Vilhjalmr said:
QUOTE
I tried it. I've been meaning to figure out the statistical likelihood of the recorded throws (there is a trend, but is it enough?), so my response can be as complete as possible. The experiment was over a long time ago, but I forgot I was doing this... I'll post back in a few days once I have determined
The statistics should be easy to determine, given the described protocol. Did you alter the procedure in any way, no matter how small? Changing the procedure will probably give you a statistical result similar to J.B.Rhine's; a very small bias only noticeable over thousands of trials.
QUOTE
I don't think so. This has not been my experience at all, and I've been around scientists almost exclusively since I started university. If anyone makes science into a religion, they're not really a scientist.
You've either associating with a better class of scientists than I've met or you haven't yet expressed an opinion that's outside of accepted theory. Please be careful; reputations and futures have been destroyed for "scientific heresy".
QUOTE
Bolded part, and the paragraph following it, are exactly why I've been so busy lately: the procedures outlined in the Hive or my textbook are just like magical procedures... except that the results are clear and unambiguous (mostly). I have not had nearly the same sort of results with magic.
As I said in another thread, magick appears to follow the "least effort" principle. If an unusual "coincidence" will give the result worked for it is what you'll see happen, not Hollywood-type special effects.
I've been reading the recent psionics thread and noticed the serious error in the magickal process that everyone seems to do when trying telekinesis. Vagrant Dreamer even described what happened when it was accidentally done right. Anyone else notice? (Hint: concentrate on a spell for hours. Keep it in your attention. Go ahead; try harder. Darn, it didn't work. Hmm... (IMG:
style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )