Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     But peer review doesn't demand repeatability. Well, OK - it should 
> demand that the setup be described in a way that someone can repeat it, 
> if that's what you mean.

That's what I meant, essentially.

>     Peer review can be a good first order filter, but let's not glorify. 

Definitely. I really think it's the repeatability that's *more* important. 
Sure there are lots of papers where you can't repeat the results, but I 
suspect the harder it is to repeat, the less fundamental the result is.

You'd really only need *one* repeatable *actual* ESP experiment to open up a 
whole new world of investigation. Bell's Inequality wouldn't be significant 
if you got different results each time you repeated it.  (Well, at least, it 
wouldn't be significant in any sense the same way.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message