41. Psychic Dog Video, Skeptical Bias (Podcast)

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

I suspect that the vast majority of these cases are explained by the animal hearing the car and problems remembering misses vs hits. I certainly can't be expected to explain your case on the information you have given.

This example is interesting for a number of reasons:

a) We both assumed that out pet sat waiting for us for hours because he was there waiting for us when we turned up.

b) I was totally skeptical when our neighbour told us that he sat in her house and asked to be let out shortly before we turned up. The extra time involved in all that makes it much less plausible that he could hear our car (a very common make) at least a couple of minutes away.

Although Sheldrake estimates that only about one third of cats behave in this way (as opposed to 50% of dogs), maybe cats would be better subjects because they often find themselves a 'second choice' residence, as our did!

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

If the dog really does this every time then you would have a point. Your suggestion of going the other way and tightening controls would be better.

If the dog really does this every time then Alex would not have a problem with defining a hit as starting the behaviour within 2 minutes of the beginning of the return journey.

I think it is obvious that the dog isn't doing this every time.

I don't think Alex would have shown us this video if it were not reasonably typical - from what he says, he has been busy trawling for dogs that can do this to order. I know you think Alex has 'gone native' but I tend to think he is like me - he would really like to know the answer!

I think we basically agree that if the signal is strong enough, it is more important to concentrate on eliminating extraneous ways that the dog could know - or other possible artefacts.

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

This is the root of all problems. There is no theory of morphic resonance or "psi" that makes specific predictions. Psi is defined entirely by what it isn't. Morphic resonance is just the same. It's all about asserting that some phenomenon cannot be explained by any natural means. The only way to prove "psi" or "morphic resonance" is by eliminating all natural explanations. As all natural explanations are not known this effectively makes it impossible.

"Psi" and "morphic resonance" cannot be controlled. You can't do some trials with "psi" turned on and some with "psi" turned off. If you could and the dog's performance was better with "psi" then you could conclude that "psi" explains at least part of the phenomenon.

As it is not possible to do this the only thing you can do is explicitly test natural explanations.

Do some trials with the owner returning in their own car and another set with the owner returning in a different car (randomised return times and other controls the same for both set). If the dog's performance is better when the owner returns in their own car then we can conclude that some of the effect can be explained by the dog hearing the car approaching. Even better by comparing these sets of trials you could get a good idea of how far the dog can hear the car. If there is only a difference in the last 3 miles then you can conclude that the dog can only hear the car from less than approximately 3 miles.

I would say that a tentative 'theory of Ψ' (or at least much of it) is that some information can leak from individual to individual (human or otherwise) by non-physical means.

It is true that we can't turn Ψ on and off - which makes experiments more difficult - but that is true in many other areas of science - vulcanology, astrophysics, etc. but that does not prevent progress.

Clearly one thing that limits these experiments is the patience of the owners, and the time involved. Sheldrake may not have had the luxury to vary every possible factor exhaustively. This is why I think it would help if a little more money were available for this sort of research.

Suppose that Alex arranged for a few trials in which someone else drove Jane's car home. If that produced a negative result, would you feel that the issue of car sound - which I agree is important - had been adequately dealt with? I think this would be a better test than Jane returning in a different car, because a clear response to the 'wrong' person driving home would be very informative.

Since I guess different people drive the same car in different ways, another option would be to have a few trials in which Jane drove to within 500 yards, and then drove off. If the dog went into anticipation mode, this might be a bit ambiguous, but if he did not respond until later when she really came back, it would be pretty decisive.

I would rather Alex's experiment failed to find a Ψ effect than that he 'found' a false one. In that, I think you, I and Alex are in complete agreement.

As I say, I strongly suspect there is a genuine effect here - so prepare yourself for a possible change of world view!

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Suppose that Alex arranged for a few trials in which someone else drove Jane's car home. If that produced a negative result, would you feel that the issue of car sound - which I agree is important - had been adequately dealt with? I think this would be a better test than Jane returning in a different car, because a clear response to the 'wrong' person driving home would be very informative.

