 |
 |
DAVE EVANS <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Caelum wrote: "- I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me from what I've read that even the best structured studies in the fields you mentioned are still not accepted by scientists overall. As an example, the effect of prayer on ill patients has been researched in some excellently prepared double-blind medical studies, but it's still not accepted by the overall medical community as a modality for healing." indeed, there are instances of simialr things in psychology versus parapsychology- in 'straight' psychology it is usual in their statistics that a 0.05 significance is accepted as 'proof' (they tend not to use the contentius P word though!) - in short, that expirimental treatments or experimental conditions, such as whether the higher does of caffeine in an attention experiemnt results in faster reaction speed, that kind fo thing- are found to be supported if it can be demonstrated by the stats that their effects have a less than 1 in 20 likelihood of simply happenign by chance, which is what the .05 means in parapsychology it is common to go to 0.005 or further in order to demonstrate signficances, a magnitude of ten higher, and an area that 'straight' psychology rarely extends itself to, as it makes the maths simply horrendous (or more horrendous than it already is) there is an excellent journal paper on this from the nineties, but all my psych gear is in boxes, so i can't give the ref right now, sorry - Wow, that's quite a difference in statistical analysis. I had no idea. Thanks for the info, Dave. Caelum dave e ----------------------- occultimatum.blogspot.com www.squidoo.com/oam www.nahualli.com --------------------------------- Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.