Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!masscomp!ulowell! From: cooper>@pbsvax.dec.com.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.psi Subject: Re: An experiment you can participate in Message-ID: <1161@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> Date: Mon, 30-Mar-87 19:49:32 EST Article-I.D.: ulowell.1161 Posted: Mon Mar 30 19:49:32 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 1-Apr-87 05:13:18 EST Sender: rickheit@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu Reply-To: decwrl!cooper@pbsvax.dec.com Lines: 31 Approved: rickheit@ulowell.UUCP Posted-Date: Monday, 30 Mar 1987 09:26:14-PST [] Karl W. Z. Heuer (haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com) suggests some precautions which Russell Brand should take in his first participatory experiment. Unfortunately I missed the original posting (our gateway was out for a while). On the basis of what Karl posted, however, I must strongly agree. Unless the stated precautions are taken, virtually nothing, pro or con, can be concluded from the test. It is known that well understood, conventional (i.e., non-paranormal) mechanisms will sometimes result in "hits" if those controls are not in place. Simply telling the percipients the location would be more effective, but not fundamentally different. I am speaking not as a critic of parapsychology, looking for reasons to dismiss such research, but as a serious amateur parapsychologist, active in the scientific parapsychology community. Both remote-viewing experiments and group testing are deceptively difficult to do correctly. This experiment combines both. Without having seen the original protocol, I cannot comment on whether or not there are other flaws in the procedure (but are you aware of the stacking effect, and have you taken it into account? It is a frequent source of error in group testing). Topher Cooper USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!pbsvax.dec.com!cooper INTERNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl.dec.com Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for them.