Finally, they would conduct the experiment in a series of different batches. Half the batches (randomly assigned) would be conducted by Dr. Schlitz, the other h

Finally, they would conduct the experiment in a series of different batches. Half the batches (randomly assigned) would be conducted by Dr. Schlitz, the other half by Dr. Wiseman. Because the two authors had very carefully standardized the setting, apparatus and procedure beforehand, “conducted by” pretty much just meant greeting the participants, giving the experimental instructions, and doing the staring. The results? Schlitz’s trials found strong evidence of psychic powers, Wiseman’s trials found no evidence whatsoever. Take a second to reflect on how this makes no sense. Two experimenters in the same laboratory, using the same apparatus, having no contact with the subjects except to introduce themselves and flip a few switches – and whether one or the other was there that day completely altered the result. For a good time, watch the gymnastics they have to do to in the paper to make this sound sufficiently sensical to even get published. This is the only journal article I’ve ever read where, in the part of the Discussion section where you’re supposed to propose possible reasons for your findings, both authors suggest maybe their co-author hacked into the computer and altered the results. Well, if you would take the "psi can never exist" blinders off, Mr. Codex, then this seems to be a pointer towards "this works better if you believe it will work", and it makes perfect sense if you accept this. Schlitz's belief that it would work resulted in it working. Wiseman's belief that it wouldn't resulted in it not working. The whole idea behind psi is that the human mind can sense and/or effect the world in currently-inexplicable ways, and here it is doing just that. With at least ten other experiments on this idea getting similar results. But parapsychology is completely and utterly a scam in your eyes so that is not a result you will consider.