Helen,

I read Dr. Mays paper the way you did.

His arguements that they failed to contact others involved in the study to explain the results seems a little convoluted. On the one hand he argues that the analysis of data was methodologically flawed. On the other he seems to be pushing for anecdotal evidence to invalidate the study. If the meta-analysis was flawed, it can be demonstrated using statistical analysis. And he ends with the implication of some great government cover-up.

If he is correct in his criticism of the statistical methodology, then the report was so much fluff. Why he didn't stop there isn't made clear, exactly. He comes across more like a true believer than a critic, throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the issue. I got the feeling that he was arguing that the problems with the study prove there is something there, which doesn't follow.

Bald Eagle,

Helen, What I got out of the article was that : 1. Dr. May feels their methodology was flawed because they used inconsistent criteria in evaluation of data and failed to contact those involved in the various programs. 2. They didn't contact experimenters or subjects to get their take of the studies. 3. They didn't contact end-users. 4. It was all a big conspiracy.

1. If the methodology was flawed (and it sounds like they used meta-analysis to review the CIA data), that can be demonstrated. At worst case, the raw data is probably available under the Freedom of Information Act and could be looked at again. 2. Contacting those involved in the study would seem to be of use only if the conspiracy theory is correct. 3. Contact of end users would provide anecdotal (versus more rigorous statistical) data and would be of questionable benefit. 4. If it was a big cover-up, well, my take on the government when it comes to things like this is not to attribute to a planned conspiracy what can be easily explained by incompetence. If Dr. May's assertions about the data analysis is correct, throwing in all the rest is unnecessary. It raises questions about his motives.

Dr. May starts out with what seems to be valid methodological criticisms and then wanders around, throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the mix. There seems to be an implicit argument that the defects of the government study prove the ESP experiments are valid.

BTW, Thanks for the examples. They raise interesting questions.

Bald Eagle, I don't think that causation implies anything quite so mechanical. Causation states that things don't happen spontaneously, that there is a link between causes(s) and effect(s), and that first there is some cause (or series of causes) followed by some result. Knowing what result a given cause or series of causes(or vice versa) isn't a requirement for causation to exists. In your example, all the things you mention, genetics, environment, past experiences, are the cause of your decision to help the old lady across the street. What that decision is isn't predictable even in a mechanistic view of cause and effect, in part because it is "causes" not just "a cause". Chaos Theory indicates that even defining all the causes, (especially in a complex systems) at best allows for statistical approximations. I could say that based on all the variables there is a high probability that you will help the old lady. It is by no means certain. The more complex the system, the less reliable the probabilities.

NightWing, Accepting that effect follows cause makes precognition paradoxical. How can you experience something before the cause of it? It's the classic time travel paradox. (Assuming Einstein was right about time). You have knowledge of something before it occurs (is caused). So you change it so it doesn't happen. How could you then have known it was going to happen? In my example of the broken window, if the precognitive event was real and I go out and stop the kids from playing baseball in the front yard, then the window didn't get broken, so how did I have a vision of it being broken, which means I wouldn't stop the kids from playing baseball, which means..............

Regards John