[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I rather hope I never "whine", but that is perhaps beside the point.

Your 6 minutes seems to have been picked almost out of a hat, and is uncomfortably close to the entire 10 minute period which characterises the entire phenomenon!

In one of the Jaytee trials the dog began "signalling" 30 minutes before the owner began the return journey. In one of the Kane trials the dog began "signalling" 30 minutes after the owner began the return journey. In both cases the dog spent a greater proportion of time "signalling" during the return journey than during the main period but the dog's behaviour did not have any obvious relationship with the supposed telepathic signal.

Instead of whining about how unfair I am being try to come up with some criteria that would really demonstrate that the dog's behaviour is realted to the telepathic signal.

Have you ever stopped to think what "completely unambiguous" means in the context of any scientific experiment that involves statistics?

The ambiguity I was referring to was the relationship between the criteria that Sheldrake used and a "psi" explanation. As I have pointed out if the dog simply starts signalling 10 minutes after the owner leaves and remains there until the owner returns it will spend a greater proportion of time there in the return period than in the main period. If you repeat this a few times you'll get a p<0.05. If you do this enough times you'll get p<0.0005.


Compare this to somebody who claims he can predict the rolling of a die. The null hypothesis is clear. The person should by chance get 1/6 right. There is a unambiguous relationship between rejecting the null hypothesis and providing evidence for the claim.

I rather think the JREF challenge is a distraction, I would prefer to think of this as being judged as a scientific experiment than by the standards of a magic trick!

If the phenomenon is so common and so obvious that 40% or more of dog owners think their dogs can telepathically read their thoughts then it should be possible to demonstrate this in an unambiguous manner. If you have to do hundred of trials and complicated statistical analysis to find evidence then it really raises the question of how the owners can be so sure in the first place. Wishful thinking and confirmation bias seem much more likely to explain the 40% or more of dog owners who think their pets are psychic.

I just feel that if you want to suggest a 6 min cut off because of the possibility of a dog hearing the approaching car, you should provide some evidence that this is really necessary. In any case, Alex is planning some tests in which someone else drives Jane's car home - this should settle the matter.

You've got this backwards again. If you are going to argue that all normal explanations have been controlled for then you have to demonstrate this by specifically testing them. Even better - explicitly controlling for them by having the owner return in different vehicles.

Obviously the dog hearing the vehicle cannot explain the Jaytee trials where the dog began "signalling" 10-30 minutes before the owner even started the car. I believe that dogs heasring cars does contribute to the 40% or more of dog owners who think their dogs are psychic.

All of this is getting away from my main point about the criteria that Sheldrake uses. If the owner starts home after being away for 120 minutes and the return journey lasts 60 minutes should the dog start "signalling" when the owner starts the journey or is +-50 minutes near enough?