Animal Communicator Research (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Yes - I think people with pets are usually looked down on by animal behaviour researchers - but I think we get a lot closer in many ways. I mean, sure, a cat in the house is not behaving as they do in the wild - but we aren't behaving as we would in the wild either!

Rupert Sheldrake seems to have an uncanny knack for finding ψ experiments that work really well and are fairly easy to repeat. I think choosing the dogs experiment as a first experiment was a very good choice.

I would still like to know exactly what the communication with insects consisted of!

David

Yes, your question about the insects is an interesting one. I just don't know.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Zannek

Absolutely. That was the 'wow' factor for me. It's like you've added an entire dimension to the experiment. When I first saw the splash page for this episode, I thought "Yep. He's finally flipped." It wasn't until I listened that I realised just how well this would all tie in together. If this experiment yields results it will certainly prove the existence of psi phenomena to me (this is, of course, assuming that all criticisms raised against it will be addressed). I don't know too much about OpenSourceScience yet, but I'm hoping you can grab the attention of the severe skeptics as well. I agree with Marylin Schlitz that all they can really do is help the process along (except when they then go on broadcasts rallying about how horridly wrong it is and construing the facts a la JREF).

It would be especially interesting to get Richard Wiseman involved since he's been the most major critic of Sheldrake's work.

I'm not sure Wiseman would be interested. I asked him during our interview and he indicated that he's moved on... I understand.

Moreover, the beauty of this experiment (as David pointed out above) is it's simplicity: 1. Watch the dog with a video camera when no one is around. 2. Measure how much time he spends at the window. 3. Report results.

I will certianly involve skeptics in the process, but anyone who tries to make it more complicated is just peddling an agenda.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I think the choice of dogs to test psi, is preferable in some ways. They don't get nervous about being tested or worry about failing......... but best of all magician debunkers will be less inclines to imagine hotdog reading or elaborate slight of paw techniques.

If the experimental protocol produces no psi, the debunkers will applaud the excellent protocol and add your results to skeptic dictionaries.

If successful, the skeptics will ignore or demand greater controls. To satisfy this, the dogs will end up blindfolded, wearing earphones with loud white noise, blocked nostrils and placed in an isolated room to walk up to TV screen instead of window. Of course the dog onwer will be replaced for possibly training the dog to cheat and replaced with a stranger. If that doesn't put the dog psi completely off quite enough, medical examinations to look for internal walkie-talkies should work

When the experiment eventually fails, the debunker will finally agree, at last you have a most excellent protocol.

(Hey who said only die-hard skeptics were cynical? Not true! )

Sheldrake has made the same point about dogs being well suited for this work -- I agree.

Unfortuneatly, your cynical view of the experiemntal protocal is almost too close to the truth. And, as you alluded to, I think we must keep the connection (dare I say love) factor in the experiment. I suspect these dogs and owners communicate because they love each other deeply. If we shy away from that factor in an effort to appear more clinical and scientific we'll just muck things up.

[Phronk]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Moreover, the beauty of this experiment (as David pointed out above) is it's simplicity: 1. Watch the dog with a video camera when no one is around. 2. Measure how much time he spends at the window. 3. Report results.

I will certianly involve skeptics in the process, but anyone who tries to make it more complicated is just peddling an agenda.

I usually agree with you, Alex, but not on this last point. Sometimes an experiment needs to be more complicated in order to eliminate alternative explanations. That is a goal that debunkers, skeptics, and parapsychologists alike should all share.

If this is to be the foolproof experiment you want it to be, it may need a bit more complexity than your 3-step summary; or at least a bit more detail on each step. For example, the going to the window more and more hypothesis needs to be completely eliminated as an explanation, no matter how remote we perceive it to be. This adds complexity to the "measure how much time he spends at the window" step. If normal explanations like these are still possible, the experiment will be useless for its intended purpose. I think statistical considerations also need to be planned out in detail beforehand, and ideally dated and published in a public place. That way you can't be accused of fishing for significant results in random data.

I've made some suggestions on OpenSourceScience about this too.

I don't mean to be overly critical. But I think that a call for added complexity doesn't necessarily indicate bias (unless a desire for the genuine truth about the phenomenon is considered an agenda .

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Phronk

I usually agree with you, Alex, but not on this last point. Sometimes an experiment needs to be more complicated in order to eliminate alternative explanations. That is a goal that debunkers, skeptics, and parapsychologists alike should all share.

If this is to be the foolproof experiment you want it to be, it may need a bit more complexity than your 3-step summary; or at least a bit more detail on each step. For example, the going to the window more and more hypothesis needs to be completely eliminated as an explanation, no matter how remote we perceive it to be. This adds complexity to the "measure how much time he spends at the window" step. If normal explanations like these are still possible, the experiment will be useless for its intended purpose. I think statistical considerations also need to be planned out in detail beforehand, and ideally dated and published in a public place. That way you can't be accused of fishing for significant results in random data.

