#science #psy #suckassstory #article
The Control Group Is Out Of Control
Или плач о слабости научного метода на примере исследования и последовавшего мета-анализа, достаточно строго показывавшего существование парапсихологических феноменов.
Мой любимый отрывок (disclaimer: упоминаемая статья — не та, которую я упоминаю во введении):
Wiseman & Schlitz’s Experimenter Effects And The Remote Detection Of Staring is my favorite parapsychology paper ever and sends me into fits of nervous laughter every time I read it.
The backstory: there is a classic parapsychological experiment where a subject is placed in a room alone, hooked up to a video link. At random times, an experimenter stares at them menacingly through the video link. The hypothesis is that this causes their galvanic skin response (a physiological measure of subconscious anxiety) to increase, even though there is no non-psychic way the subject could know whether the experimenter was staring or not.
Schiltz is a psi believer whose staring experiments had consistently supported the presence of a psychic phenomenon. Wiseman, in accordance with nominative determinism is a psi skeptic whose staring experiments keep showing nothing and disproving psi. <...>
The idea was to plan an experiment together, with both of them agreeing on every single tiny detail. They would then go to a laboratory and set it up, again both keeping close eyes on one another. Finally, they would conduct the experiment in a series of different batches. Half the batches (randomly assigned) would be conducted by Dr. Schlitz, the other half by Dr. Wiseman. Because the two authors had very carefully standardized the setting, apparatus and procedure beforehand, “conducted by” pretty much just meant greeting the participants, giving the experimental instructions, and doing the staring.
The results? Schlitz’s trials found strong evidence of psychic powers, Wiseman’s trials found no evidence whatsoever.
Take a second to reflect on how this makes no sense.
The Control Group Is Out Of Control
Или плач о слабости научного метода на примере исследования и последовавшего мета-анализа, достаточно строго показывавшего существование парапсихологических феноменов.
Мой любимый отрывок (disclaimer: упоминаемая статья — не та, которую я упоминаю во введении):
Wiseman & Schlitz’s Experimenter Effects And The Remote Detection Of Staring is my favorite parapsychology paper ever and sends me into fits of nervous laughter every time I read it.
The backstory: there is a classic parapsychological experiment where a subject is placed in a room alone, hooked up to a video link. At random times, an experimenter stares at them menacingly through the video link. The hypothesis is that this causes their galvanic skin response (a physiological measure of subconscious anxiety) to increase, even though there is no non-psychic way the subject could know whether the experimenter was staring or not.
Schiltz is a psi believer whose staring experiments had consistently supported the presence of a psychic phenomenon. Wiseman, in accordance with nominative determinism is a psi skeptic whose staring experiments keep showing nothing and disproving psi. <...>
The idea was to plan an experiment together, with both of them agreeing on every single tiny detail. They would then go to a laboratory and set it up, again both keeping close eyes on one another. Finally, they would conduct the experiment in a series of different batches. Half the batches (randomly assigned) would be conducted by Dr. Schlitz, the other half by Dr. Wiseman. Because the two authors had very carefully standardized the setting, apparatus and procedure beforehand, “conducted by” pretty much just meant greeting the participants, giving the experimental instructions, and doing the staring.
The results? Schlitz’s trials found strong evidence of psychic powers, Wiseman’s trials found no evidence whatsoever.
Take a second to reflect on how this makes no sense.
Slate Star Codex
The Control Group Is Out Of Control
I. Allan Crossman calls parapsychology the control group for science. That is, in let’s say a drug testing experiment, you give some people the drug and they recover. That doesn’t tell …
👍6
#psy #article
The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work (PDF)
Люди очень плохо помнят строение велосипеда даже в общих чертах. Даже среди тех, кто имеет дело с велосипедами на регулярной основе.
The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work (PDF)
Люди очень плохо помнят строение велосипеда даже в общих чертах. Даже среди тех, кто имеет дело с велосипедами на регулярной основе.
SpringerLink
The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work
Memory & Cognition - When their understanding of the basics of bicycle design was assessed objectively, people were found to make frequent and serious mistakes, such as believing that the chain...
🤔7