04-20-2012, 08:45 AM
I think people are missing point with science research. Again, it's not about showing 'proof and hand waving'. It's about providing a falsifiable explanation of experimental evidence - empirical data. Saying it another way, the objective is not to attempt to bolster the opinion that psychic phenomena exists (as many attempt to do in internet forums, superficially, using 'magical thinking' - intuition supported by vague notions), as if to sway skeptics. It's about creating experimental methods used to explain, in a rigorous and reproducible manner, some hypothesis about the phenomena. The result is typically some measure of utility or an improved understanding of the mechanisms involved.
For statistical findings, if research is conducted using inadequate methodology, the paper will be rightly criticized and should be rejected.
For statistical findings, if research is conducted using inadequate methodology, the paper will be rightly criticized and should be rejected.
Quote:An analysis by Gregory Francis in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review found statistical evidence of publication bias in the set of nine experiments reported by Bem. His analysis suggests that the number of rejections of the null hypothesis reported by Bem (eight out of nine experiments) is abnormally high given the properties of the experiments and reported effect sizes, with the probability of Bem obtaining such results (0.058) significantly less than the standard criterion used in tests of publication bias (0.1). According to Francis this suggests that Bem's experiments cannot be taken as a proper scientific study, as critical data is likely unavailable.