• 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.

Is THE N'KISI PROJECT real?

levi

Muse
L
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
510
I was reading a internet site about a parrot that supposely can interpt information about its owner from a distance. Is it true? Here is the site http:
//www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/ for a better summary. Thanks in advance.
 
I was going to correct your link for you, but so many of us are going to see that key word, SHELDRAKE, in there that we already know the answer.

Rupert Sheldrake ascribes to some of the most dubious "rules" of testing and evidence ever witnessed.

I'd continue, but I'm sure I'm being stared at.
 
levi said:
I was reading a internet site about a parrot that supposely can interpt information about its owner from a distance. Is it true? Here is the site http:
//www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/ for a better summary. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess 'No.'

Do I win the prize?
 
What kind of "information?"

And you realize a parrot's brain isn't much larger than a walnut, right?
 
Sorry - I was in a rush, earlier.

Old stuff. Anyone remember where that exchange between Rupert and the skeptic/sceptic was published? It was quite some fun.

As with his telepathic dog, Sheldrake skews the results to match his preconceptions, if I recall correctly.
 
levi said:
I was reading a internet site about a parrot that supposely can interpt information about its owner from a distance. Is it true? Here is the site http:
//www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/ for a better summary. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent example of why such experiments do not meet normal standards of scientific inquiry. Some quotes:
"In responding to the tests, N'kisi generally put target keywords and descriptions in related sentences, and he often described a detail at the exact moment that Aimee noticed it."

Then later on, "As an animal, N'kisi could not be expected to fully understand the experiment parameters, and there was no guarantee of his participation."

OK. So if the bird doesn't understand, how do we know he's responding to the 'test' at all? And if he understands complex pictures he receives telepathically, enough to say the proper word, what are we to make of his rambling, disconnected verbiage? For instance, in those trials where he mentions the camera recording him, he is thought to be distracted and those are thrown out.

The real problem comes in the statistical analysis. The pictures were selected from his known vocabulary list. A true double blind would have pictures that he didn't have any words for at all, wouldn't it?

Another puzzle was that they had three transcriptionists and used agreement between two to say, "This is what the bird said." What? You mean we don't even know what the bird is saying clearly? It makes a great read because the details given are enough to see how these things are done.

The real deal killer is this though. The bird vocalizes (and says a great deal, apparently) in the two minute time period in a trial. Any noun he happens to utter that matches the target is counted as a 'hit'. All the other words in those two minutes are not counted against him. This begs the question of what his vocabulary is and how many words he spits out in two minutes. The statistics do not take this into consideration and the wonderful results only compare hits against non-hits in a simple fashion. But by the time the statistics come into play, the damage is already done.

There are many more problems with the testing, but these exemplify why Sheldrake has the reputation he does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom