|
During a period of 12 years, Jahn and associates conducted more than 1500 experiments with over 100 unselected participants to generate an enormous database of more than 5.6 million independent trials , that provided strong evidence for psi (p = 3.5 x 10-13) (Jahn, Dunne, Nelson, et al., 2001). The research continues at the Princeton PEAR Laboratory and papers describing the experiments can be found at the PEAR website [www.princeton.edu/~pear/].
In the experiments by Jahn and colleagues, REGs based on a commercial noise source were used. The subject’s task in these experiments was to influence the device mentally to produce an excess of hits on predesignated PK+ trails and an excess of misses on PK-trails. The hits were displayed on the instrument panel and were permanently recorded on a strip printer and stored in a computer file…. Jahn and colleagues utilized a variety of experimental strategies, equipment, and modes of feedback to the subjects. For example, in some experiments a large scale mechanical device called “Random Mechanical Cascade” was used. In this device polystyrene spheres trickled downward through a five-chute array and are scattered into 19 collection bins. The subjects task is to shift by volition the mean bin population to the right or the left. (Rao, 2001, pp. 11-12)
Michael Schmicker in his 2002 book Best Evidence lists reasons why the PEAR experiments provide “best evidence” for the reality of PK ability:
The sheer number of experiments conducted.
The systematic approach applied to the problem.
Rigorous laboratory controls devised to eliminate possible fraud and human or machine error.
Willingness to have other colleagues and skeptical investigators independently examine the equipment, protocols, and results of experiments.
|
Statistical Issue of Replicability
Statistical replicability. It is important to understand the meaning of “replicability” in the statistical sense, because it is in this sense that replicability of psi experiments has been achieved.
Scientific evidence in the statistical realm is based on replication of the same average performance or relationship over the long run…. A good baseball hitter will not hit the ball exactly the same proportion of times in each game but should be relatively consistent over the long run. The same should be true of psychic functioning. Even if there truly is an effect, it may never be replicable on demand in the short run even if we understand how it works. However, over the long run in well-controlled laboratory experiments we should see a consistent level of functioning, above that expected by chance. The anticipated level of functioning may vary based on the individual players and the conditions, just as it does in baseball, but given players of similar ability tested under similar conditions the results should be replicable over the long run. In [the SAIC remote viewing experiments]… replicability in that sense has been achieved. (Utts, 2001, p. 113)
In other words, replicability, properly understood in its statistical sense means repeatability demonstrated not over the short run, but instead over the long run.
Remember that such events should not replicate with any degree of precision in the short run because of statistical variability, just as we would not expect to always get five heads and five tails if we flip a coin ten times, or see the same batting averages in every game. (Utts, 2001, p. 125)
We can expect to boil sea water at 2120 F each and every time we heat it. It never shows a “decline” effect due to boredom. Human beings, however, are different. ESP may not be produced each and every time in a row but it can be produced every once in a while and over the long run show a consistency in performance that justifies stating that the underlying ability giving rise to the performance certainly exists.
|
