
Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real, Science Is Broken - valayal
https://redux.slate.com/cover-stories/2017/05/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html
======
ouid
>For the rest of that semester and into the one that followed, Wu and the
other women tested hundreds of their fellow undergrads. Most of the subjects
did as they were told, got their money, and departed happily. A few
students—all of them white guys, Wu remembers—would hang around to ask about
the research and to probe for flaws in its design. Wu still didn’t believe in
ESP, _but she found herself defending the experiments to these mansplaining
guinea pigs_. The methodology was sound, she told them—as sound as that of any
other psychology experiment.

Calling the act of being skeptical towards a study designed to demonstrate ESP
"mansplaining" is about as disingenuous as it gets.

~~~
dracht
I stopped reading there. You have got to give them credit for being able to
inject some "white guys ugh am i right" message regardless of the story. Slate
is garbage.

~~~
tome
It's a shame you stopped because the rest of the article is very interesting.
(SPOILER: The mainsplainers are proved correct)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Just like calling every person who can whip up some html and JavaScript an
"Engineer" is bad for the reputation of Engineering as a whole, so calling
everything that has statistics and is peer reviewed "science" is bad for the
reputation of science. I think a lot of damage to science has come from
psychology and "social sciences" in corroboration with the popular press when
one-off studies are popularized with supposedly profound implications for our
understanding of how humans work, only to be contradicted a few months/years
later by a different one-off study.

I think for the sake of our future, we should stop putting both physics which
can predict, detect, and verify gravity waves from across the universe, and
social sciences which are largely surveys with statistics into the same
bucket.

~~~
mankash666
Everything that's peer reviewed and backed by statistics is science. This
article is stating that the (non) statistics used by the author, a.k.a cherry
picking, is the root of fake results.

If indeed one could replicate the results every single time, over a large
population, then ESP would hold true. But that obviously fell flat on its face
when the Berkeley coders backed it up with their online experiment

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
So if Viking A measured thunder when it was cloudy vs clear, did some
statistics and concluded with a sufficient P value that Thor was more likely
to swing his hammer when it was cloudy, and then got a bunch of his buddies to
agree his math was ok, you would call that science?

~~~
mankash666
Peer review!= Collusion from buddies. What you describe here is collusion

------
tome
This is a interesting site on a tangentially related issue:
[http://www.joseduarte.com/](http://www.joseduarte.com/)

------
Sam_Harris
hoax

~~~
alanh
Well, this is enjoyable. Are you in fact "that" Sam Harris? Or perhaps a fan?

