With respect i think you have missed the point - because the claims on that unregulated website are simply untrue. There is no discrepency.

If a reason in an argument is untrue then it cannot support the conclusion.

It does matter how long one has been working in relation to the point about statistics I made. If you were to run 100 ESP experiments right now - you may get one run which is above statistical chance - the question is, does that mean ESP exists? The answer is - no! If you work in a field long enough you will get hits - but you may also fail to replicate your own hits.

This is what is known as a false-positive. Sorry if I was not clearer on this matter in my initial response

I dont think Blackmore has any angenda and the link - which is simply false information - does nothing to establish the fact. Do you have any peer-reviewed evidence to support your supposition?

Maybe the agenda is on the side of those trying to undermine science? Think about it.....

I should stress, before this turns into a slanging match, that the opinion in the link isn't my point of view. I was simply pointing out an interesting piece on Blackmore's attitude.

The link claims Blackmore has apparently presented two conflicting opinions on her evidence. If you have evidence that suggests otherwise then I'm happy to read it - I'm not quite naive enough to believe everything I read on "unregulated" websites, but then neither am I naive enough to believe everything I read on public forums.

With all due respect I can't see anything in your replies that supplies evidence against Blackmore presenting conflicting views on her experiments.

You simply have to read her papers to see that she has been consistent over 25 years - thus that link is simply nonsense.

Use Google scholar and track down her papers. All the evidence you need is there. She published many papers in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease as well.....go for it (note - peer-reviewed papers ).

When doing her PhD she was a believer in the sense it was on memory and ESP and she thought there was something in it. Over the years she became more skeptical - but her publications have always been consistent on that and her position (one I have heard at conferences as well) has always been the same.

On a side issue - that link seems to be about her work on ESP / Psi and not NDEs - which increases its redundancy anyway in terms of the present discussion.

Also - dont forget (as the website does) she has been a journal editorial board member for years and wil have reviewed much of the evidence coming out of labs for years - she was unconvinced by that as well - so I dont think she is just referring to her own experiments but those of the field in general

There is also something else that is worrying about the link, the way it is written, and its clear agenda.

Let me illustrate this with a general example. Imagine I run an experiment today which provides results consistent with Theory A. Then imagine in five years time I run a similar set of experiments which are now consistent with Theory B (a totally different theory). This is not being inconsistent at all - but the progression of science itself. This is what science is all about - new results, new ideas and new ways to see the world. I wonder if that website would view such instances as being 'inconsistent'?

Okay, my last post on this matter as we're going way off topic and clearly not going to agree!

My initial post was based around the final paragraph in the link that stated...

"Carter writes that after Berger's critique, "Blackmore was willing to concede in an academic journal that 'I agree that one cannot draw conclusions about the reality of psi based on these experiments.' But her writings in the popular press have not reflected this admission."

Your argument has been based around discussion of approaches to experiments, statistical analysis etc. However, my original comment was about Blackmore's own reaction in the aforementioned "academic journal" which seems to contravene her previous position, for which she used as a basis her own work on Psi. I fail to see my "fallacy" in not providing evidence from her papers, as this is a question of Blackmore's conduct in public and reaction to examination of her papers rather than a question directly of the papers themselves. I think this is where we have differed in our arguments.

The point, which I still don't feel you've countered, is that she has appeared to show a double standard regarding her early results in the general media and her admissions to the academic community.

Perhaps her initial comments were made years ago, and that her recent admission is a result of revised opinions over a substantial period of time and development in technique - through the scientific process as you point out.

However, I'd like to see evidence of that before I accept that the linked article is "false". I don't think referring me to Blackmore's own website is going to provide that.

One other point - the website really just shows how other people "so-called experts" are incapable of placing comments in their proper context.

Sue leaves the door of possibility wide open and she always has. However, with no reliable evidence all that door is doing at the moment is letting in a draft of nonsense.....