- I was thinking the same thing. I'm going to run the idea past Sheldrake and Clive Wynne, but I like it

Since I guess different people drive the same car in different ways, another option would be to have a few trials in which Jane drove to within 500 yards, and then drove off. If the dog went into anticipation mode, this might be a bit ambiguous, but if he did not respond until later when she really came back, it would be pretty decisive.

- I think the noise thing can be way overdone. There's no indication that these dogs are hearing anything from far away. Conversely, it's pretty easy to see the reaction the dogs have when they hear the car. they get up and start running around looking all excited. A few minutes later we see the owner. So, I think a few trials with the controls you're suggesting can put this issue to rest.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

I think the noise thing can be way overdone. There's no indication that these dogs are hearing anything from far away. Conversely, it's pretty easy to see the reaction the dogs have when they hear the car. they get up and start running around looking all excited. A few minutes later we see the owner. So, I think a few trials with the controls you're suggesting can put this issue to rest.

Well, when the dogs get all excited it is probably a conscious reaction to an certain threashold of sound, whereas the observed waiting behaviour could be an implicit, unconscious behaviour to hearing a lower level of sound. I'm not saying there are any noise leaks but I don't think comparing behaviours in the two cases is a very strong argument considering what we know about implicit behaviours.

What if the owner made it home on a peddle bike as a control, or just walk from a reasonable distance?

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

This example is interesting for a number of reasons:

a) We both assumed that out pet sat waiting for us for hours because he was there waiting for us when we turned up.

b) I was totally skeptical when our neighbour told us that he sat in her house and asked to be let out shortly before we turned up. The extra time involved in all that makes it much less plausible that he could hear our car (a very common make) at least a couple of minutes away.

I suspect that most cases of "psychic" pets are explained by a).

If your cat only began to signal that it wanted to go out when you were a few minutes away I would think that the most likely explanation is that it heard the car. You really need to give a good reason why this explanation is less likely than "psi".

I don't think that this explanation played a role in the specific case of the Jaytee trials where the "signalling" began before the owner even got to her car. I do suspect that it explains a great number of cases for the general phenomena. I don't think you can expect a single explanation to cover all cases. In the Kane trials the dog only began "signalling" after the owener began the journey home. The owner always travelled in the same car. There was only one trial where the owner was a significant distance from home and the "signalling" in this case only started right at the end of the journey home.

I don't think Alex would have shown us this video if it were not reasonably typical - from what he says, he has been busy trawling for dogs that can do this to order. I know you think Alex has 'gone native' but I tend to think he is like me - he would really like to know the answer!

It would be good if he stated whether it was typical.

I think we basically agree that if the signal is strong enough, it is more important to concentrate on eliminating extraneous ways that the dog could know - or other possible artefacts.

On reflection I think the most reasonable strategy would be to do a number of "loose" trials without randomisation, without using a different car etc and then a series of "tight" trials with all of these extra controls. If the performance drops off then this suggests that at least part of the effect has perfectly natural explanations. It would be important to do enough trials to get some statistical significance and that all possible controls (within reason) are used in the "tight" trials.

I would say that a tentative 'theory of ?' (or at least much of it) is that some information can leak from individual to individual (human or otherwise) by non-physical means.

This is exactly the problem. You haven't described a scientific theory even a tentative one. All you have done is describe what "psi" isn't - physical.

It is true that we can't turn ? on and off - which makes experiments more difficult - but that is true in many other areas of science - vulcanology, astrophysics, etc. but that does not prevent progress.

It is true that you can't directly control distant stars but you can look at different regions of space where one factor differs and see what difference that makes. You can't do the same for "psi".

Clearly one thing that limits these experiments is the patience of the owners, and the time involved. Sheldrake may not have had the luxury to vary every possible factor exhaustively. This is why I think it would help if a little more money were available for this sort of research.

