Good Math/Bad Math

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Rebutting PEAR (index)

posted by MarkCC at 3:29 PM

5 Comments:

  • Excuse me just one problem with that there im afraid, you claim that the data had no statistical significance, and they just looked for patterns in the data for anomalies. I have seen the data myself and the statistical significance is plain to see, odds in the trillions to one against chance I think. Also do you have any degrees in physics, neurochemistry or even psychology or the like that you can comment on this kind of research/data collection? or are you just a computer scientist with to much time on his hands? Was your rebuttal published in anything other than your blog and James Randis? any scientific journals? The PEAR studies have been in foundations of physics and science. and as for the quotes that this is due to money making I laugh at that. Dr Jahn put his whole career on the line for this [and a distinguished career it is] so wouldnt that be bad money wise? Your entire article reaks of hyper skepticism, as i have read revues from other skeptics that claim that the results are not due to Psi but the results are doubtlessly there, see Susan blackmore for an example.
    And as for Dr dunnes refusal of Randis challange, the money is just not enough for the time, effort or anything like that when you are getting plently of funding from proper institutes outside princeton, including an aviation company. And dont get me started on randis reputation. Any official assosiation with him would be detrimental to the project. As despite what he thinks not many people take him seriosly anymore. not even the scientists.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:18 AM  

  • Heh... So, months after my posts about PEAR, you come along to respond to my analysis with a string of insults?

    How about you try and actually *rebut* anything I said?

    (And, incidentally, the reason I said that the PEAR data had no statistical significance is because *the PEAR paper stated that that it didn't reach the level of statistical significance. I even quoted that statement.)

    By Blogger MarkCC, at 9:45 AM  

  • i have made two posts showing problems in this analysis of PEAR why have they both been deleted?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:54 AM  

  • And they didnt reach the statistical significance in that study, but there were many many studies where they reached over the amount of statistical significance. and why was my post deleted then?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:56 AM  

  • I've been looking into the misuse of mathematics in pseudoscience for a uni project, it seemed more fun than another issue might be. I was unaware of PEAR until I found your blog. I'm shocked that such an institution would investigate such a concept with such a poor method. I believe that science must keep an open, though critical, mind but this is just ridiculus.
    In any case, paydirt for me!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:46 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home