The “experimenter (shyness) effect” refers to the failure to obtain positive findings when skeptical researchers are present, the “decline effect” refers to the disappearance or marked diminution of ESP effects within a session following an initial run of positive results, and “psi missing” refers to ESP performance that is significantly worse than chance (see Gilovich, T., 1991, How We Know What Isn't So, New York: Free Press, for a good discussion). These terms underscore the absence of a crucial feature that is a hallmark of mature laboratory sciences, namely a readily transportable “experimental recipe” that can yield replicable results across independent laboratories."


Once again, look up burden of proof. Negative results would mean nothing. Repeatedly buying lottery tickets that don't win does not prove its impossible to win a lottery. If these 'institutes' have positive results then they need to publish their results and methodology and invite peer review. Somehow, I suspect we're in for a long wait.