Dr Steve Novella and The (Pseudo?)Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

I don't want to get into the water with memory issue, but assuming he made a mistake, did he deserve to be treated like that? Also, if the bio-assay that he and others were using was faulty, shouldn't others have wanted to investigate the anomaly if only to protect other experiments! Remember, if there had been an interpretation of this experiment that was non-paranormal, his results would have been accepted without challenge.

Everyone deserves to be treated with respect up until some point where they display willful stupidity. I don't know whether he crossed that line or not. I agree that conventional scientists tend to jump down the throats of unconventional scientists, but I've also seen unconventional scientists lambast others for being closed-minded and dogmatic. Since there are many more conventional scientists than unconventional ones, it will appear to be a gang-up job.

Quite regardless of the truth of his claims, don't you think the message has got through to the rest of the research community. I don't know if you yourself, do research, but if you do, would you risk studying anything that might give a paranormal result?

I'm sure I would hesitate. Richard Wiseman and Marilyn Schlitz seem to be okay with it.

Part of the problem is that scientists probably do let people investigate funky things for awhile, but many of the investigators eventually go over the deep end and then their fellow scientists start reaming them. It's then when we catch wind of it, so it appears as if scientists never gave them a chance to begin with. It think this is certainly true of Benveniste, Schwartz, Behe, Dembski, and others.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by davidsmith

What about the two indepdendent replications? Would you consider them as evidence or would you rather depend only on the negative results from Horizon and others?

I know about the DoD replication attempt, which failed. Then there was the problem with his assistant having positive results and attributing that to experimenter effect. Madeleine Ennis got positive results, but doesn't seem to be touting them. Anyone else?

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by skidoo

Oh that's nice.

No problem, it was also very nice of you to call me 'nutter' on skeptics guide forum.

It was clear from your earlier post that you didn't know the definition of scientific skepticism, and it's clear from this post that you still don't. Please try again.

Skidoo, by 'scientific scepticism' are you referring to CSICOP (CSI) who seem to have never conducted long term trial on any psi phenomenon in their 30 year history, JREF and their media stunt challenge with Randi's counting of failed 'applications' as 'tests', Shermer's 'manifesto', Paul Kurtz's brand of Secular Humanism, the one sided reporting of 'skeptics dictionary' , etc. ?

If you are referring to those, pleased give links to their scientific research rather than political challenge stunts, so we can see the quality of their work. If you do not mean those organizations, please link to their scientific research, so we can see the quality of their work. If however you are referring to trained scientists doing parapsychology research under the strictest of controls, no need I probably already have much of that information.

This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the solar neutrino problem..... [snip]
........In other words, your analogy is inappropriate. Not that it would've helped your argument anyway.

Look dude it is an analogy, a metaphor, you can twist it into different meaning if you wish but my intended meaning that we should not dismiss any weak effect or erratic effect/measurement as false, as these do exist. There is no law in science saying an effect/measurement cannot be weak and erratic. In that context, there is nothing wrong with the analogy.

80 years, and so much to show for it....

Yes and 80 years of incompatibility between micro scale and macro scale physics too. So what is your point? Sometimes science is stumped for long periods of time, in the case of neutrinos from the sun, around 40 years to solve it.

Uh-huh. Sure.

The trouble with pseudoskeptics is that they are far too sure to be real skeptics. It is almost like they are making a psychic claim to know before researching it.

There's this teapot I'd like to tell you about.

Not applicable to this discussion..

Then why aren't they being studied? Because the potential implications are just not very interesting? Come on, seriously.

Many historical reasons, read the history. The back setting is one of a war between materialistic science versus religion both sides have traditionally opposed psi research findings because it doesn't support the paradigm or dogma of either. Nor has the subject been helped by New Age movement, who by exaggerating psychic like abilities, tagging on fanciful elements of past religious concepts have alienated many towards the other extreme of disbelief. Between those extremes of belief and disbelief is an area they both feel very uneasy within because it weakens both established viewpoints.

In one sense you are right, weak psi under a small degree of personal command isn't that interesting an effect to study – but the effects regularly pop out in meta-analysis under the strictest of protocols.

[Open Mind]

double post

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Madeleine Ennis got positive results, but doesn't seem to be touting them. Anyone else?

~~ Paul

(April, 1999) "Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: Results of a European multi-centre trial". Inflammation Research 48 (Suppliment 1): 17-18.

Got it from wikipedia. It doesn't say who the authors were. I'll try to check it but no time just now.

[Open Mind]

On the skeptic's guide to universe forum ...

'Mindme writes
[i]'Open Mind clearly can't read. The NESS uses a lower threshold for their first round of tests, not Randi. That fact is plain to anyone who can read english. I have no idea why he jumped from that to Randi.

It seems to me 'Mindme' can't read. Here is Novella's quote .....emphasis added ...

