Pigasus Awards & Sheldrake

[Mojo]

Of course not. Like the time he put out a call asking for people whose pets wake up when stared at. No flaw in that at all, for example the rather gaping question of how one asks the pet why it woke, or how one ascertains whether it would have woken anyway.

It's clear from this parody that you haven't read the relevant research (I have, incidentally). No point my arguing with you.

Why not? If you have read the relevant research, you can explain why this is a "parody", and how the issues mentioned here were addressed.

 

[CFLarsen]

I would like to see a sceptical researcher perform two experiments in parallel -one with the potential flaws eliminated and one with the potential flaws present, perhaps randomising "controlled" and "flawed" trials for good measure. If the potential flaws really are to blame then the better controlled trials will show negative results, but more importantly, the flawed trials should re-introduce the positive results. "Experimenter effects" will be controlled for since its the same nasty sceptic performing the experiment.

Are you going to pay for it?

In other words: Will you put your money where your mouth is?

 

[tkingdoll]

Because it hasn't been conducted yet?

What's the point of conducting any experiment if you already 'know' the outcome in advance?

Because the thing being tested is absolutely, one hundred percent, fricking ridiculous. That's why.

Para research is the product of a rich country which has the luxury of putting time and resources into pursuing things which can either already be explained by words like 'coincidence' or 'post-hoc reasoning', or are utterly trivial, unharnessable, and therefore inconsequential.

I also don't think it's worth the time, money or energy trying to work out why my farts smell OK to me but not my husband. But if I was as rich as Sheldrake and wanted another chapter for a book, maybe I could go study it.

And the thing I was 'parodying' is the advertisment for participants in the pet sleeping study, not the results. I assume YOU haven't seen that, otherwise you'd know how ridiculous it was.

 

[bfinn]

Why not? If you have read the relevant research, you can explain why this is a "parody", and how the issues mentioned here were addressed.

Actually I can't be bothered. It isn't my job to educate people who can't be bothered to read for themselves.

(Cf 'I think War and Peace is a terrible book!' 'So have you read it?' 'No - what's it about?')

 

[bfinn]

Because the thing being tested is absolutely, one hundred percent, fricking ridiculous. That's why.

If you were arguing against e.g. things which have not been subject to scientific research (say, fake medicines), I would agree with you. But you are doing the opposite - you are opposing scientific research. Saying 'this medicine is fake and we don't have to test it' is the same as the snake-oil salesman's claim 'this medicine is genuine and we don't have to test it'. Precisely as unscientific as charlatans who refuse to submit to testing.

And the thing I was 'parodying' is the advertisment for participants in the pet sleeping study, not the results. I assume YOU haven't seen that, otherwise you'd know how ridiculous it was.

Correct, I haven't seen the ad - the ad is irrelevant. The research is relevant. Have you read the research?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Sheldrake does not have to convince Randi of anything.

It might be nice if he convinced science in general that he had proved anything at all. I'll start paying attention when he has. Until then he is just one of so many kooks with wild theories and no accepted evidence.

 

[tkingdoll]

If you were arguing against e.g. things which have not been subject to scientific research (say, fake medicines), I would agree with you. But you are doing the opposite - you are opposing scientific research. Saying 'this medicine is fake and we don't have to test it' is the same as the snake-oil salesman's claim 'this medicine is genuine and we don't have to test it'. Precisely as unscientific as charlatans who refuse to submit to testing.




Correct, I haven't seen the ad - the ad is irrelevant. The research is relevant. Have you read the research?

No I haven't read the research. And I disagree the ad is irrelevant - science communication to the public is extremely important and seeing an ad like that gives some people the impression there is credibility to the notion.

I am not opposing scientific research, because I do not consider para research to be science. Sheldrake is looking for evidence of the paranormal. He has already made his mind up about the cause and goes seeking evidence to support it.

For example this stunning piece of crapola:

Can You Feel a Difference Between a Live TV Show and a Recording?
I want to find out if some people can feel a difference between a live TV show and a recording. For example, if you’re watching a football match broadcast live, at the same time that you’re seeing it, millions of other people maybe watching and experiencing similar emotions as the game progresses. By contrast, if you watch the same match on a DVD or video recording when almost no one else is watching it, there will be very few people feeling the same emotions at the same time as you. I’m trying to find out if people can feel a difference between live and recorded events while they are watching them. Of course, this is hard to separate out your conscious knowledge of whether it is live or recorded from your feelings when watching it. I’m thinking of carrying out experiments in which these effects could be teased apart. But meanwhile I would like to hear from anyone who’s noticed a difference between watching live and recorded events and would be interested in any observations you maybe able to share.

 

[Ersby]

And just before anyone else mentions it - two studies have replicated these results. One from Bierman and Lobach which just scraped significance, with a hit rate of 29% (25% expected by chance) and one from Schmidt which was not statistically significant at 26% hit rate.

There may be others. I'm too tired to check right now. Time for bed.

 

[fls]

Unfortunately though, Randi is not some obscure innocent amateur. His word wields power, can severly damage reputations, perhaps end careers. So before ridiculing people and then awarding them widely-publicized prizes which basically label them as frauds/fruitcakes, he ought to make a properly argued case - don't you think?

I don't think that Randi's word matters among the scientific community. I would be willing to bet that majority of scientists are unaware of Randi, and when evaluating a particular paper, would have no interest in his opinion on that paper.

