[pacificwhim]

Venom, you are not a true skeptic. You are a pseudoskeptic. Please stop holding court as if you know the true meaning of skepticism.

A true skeptic is open-minded but rigorous, demands evidence but follows where that evidence leads, and does not resort to ad hominem attacks just because he doesn't like where an experiment is leading. You, on the other hand, repeatedly resort to personal attacks ("I don't think Alex is very competent", a classic armchair quarterback position if I ever read one, especially from someone with such atrocious spelling), and apparently think that someone like David, who has followed the evidence and decided that there is something to psi, is suffering from a temporary mental illness and that he may someday get well and return to the fold of the reflexive debunkers. In other words, anyone who doesn't think like you, Alex included, is delusional.

Paul is a true skeptic. His ideas and comments, including the suggestions above for tightening and making the experiments more rigorous, are excellent. He's hard to impress but has never struck me as closed-minded, and he does not resort to personal attack to denigrate those with whom he might disagree. Watch and read. You might learn something from him and actually contribute to the conversation.

Now, as to Alex's work...I agree he needs to clear up some confusion about how many taped sessions have been made IN TOTAL and if there were some that were not taped, why? Were these test runs? I could not agree more that even the sniff of a file drawer will kill all credibility of this research. Why is Experiment #1 time coded as later than #2? Was there a reason for this switch?

However, some observations. First, if anyone can tell me how Alex's belief that dog telepathy is valid can change the behavior of the dog on the tapes, I'd love to hear it. Maybe Alex is telepathic and the dog is going where he wants it to go, is that it? Yes, prior belief can influence experimental methodology, but let me bring this up:

Alex has contacted the JREF about taking the Challenge (and spare me your tired rant, Venom, about his not knowing how to fill out the application form; I find it entirely likely that he wanted to get Randi to agree to his proposed skeptical animal expert before going to the trouble of filling out the application). Does anyone honestly think he would do so if he were producing his results fraudulently to support his bias by, say, editing the tapes to make it look like the dog was waiting for a longer period, or by cueing the dog in a way that's undetectable on camera? Does anybody think Alex is stupid enough to think that such deceptions wouldn't be revealed if and when he takes the JREF challenge, resulting in his complete humiliation? Of course they would.

Possible conclusions: a) Alex is a fraud and delusional. I find this unlikely. b) He hopes the JREF will refuse his application so he can say "I tried," and go on falsifying his work. I also find this very unlikely, as there's every chance the JREF will say, "bring it on." c) Alex is doing his experiments honestly with the intent of tightening them up as he progresses, something that happens in all areas of science, and the results he has received so far are intriguing, need replication and he feels they can stand up to scrutiny. I think c) is far more likely. Why carry out a fraud so publicly?

Alex has made some contradictory statements about the number of experimental trials and the conditions under which dogs are more likely to wait, and he should address those, as well as implementing Paul's excellent ideas (the one about having the owner start home and then change her mind is bloody brilliant). Beyond that, he seems to be doing what many inexperienced researchers have done: testing, finding the flaws, then tightening things up as they go along. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and be supportive as he goes forward with something that I suspect most of us have never tried. If he fails, he fails. If he succeeds, I'll give him immense credit and accept his data as valid evidence that something worth investigating is going on.