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)
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.132.3260%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=4A5zUZziBYSHrAG2yYDQAQ&usg=AFQjCNHVr_Ut_wtQ-bM1l0iHK41RiFx7Vw&sig2=ktIphdn09PUmhbVyrJ6-1A Abstract Our meta-analysis, which demonstrated (i) a small, but highly significant overall effect, (ii) a small study effect, and (iii) extreme heterogeneity, has provoked widely differing responses. After considering our respondents’ concerns about the possible effects of psychological moderator variables, the potential for missing data, and the difficulties inherent in any metaanalytic data, we reaffirm our view that publication bias is the most parsimonious model to account for all three findings. However, until compulsory registration of trials occurs, it cannot be proven that the effect is in fact attributable to publication bias and it remains up to the individual reader to decide how our results are best and most parsimoniously interpreted. On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:02 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> 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 reproduce the PF effect and on balance >> the PF effect vanishes! >> Harry >> >> Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention With >> Random Number Generators—A Meta-Analysis >> >> >> Se´ance-room and other large-scale psychokinetic phenomena have fascinated >> humankind for decades. >> Experimental research has reduced these phenomena to attempts to influence >> (a) the fall of dice and, later, >> (b) the output of random number generators (RNGs). The meta-analysis >> combined 380 studies that >> assessed whether RNG output correlated with human intention and found a >> significant but very small >> overall effect size. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely >> related to sample size and were >> extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the small >> effect size, the relation >> between sample size and effect size, and the extreme effect size >> heterogeneity found could in principle >> be a result of publication bias. >> >> http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaPK06.pdf > >
