Response to Skeptics' Guide Host, Dr. Steven Novella (Podcast)

[David Bailey]

Chris,

"But according to the Journal of Scientific Exploration plate tectonics is a paradigm in crisis!"

Ha ha - but let's not just trade debating points!

"The important point that I am making is that if you investigate natural explanations you can make real progress. "

If you suspect that there are morphic resonance effects at work, it is entirely reasonable to design an experiment in which you try to eliminate 'natural' explanations of the phenomenon. This is just normal science, chemists start with clean equipment, not investigate if the dirt on their equipment might have produced anomalous results. Gravity wave researchers try to eliminate other sources of vibration, etc etc.

"However, Sheldrake is not really interested in any explanations other than morphic resonance".

It was an earlier comment of this sort that made me question your actual experience of science, because most experimenters have an axe to grind of some sort! Sheldrake is no different!

"His experiments use rejecting the null hypothesis that the dog's behaviour is completely random as the criteria. This effectively biases the experiment to confirm his preconceived ideas."

No! Sheldrake knows more than most how subtle animal behaviour can be, so he sets up an experiment to eliminate the dog's 'normal' ways of knowing to determine if it knows anyway. How does this differ conceptually from a thousand other animal behaviour experiments?

"You have repeatedly told me to forget "morphic resonance" because the idea is too vague. How can I possibly ignore the theory that Sheldrake is supposedly confirming with these experiments? This is the root of the problem."

Because the various concepts in this area rather blur into one another - morphic resonance, telepathy, precognition, Ψ, .... Sheldrake is trying to test the idea that the dog can somehow get information out of its owner's brain. Of course, it is hard to rule out simple precognition of the homecoming event, but either represent a form of anomalous awareness.

You write as though Sheldrake invented the idea of dogs knowing when their owners are coming home, much as you did "rainbow farting uniocorns" - this completely misses the point. These phenomena are reported anecdotally - just as meteorite falls used to be reported - it is totally reasonable for him to choose to explore them.

"I have read the papers and all of my comments are directed at exactly what I have read.
Stop pretending that Sheldrake's experiments are methodologically pure."

Well, I don't think your criticisms relate closely to what is in that paper. How can you raise the important potential issue of car sounds without acknowledging that Sheldrake dealt with that by dropping several minutes of data! The same goes for a number of your other comments. You state potential problems as though Sheldrake had not handled them, leaving it to the reader to check and discover that he explicitly thought of them and worked round them or tested for them.

I originally read Sheldrake's paper some years ago, and debating with you, I began to doubt if Sheldrake had done as good a job as I remembered. It came as a shock to re-read the paper and remind myself of the truth. My sense is that some orthodox scientists get a red mist in front of their eyes when they read anything Ψ-related, and they can't evaluate the evidence before their eye's properly. I mean, claim if you wish that Sheldrake simply fabricated his data, but outside of that, he really does seem to have covered most of the viable alternative explanations in that experiment - and he gets a large effect size.

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

If you suspect that there are morphic resonance effects at work, it is entirely reasonable to design an experiment in which you try to eliminate 'natural' explanations of the phenomenon. This is just normal science, chemists start with clean equipment, not investigate if the dirt on their equipment might have produced anomalous results. Gravity wave researchers try to eliminate other sources of vibration, etc etc.

Firstly, you are still stuck with the fact that nobody has any idea what "morphic resonance" is. You can't predict what should or shouldn't follow from "morphic resonance". You can't manipulate it. You can't turn it on or off.

Scientists don't just try to eliminate confounding factors. They test to see whether they have done so. What is so hard about explicitly testing these possible confounding factors? I note that in the 50 experiments where Jaytee is alone without the owner's parents that the "effect" decreases. This suggests that the dog is getting information form the parents. Do a set of experiments with the parents present and a set without them. Is there a statistically significant difference between the two? Is part of the effect coming from an interaction woth the parents? We'll never know unless the experimanets are done.

It was an earlier comment of this sort that made me question your actual experience of science, because most experimenters have an axe to grind of some sort! Sheldrake is no different!

