Here is his follow up paper in response to comments on his first paper.
In the eye of the beholder: Reply to Wilson and Shadish (2006) and Radin,
Nelson, Dobyns, and Houtkooper (2006)
This paper uses a meta analysis of all the evidence and concludes that any
evidence for psychokinesis can be explained as publication bias. Should the
conclusion be taken seriously?
Similar arguments have been used to prove that PF effect is not real,
i.e include all the failed attempts to
I find it intriguing that they didn't cite Radin's paper:
http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/articles/rngma.pdf
that explicitly addresses publication bias aka the file drawer problem in
meta analysis -- and that was despite referencing several of Radin's other
papers both before and after.
3 matches
Mail list logo
