Into Science, try this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/sc...rtner=homepage

Now here is an example that I find very interesting:

In one of PEAR’s standard experiments, the study participant would sit in front of an electronic box the size of a toaster oven, which flashed a random series of numbers just above and just below 100. Staff members instructed the person to simply “think high” or “think low” and watch the display. After thousands of repetitions — the equivalent of coin flips — the researchers looked for differences between the machine’s output and random chance.



First of all, it is very difficult to produce a machine that can produce numbers randomly because all the algorithms I have read about, have to use some non random element to produce them.

And secondly and most importantly; One would have to do this blind. The researchers deciding if the numbers were statistically significant would never be allowed to know if the person attempting to move the numbers through ESP was thinking high or low before the experiment. Staff members that asked the question, would never be allowed to ask the person to think high or low, and then proceed to analyze the numbers. This is a huge no-no. The article makes it sound like this is what the research group was doing.