As I stated before a more reasonable strategy would be to compare a statistically significant number of "loose" trials and "tight" trials. This should be more reasonable for everybody involved.

Suppose that Alex arranged for a few trials in which someone else drove Jane's car home. If that produced a negative result, would you feel that the issue of car sound - which I agree is important - had been adequately dealt with? I think this would be a better test than Jane returning in a different car, because a clear response to the 'wrong' person driving home would be very informative.

That is a good idea. It would be important to look at whether the average time that the dog spends "signalling" is greater when the car is returning than during the non-return period. If there is no difference or if it only comes in less than the last 3 minutes then I would agree that this factor will have been adequately dealt with in this specific case. Again it would be important to do a statistically significant number of trials. It would also not rule out this explanation for the n% of dog owners who think their pets are psychic.

Since I guess different people drive the same car in different ways, another option would be to have a few trials in which Jane drove to within 500 yards, and then drove off. If the dog went into anticipation mode, this might be a bit ambiguous, but if he did not respond until later when she really came back, it would be pretty decisive.

I think this one would be to open to interpretations either way.

I would rather Alex's experiment failed to find a ? effect than that he 'found' a false one. In that, I think you, I and Alex are in complete agreement.

His statement on one of his podcasts that "dogs that know are real and we're gonna prove it" suggests that he ahs already made his mind up. In the youtube video he explicitly states that the dog is telepathically communicating with it's owner.

As I say, I strongly suspect there is a genuine effect
here - so prepare yourself for a possible change of world view!

I strongly suggest that this will all fizzle out. One advantage of Alex going for the "Pons and Fleischman" premature announcement is that this won't end up hidden in the filedrawer.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

I suspect that most cases of "psychic" pets are explained by a).

If your cat only began to signal that it wanted to go out when you were a few minutes away I would think that the most likely explanation is that it heard the car. You really need to give a good reason why this explanation is less likely than "psi"

Well, old ladies take a bit of time to let out a cat, and he was usually already waiting when we arrived. The only reasonable conventional get-out seems to me to be the idea of car noise (i.e. how far away can an animal detect a specific car) - and Alex seems determined to tackle that.

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

I don't think that this explanation played a role in the specific case of the Jaytee trials where the "signalling" began before the owner even got to her car. I do suspect that it explains a great number of cases for the general phenomena. I don't think you can expect a single explanation to cover all cases. In the Kane trials the dog only began "signalling" after the owener began the journey home. The owner always travelled in the same car. There was only one trial where the owner was a significant distance from home and the "signalling" in this case only started right at the end of the journey home.

Multiple ad hoc explanations for a phenomenon are always less convincing

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

This is exactly the problem. You haven't described a scientific theory even a tentative one. All you have done is describe what "psi" isn't - physical.

My 'theory' does not contain a mechanism, but it is enough to get round the notion that Ψ experiments are just about searching for anomalies - as is sometimes said. Arbitrary correlations - such as dog gets excited whenever a cabbage is dug up in an arbitrary allotment - would definitely not count!

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

It is true that you can't directly control distant stars but you can look at different regions of space where one factor differs and see what difference that makes. You can't do the same for "psi".

You have to take earthquakes and volcanoes as they come, though you can make interesting seismic readings, and I don't doubt that various brain scanning techniques may be useful in exploring Ψ. Every area of science has its own limitations regarding experimentation.

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

His statement on one of his podcasts that "dogs that know are real and we're gonna prove it" suggests that he ahs already made his mind up. In the youtube video he explicitly states that the dog is telepathically communicating with it's owner.

A lot of scientists are enthusiastic about their experiments - imagine you had just put together and debugged a gravity wave detector, wouldn't you be enthusiastic to see your first gravity wave? This would not mean that you would be any less rigorous at looking for possible stray vibrations. There is a real danger that parapsychologists are criticised for behaving exactly like most other scientists!

