04-19-2012, 12:55 AM
(04-19-2012, 12:06 AM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote:Correct.(04-18-2012, 11:51 PM)zenmaster Wrote:(04-18-2012, 02:54 AM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: Also, do you have any knowledge any "scientific" explanation or debunking of the "card guessing" experiments which defied probability examined by Jung in Synchronicity, or the random number generator experiments done at Princeton which also defy probability?Problem is that they are not reproducible. The Princeton random number generator, also not reproducible - so no experiment can be set up before hand. You have to be able to predict and to theorize. No one has been able to do either.
I'm assuming you mean that others have tried to reproduce them and failed?
(04-19-2012, 12:06 AM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: Also, how about the ongoing Global Conscoiusness Project at Princeton? I'm uninformed on the "official" scientific view of such a project, but it seems to me that, even though it is merely suggestive, it is consistent in delivery? i.e. "Statistical anomolies occur in synchronization with events which have a large impact on world-wide consciousnesses."The researchers pick certain events after they happened and look at the degree of statistical deviance which occurred around the same time.
(04-19-2012, 12:06 AM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: Would you say this is also influenced by selection bias?Of course, because there is no means to perform an objective study, due to lack of understanding of what they are looking at. There is no theory developed, so nothing to test or to predict in advance through experiment. There really is no scope or context other than those events which selected by some ad hoc method. Sort of like finding shapes in clouds.