Second Video of DogsThatKnow Experiment Released

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

May I suggest that you run some trials where the owner begins his journey home and then cancels it in favor of more errands. Also some where he thinks about starting home but doesn't. I guess at least two hours should go by before he really comes home.

Also, are these double blind? Someone who is neither the owner nor the principal investigator should randomly choose the time to head home and call the owner.

And, of course, all telephones in the house should be turned off. Yes, I know I'm assuming dishonesty. Sorry.

~~ Paul

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

That is like dismissing an experimenter who said "Gravity waves a re real, and I am going to prove it!" - or dismissing a skeptic who said "? is bunk and I am going to prove it!" - scientists are human beings as well, you know.

David

If an experimenter declares a strong belief in something which has little supporting evidence and then goes on to perform experiments and finds apparently positive results then, yes, I am going to be highly skeptical.

Even the best scientists are prone to self-delusion.

When Alex can't seem to answer simple questions about the number of trials he has done then I am going to be skeptical.

It is very easy to find excuses to ignore trials that don't give the desired result.

[David Bailey]

Chris,

So let me summarise. If an experimenter expresses support for a phenomenon that you (and some, but by no means all other scientists) think is bunk, then their research is immediately so suspect that any positive results they obtain are obviously false. Furthermore, since these false results can't be said to contribute in any meaningful way to the scientific record, there never will be reliable evidence for said phenomena.

As I have said before, it was when I realised that something like this really goes on, that I switched from your position to being somewhat more open-minded!

David

[Venom]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Chris,

So let me summarise. If an experimenter expresses support for a phenomenon that you (and some, but by no means all other scientists) think is bunk, then their research is immediately so suspect that any positive results they obtain are obviously false. Furthermore, since these false results can't be said to contribute in any meaningful way to the scientific record, there never will be reliable evidence for said phenomena.

As I have said before, it was when I realised that something like this really goes on, that I switched from your position to being somewhat more open-minded!

David

Come on. You are always presenting the skeptical position as a very simplistic one, and it's obviously not the case. You're using a strawman argument (what you think is skepticism).

The thing is, Alex went to his experiment in order TO PROVE that the "dog that knows" phenomenum is real. It's obvious that he didn't go without opinion about it, and with the will of just finding out. He went TO PROVE IT. He went with a strong prior belief about it. He even said so before hand in the podcast: "I'm gonna prove that this phenomenum is real".

That kind of mindset is known for having made far better scientist than him (Benveniste, René-Prosper Blondlot, Michel Gauquelin, and so on) make mistakes.

Here we has someone not really competent (Alex said many times on his podcast that he's not really a scientist, and I must say I completely agree with him on that point), with a very strong belief, going with the goal of finding positive results. It's no suprise at all that it does. With that mindset, it was to be expected. Maybe for you it's a surprise, but really not at all for me.

Skeptics explained to Alex how to do better experiments, and he doesn't listen. It's far more important for him to find data than confirm (at least for him) is prior belief, than for doing good science.

If you don't see that it's clearly what's happening here, well you should learn to be far more skeptical.

Maybe you were skeptical in the past, maybe not, but if you were, you lost your critical thinking skill during your "conversion" to be "open minded".

That's just sad. You should come back on the bright side of the Force. But hey, there's maybe hope for you...

[pacificwhim]

Venom, you are not a true skeptic. You are a pseudoskeptic. Please stop holding court as if you know the true meaning of skepticism.

A true skeptic is open-minded but rigorous, demands evidence but follows where that evidence leads, and does not resort to ad hominem attacks just because he doesn't like where an experiment is leading. You, on the other hand, repeatedly resort to personal attacks ("I don't think Alex is very competent", a classic armchair quarterback position if I ever read one, especially from someone with such atrocious spelling), and apparently think that someone like David, who has followed the evidence and decided that there is something to psi, is suffering from a temporary mental illness and that he may someday get well and return to the fold of the reflexive debunkers. In other words, anyone who doesn't think like you, Alex included, is delusional.