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Multiple ad hoc explanations for a phenomenon are always less convincing

A single blanket ad hoc explanation, "psi", that explains everything and nothing isn't very convincing.

The patterns in Jaytee's and Kane's behaviour were quite different and it would be unwise to assume that the same explanation holds for both cases.

I've seen dogs hear a car before I do. We already know that dogs can judge the time of day and pick up on routine. We already know that dogs can pick up on subtle inadvertent cues. We already know that people are prone to conformation bias. These are all known effects.

My 'theory' does not contain a mechanism, but it is enough to get round the notion that ? experiments are just about searching for anomalies - as is sometimes said. Arbitrary correlations - such as dog gets excited whenever a cabbage is dug up in an arbitrary allotment - would definitely not count!

Information leaking from one individual to another through non-physical means = anomaly.

You have to take earthquakes and volcanoes as they come, though you can make interesting seismic readings, and I don't doubt that various brain scanning techniques may be useful in exploring ?. Every area of science has its own limitations regarding experimentation.

But no science is as completely untestable as "psi".

A lot of scientists are enthusiastic about their experiments - imagine you had just put together and debugged a gravity wave detector, wouldn't you be enthusiastic to see your first gravity wave? This would not mean that you would be any less rigorous at looking for possible stray vibrations. There is a real danger that parapsychologists are criticised for behaving exactly like most other scientists!

If a scientist claimed to have detected a gravity wave without decent evidence they would be criticised. If they did this via a press conference or a youtube video they would be pilloried or worse.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Information leaking from one individual to another through non-physical means = anomaly.

Well I think the usual implication of a "search for anomalies" is that any unexplained correlation is used as evidence of Ψ. Really, Ψ is not more an anomaly than radium was in the days before a theory of radioactivity.

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

But no science is as completely untestable as "psi".

String theory is far more untestable than Ψ, which can be tested with a dog, a video camera, and a random number generator

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

If a scientist claimed to have detected a gravity wave without decent evidence they would be criticised. If they did this via a press conference or a youtube video they would be pilloried or worse.

I think if he reported that he had some preliminary candidate events, but was still studying them before publishing, absolutely nobody would bat an eyelid. Cern has made tentative announcements like that in the past without any problem at all.

BTW, Fleischman and Pons went rather overboard in their announcement, but not as overboard as the reaction against them. Even now - nearly 20 years on - there seem to be some evidence that some nuclear reactions are happening inside the Pd electrodes.

David

[stonesean]

I have just read that you are in discussion with the JREF to take the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge.

Well done!

I think no matter what the end result is, positive, negative, or even no protocol agreed upon, you should be commended for your dedication, and frankly, your willingness to put yourself on the front line.

Thanks!

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by stonesean

I have just read that you are in discussion with the JREF to take the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge.

Well done!

I think no matter what the end result is, positive, negative, or even no protocol agreed upon, you should be commended for your dedication, and frankly, your willingness to put yourself on the front line.

Thanks!

Here's the news release: Noted Skeptic, James Randi Challenges Skeptiko’s Telepathic Dog - PR.com

But, I have not seen the JREF forum post. Can you please provide me the link as I have not heard from Randi since our initial email exchange.

[Open Mind]

Edited to say ....... this post was made before I had read Alex post above

Originally Posted by stonesean

I have just read that you are in discussion with the JREF to take the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge.

Well done!

I think no matter what the end result is, positive, negative, or even no protocol agreed upon, you should be commended for your dedication, and frankly, your willingness to put yourself on the front line.

Where did you read that?

If you are referring to my above post .......


Thanks!

Where? I hope you weren't reading too much into my jokey comment ....

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Psst ..... Mr Randi .....the doggies wish to collect prize at Piccadilly Circus

This was a reference to Randi claiming (in Skeptiko interview) he would present a $1million cheque naked at Picadilly Circus if Sheldrake's claim of telepathic dogs are true.

I could be wrong but I think you are probably jumping the gun, at least for the moment. (If not, where else did you read it?)