pear

Thread continuation from here As always, feel free to quote from posts in the old thread. Because there is a clear difference in probability. Look at these two coincidences: 1) You are thinking about your favorite episode of your favorite sitcom. You turn on the TV to find that episode...

A few years back, there was mention that a prominent parapsychology group had come out with a statement that they were no longer going to study “phenomena’.... As none had been found. Rather they were going to study the reasons people believed in such things. Anyone recall that, or perhaps...

Those behind the PEAR project seem inordinately fond of one particular graph - it is the centrepiece of their website, it is the background image for many of the web pages and it is the background image of founder Jahn's web page: Here is it's more technical format: This is the cumulative z...

Apparently PEAR lab didn't just do psychokinesis, they did archaeological acoustics too. But according to this: http://www.acoustics.org/press/153rd/wright.html which addresses the eternal question 'Is a Neolithic Burial Chamber Different from My Bathroom, Acoustically Speaking?' they didn't...

First post here and really hope to get some valuable input. With regards to the close down of the PEAR lab at Princeton I read that their PSI experiments yielded chances of 3 in 100 000 and there abouts. Statistically they then concluded that these "odds" are good enough for other sciences so...

Since the news of PEAR shutting down came out, I've been reading over some of the news reports and quotes given by the key players. One thing that struck me was their pure dogmatic belief that they have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. For example, in their test with a 50/50 outcome, they...

Since the news of PEAR shutting down came out, I've been reading over some of the news reports and quotes given by the key players. One thing that struck me was their pure dogmatic belief that they have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. For example, in their test with a 50/50 outcome, they...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/science/10princeton.html One small step for reason...

I am a strong believer in a greater mind and many other spiritual beliefs, but I'm NOT prepared to accept bad evidence for it. I'm afraid that I have to resign the GCP to my bin of bad evidence. I summarized the GCP's hypothesis as: "Events with a worldwide emotional impact will cause random...

Hi to all, I was just wondering what people think about Robert Jahn's Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research. It does appear to be a serious scientific approach on paranormal anomalies. Am wondering if they published any peer-reviewed journals and if so, did it prove/disprove any...

I'm not stupid, I just send out bad vibes to my computer to make it break!

On Rod Bruce's communication with Brenda Dunne, Rod begins: Firstly, Rod seems to have the idea that Dunnes statements are incorrect yet he does not go into any details, nor does Randi. I find this an insulting and offensive ommision. Rod continues: A distinct lack of detail again. It is...

Every couple of weeks I get a copy of ComputerWeekly sent to me, even though I've never subscribed and we tell them we don't want to renew our non-existent subscription. Anyway, on the back page this week was this: I don't remember PEAR finding anything statistically significant lately - is...

gotta love his sense of humour he deserves to make a mint THE HOLY PEAR - Genuine Holy Artifact Item number: 6190660608 Description Seller assumes all responsibility for listing this item. Item Specifics Condition: New THE HOLY PEAR It's not...

This is just a discussion item - not a real claim! I have been taking a good long look around at the PEAR website at Princeton, and reading their publications. The details of their setup and statistical analysis are quite complex, and quite beyond my ken, but their claims on their webpages are...

There's a very nice thread over at skepticforum in the science section on the PEAR experiment and some of the problems in its design. I know we've hashed that one to death here, so I won't bother to repeat any of the arguments, but it's worth a visit if you want to see a more compact thread...

Zep, I read your Sceptic Report article on the PEAR remote perception experiments. Although the PEAR paper that is the focus of the article clearly shows that their different methods of data collection result in a decline in significance, I see nowhere in your article where you explain why this...

There have been a couple of posts here that quoted the principle investigator to the effect that nothing was really found. Does this ring a bell? Does anyone know whare that quote resides? Tnx