However, I did not say that Bem did thousands of possible analyses. I said that he had thousands of possible analyses to choose among. Perhaps I should have said "potential" instead of "possible." If your choices are data driven, you only have to exercise a few of those potential choices...
As I have explained to you repeatedly, I don't think he searched through thousands of statistical tests. As I and others have explained to you repeatedly, Gelman's "Garden of Forking Paths" paper explains in detail why it's not necessary. At this point your failure to understand is, at best...
No, I did not say that Bem conducted thousands of tests; I said that he made choices among thousands of possible analyses. I think those choices were subtly data driven, and I think that Bem could convince himself that the choices he ultimately made were the choices that he would have made all...
You say that Bem said that he chose his hypotheses in advance. Can you present a quote where he said that, because according to Linda, "Bem stated 'in fact, there was no data exploration that required adjustment for multiple analyses in this or any other experiment' in response to Wagenmakers'...
If I thought he was lying, I would simply say so. It's really weird that you and Chris are so invested in believing that I think Bem lied. Like Diatom, I can't get my head around what's driving this obsession.
I guessed, and I suspect that Experiments 1 and 2 in Feeling the Future were similarly cobbled together. These experiments employed different stimuli in earlier and later sessions. I suspect that sessions using different stimuli were originally separate experiments, but (giving him the benefit...
I'll explain this one last time. I think Bem actually believes what he said. Therefore, he is not lying. Gelman wrote a whole paper on how researchers can go on a massive fishing expedition and not realize it. I think this is largely what Bem has done.
WTF!? Everyone but you is suggesting that there was splitting, combining, or suppression of results!
And yet again, the only person talking about fraud is you. Learn to read:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/was-bems-feeling-the-future-paper-exploratory.1561/page-12#post-76032
Your solution looks correct. I just divided up the problem differently:
Prototype Ways
------------------------------
Use all 4 experiments:
{{A, B, C, D}} 1
{{A, B, C}, {D}} 4
{{A, B}, {C, D}} 3*
{{A, B}, {C}, {D}} 6
{{A}, {B}...
As usual, Chris, no one but you is talking about anybody lying or cheating. We are not saying that Bem cheated; we're saying that he presented a selection of analyses from a much larger pool of possibilities. And I think he rationalized that those were the choices he would have made all along.