Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research

[Anville Azote]

Quoting Mark Chu-Carroll:

What PEAR studies is allegedly how human beings can influence random
number generators. Their experiments consist of a fairly elaborate rig
that generates a random sequence; the subject have no physical access
to the generator, but tries to influence the "direction" of the random
numbers generated, either up or down. I'm looking at one of their
papers: a review of 12 years of experiements with this experimental
apparatus.

It's an interesting example of bad math, because it's quite subtle.
There are, of course, warning signs even from the beginning that the
authors are crackpots. One of the common warning signs that the
authors know that they're doing nonsense is when they start the paper
with a long list of famous people (usually dead) who allegedly support
their ideas. This one starts with a list of eighteen people who they
allege supported their ideas, ranging from Francis Bacon to Einstein.
They even include an alleged conversation between Einstein and an
unnamed "important theoretical physicist" about how paranormal powers
were a legitimate area of study in physics.

[...]

And better "the anomaly is not statistically evident"; another way of
saying that it's a statistically insignificant result. Yes, the fact
that their results are not statistically significant is a feature
"having possible structural implications". Pardon me, I need to go
roll on the floor and giggle for a few minutes.

[...]

The information they take from this graph is that the "anomalous
correlations" - you know, the anomalous correlations that they
admitted weren't statistically significant? - they amount to a shift
of 10^-4/bit - or 1 bit in 10,000 deviating from the expected norm.

http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/04/bad-math-of-paranormal-research-pear.html

And there's plenty more where that came from:

http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/06/rebutting-pear-index.html

-anv.