"But everybody else does it" didn't work when you were caught copying in grade one. It doesn't work when politicians are caught taking bribes. It doesn't work when Scientists take their pet ideas far beyond the supporting evidence. Lots of scientists do this but it doesn't make it right. There is also a question of degree here too. There is a huge disparity between the grandiosity of Sheldrake's claims and the paucity of the evidence that he has accumulated.

Look at the field of evolutinary and developmental biology that Sheldrake abandoned 30 odd years ago to pursue his "morphic resonance". Evo-devo has made a huge amount of progress in these decades. What has Sheldrake accomplished?

It is also noteworthy that Sheldrake has effectively abandoned the normal process of peer-review and instead publishes books aimed at the general public and papers in journals where the standard of peer-review is lower.

No! Sheldrake knows more than most how subtle animal behaviour can be, so he sets up an experiment to eliminate the dog's 'normal' ways of knowing to determine if it knows anyway. How does this differ conceptually from a thousand other animal behaviour experiments?

Sheldrake apperas to be very naive about the capabilities of animals. I still find it hard to understand why he prefers animals to have supernatural abilities rather than natural intelligence. Why is one more desirable or probable than the other?

More importantly Sheldrake does not explicitly test to see whether his efforts actually do eliminate the "normal" ways of knowing. Is there a statisically significant difference between the behaviour of the dog with an without the parents present?

Because the various concepts in this area rather blur into one another - morphic resonance, telepathy, precognition, ?, .... Sheldrake is trying to test the idea that the dog can somehow get information out of its owner's brain. Of course, it is hard to rule out simple precognition of the homecoming event, but either represent a form of anomalous awareness.

You simply can't ignore the obvious fact that Sheldrake is trying to confirm "morphic resonance". You can't ignore the context in which these experiments are done.

You write as though Sheldrake invented the idea of dogs knowing when their owners are coming home, much as you did "rainbow farting uniocorns" - this completely misses the point. These phenomena are reported anecdotally - just as meteorite falls used to be reported - it is totally reasonable for him to choose to explore them.

For all we know the information could be conveyed from the owner to the dog via a herd of rainbow farting unicorns. There is no reason to put this explanation lower than "morphic resonance", telepathy or any other poorly defined and untestable supernatural explanations - or any number of natural explanations for that matter.

The only thing that Sheldrake's experiments are capable of conclusing is that it is valid to reject his null hypothesis. The dog's behaviour is not completely random with respect to the homecoming's of the owner. It does not and cannot "prove" any of the other explanations for the behaviour.

Well, I don't think your criticisms relate closely to what is in that paper. How can you raise the important potential issue of car sounds without acknowledging that Sheldrake dealt with that by dropping several minutes of data! The same goes for a number of your other comments. You state potential problems as though Sheldrake had not handled them, leaving it to the reader to check and discover that he explicitly thought of them and worked round them or tested for them.

Sheldrake does not know how far dog's can hear the car coming. He makes assumptions about this rather than testing this possibility. I have already stated that I don't think that this can explain a large part of the Jaytee trials. Why not experimentally determine how far dog's normal senses can operate? At the very least it would tell you how much time you have to exclude to eliminate this possibility. Do you know how far dogs can hear?

I originally read Sheldrake's paper some years ago, and debating with you, I began to doubt if Sheldrake had done as good a job as I remembered. It came as a shock to re-read the paper and remind myself of the truth. My sense is that some orthodox scientists get a red mist in front of their eyes when they read anything ?-related, and they can't evaluate the evidence before their eye's properly. I mean, claim if you wish that Sheldrake simply fabricated his data, but outside of that, he really does seem to have covered most of the viable alternative explanations in that experiment - and he gets a large effect size.

You seem to think that people pick on Sheldrake unfairly. I can guarantee you that I question the methodology and results of other scientists just as carefully. I expect other scientists to do the same to me. I welcome these criticisms. If the going gets tough and my papers are rejected I don't give up or complain that my brilliant work is being censored. I don't write books targetted at lay-audiences and I don't start up my own "peer-reviewed" journal to escape the criticism.