I've made some suggestions on OpenSourceScience about this too.

I don't mean to be overly critical. But I think that a call for added complexity doesn't necessarily indicate bias (unless a desire for the genuine truth about the phenomenon is considered an agenda .

Your points are good ones... I guess I was getting a little carried away think... then again, the history of this experiment demonstrates how an extreme Skeptical bias can turn concern for proper research methods into a witch hunt.

Also keep in mind, "my" research will be limited to preliminary trials (but I will post them on the OpenSoruceScience website and YouTube). The real research will be done by university researchers according to their standards.

[Zannek]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I think the choice of dogs to test psi, is preferable in some ways. They don't get nervous about being tested or worry about failing......... but best of all magician debunkers will be less inclines to imagine hotdog reading or elaborate slight of paw techniques.

If the experimental protocol produces no psi, the debunkers will applaud the excellent protocol and add your results to skeptic dictionaries.

If successful, the skeptics will ignore or demand greater controls. To satisfy this, the dogs will end up blindfolded, wearing earphones with loud white noise, blocked nostrils and placed in an isolated room to walk up to TV screen instead of window. Of course the dog onwer will be replaced for possibly training the dog to cheat and replaced with a stranger. If that doesn't put the dog psi completely off quite enough, medical examinations to look for internal walkie-talkies should work

When the experiment eventually fails, the debunker will finally agree, at last you have a most excellent protocol.

(Hey who said only die-hard skeptics were cynical? Not true! )

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BRAVO!

[David Bailey]

Regarding the problem of going to the window more than once, This is a problem because you can't just ask someone to assess the tape blind - because the tape will obviously end when the owner comes home!

There is also, presumably the possibility of an effect similar to that discussed in the presentiment experiment - that the dog becomes more and more likely to go to the window as time goes by (surely they are coming soon...)

The devil of all this, is that whatever you do, someone will condemn you loudly for having got it all wrong! However, if you offer to make the raw data tapes available to any interested sceptic (maybe on line) maybe you can avoid that.

Suppose you got a human to observe each tape and identify the point at which the dog was anticipating the return BEFORE viewing the complete tape and therefore identifying the actual return home. Our neighbour used to say that she knew when we were returning because of our cat's behaviour (in her house).

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Regarding the problem of going to the window more than once, This is a problem because you can't just ask someone to assess the tape blind - because the tape will obviously end when the owner comes home!

There is also, presumably the possibility of an effect similar to that discussed in the presentiment experiment - that the dog becomes more and more likely to go to the window as time goes by (surely they are coming soon...)

The devil of all this, is that whatever you do, someone will condemn you loudly for having got it all wrong! However, if you offer to make the raw data tapes available to any interested sceptic (maybe on line) maybe you can avoid that.

Suppose you got a human to observe each tape and identify the point at which the dog was anticipating the return BEFORE viewing the complete tape and therefore identifying the actual return home. Our neighbour used to say that she knew when we were returning because of our cat's behaviour (in her house).

David

I seem to recall reading that Sheldrake used two independent observers to view and rate the video tapes. He then compared their evaluations of whether the dog was 'anticipating'. He found their assessments to be very similar.

Regarding your point about contaminating the observation by ending with the owner coming home (BTW this is a very interesting point I've never heard anyone mention), this can be easily overcome by dividing the tape into sections that are independently analyzed. Reviewers would, for example, rate a 10 minute segment of video without knowing whether it would end with the owner coming home.

The other problem of seeing more anticipating behavior as time goes on can be easily overcome by varying the length of the trips. This criticism was made by Susan Blackmore. But she must have not dug into the research very thoroughly as it was addressed by Shledrake in his trials.

[David Bailey]

The beauty of it is that if you keep the tapes, you can try various things with them. Hopefully the effect will be sufficiently obvious that anyone observing the tapes will be convinced.

David

[Zannek]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

I seem to recall reading that Sheldrake used two independent observers to view and rate the video tapes. He then compared their evaluations of whether the dog was 'anticipating'. He found their assessments to be very similar.

Regarding your point about contaminating the observation by ending with the owner coming home (BTW this is a very interesting point I've never heard anyone mention), this can be easily overcome by dividing the tape into sections that are independently analyzed. Reviewers would, for example, rate a 10 minute segment of video without knowing whether it would end with the owner coming home.

The other problem of seeing more anticipating behavior as time goes on can be easily overcome by varying the length of the trips. This criticism was made by Susan Blackmore. But she must have not dug into the research very thoroughly as it was addressed by Shledrake in his trials.

Wouldn't be the first time she's done that.