Radin, D., Lund, N., Emoto, M., Kizu, T. (2008). Effects of distant intention on water crystal formation: A triple-blind replication. Journal of Scientific Exploration , 22(4), 481-493. An experiment tested the hypothesis that water exposed to distant intentions affects the aesthetic rating of ice crystals formed from that water. Over three days, 1,900 people in Austria and Germany focused their intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. Water samples located near the target water, but unknown to the people providing intentions, acted as "proximal" controls. Other samples located outside the shielded room acted as distant controls. Ice drops formed from samples of water in the different treatment conditions were photographed by a technician, each image was assessed for aesthetic beauty by over 2,500 independent judges, and the resulting data were analyzed, all by individuals blind with respect to the underlying treatme...
Comments
I've got a question on the funnel plots.
When I look at the dream psi meta-analysis in your book, all individual studies have positive hit rates (allthough four of the earliest ones are not significant).
What I don't understand is how a funnel plot can show negative effect sizes for studies that have positive hit rates?
This probably just shows my incomplete understanding of effect sizes. Up to now I thought that positive hit rates had to correspond to positive effect sizes. How do I interpret an negative effect size?
-Tor
I must have read "cumulative" in the caption about 10 times, but still I didn't "see" it. Preconceived ideas die hard..
-Tor