Why isn’t more research with larger sample sizes being done on PSI stuff? There’s been studies and meta analysises done on it in the past and they say it exists so why can’t some researchers spend some time and money to do a really well done very large sample size study to prove once and for all of it is real or fake?https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11134153/Dean Radin wrote a book “The Conscious Universe” which started with a meta-analysis of all psi-related experiments done until then (the 80’s, as I recall, maybe the 90’s). He determined that it is virtually certain that- something like 7 sigma - that psi does exist but at a very low effectiveness. If the experiment is normalized to 25% (there is a 25% chance of getting it right at random) then psi came in at something like26.5%, only marginally higher than random.Also Storm, Tressoldi, et al. (2010) had 32.2% rate too
El Psy Kongroo
I can tell if water coming out of a faucet is very hot or very cold based solely on the sound of it hitting a sink
>>16986991Okay? But I don’t see why that proves or disproves psi stuff They control for lots of stuff
>>16986993can you?
>>16986996**Automation**: Computer selected and presented targets (video clips or static images) randomly from a pool. This reduced experimenter influence.**Sensory isolation**: Receiver in a soundproof room with ping-pong ball halves over eyes (creating a pink glow), and white/pink noise through headphones — the classic ganzfeld setup for minimizing external sensory input.**Double-blind**: Sender (in a separate room) viewed the target and attempted to "send" it mentally. The receiver described their impressions. Independent judges (blind to the target) then ranked the receiver’s transcripts against 4 possibilities (1 correct target + 3 decoys).**Dynamic targets**: Often used moving video clips, which tended to perform better than static images.**Multiple series**: 11 series run by 8 experimenters, involving 329–355 sessions. Hit rate was approximately 32–34% (versus 25% expected by chance), which was statistically significant (high Stouffer Z score, very small p-value). The effect was fairly consistent across most experimenters, and both novices and experienced participants showed it.---This is from the Honorton autoganzfeld studies (often summarized in Bem & Honorton, 1994). It was designed specifically to address earlier criticisms of ganzfeld experiments regarding sensory leakage, randomization, and judging bias.
>>16986996Try this for yourself https://www.quatism.com/esptest.htmIt uses qrng so I think it is good for studies
>>16986986More accurate version: Science is fishing in the ocean, then Metaphysics comes up and starts lecturing him about how he's doing it wrong and that fish don't exist, despite the fact that Science already caught a number of fish. Metaphysics then begs Science to let him have one of the fish. Science agrees, but Metaphysics pretends to be unable to see the offered fish and starts mocking Science again.
>>16987011maybe
>>16987011>t. doesn't understand science or metaphysics
