Slashdot recently linked an article about a random number generator that sees into the future. Well, this all terribly entertaining, perhaps even interesting, but I'm still skeptical. I am, after all, me. In case you don't want to read the article, it basically says that there are 64 random number generators scattered about the world that continuously, randomly create either a 0 or 1. The scientists claim two things about these "Eggs," as they call them. (1) Shortly after major emotional crises, the Eggs create more ones than zeros. For example, the Eggs "spiked" at the funeral of Princess Diana, the American elections in 2000, September 11, and the December 26, 2004, tsunami. (2) These Eggs actually predict major events a few hours before they occur; four hours in the case of September 11, and a full day before the earthquake that caused the tsunami.
This clearly sounds like crack science. If anyone thinks this is legitimate at this point, the last nail in the coffin is coming. The groups FAQ says,
How do you make the leap that the deviations from randomness are related to world events or consciousness? After all, when you find a deviation you can check the news and ALWAYS find some world event that is taking place, because world events happen every day. There are never days without world events anymore, so it seems that there is a possibility that this is just a coincidence.The leap we make is only to ask the question. The answer seems to be yes, there are correlations. With regard to your concern that we can always find a special event to fit the data, we fully agree. However, we do our experimental work the other way around from what you have inferred. First we make a prediction that some identified event will have an effect, then we assess the data to see the actual outcome. Though some people suggest that we should do so, we never "find a deviation [and then] check the news", because you are right -- it will always be possible to find some event that we might imagine was the cause. The GCP methodology is prediction-based. Before the data are examined, a prediction is registered, with all necessary analysis specifications, and only then do we perform the analysis that allows us to quantify the correlation and assign it a probability against chance.
Gee, this seems normal. Especially the last part, where they only perform analysis after a prediction is registered. Logically, they cannot find any "anomalies" when they aren't searching for them. Thus, if these "spikes" occur regularly every few days, it is not surprising that one would occur shortly before a "major world events."
On one hand, the scientists probably would not want to put their careers on the line if they didn't believe they were on to something, but it seems so absurd. On the other hand, if they really follow that procedure, the flaw is obvious. All in all, I thought it was entertaining; I've always enjoyed hearing about the paranormal. Besides that, I needed to post.
Posted by Gallagher at February 13, 2005 01:32 AM