The Cellar - View Single Post

hot_pastrami · 10-29-2003, 12:21 PM

The Scientific Method goes something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Create a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by independent experiments or further observations, and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between the theory and the experiment.

So from the information seen here, it looks like these folks have followed the Scientific Method thusly:

In step one, they observed that a person bent on altering the results of a particular random system can indeed bring about measurable change. Nifty.

Step two... must not be important. They don't guess why it happens, they just observe that it does. Whee!

Step three... they predict that further experiments will... yield the same results, using the same equipment, under the same basic conditions. Why not?

Step four... yup. it still happens.

Step five... ?

True, there's information out there which would fill in some of these gaps, but it looks very much like a number of highly intelligent people forming hypotheses and furrowing their brows a lot. Beestie brought up some valid concerns... where is the science? If further experiments have been conducted, I'd find the results fascinating. I actually believe that "mind over matter" can and does occur, but I'd be loathe to call this evidence anything more than circumstantial.

The following questions spring to mind:

1. Does the test work every time , or does it sometimes fail? If so, how often does it fail? What conditions (if any) are different when it fails?

2. Have the researchers directed a person to try to influence the random number generator's 1-0 preference without telling them which way to go? "Ok Sally, try to turn the generator's preference towards ones OR zeros, don't tell us which. We'll then check the results, and guess which one you were using, and have you verify our guess." If such tests have occurred, what were the outcomes?

3. Have they had people concentrate on NOT allowing the numbers to veer towards ones or zeros? If so, what were the results?

Either there is a sea of experimental data out there that would make further conjecture on this topic much easier, or there are huge holes in the scientific process at work here. At best, they've proven that this particular random number generator is affected by human thought.

If I wasn't at work, I'd probably go on an information hunt, but my break's almost over.

10-29-2003, 12:21 PM	#9
hot_pastrami I am meaty Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 1,119	The Scientific Method goes something like this: 1. Observe some aspect of the universe. 2. Create a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed. 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. 4. Test those predictions by independent experiments or further observations, and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between the theory and the experiment. So from the information seen here, it looks like these folks have followed the Scientific Method thusly: In step one, they observed that a person bent on altering the results of a particular random system can indeed bring about measurable change. Nifty. Step two... must not be important. They don't guess why it happens, they just observe that it does. Whee! Step three... they predict that further experiments will... yield the same results, using the same equipment, under the same basic conditions. Why not? Step four... yup. it still happens. Step five... ? True, there's information out there which would fill in some of these gaps, but it looks very much like a number of highly intelligent people forming hypotheses and furrowing their brows a lot. Beestie brought up some valid concerns... where is the science? If further experiments have been conducted, I'd find the results fascinating. I actually believe that "mind over matter" can and does occur, but I'd be loathe to call this evidence anything more than circumstantial. The following questions spring to mind: 1. Does the test work every time , or does it sometimes fail? If so, how often does it fail? What conditions (if any) are different when it fails? 2. Have the researchers directed a person to try to influence the random number generator's 1-0 preference without telling them which way to go? "Ok Sally, try to turn the generator's preference towards ones OR zeros, don't tell us which. We'll then check the results, and guess which one you were using, and have you verify our guess." If such tests have occurred, what were the outcomes? 3. Have they had people concentrate on NOT allowing the numbers to veer towards ones or zeros? If so, what were the results? Either there is a sea of experimental data out there that would make further conjecture on this topic much easier, or there are huge holes in the scientific process at work here. At best, they've proven that this particular random number generator is affected by human thought. If I wasn't at work, I'd probably go on an information hunt, but my break's almost over. __________________ Hot Pastrami!