Wiseman did conclusively prove something. He proved that if you throw away most of your data, you are unlikely to get a statistically significant result. This is a hypothesis that Skeptics seem intent on demonstrating over and over again. On the basis of the existing data (which he had, of course seen before selecting his design) and Sheldrake's hypothesis about that data it was a clear and unambiguous prediction that Wiseman would fail to produce significance. Basically, he wasn't making any attempt to test Sheldrake's claim, but only a claim that Sheldrake's data already refuted. It is disengenuous, to say the least, for him to imply that he had tested and found wanting Sheldrake's claim. In fact, I would say that it borders on scientific misconduct for him to fail to clearly state at every occasion, given the clear potential for misunderstanding, that his results in no way contradicts Sheldrake's. The same goes for his failure to make clear that his test lacked the statistical power to even adequately test the hypothesis he was addressing for any plausible level of effect.
On the other hand...
Sheldrake's original test failed to distinguish a psi effect from a plausible and fairly obvious conventional effect (an anticipation effect). After the initial test was performed it was hypothesized that the positive results might be due to this effect. Sheldrake then devised a test of this hypothesis and found that it was false -- that it was inconsistent with the data. This type of exchange is routine in science. Continuing to assert that his results were due to this effect is neither skepticism nor science.
On the other hand, any further tests of this must take this possibility into account and exclude it from the outset, not as a separate test after the fact. Sheldrake's original test should be revised.
But Wiseman didn't do this -- his test excluded both the anticipation effect and the effect Sheldrake claimed to have found.  |