ED: Presumably "used" refers to use within their protocol. To throw out data, or twist the objective in mid-stream (a la Targ of infamous memory) is simply a no-no. If they wanted an "all-star" team, that is very cool; provided they designed the study that way to begin with. If they muck with data or subjects, except for good reasons, the whole thing looks fishy. I was pointing out that even a statement to the effect that they are not doing that has the impact of Nixon insisting "I am not a crook".
RESPONSE: I have written to Mrs. Robertson and asked her how and if they vetted the mediums who ended up in the final study. Again, looking at the analogy of finding candidates for therapeutic drugs.....nobody publishes the results of 1000s of molecules which have no predictable value against the target. They settle on a few, proceed to the next level and then the next. We only hear about the sucessful ones.
I surmise the same is true of mediumistic abilities. There are undoubtedly many more people who claim these abilities than actually have them if in fact they exist. Ed can say he's a medium, walk in off the street, present himself to the researcher and say test me. Ed fails miserably. What does this do to the stats? You are not being realistic in your treatment of this. Yes, it would be interesting to find out how this was determined. When you taste the acceptance of a new toothpaste, do you do so by testing it against dirt off the floor or do you do so by comparing it with other similarly and pleasantly flavored contenders?
ED: Two other minor points that seem characteristic of this branch of science are the slips that betray bias. I refer specifically (in the same referenced document) to the statement This allows responses to be analysed where no psychic factor from a medium is at work.. Perhaps I am nit pickey but the proper phrase would have been "purported" or maybe "putative" or "hypothesised".
RESPONSE: We have not seen the language in their final published paper. This was a very brief, preliminary blurb.
It will be out next month and hopefully copies will be reaching us here in the colonies before February 1st.
ED: You see, their minds are made up already, they are preventing a factor that they believe in from haveing any effect. This is just sloppy, and a bit troublesome.
RESPONSE: This depends on your outlook and from where on the worldview scale you are standing. Again, the drug company analogy. A researcher has made up his mind to find a molecule that dissolves cancer. He looks at hundreds, maybe thousands of canddiates and settles on a group that inhibits angiogenesis. Some are too dangerous, even potentially fatal and others do this more safely or more effectively. We are not going to hear about all the discarded molecules.
ED: After all, if they cannot control their bias in writing, how do we have confidence that they are controlling it elsewhere?
RESPONSE: We know what their bias is. If they vetted hundreds of mediums and ended up with 25 or 40 or whatever and they still failed to achieve their objective, biased or otherwise, then they have done a good job.
ED: Put another way, regardless of design elegance, how comfortable would you be with a study done in the laboratories of Phillip Morris that demonstrated that smoking was really, really good for you?
RESPONSE: I would be interested in seeing what they have come up with and weighing it against all the negative or adverse studies of smoking and second hand smoking (which as you know is a raging debate right here in NYC right now). Do I expect PM to come up with anything other than legislated or legal requirements to promote the adverse consequences of smoking? No.
ED: Finally, I wonder why an investigator would comment in a fan magazine. A piece of scientific research should stand or fall on it's own with out preparatory spin. Just bad form, plain and simple. Particularly since I cannot read anything as yet to evaluate her statements.
RESPONSE: Probably because she was asked to and decided to say okay. You and I both know that pre-release of major scientific findings often find their way into he non-scientific media ahead of their official publication in a peer reviewed/refereed journal.
ED: I understand, Steve, that your knowledge of scientific research is a bit shakey but, nonetheless, I am sure that you can see the reasons for my concern.
RESPONSE: You are evidencing your own bias by pre critiquing the study without having seen it. I have not done that. I provided a link to a "news" item about it. I realize your own shakiness comes from the super secret world of marketing studies and all the paranoia that surrounds that kind of work so I understand your misapplying that ethic to this subject. Yes, I have very little experience doing basic research and publishing in scientific journals.
ED: Incidentially, when does this actually come out and where will it be available?
RESPONSE: The first two studies referenced in this news item are already published. They were in the JSPR and are available for a couple of dollars each from the SPR-UK. The third study referenced in this news item is being published in the January, 2004 issue of the JSPR. I have asked Mrs. Robertson for an electronic version after the publication date and with the author's permission I will circulate it to whomsoever requests it. This probably will not be until sometime in February.
You can also buy this from the SPR as well. I do not know at this point if there are any official plans to launch the full text legally on a website somewhere
but if that happens I will provide the URL. If you were a member of the SPR you can see their entire archives on the C-FAR website as a pdf and I suspect this will be the only legal location of it on the web. For information on this:
http://www.c-far.org/
For information on the SPR go to:
http://www.spr.ac.uk
Edited to add: I just checked. The C-FAR project is ongoing and they only seem to have up to 2002 on there now.....