Like I said, I think that it is the other way around - that cognitive neuroscientists did not hail the paper as an important breakthrough allowed Randi to dismiss it.

It is still not clear to me whether Randi bothered to read Sheldrake's telephone telepathy paper (or even the abstract of the paper), given that he gave the impression it hadn't even been published. Anyone know?

I too am an amateur, and much less experienced in these matters than Randi, but at least I did read the research before expressing an opinion. (Hey, like a proper scientist would do!)

Randi's role is not that of a scientist, though. And if someone chooses to see him that way, they are the foolish one, not Randi.

Linda

 

[bfinn]

Like I said, I think that it is the other way around - that cognitive neuroscientists did not hail the paper as an important breakthrough allowed Randi to dismiss it.

Er, so any scientist who publishes research which is not hailed as an important breakthrough (within 3 or 4 years) can legitimately be labelled a fraud/fruitcake, by a highly-publicized amateur who I suspect hasn't even read the research?

 

[bfinn]

No I haven't read the research. And I disagree the ad is irrelevant - science communication to the public is extremely important and seeing an ad like that gives some people the impression there is credibility to the notion.

Whereas we know there isn't any without having tested it (which we shouldn't do because we know the results in advance)?

You make a powerful case.

I am not opposing scientific research, because I do not consider para research to be science. Sheldrake is looking for evidence of the paranormal.

Of course. Anyone testing for X is looking for evidence of X.

He has already made his mind up about the cause and goes seeking evidence to support it.

He hasn't made his mind up about the cause, though he does have a hypothesis about the cause, which he is testing. (Which is again an entirely normal way to proceed.)

I have met Sheldrake (have you?) and read his research (have you?) so I think I have an informed idea about his level of objectivity. The reality is, he is only too happy for his experiments to be criticized, improved and replicated. Trouble is, few people (including scientists) actually read his research before casually & ignorantly dismissing it.

 

[tkingdoll]

He hasn't made his mind up about the cause, though he does have a hypothesis about the cause, which he is testing. (Which is again an entirely normal way to proceed.)

He has a hypothesis about a phenomena he invented. You don't see the problem with that?

No, I've never met him. I know people who have worked with, or against, him though. Opinions vary. I've read some of his reasearch, and the objections to it.

 

[bfinn]

He has a hypothesis about a phenomena he invented. You don't see the problem with that?

Well, he invented the hypothesis - which is hardly surprising. Scientists often test hypotheses that they invented themselves. I expect almost all established scientific theories were first tested by the person who invented them. There is nothing unusual about Sheldrake doing this.

The problem is, what... experimenter bias? fraud? Of course - these are always possibilities, regardless of who came up with a hypothesis. This is why there is rightly such emphasis placed on protocols, peer review, and replication.

 

[John Jackson]

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.

Do you understand P values?

Unless you have a very well-controlled experiment, P values are meaningless.

And, if an experiment in psychical research reports a P value of P<10^-8 it's usually taken as a dead give away that the experiment was flawed (!)

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos's synchronisation leak is a prime example of how a very important confounding variable can get overlooked.

And it does seem that Sheldrake overlooked it - amongst others.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You mean that in the 'anytime' protocol, the sender and receiver could have made a prior (off-camera) agreement to phone at specific times?

Even more suble than that: What if your clock is one minute behind mine and Sally's is one minute ahead? One of you two is supposed to call me at 3:00 pm. Now I can tell, completely subconsciously, which one of you is calling by glancing at my clock when the phone rings.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't know exactly what was meant about the 'clock synchronization' leak above, but note that in one experiment the recipient was videoed throughout, and so presumably was not able to consult a clock if some subtler code was involved (e.g. the precise second at which the caller calls).

Do you think they made sure that the subjects could not see clocks?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"Experimenter effects" will be controlled for since its the same nasty sceptic performing the experiment.

The experimenter effect is passé now, I believe. The third round of experiments by Wiseman and Schlitz showed no such effect.

~~ Paul

 

[bfinn]

Yes, I do understand P-values, and naturally they are conditional on there being no normal explanation for the phenomenon being measured (not quite the same as their being 'meaningless' if the experiment is not very well-controlled, but anyway. There is always the possibility of e.g. mass fraud by multiple subjects & experimenters, which probably can never be controlled for, but the probability is calculated on the assumption that this is not the case.)

Whether there could have been a clock synchronisation leak here isn't clear, because the paper doesn't say whether the recipient had a clock to look at (and if so whether he/she looked at the clock); from the protocol description the recipient doesn't seem to need to look at a clock in order to fulfill his/her role. Presumably the use or not of a clock would be clear from the videoed trials.

And I agree that if the recipient was looking at a clock then this should indeed be changed in future protocols, e.g. by getting rid of the clock or by synchronizing all clocks.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sheldrake told me that he had not controlled for the clock synchronization leak, but upon review of the videos, it was not a factor. If he says so, I guess.

If he's convinced, then it's time for a theory from which can be derived hypotheses to test.

~~ Paul

 

[bfinn]

Why did they have to make their guess after answering the phone but before the caller spoke? There's a huge opportunity for leakage in this period where the recipient can probably hear the caller's background noise, perhaps even their voice.

Indeed; I've just checked this in the paper, and it says this potential leakage was eradicated in the videoed trials, in which the recipient had to guess before picking up the phone.