Pigasus Awards & Sheldrake

[Beth]

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. Or the current request for people who can 'feel' a difference between live TV and pre-recorded. Clearly we are dealing with a genius of science.

This doesn't strike me as any different than newspaper advertisements I see asking for study participants who are depressed, suffer hearing loss, etc. If you want to study something that doesn't affect everyone, you first have to find partipants for the study.

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 don't think that that because something is trivial is therefore inconsequential. I recall, many years ago, money spent on studying the sex lives of insects getting subjected to similar complaints. At the time, it received an award (I think it was called the golden fleece, at any rate it was similar to the pigasus) for being an utter waste of taxpayer dollars. Turns out, there were some very real and important consequences to the research in terms of controlling insect popuations.

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.

Reading through this thread, it sure sounds like you're opposing scientific research in areas you don't personally approve of. The grounds for your objection seem trivial and specious to me.

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

I don't. He's got a hypothesis and he's trying to gather evidence to check whether his hypothesis is correct. That's how scientists usually work.

 

[Beth]

As far as I can see, he has invented the notion that people can tell the difference between live and pre-recorded TV, decided that this effect (that he just invented) is due to the fact that we subconciously pick up on the mass emotions of the nation during live events, and wants to test separating that feeling from the knowledge of the watching.

Also known as 'I am short on material for my new book and the associated news headlines which net me some more £££".

This is my take on it: He has a hypothesis regarding something he terms "morphic resonance" (I'm not sure if that the right terminology). Assuming this hypothesis is correct, he's making a prediction that people will be able to distinguish between live and pre-recorded TV. Now he's trying to test that prediction. If it tests positive, it would lend credence to his hypothesis. If it tests negative, it would imply his hypothesis is NOT correct. I think this is how science is supposed to work.

 

[Ersby]

Regrettably I suspect the reality is that the scientists who should be most interested in the results haven't pursued the research because they 'know it can't be true'.

Part of the problem is that parapsychologists (not just Sheldrake) have got stuck on this idea of fixing the level of significance at p=0.05 (odds of 1 in 20). No mainstream scientist worth his salt is going to go out of his way to investigate a seemingly impossible phenomena with such weak odds.

 

[tkingdoll]

This is my take on it: He has a hypothesis regarding something he terms "morphic resonance" (I'm not sure if that the right terminology). Assuming this hypothesis is correct, he's making a prediction that people will be able to distinguish between live and pre-recorded TV. Now he's trying to test that prediction. If it tests positive, it would lend credence to his hypothesis. If it tests negative, it would imply his hypothesis is NOT correct. I think this is how science is supposed to work.

1) his test WILL be positive
2) what, exactly, is the benefit of testing whether we can tell the difference between live TV and pre-recorded?
3) if it does test positive, then what? It'll be exposed as full of holes, maybe retested properly, to cries of 'skeptic effect', then the woos will use the first test as proof and the skeptics will use the second. Same old cycle. Same for the past 50 years, in fact. And nothing, nothing, has come of any of it. Except for money, that is, from the credible.

 

[bfinn]

Part of the problem is that parapsychologists (not just Sheldrake) have got stuck on this idea of fixing the level of significance at p=0.05 (odds of 1 in 20). No mainstream scientist worth his salt is going to go out of his way to investigate a seemingly impossible phenomena with such weak odds.

Er, no, p=0.05 is a standard starting point for statistical significance throughout science (nothing special about parapsychology). E.g. see this for more about the history of p=0.05:
http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/p05.htm

Neither Sheldrake nor I imagine does anyone else claim that passing a p=0.05 significance test is sufficient, just that it is necessary.

 

[bfinn]

1) his test WILL be positive

Your confidence in the outcome of experiments (which hence don't need to be performed) is much the same as your confidence in the validity of research papers (which hence don't need to be read). Such unshakeable faith - are you religious perhaps?

2) what, exactly, is the benefit of testing whether we can tell the difference between live TV and pre-recorded?

Well, presumably because if we can then it would have wide-ranging implications for biology and perhaps also for physics. (Though I can already anticipate you will say that a positive outcome of a properly controlled experiment on this is 'impossible' so these implications could never arise.)

3) if it does test positive, then what? It'll be exposed as full of holes, maybe retested properly, to cries of 'skeptic effect', then the woos will use the first test as proof and the skeptics will use the second.

Hence the need for collaboration between both sides on joint experiments - such as Chris French & Rupert Sheldrake. Then neither side can complain about the way the experiment was conducted.

 

[Beth]

1) his test WILL be positive

You apparently know this through paranormal means Personally, I'm not so sure. I suspect that if negative, he simply won't publish the results.

2) what, exactly, is the benefit of testing whether we can tell the difference between live TV and pre-recorded?

It's basic research to test a hypothesis. The "benefit" is simply to gain knowlege about ourselves and the world we live in. That's what all of science is about.

3) if it does test positive, then what? It'll be exposed as full of holes, maybe retested properly, to cries of 'skeptic effect', then the woos will use the first test as proof and the skeptics will use the second. Same old cycle. Same for the past 50 years, in fact. And nothing, nothing, has come of any of it. Except for money, that is, from the credible.

Well, a positive result would be supportive of his hypothesis. A negative result would indicate he's wrong.

You really do come across as objecting to scientific research of unexplained phenomenon that falls into the classification of paranormal. While it's reasonable for you to object to your tax dollars being spent on projects you don't think are deserving, I'm not sure that's the case here. Isn't Sheldrake privately funded? Anyway, what I'm saying is that I don't think your objections to his research are reasonable. It's not that they are necessarily erronous, but rather that they even if correct, they seem insufficient.

 

[fls]

Part of the problem is that parapsychologists (not just Sheldrake) have got stuck on this idea of fixing the level of significance at p=0.05 (odds of 1 in 20). No mainstream scientist worth his salt is going to go out of his way to investigate a seemingly impossible phenomena with such weak odds.

This is a nitpick, but a p=0.05 gives odds of 1 to 19 (p/(1-p)).

That is an important point. When it is very unlikely that the null hypothesis is false (let's say 1/100 or less), you are much more likely to find a p=0.05 when the null hypotheses is true than when it is false.

Linda

 

[tkingdoll]

You apparently know this through paranormal means Personally, I'm not so sure. I suspect that if negative, he simply won't publish the results.

Congrats, you get it. That's exactly what he does if he can't get a positive result (using usually flawed methodology or analysis).

It's basic research to test a hypothesis. The "benefit" is simply to gain knowlege about ourselves and the world we live in. That's what all of science is about.


Well, a positive result would be supportive of his hypothesis. A negative result would indicate he's wrong.

You really do come across as objecting to scientific research of unexplained phenomenon that falls into the classification of paranormal. While it's reasonable for you to object to your tax dollars being spent on projects you don't think are deserving, I'm not sure that's the case here. Isn't Sheldrake privately funded? Anyway, what I'm saying is that I don't think your objections to his research are reasonable. It's not that they are necessarily erronous, but rather that they even if correct, they seem insufficient.

Sheldrake does not use honest methods to get his results. BUT, his results, in the public eye, are high profile. The debunkings of them are not. As far as the average punter is concered, telephone telepathy is a proven fact, because they read it in the newspaper.

I think this is damaging.

I am against 'scientific research' when people like Sheldrake do it, because they cheat to get the results they want to sell books and create headlines. It's not scientific research. And I have it on excellent authority that Sheldrake is neither representative of 'good' parapsychology, nor accepted by it.

 

[Beth]

Congrats, you get it. That's exactly what he does if he can't get a positive result (using usually flawed methodology or analysis).

That's hardly a complaint against Sheldrake. Very few published papers in any field have negative results. It's tough to get a paper with negative results accepted for publication.

Sheldrake does not use honest methods to get his results. BUT, his results, in the public eye, are high profile. The debunkings of them are not. As far as the average punter is concered, telephone telepathy is a proven fact, because they read it in the paper.

I think this is damaging.

I am against 'scientific research' when people like Sheldrake do it, because they cheat to get the results they want to sell books and create headlines. It's not scientific research.

So your complaint against Sheldrake is that he isn't being honest? I've seen no evidence of that. I gather he honestly believes that something is going on and is doing his best to scientifically test for it. What evidence (other than positive results) do you have that he is cheating to get the results he wants?

 

[tkingdoll]

That's hardly a complaint against Sheldrake. Very few published papers in any field have negative results. It's tough to get a paper with negative results accepted for publication.



So your complaint against Sheldrake is that he isn't being honest? I've seen no evidence of that. I gather he honestly believes that something is going on and is doing his best to scientifically test for it. What evidence (other than positive results) do you have that he is cheating to get the results he wants?

You 'gather' he's honest. I 'gather' he's not. I get my information from my sources, and you get yours from yours. That's about all I can say, really. But if you choose to believe he consistently leaves gaping holes in his experiments by accident or oversight, the same studies which give positive results, then that's entirely up to you.

 

[bfinn]

I am against 'scientific research' when people like Sheldrake do it, because they cheat to get the results they want to sell books and create headlines. It's not scientific research.

You seem to have strong opinions about Sheldrake's motivations, yet you've never met the man and don't seem to have read much of his research.

We could argue endlessly about whether your opinions are true, but it's clear to me that they are at least uninformed.

 

[tkingdoll]

You seem to have strong opinions about Sheldrake's motivations, yet you've never met the man and don't seem to have read much of his research.

We could argue endlessly about whether your opinions are true, but it's clear to me that they are at least uninformed.

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.

 

[Ersby]

This is a nitpick, but a p=0.05 gives odds of 1 to 19 (p/(1-p)).

That is an important point. When it is very unlikely that the null hypothesis is false (let's say 1/100 or less), you are much more likely to find a p=0.05 when the null hypotheses is true than when it is false.

Linda

*ahem* I stand corrected.

And the sad thing is that one of the links I posted said exactly the same thing.

Ho hum.

 

[Ersby]

Er, no, p=0.05 is a standard starting point for statistical significance throughout science (nothing special about parapsychology). E.g. see this for more about the history of p=0.05:
http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/p05.htm

Neither Sheldrake nor I imagine does anyone else claim that passing a p=0.05 significance test is sufficient, just that it is necessary.

Er, yes, there is something special about parapsychology. Rhine suggested p=0.01. Why this was dropped is something that's never been covered in parapsychological literature.

Meanwhile, the old saying of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" isn't just a cliche trotted out every time someone thinks they canread people's minds: it applies to other sciences too. Take the claim that one of the fundamental constants of the cosmos may not be constant.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2006-04-23-mu-change_x.htm

This is a pretty radical idea, so the level of statistical significance they test it to is greater that p=0.05.

The European team reports that mu has changed with better than 99.7% statistical confidence that the result isn't a fluke. But in physics, that's nowhere near enough certainty to start rewriting the textbooks, they freely acknowledge.

Do you see? 99.7% statistical confidence is not enough to rewrite the textbooks. So why does parapsychology* think it is?

* and before you ask: yes, I have read plenty of parapsychological papers.

 

[bfinn]

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.

And what about your opinions on his motivations - that he's a cheat, only in it to get money & publicity, etc.? What are your sources for that?

 

[bfinn]

Meanwhile, the old saying of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" isn't just a cliche trotted out every time someone thinks they canread people's minds: it applies to other sciences too. Take the claim that one of the fundamental constants of the cosmos may not be constant.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2006-04-23-mu-change_x.htm

This is a pretty radical idea, so the level of statistical significance they test it to is greater that p=0.05.

Do you see? 99.7% statistical confidence is not enough to rewrite the textbooks. So why does parapsychology* think it is?

I'm not sure you read my earlier post fully, so I'll re-quote it (and you'll see why you didn't need to explain the very obvious):

Neither Sheldrake nor I imagine does anyone else claim that passing a p=0.05 significance test is sufficient, just that it is necessary.

 

[Ersby]

Okay, maybe I misunderstood. Sufficient for what? Necessary for what?

ETA: to make myself clear: I'm responding to your question as to why other scientists would not follow up Sheldrake's work. I say that a p<0.05 result for a phenomena that is apparently impossible, and has no known mechanism is not enough to warrant such research.

 

[bfinn]

Okay, maybe I misunderstood. Sufficient for what? Necessary for what?

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.

 

[Beth]

You 'gather' he's honest. I 'gather' he's not. I get my information from my sources, and you get yours from yours. That's about all I can say, really. But if you choose to believe he consistently leaves gaping holes in his experiments by accident or oversight, the same studies which give positive results, then that's entirely up to you.

Indeed, we all hold our opinions based on the totality of what we have been exposed to. I've read some write ups of his experiments, as well as some critiques of his work. I have yet to see anything that indicates that he is dishonest. That you assume so and are willing to publically state so without providing any credible supporting evidence is well, I'll just say that it doesn't do anything to sway my opinion of him and leave it at that.