While I am in general support of the aims of JREF, I was unimpressed by the Pigasus Award to Rupert Sheldrake for his telephone telepathy research (sorry, I've only just heard about this) and in particular for the justification provided for it.
The justification provided is a link to the Sept 8 SWIFT, whose sum total of objection to Sheldrake's actual research is:
I see the sample size objection has been discussed on these forums before - but to summarize, there were 571 trials, with statistical significance of p = between about 10^-8 and 10^-16 on the various experiments (i.e. astronomically significant), and 10^-12 on the videotaped experiments. The implication of Randi's vague and incorrect objection on the grounds of 'sample size' is that he simply didn't read the research (or at least understand the statistics). (The four people videotaped were incidentally the four people being phoned - since collusion would be required at both ends of the call it's not really necessary to video the callers too, but we're getting into details of protocol here.)
Randi's second objection above is that 'until a completed paper has been thoroughly vetted...' - which seems to me to imply that Randi believes (or wants the reader to believe) that there isn't 'a completed' paper yet (note he doesn't say 'the completed paper'). I.e. the experiments have been done but the write-up hasn't been completed (and hence not published), and so there hasn't been the opportunity yet to review the protocol used.
The paper in question was published as long ago as 2003, and I located it in one attempt by typing "Sheldrake telephone telepathy paper" into Google (it's the first result). It even has a helpful abstract with all the key information and statistics.
It seems to me that Randi either didn't do the most elementary research (taking all of 5 seconds) to see that there was a published paper, or he found it and didn't even read up to the 5th line (where he would have found the statistics which wipe out his 'sample size' objection), or he did read it but then decided to suggest that there wasn't yet 'a completed paper' describing the 'actual protocol', when in reality Randi has had nearly 4 years in which he could have 'thoroughly vetted' it.
So if you have actual objections to the research, why not state that the paper has been published and that you have read it (if you have), maybe even provide a link to it (so people can read it for themselves), and raise specific objections to the statistics and protocols set out in the paper? (Hey, like what a proper scientist would do.)
I think it's fair to say that the above represents poor grounds for Randi giving Sheldrake a Pigasus award. Sheldrake has been vastly closer to following an objective scientific method here than Randi has.
The justification provided is a link to the Sept 8 SWIFT, whose sum total of objection to Sheldrake's actual research is:
"The sample size was small on both trials, just 63 people for the controlled telephone experiment and 50 for the email, and only four of the subjects were actually filmed in the phone study and five in the email. This gives cause for some skepticism. In addition, until a completed paper has been thoroughly vetted, the actual protocol will need to be viewed with some doubt, as well."
I see the sample size objection has been discussed on these forums before - but to summarize, there were 571 trials, with statistical significance of p = between about 10^-8 and 10^-16 on the various experiments (i.e. astronomically significant), and 10^-12 on the videotaped experiments. The implication of Randi's vague and incorrect objection on the grounds of 'sample size' is that he simply didn't read the research (or at least understand the statistics). (The four people videotaped were incidentally the four people being phoned - since collusion would be required at both ends of the call it's not really necessary to video the callers too, but we're getting into details of protocol here.)
Randi's second objection above is that 'until a completed paper has been thoroughly vetted...' - which seems to me to imply that Randi believes (or wants the reader to believe) that there isn't 'a completed' paper yet (note he doesn't say 'the completed paper'). I.e. the experiments have been done but the write-up hasn't been completed (and hence not published), and so there hasn't been the opportunity yet to review the protocol used.
The paper in question was published as long ago as 2003, and I located it in one attempt by typing "Sheldrake telephone telepathy paper" into Google (it's the first result). It even has a helpful abstract with all the key information and statistics.
It seems to me that Randi either didn't do the most elementary research (taking all of 5 seconds) to see that there was a published paper, or he found it and didn't even read up to the 5th line (where he would have found the statistics which wipe out his 'sample size' objection), or he did read it but then decided to suggest that there wasn't yet 'a completed paper' describing the 'actual protocol', when in reality Randi has had nearly 4 years in which he could have 'thoroughly vetted' it.
So if you have actual objections to the research, why not state that the paper has been published and that you have read it (if you have), maybe even provide a link to it (so people can read it for themselves), and raise specific objections to the statistics and protocols set out in the paper? (Hey, like what a proper scientist would do.)
I think it's fair to say that the above represents poor grounds for Randi giving Sheldrake a Pigasus award. Sheldrake has been vastly closer to following an objective scientific method here than Randi has.
Last edited: