Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1445 sci.misc:2289
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!convex!killer!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!microsoft!gordonl
From: gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Strangge results in Nature article (fallout...)
Summary: obvious point
Keywords: skepticism debunking
Message-ID: <1681@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 3 Aug 88 19:59:05 GMT
References: <2366@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1663@microsoft.UUCP> <499@metapsy.UUCP>
Organization: Microsoft, Inc., Redmond, Washington
Lines: 27


  In article <499@metapsy.UUCP>, sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
  > In article <4652@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
  > writes:

  > >In this case the investigating team (including Randi) seem to have
  > >concluded that no conscious fraud was involved.
  > 
  > Is there such a thing as "unconscious fraud"?
  > -- 
  > --------------------
  > Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
  > Institute for Research in Metapsychology
  
Either Sarge is a bit slow, or he's deliberately difficult.  Obviously
there is such a thing as unconcious fraud.  Thats why double blind
experiments are done.  Experimenters usually *want* their experiment
to have a particular result and when asked to make subjective judgements
will be biased towards their goal.  That's why subjective evaluations
(how *much* improved is the patient?) are done double blind in a good study.

As for "deliberately difficult" - I'm curious as to "Metapsychology" -
is this sociology, science, or pseudo-science?

	Gordon Letwin
	Microsoft  (mostly engineering, a little science)