2) Randi's testing. Again - this is not presented as laboratory research. It is simply testing claims made by psychics, dowsers, etc. It is they who are making the claims, and they agree to the protocol, including the threshold for what is positive In the preliminary test the threshold is not 1/1000, as is claimed. We used a 1-5% threshold for ours . But of course, you can't give a million bucks to 1/20 people on average who make a claim. The final test has to be statistically rigorous.

Unless Novella has phrased this oddly, he is clearly referring to trials NESS did for JREF, not independent trials, otherwise there is no point in saying 1/1000 is wrong and putting it under the 'Randi testing' paragraph.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Part of the problem is that scientists probably do let people investigate funky things for awhile, but many of the investigators eventually go over the deep end and then their fellow scientists start reaming them. It's then when we catch wind of it, so it appears as if scientists never gave them a chance to begin with.

~~ Paul

Exactly, and that puts the wind up everyone else. Say you had access to a brain scanner and could explore the presentiment effect - maybe even as part of a study you were already doing - just start the recorders a couple of seconds earlier - would you do it? The very fact that you admit you would hesitate tells it all - grants may dry up, universities set up investigations, etc. Whatever your views on ψ, who knows what interesting results are being lost by this ridiculous filtering process? Just knowing how it is that ultra-dilute samples can give a spurious biological signal aught to be valuable experimental knowledge, but who is going to risk exploring it?

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Exactly, and that puts the wind up everyone else. Say you had access to a brain scanner and could explore the presentiment effect - maybe even as part of a study you were already doing - just start the recorders a couple of seconds earlier - would you do it? The very fact that you admit you would hesitate tells it all - grants may dry up, universities set up investigations, etc. Whatever your views on ?, who knows what interesting results are being lost by this ridiculous filtering process? Just knowing how it is that ultra-dilute samples can give a spurious biological signal aught to be valuable experimental knowledge, but who is going to risk exploring it?

But that's the thing: We don't know that ultra-dilute samples give a biological signal. All we have is a few studies where the statistics suggested it. It could be sample contamination. It could be bad statistics. It could be lack of blindness. It could be other things. There seems to be a tendency on the part of psi'ers to assume that these positive studies actually indicate the presence of the undefined phenomenon they were hoping to find.

I agree that there is filtering going on, but it goes on with everything in science and with other human endeavors. Parapsychology does have a somewhat sordid history, too, which doesn't help. The parapsychologists have to work harder to find a sugar daddy, I guess. I do hope they will continue to persevere.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

But that's the thing: We don't know that ultra-dilute samples give a biological signal. All we have is a few studies where the statistics suggested it. It could be sample contamination. It could be bad statistics. It could be lack of blindness. It could be other things. There seems to be a tendency on the part of psi'ers to assume that these positive studies actually indicate the presence of the undefined phenomenon they were hoping to find.

~~ Paul

I am not trying to make a case for water with memory, I am saying that if ultra-dilute solutions could generate a spurious signal, you would think someone would be interested in investigating whether that particular assay method was at fault. Finding out exactly how the signal (which has been reproduced independently at least once!) happens is surely important. The reality is that as far as I know, the issue was dropped like a hot brick.

Something akin to heresy trials happens in science far too often nowadays. For example, think of cold fusion. Fleischman and Pons had the end of their careers ruined - yet even now, there seem to be some uncertainties about what is going on in those experiments. Yes you need filtering, but maybe the gain needs turning down a bit. Well respected researchers with a track record (or even a Nobel prize) should be allowed a lot more slack. In business, people talk positively about 'risk takers', we could do with a bit more of that in academic science.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I am not trying to make a case for water with memory, I am saying that if ultra-dilute solutions could generate a spurious signal, you would think someone would be interested in investigating whether that particular assay method was at fault. Finding out exactly how the signal (which has been reproduced independently at least once!) happens is surely important. The reality is that as far as I know, the issue was dropped like a hot brick.

Well, sometimes people do investigate "paranormal" experiments to try to determine what actually happened. That's how some experiments get debunked and why a few make it through as unexplained examples of certain phenomena. I don't think the average scientist has much time to spend on these fringe experiments, and there is no more money to fund investigators and replicators than there is to fund the original experimenters.

Something akin to heresy trials happens in science far too often nowadays. For example, think of cold fusion. Fleischman and Pons had the end of their careers ruined - yet even now, there seem to be some uncertainties about what is going on in those experiments. Yes you need filtering, but maybe the gain needs turning down a bit. Well respected researchers with a track record (or even a Nobel prize) should be allowed a lot more slack. In business, people talk positively about 'risk takers', we could do with a bit more of that in academic science.

I think it's mostly a money thing, but I agree that a person ought to be able to go out on the fringe for awhile, at least until it becomes reasonably obvious that he's lost it.

~~ Paul