|
|
|
|
|
|
by SketchySeaBeast
2451 days ago
|
|
|
You're claiming that a professional magician is a bad scientist? He's an entertainer and not a trained scientist. Here's a statement from Randi about the dog ESP: “I over-stated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained,” he wrote. “It was rash and improper of me to do so. I apologise sincerely.”[1] Sounds like he's willing to revisit his initial claims. Has there been further evidence of dog esp that you're aware of? [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11270453/... |
|
|
As sincerely as when he said he'd replicated the experiment no doubt. And if he isn't capable of reproducing an experiment, what the frack was the prize supposedly for? I don't think he'd be capable of sincerity if he tried.
As for your other question, I saw a response Sheldrake posted about someone else's rebuttal stating that if the rebuttal's raw data were analysed the way his data was, it would have led to the same conclusion. That the attempt at replication looked at the first time the dog went to the window, rather than the average time it spent at the window. Don't have a link right now though.
Dog ESP is a pretty niche experiment though, I just brought it up because it's one of the more egregious lies Randi was caught in. If you're interested in psi data, there are much larger datasets with experiments into ganzfeld and skin conductivity precognition.