47. Skeptical Researcher, Dr. Clive Wynne Tackles DogsThatKnow (Podcast)

[eyemsougly]

Originally Posted by scomsjw

If I ruled the universe Alex would get to interview Richard Dawkins, Richard Wiseman, Randi, Hitchens etc. and the Skeptics's guide folks would interview Rupert Sheldrake, Julie Beischel and Chris Carter.

why would you ever want to listen to Dawkins talk about anything? The guy has an ego the size of Texas. Hitchens is the man though.


p.s.: I agree totally with your comment about the reason for making standards tighter. Seems like some people don't get that yet.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by scomsjw

Comments like this are a bit annoying. Surely you aren't arguing that Sheldrake has already proved that dogs are telepathic? I don't think even Sheldrake himself believes that.

The post was meant to be provocative and is indeed a bit sarcastic about the unproven theoretical flaws in the Sheldrake experiments... I must behave

I really don't know how good a dog's natural sense of time is. Nor am I a dog owner but I would question whether dogs can predict how long a owner is away from subtle clues in ways humans can't. I doubt a dog can tell 90 minutes from 110 minutes from 120 minutes, etc. that accurately, particularly when snoozing for a period of time in between, as often appears to be the case when owner is away.

I also think it is unlikely to explain a trip to the window shortly before the owner leaves (more in Sheldrake's Jaytee dog experiments than Kane dog experiments) was caused by the dog calculating return time, the telepathy hypothesis that the owner was thinking about coming home might increase anticipation in dog seems at least as plausble to me, in light of the fact telepathy has arguably been found in many lab experiments on humans and slightly stronger in creative individuals ... so why not a bit stronger still
in dogs?

I think Sheldrake has done a decent and effective job of ruling out alternate explanations already but hey ... . as long as debunkers do not insist upon something like the dog is not allowed to see (i.e. know) the owner has left (to avoid picking up clues) ...... as long as the experiment remains fairly natural to dog and owner, fine I say.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I really don't know how good a dog's natural sense of time is. Nor am I a dog owner but I would question whether dogs can predict how long a owner is away from subtle clues in ways humans can't.

It is not that human's can't pick up on these cues it's that they normally do not pay attention. If we want to know when somebody is coming back we can phone them or ask them in the morning etc. My friend's three-year old child can recognise all of the characters in the Thomas the Tank Engine stories. I can't. I read the names instead. It all depends on how much time you spend observing and paying attention to small details. The dogs involved appear to spend a large part of their life paying attention to when their owner's come and go. It is thoroughly unsurprising that they can develop skills in predicting what their owners are going to do.

I doubt a dog can tell 90 minutes from 110 minutes from 120 minutes, etc. that accurately, particularly when snoozing for a period of time in between, as often appears to be the case when owner is away.

Again this is thoroughly unsurprising. Humans can do this if they want to. It's just that most of us rely on wearing watches etc.

The ability of dogs to judge the passage of time could be tested experimentally. Why not investigate this explicitly rather than assuming that dogs can't do it? The explanations that Sheldrake doesn't investigate tell us a lot about Sheldrake.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by scomsjw

Comments like this are a bit annoying. Surely you aren't arguing that Sheldrake has already proved that dogs are telepathic? I don't think even Sheldrake himself believes that. That's why we have to continue with more experiments and make them watertight. That's how all important scientific experiments are done. It's not just to appease debunkers its about making absolutely sure that the hypothesis is correct.

I think the point is that if all the data is recorded, it is up to a debunker to fit their theory to the data - say the 'dog logger' theory - not just propose something and mutter darkly about inconclusive Ψ experiments! It is that tendency that infuriates non-skeptics.

I dare say that option would also be open to debunkers of Sheldrake's work - I expect all the data is there. Nothing in science is ever 'proved', but I think Sheldrake has good reason to be pretty confident of his results.

David

[eyemsougly]

as long as there is enough trials and the return times are random it should rule out the "dog logger" idea.

The biggest problem would be a dog just waiting more often as time goes by. I know there are ways Sheldrake tried to control for that but it doesn't seem like a problem given to any easy solutions.



it sucks that it looks like Sheldrake gave up on that addorable parrot N'kisi. I thought that experiment looked like it had the most potential of any experiment yet.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by scomsjw

Comments like this are a bit annoying. Surely you aren't arguing that Sheldrake has already proved that dogs are telepathic? I don't think even Sheldrake himself believes that. That's why we have to continue with more experiments and make them watertight. That's how all important scientific experiments are done. It's not just to appease debunkers its about making absolutely sure that the hypothesis is correct.

I think Open Mind was correctly placing the work that's been done in proper historical context. It very difficult to explain away the sloppy work that's been done by folks like Dr. Richard Wiseman and other dogmatic skeptics. It's also impossible to measure the influence of their intentional misinformation.

Fine to ask for more evidence, let's also ask for better analysis and debate about the evidence.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

as long as there is enough trials and the return times are random it should rule out the "dog logger" idea.

The biggest problem would be a dog just waiting more often as time goes by. I know there are ways Sheldrake tried to control for that but it doesn't seem like a problem given to any easy solutions.



it sucks that it looks like Sheldrake gave up on that addorable parrot N'kisi. I thought that experiment looked like it had the most potential of any experiment yet.

What do you mean he gave up on it??

[eyemsougly]

well the first experiment was like 3 years ago and we haven't heard anything about it since so it sure looks like he's given up on it to me

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I think the point is that if all the data is recorded, it is up to a debunker to fit their theory to the data - say the 'dog logger' theory - not just propose something and mutter darkly about inconclusive ? experiments! It is that tendency that infuriates non-skeptics.

No amount of analysis can make up for poorly designed experiments.

It is exactly the tendency to do inconclusive experiments and demand that it is up to other people to refute them that infuriates skeptics.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

The ability of dogs to judge the passage of time could be tested experimentally. Why not investigate this explicitly rather than assuming that dogs can't do it? The explanations that Sheldrake doesn't investigate tell us a lot about Sheldrake

I am against changing Sheldrakes basic experiment as randomized return times simply rule it out. For even demonstrating dogs can accurately know time, this ability still falls short of explaining Sheldrake's reported results.

Chris, if the 'dogs that know' team must do this to appease debunkers.... I suggest one could buy 4 automated dog food dispensers to automatically dispense a titbit treats. Make dispensers look different. Set times so a box opens between 90-360 minutes of previous box, keep pattern and see if the dogs eventually learns to visit the correct box in correct order at the correct time accurately. If not, it is not worth testing further. If successful now move times forward to later part of day and see what pattern dog follows now.

Even this would still not fully explain Sheldrake results IMHO, although it would strengthen the skeptics theory. Irregular or randomized returns times is so much easier than such a detour. That is why we cannot be critical of Sheldrake's experiment, he did all he could be reasonably expected to do.