Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bailey  Well lots of experiments are 'tuned' to detect a specific effect - if present - that is normal scientific practice and does not in any way detract from the result. |
The difference here is that "psi" is by definition simply an anomaly. "Psi" is not a specific effect that can be predicted or falsified.
Could Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" have been falsified by the dog experiments? Could there have been a result that would there have been a result that would have made Sheldrake change his mind?
That's the beauty of Sheldrake's experiments. If an anomaly, any anomaly, remains then it can be counted as evidence for "morphic resonance". If the anomaly disappears then it doesn't matter because "morphic resonance" doesn't make any definite predictions.
Sheldrake also uses criteria for judging the success of the trial, the amount of time the dog spends at the window, so that if the dog gets any information about the approximate return time then it will be counted as a hit. This means that if he fails to control for other mechanisms then the result will default to a success.
Sheldrake fails to explicitly test for other mechanisms. He simply assumes that he has controlled for them. This, again, ensures that the result defaults to the one he desires.
It really is textbook pseudoscience.
Sheldrake finds that 50% of dog owneres think that they can telepathically communicate with their dogs. Considering the fact, as Sheldrake points out, that most of these people can't see the need for controlled experiments then what proportion of these people are basing their opinion on actual evidence?
How many of them fall prey to confirmation bias, remembering the hits and not the misses? How many are fooled by the dog hearing a car a few minutes before it arrives? How many are fooled by the dog detetcing routine? How many are fooled by the dog picking up other cues?
Wouldn't it be interesting to know this? Why doesn't Sheldrake want to know?
Sheldrake uses the widespread belief in psychic dogs as support for his theory. Why doesn't he want to know how much of this belief is based on evidence? Why doesn't he want to know whether dogs can use cues to prediuct their owner's return?
For somebody who is supposed to be open-minded he seems to be extremely selective in what he is open-minded about.