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 <[email protected]> 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 >
