• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pigasus Awards & Sheldrake

I have formed my opinions based on others' critiques of his work and his methods. If I had all the time in the world, I would do it all myself, for every one of the people who persuade the country that something that is not true, is. Alas, I haven't got that time, so instead I trust the opinions and knowledge of others in the field.

There is another approach: don't hold opinions (or at least strong opinions) on things you haven't checked out yourself. You don't have to have strong opinions on everything, and opinions that lack justification aren't worth having.

(At the risk of being a bore: I studied philosophy at university, prior to which I had strong opinions on a wide variety of subjects. By reading philosophy I rapidly realized that nothing is obvious, everything is open to question. Because (when new to the subject) I would read one paper, think it made an overwhelming case for X which must surely settle the matter, then read another paper which appeared to refute X completely. And indeed, philosophy questions all the everyday certainties (from the laws of physics to the foundations of logic). Which is not to say that there isn't a fact of the matter - just that it is elusive.)
 
Last edited:
Passing a p=0.05 significance test is necessary for making a case for a radical new theory (e.g. a paranormal one), but not sufficient for doing so.

I get you. p=0.05 is neccesary in the sense that: in order to win Olympic gold in the 100m, it is necessary to run 50m first. Okay. I agree. But I think it's a weird point to emphasise.

I still think that a p<0.05 result is not enough for a mainstream scientist to investigate such an improbable claim. I wasn't talking about making radical new theories.
 
I still think that a p<0.05 result is not enough for a mainstream scientist to investigate such an improbable claim.

In preliminary research though, which is pretty much what this is, you can't do huge numbers of trials and so you can't expect high statistical significance. (Though Sheldrake did get extremely small p-values from it - protocol issues aside.)

Is it significant enough to justify further research? Well, that's a question for who's funding the research.
 
Last edited:
I know that I'm sitting here typing on my computer.

I know that many, many years of research into parapsychology has failed to produce a robust result. Instead, there are hints of results from meta-analysis, or complex, flawed test protocols.

I know that the brain is a physical organ.

I know that what I dreamed last night didn't actually happen.

I know that when I get up--unless there's a fire or a plane hits my building or something--I will walk through the door, not leave by the window.

I know that there are live questions of pressing interest, and questions that are far-fetched.

I know that people's desires and imaginations contribute to wishful thinking.

I know that in many areas, I do have to rely on experts--or people with training and expertise I do not have. I do this in questions about the historical Jesus, the JFK assassination, 9/11, parapsychology, psychiatry, neurology, repairing my car, fixing the boiler downstairs, and during jury duty.

when some of the seasoned pros here point out flaws in Sheldrake's protocols that I haven't thought of, I tend to believe them, until someone can convince me otherwise.

A completely "open" mind is an absurdity, and impossible.

Skepticism doesn't stand in the way of any discoveries. If the discoveries are real, the skeptics will be convinced.
 
Is it significant enough to justify further research? Well, that's a question for who's funding the research.

Do you mean: as a practical matter?

Or this is the way it ought to be?

Or do you have an opinion yourself about what you would fund?
 
I'm not surprised that you believe these things (and hence believe you know them); whether you actually do know them is another matter, not least because many of them are (unresolved) topics in philosophy. For example:

I know that I'm sitting here typing on my computer.
Problem of the external world (realism vs anti-realism, solipsism, etc.)

I know that the brain is a physical organ.
Yes... but I suspect you're making a point about the connection between brain and mind. Which is a huge unsolved philosophical problem (a whole area in fact - philosophy of mind).

I know that when I get up--unless there's a fire or a plane hits my building or something--I will walk through the door, not leave by the window.
Problem of induction. (In particular, there are strong reasons to think you don't and can't know anything about the future; e.g. if knowledge is causal and backwards causation is impossible.) This also entails big problems about whether we can know any scientific laws.

Like I said, nothing is obvious.

I know that in many areas, I do have to rely on experts--or people with training and expertise I do not have. I do this in questions about the historical Jesus, the JFK assassination, 9/11, parapsychology, psychiatry, neurology, repairing my car, fixing the boiler downstairs, and during jury duty.
Yes: but what about in areas in which you don't have to rely on experts? Because you don't have to hold a strong opinion (e.g. because you don't have to make important decisions based on an opinion).

Skepticism doesn't stand in the way of any discoveries. If the discoveries are real, the skeptics will be convinced.

Unless that is they refuse to read the research because they 'know' it can't be true. (Sorry, not intended as a dig at you personally.)
 
Last edited:
There is another approach: don't hold opinions (or at least strong opinions) on things you haven't checked out yourself. You don't have to have strong opinions on everything, and opinions that lack justification aren't worth having.

In the nicest possible way, you must have a LOT of time on your hands.

I am perfectly happy with the amount of research I have done on Sheldrake (more than many, although not as much as you, it seems), and the word of other, more respected parapsychologists on his methods, motivations, and reputation.
 
In the nicest possible way, you must have a LOT of time on your hands.

As it happens I do have a lot of time on my hands, though I've read most of Sheldrake's books and papers over the years (rather than in one fell swoop).

And incidentally lest I give the impression otherwise I am open-minded about the truth or falsehood of Sheldrake's work in general, and doubtful about some of it (e.g. his theories to do with vision - though the data from his staring experiments is very intriguing).
 
In particular, there are strong reasons to think you don't and can't know anything about the future


Apart from who's calling you on the phone before you've answered it, I presume?