Paul is a true skeptic. His ideas and comments, including the suggestions above for tightening and making the experiments more rigorous, are excellent. He's hard to impress but has never struck me as closed-minded, and he does not resort to personal attack to denigrate those with whom he might disagree. Watch and read. You might learn something from him and actually contribute to the conversation.

Now, as to Alex's work...I agree he needs to clear up some confusion about how many taped sessions have been made IN TOTAL and if there were some that were not taped, why? Were these test runs? I could not agree more that even the sniff of a file drawer will kill all credibility of this research. Why is Experiment #1 time coded as later than #2? Was there a reason for this switch?

However, some observations. First, if anyone can tell me how Alex's belief that dog telepathy is valid can change the behavior of the dog on the tapes, I'd love to hear it. Maybe Alex is telepathic and the dog is going where he wants it to go, is that it? Yes, prior belief can influence experimental methodology, but let me bring this up:

Alex has contacted the JREF about taking the Challenge (and spare me your tired rant, Venom, about his not knowing how to fill out the application form; I find it entirely likely that he wanted to get Randi to agree to his proposed skeptical animal expert before going to the trouble of filling out the application). Does anyone honestly think he would do so if he were producing his results fraudulently to support his bias by, say, editing the tapes to make it look like the dog was waiting for a longer period, or by cueing the dog in a way that's undetectable on camera? Does anybody think Alex is stupid enough to think that such deceptions wouldn't be revealed if and when he takes the JREF challenge, resulting in his complete humiliation? Of course they would.

Possible conclusions: a) Alex is a fraud and delusional. I find this unlikely. b) He hopes the JREF will refuse his application so he can say "I tried," and go on falsifying his work. I also find this very unlikely, as there's every chance the JREF will say, "bring it on." c) Alex is doing his experiments honestly with the intent of tightening them up as he progresses, something that happens in all areas of science, and the results he has received so far are intriguing, need replication and he feels they can stand up to scrutiny. I think c) is far more likely. Why carry out a fraud so publicly?

Alex has made some contradictory statements about the number of experimental trials and the conditions under which dogs are more likely to wait, and he should address those, as well as implementing Paul's excellent ideas (the one about having the owner start home and then change her mind is bloody brilliant). Beyond that, he seems to be doing what many inexperienced researchers have done: testing, finding the flaws, then tightening things up as they go along. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and be supportive as he goes forward with something that I suspect most of us have never tried. If he fails, he fails. If he succeeds, I'll give him immense credit and accept his data as valid evidence that something worth investigating is going on.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by pacificwhim

Now, as to Alex's work...I agree he needs to clear up some confusion about how many taped sessions have been made IN TOTAL and if there were some that were not taped, why?

Were these test runs? I could not agree more that even the sniff of a file drawer will kill all credibility of this research. Why is Experiment #1 time coded as later than #2? Was there a reason for this switch?

- 3 videos have been completed. Not sure how to count the "total trials" as we've been doing a lot of work to get the set-up right and working with Tommy's family. For example, we have a couple of trials where the dogs were not totally alone, and others where the wait time was very short, but then this is preliminary (see below)

- as far as #2, versus #1 this just has to do with the order I released them on YouTube.

- MOST IMPORTANTLY - these are preliminary results. The heavy lifting research will be done by folks like Dr. Clive Wynne and other animal behavior experts at top Universities.

However, some observations. First, if anyone can tell me how Alex's belief that dog telepathy is valid can change the behavior of the dog on the tapes, I'd love to hear it. Maybe Alex is telepathic and the dog is going where he wants it to go, is that it?

- important point and one of the nice things about working with canines... hard for your beliefs to rub off.

