Do you even read the posts on this thread? If you had, you would have noticed that I provided in my message adressed to Emma_Acid some of the best Nonlocal mind Empirical and Theoritical evidence (peer-reviewed cumulative) according to Dr Emmanuele Tressoldi at the University Di Padova, Italia.
But then you might have ignored it, it's not unheard of when presenting such materials to die-hard ''skeptics''.
Just in case: http://www.psy.unipd...etical-evidence
I find it a bit sarcastic I must admit to cherry-pick a sentence in a research paper and taking it out of context. In case you have forgotten what was written before:
Our meta-analysis on the forced-choice database of studies from
1987 to 2010 and subsequent tests on possible alternative sources for
the statistical anomaly indicate that the forced-choice domain generally
produces significant psi effects above mean chance expectation.
Daryl J. Bem, Ph.D.
Roger Nelson, Ph.D.
John Palmer, Ph.D.
Dean Radin, Ph.D.
Jessica M. Utts, Ph.D.
You forgot people from the Board of Directors:
President: James C. Carpenter Ph.D
Vice President: Gerd H. Hovelmann, M.A
Secretery: Hoyt Edge, Ph.D
I am curious to see some concrete exemple indeed, as I don't find an Anti-parapsychology thread on a skeptic organisation forum that much convincing to be honest.
Yet Jessica Utts is a respected statistician, as her background quickly reveals. She even worked with one of your reference point, Ray Hyman:
''Collaborated with Professor Ray Hyman (University of Oregon) to prepare a report assessing the statistical evidence for psychic functioning in U.S. government sponsored research. The report was part of a review done by the American Institutes of Research (AIR) at the request of Congress and the CIA.''
As for Dean Radin, as an non-materialistic scientist, no doubt his views are not well received in the 'skeptics' materialist ideology.
You choose to emphasize on this paper and somehow forgot everything else I writted. I posted it here to demonstrate matter-of-factly that your assumption: ''such test only ALWAYS show no statistical effect whatsoever'' is an innacurate statement based on prejudice and misinformation.
A flying start, if say so, but I think it's flying low.
Edited by sam_comm, 02 June 2014 - 01:37 AM.