Otherwise Sheldrake's work would be a complete waste of time wouldn't it?
 
Apart from who's calling you on the phone before you've answered it, I presume?

Otherwise Sheldrake's work would be a complete waste of time wouldn't it?

Nope - as that is knowledge about the past & present (viz. who has called you / is calling you), it needn't be about the future (who will be speaking to you in a few seconds).

Though you're rightly pointing out issues with precognition - and if this were actually a test of pure precognition then strong positive results would indeed produce major philosophical problems, because it would entail that causation can go backwards in time. (There are in fact some philosophical papers about precisely this issue with precognition.)

On the subject of which, in his 'Dogs who know their owners are coming home' research, Sheldrake is careful to test for whether dogs have precognition of the owners' return, or whether they apparently receive some telepathic indication that the owner is intending/starting to return. He distinguishes the cases by getting the owners to make their way home but then stopping them well before they get home. It turns out that in this case the dogs still think the owner is coming home - suggesting telepathy rather than precognition (I am glad to say).

In the telephone case, it would similarly be possible to test for whether it was telepathy or precognition apparently at work.
 
Last edited:
On the subject of which, in his 'Dogs who know their owners are coming home' research, Sheldrake is careful to test for whether dogs have precognition of the owners' return, or whether they apparently receive some telepathic indication that the owner is intending/starting to return. He distinguishes the cases by getting the owners to make their way home but then stopping them well before they get home.

Which paper are you referring to here?
 
Erm...

The dogs coming home research has been debunked so thoroughly I'm surprised anyone still mentions it with credibility. See Wiseman's work on this topic as a start.
 
Nope - as that is knowledge about the past & present (viz. who has called you / is calling you), it needn't be about the future (who will be speaking to you in a few seconds).


I knew you'd say that. :eek:

So, would Schroedinger's cat actually be dead or alive before the box was opened then?

Though you're rightly pointing out issues with precognition - and if this were actually a test of pure precognition then strong positive results would indeed produce major philosophical problems, because it would entail that causation can go backwards in time. (There are in fact some philosophical papers about precisely this issue with precognition.)


So there's no philosophical problem with telepathy then?

Why does telepathy not pose a problem to philosophy? It certainly does to science. ;)
 
Which paper are you referring to here?

I was referring to his book 'Dogs who know their owners are coming home', though I assume the experiments are also published in papers (sorry, can't recall). No doubt on Sheldrake's web site.
 
(At the risk of being a bore: I studied philosophy at university, prior to which I had strong opinions on a wide variety of subjects. By reading philosophy I rapidly realized that nothing is obvious, everything is open to question. Because (when new to the subject) I would read one paper, think it made an overwhelming case for X which must surely settle the matter, then read another paper which appeared to refute X completely. And indeed, philosophy questions all the everyday certainties (from the laws of physics to the foundations of logic). Which is not to say that there isn't a fact of the matter - just that it is elusive.)

About three posts prior to this one I just knew you were going to say this .:D
 
The dogs coming home research has been debunked so thoroughly I'm surprised anyone still mentions it with credibility. See Wiseman's work on this topic as a start.

And see Sheldrake's response to Wiseman's work.
 
here's one excerpt from a paper from Wiseman about doggy telepathy:

http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/psychicdogreply.pdf

"During this second experiment Jaytee visited the porch 12 times. The first time
that he visited the porch for no apparent reason, and stayed there for over two
minutes, was almost twenty minutes before PS started to set off home. After
this experiment PS noted that there were many summertime distractions nearby
(e.g., the neighbour’s bitch on heat) that may have been causing Jaytee to
provide ‘noisy’ data’, and thus we agreed to postpone the next two experiments
until the winter. We returned in December 1995 and carried out two more
experiments using the same criterion. In both experiments Jaytee failed to
accurately signal when PS was returning home.

In August 1996 we presented these experiments at the conference of the
Parapsychological Association (Wiseman and Smith, 1996). By this time RS
had carried out his own videotaped experiments with Jaytee. In September 1996
he wrote to RW and noted that he had analysed his own results by plotting the
total time that Jaytee remained at the porch during each ten minute period of the
experiment. He claimed that his data showed that Jaytee waited by the porch
significantly longer during the time period that PS was returning home, and that
there was also an ‘anticipatory effect’ whereby Jaytee also waited a large
amount of time in the period immediately prior to PS’s return journey. He also
noted that, as reported in his recent commentary, he had re-analysed our
videotapes of Jaytee and found the same pattern in our first three experiments.

We do not believe that RS’s re-analysis of our data provides compelling
evidence for the notion that Jaytee could psychically detect when PS was
returning home..."
 
So, would Schroedinger's cat actually be dead or alive before the box was opened then?

As you no doubt know, Schrodinger's cat is a counterexample to some (not all) interpretations of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics does indeed raise serious philosophical problems (which physicists are ill-equipped to solve) - see metaphysics & philosophy of science.


So there's no philosophical problem with telepathy then?

Why does telepathy not pose a problem to philosophy? It certainly does to science. ;)

Actually there isn't much of a problem with it (depending on just what is being transmitted; there would be some issues with transmitting 'qualia' e.g. colour impressions, because of wider problems about what these are and whether anyone can know what anyone else's are. But this doesn't rule out telepathy in general.)

What sort of philosophical problem did you have in mind? And what problems are there with telepathy in science? (Other than it perhaps being incompatible with currently known/believed laws of physics, depending on the method of transmission. Which is by no means an insurmountable problem.)
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom