Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Noble  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. |
Why are you assuming that the dog's behaviour represents a phenomena that can be described as a 'signal' tied to the start of the return journey?
I don't see any reason to assume that.
It's better to make less assumptions about the processes going on here. Alex et al should first try to establish a correlation between the return time and waiting behaviour. Then you can investigate whether a 'start signal' exists or whether the phenomena can be better described by some other process.
We've already established why your suggested method of analysis is not good (too much noise).
The best way to test for the initial correlation (IMO) is to look at the total time spent waiting during the return journey as a proportion of the total waiting time. If you can't explain what is statistically wrong with this method (or the method that Larry Boy suggested) then I suggest we move on, because I'm sure that Alex et al don't agree with your theoretical assumptions.