Yes, prior belief can influence experimental methodology, but let me bring this up:

Alex has contacted the JREF about taking the Challenge (and spare me your tired rant, Venom, about his not knowing how to fill out the application form; I find it entirely likely that he wanted to get Randi to agree to his proposed skeptical animal expert before going to the trouble of filling out the application). Does anyone honestly think he would do so if he were producing his results fraudulently to support his bias by, say, editing the tapes to make it look like the dog was waiting for a longer period, or by cueing the dog in a way that's undetectable on camera? Does anybody think Alex is stupid enough to think that such deceptions wouldn't be revealed if and when he takes the JREF challenge, resulting in his complete humiliation? Of course they would.

Possible conclusions: a) Alex is a fraud and delusional. I find this unlikely. b) He hopes the JREF will refuse his application so he can say "I tried," and go on falsifying his work. I also find this very unlikely, as there's every chance the JREF will say, "bring it on." c) Alex is doing his experiments honestly with the intent of tightening them up as he progresses, something that happens in all areas of science, and the results he has received so far are intriguing, need replication and he feels they can stand up to scrutiny. I think c) is far more likely. Why carry out a fraud so publicly?

- I'll have much more to say on this later... for now... when I interviewed James Randi on Skepitko he agreed with me about the need for this research to be judged by competent researchers with expertise in this field... not sure he still feels that way.

Alex has made some contradictory statements about the number of experimental trials and the conditions under which dogs are more likely to wait, and he should address those, as well as implementing Paul's excellent ideas (the one about having the owner start home and then change her mind is bloody brilliant).

- there are a lot of variations on the basic format that can be tested once we have a better handle on the underlying phenomena. Important to leave as much of the natural home environment in tack until we know more.

Beyond that, he seems to be doing what many inexperienced researchers have done: testing, finding the flaws, then tightening things up as they go along. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and be supportive as he goes forward with something that I suspect most of us have never tried. If he fails, he fails. If he succeeds, I'll give him immense credit and accept his data as valid evidence that something worth investigating is going on.

- Again, my goal is to invigorate mainstream scientific interest in an area of research that should have been explored long ago. Along the way, I will continue to share what I'm discovering.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

- 3 videos have been completed. Not sure how to count the "total trials" as we've been doing a lot of work to get the set-up right and working with Tommy's family. For example, we have a couple of trials where the dogs were not totally alone, and others where the wait time was very short, but then this is preliminary (see below)

- as far as #2, versus #1 this just has to do with the order I released them on YouTube.

- MOST IMPORTANTLY - these are preliminary results. The heavy lifting research will be done by folks like Dr. Clive Wynne and other animal behavior experts at top Universities.

If these are only preliminary results then it is somewhat premature to put them on youtube and announce to the world that the dog is psychic.

In order for people to assess the evidence they need to know how many trials have been performed and how successsful the dog is overall and not just in the few that you choose to show them.

If the dog simply starts "waiting" after an hour of being left alone and if you do enough trials then by chance you will get some where his waiting coincides with somebodies return journey.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Chris,

So let me construct a strawman. If an experimenter expresses support for a phenomenon that you (and some, but by no means all other scientists) think is bunk, then their research is immediately so suspect that any positive results they obtain are obviously false. Furthermore, since these false results can't be said to contribute in any meaningful way to the scientific record, there never will be reliable evidence for said phenomena.

As I have said before, it was when I realised that something like this really goes on, that I switched from your position to being somewhat more open-minded!

David

keep away from naked flames!

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by pacificwhim

Alex has contacted the JREF about taking the Challenge (and spare me your tired rant, Venom, about his not knowing how to fill out the application form; I find it entirely likely that he wanted to get Randi to agree to his proposed skeptical animal expert before going to the trouble of filling out the application). Does anyone honestly think he would do so if he were producing his results fraudulently to support his bias by, say, editing the tapes to make it look like the dog was waiting for a longer period, or by cueing the dog in a way that's undetectable on camera? Does anybody think Alex is stupid enough to think that such deceptions wouldn't be revealed if and when he takes the JREF challenge, resulting in his complete humiliation? Of course they would.

I don't believe that Jaques Benveniste was a fraud. He fell victim to something that all experimenters are prone to - self delusion. It is very easy to come up with reasons to explain away trials that didn't work and to only see the few that do give the desired results.