I get the impression that you are defending Sheldrake not because you think that "morphic resonnce" has any credibility but that he is opposed to physicalism/dualism/science. Any enemy of your enemy is a friend. You'll find yourself embracing "intentional chocolate" and other ridiculous nonsense soon.

The large effect size that Sheldrake obtains is simply a result of assuming that the dog's behaviour should be completely random as the null hypothesis. Any sensory leakage that enables the dog to get some information about the owner's homecoming will produce a large effect size.

[David Bailey]

Chris,

Sheldrake illustrates his null hypothesis with a graph showing what happens if the owner stays away all night - the dog pays very little attention to the window. I am sorry, most of what you write bears only a tenuous relationship to Sheldrake's papers - there really is no point in debating this further.

David

[Venom]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

there really is no point in debating this further.

Oh, come on, don't be a sissy.

All that stuff is interresting to read, so don't be shy...

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Venom

Oh, come on, don't be a sissy.

All that stuff is interresting to read, so don't be shy...

Because Chris is not bothering to relate his criticism to the details of what Sheldrake did! I know you don't believe in Ψ (I only tentatively do myself), but there is no point debating with someone who just ignores (or doesn't take in) half of the paper! Go and read Sheldrake's paper and then compare it with the points that Chris has made.

He just doesn't seem to read what is there - I put it down to the red mist effect

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Chris,

Sheldrake illustrates his null hypothesis with a graph showing what happens if the owner stays away all night - the dog pays very little attention to the window. I am sorry, most of what you write bears only a tenuous relationship to Sheldrake's papers - there really is no point in debating this further.

David

You show absoluetely no indication that you understand my point about the null hypothesis. The few trials where the owner stayed away for the night do not illustrate the null hypothesis. Again, what these trials do is fail to test for perfectly natural explanations.

It is exactly what Sheldrake fails to explore that is most illustrative. Sheldrake fails to statistically test natural explanations.

You are telling me that the owner acts exactly the same when she stays away all night? You are telling me that the parents act exactly the same? I find this to be an incredibly naive assumption.

I read through Sheldrake's book. He want's his readers to come to the conclusion that when dogs seem to anticipate when they are going to be taken for a walk that this is down to "morphic resonance".

I will repeat myself once more. I have offered constructive criticism that would provide a path forwards. For example you could do some real random trials where neither the owner nor the parents know whether she is going to stay away for the night. Do another set of trials where the owner or the parents know whether she is going to stay away for the night. Is there a statistical difference in the behaviour of the dog?

[SkepticInYourHead]

Sheldrake hasn't even demonstrated that Jaytee knows a specific person is coming home, only that somebody may be coming, and he failed to control for a host of potential influences in the process.

When I was in high school and still living at home, both our dog and our pet myna bird 'knew' when I was coming home from my summer jobs. That's because I'd call and say I was coming home, which prompted my mother to warm up a meal, which signaled our dog that somebody was coming home, which signaled our bird, etc.

All the dog knew was that when the phone rings and mother behaves a certain way, often somebody comes through the door fifteen minutes later and this excited him. All the bird knew was that the dog was getting excited, so it started going through its repertoire too.

[David Bailey]

SkepticInYourHead,

Did you test all that - or just surmise it? My experience of this with a (unfortunately now deceased) cat was less easy to explain.

Sheldrake's experiment is also not explaianed by the mechanism you describe because the dog's owner did not phone home to say when she was returning!

David

[Venom]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Sheldrake's experiment is also not explaianed by the mechanism you describe because the dog's owner did not phone home to say when she was returning!

How are you 100% certain Sheldrake controled for this?

For exemple, did he make the participant sign an paper stating that during the time of the experiment he will never call home? Can we see such a paper?

Or (other way of controlling for this), as part of the protocol, did he remove the phones out of the house? No phone in the house during the experiment would be a nice solution.

My felling so far and that everyone assume it didn't happen, but that Sheldrake did nothing to be sure that it didn't happen.

[Ersby]

Hmm, it's too easy to come up with any flaw, no matter how implausible, and put it forward as a possible explanation for the results/example of shoddy protocols.