Posted by:
outsider
(
)
Date: May 05, 2014 10:05AM
Here is one rebuttle for that.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy/"For twenty-five years a group of researchers at Princeton University has been making claims that humans can affect electronic and mechanical devices with their minds. They claim their experiments are conducted in a rigorous, scientific manner and yield above-chance results. However, a close examination of their primary random event generator calls the data into question.
"For twenty-five years a remarkable group at Princeton University, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) group, has been pursuing a research program in what many would characterize as parapsychology. A recent article by this group, “The PEAR Proposition” (Jahn and Dunne 2005) summarizes this quarter-century effort. The bulk of the research has been to show that human intent can remotely affect mechanical and electronic devices in a manner consistent with their intention. They have also reported experiments in remote perception. However, in this article I will take a critical look only at the first group of experiments."
Scientists get things wrong all the time. That doesn't mean that science is bad. What it does mean is that scientists have to look at each others' work and nothing is accepted unless it can be duplicated by others.
Princeton's experiments have not been duplicated by anyone else. Just like the University of Utah's infamous "cold fusion" which wound up not being such.
That paper was published in 1982. That's 32 years ago. If the conclusions were valid, they would have been duplicated somewhere else.
If there were getting results which they shouldn't be getting, but no one else is getting them, they need to figure out why. Either figure out their mistake or figure out what mistake other people are making.