Ludo said:

Belatedly it came to me that I did not define EVIDENCE
Evidence ideally would comprise a representative crosssection of
listeners: genders, ages, audio experience etc. Obviously very
difficult or not feasible.
So let's compromise. As I said before; to begin with let's hear
from De Waal and Fella. that they listened blind to 15 repeats of a
musical fragment with someone changing randomly from "with tweak" to
"without tweak" . They would have to fill in "like", "don't like"
squares. 12 correct ("like it better with the tweak") guesses would be
statistically signifcant but 10 out of twelve would be of interest.
Of course such a single blind test would not be acceptable to a JAES
editor. DBT and repeats with a statistically significant group would be
required. But a little is enough for RAO.
Witching incantations are not


This is bizarre. Neither of those guys said they intended to convince
you or anybody else that what they perceived was "real". Who cares if
they imagined it? Form your own opinion of the procedures or the
participants, but it's farfetched to believe anybody who undertakes a
"tweak" involving a drawing and an aspirin tablet is pursuing a
scientific inquiry.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.