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

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

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.

It is not about appeasing debunkers. You should be interested in whether dogs can accurately judge the passage of time. My experiences with animals such as dogs and cows is that they are very good at judging the time of day.

You should also be interested in whether dogs can pick up on subtle cues from their owners and other humans. Again my experience is that they can.

Sheldrake's experiments were not designed to find an explanation for the phenomena. They were designed to default to "morphic resonance".

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

It is not about appeasing debunkers. You should be interested in whether dogs can accurately judge the passage of time. My experiences with animals such as dogs and cows is that they are very good at judging the time of day.

You should also be interested in whether dogs can pick up on subtle cues from their owners and other humans. Again my experience is that they can.

Sheldrake's experiments were not designed to find an explanation for the phenomena. They were designed to default to "morphic resonance".

Well lots of experiments are 'tuned' to detect a specific effect - if present - that is normal scientific practice and does not in any way detract from the result.

Sheldrake and Alex want to look for a Ψ effect by designing the experiment - with random return times - to eliminate other, more prosaic explanations. To me this is no different from the normal practice of placing a sensitive optical experiment in an environment that damps down unwanted vibrations - the vibrations might have some intrinsic interest in themselves, but not in this particular experiment!

Has it occurred to you that if animal Ψ is a real effect, many other observations - such as the ones you refer to above - may need to be revisited.

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Well lots of experiments are 'tuned' to detect a specific effect - if present - that is normal scientific practice and does not in any way detract from the result.

The difference here is that "psi" is by definition simply an anomaly. "Psi" is not a specific effect that can be predicted or falsified.

Could Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" have been falsified by the dog experiments? Could there have been a result that would there have been a result that would have made Sheldrake change his mind?

That's the beauty of Sheldrake's experiments. If an anomaly, any anomaly, remains then it can be counted as evidence for "morphic resonance". If the anomaly disappears then it doesn't matter because "morphic resonance" doesn't make any definite predictions.

Sheldrake also uses criteria for judging the success of the trial, the amount of time the dog spends at the window, so that if the dog gets any information about the approximate return time then it will be counted as a hit. This means that if he fails to control for other mechanisms then the result will default to a success.

Sheldrake fails to explicitly test for other mechanisms. He simply assumes that he has controlled for them. This, again, ensures that the result defaults to the one he desires.

It really is textbook pseudoscience.

Sheldrake finds that 50% of dog owneres think that they can telepathically communicate with their dogs. Considering the fact, as Sheldrake points out, that most of these people can't see the need for controlled experiments then what proportion of these people are basing their opinion on actual evidence?

How many of them fall prey to confirmation bias, remembering the hits and not the misses? How many are fooled by the dog hearing a car a few minutes before it arrives? How many are fooled by the dog detetcing routine? How many are fooled by the dog picking up other cues?

Wouldn't it be interesting to know this? Why doesn't Sheldrake want to know?

Sheldrake uses the widespread belief in psychic dogs as support for his theory. Why doesn't he want to know how much of this belief is based on evidence? Why doesn't he want to know whether dogs can use cues to prediuct their owner's return?

For somebody who is supposed to be open-minded he seems to be extremely selective in what he is open-minded about.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

The difference here is that "psi" is by definition simply an anomaly. "Psi" is not a specific effect that can be predicted or falsified.

Could Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" have been falsified by the dog experiments? Could there have been a result that would there have been a result that would have made Sheldrake change his mind?

That's the beauty of Sheldrake's experiments. If an anomaly, any anomaly, remains then it can be counted as evidence for "morphic resonance". If the anomaly disappears then it doesn't matter because "morphic resonance" doesn't make any definite predictions.

You have to be very careful not to end up in the logically absurd position in which you assert that because Ψ 'is an anomaly' the rules for accepting any evidence are absurdly high, and therefore there is no evidence!

I actually think your anomaly argument would have some force if used properly. For example, there was a study made into the claims of astrology, and the astrologists made great play with the fact that there was some slight correlation of some personal features with one particular zodiac sign. It would be right to dismiss this using your 'anomaly argument' because any anomaly - whether consistent with the predictions of astrology or not - would presumably have counted.

Sheldrake's experiments are not in this category. This was a test of a frequently reported phenomenon under controlled conditions. Sheldrake would not have claimed it as a success if the dogs had instead seemed to use their waiting behaviour to signal the winner of the 4.30! There was only one type of behaviour that was ever going to count as a success.

There are, in fact a lot of conventional experiments that can only really come out with a 'yes' or a 'don't know'. If they find a Higgs boson when the new accelerator starts up, that will be a success, if they don't - well they will constrain a few parameters in some model, and wait for the next accelerator!

To this we could add, gravity waves, life under the surface of Mars or Titan, or Europa, SETI, searches for bacteria with unusual biochemistry .... all of which are deemed worthy of huge experimental effort.

Finally, tell me this. How would you explicitly test to see if a dog could use other information to perform this trick in the presence of possible genuine Ψ. You couldn't - could you? All you can do is look for Ψ by designing an experiment that excluded other factors - which is what Alex is trying to do.

Let's face it, you just hate the idea of Ψ!

David

[Venom]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Let's face it, you just hate the idea of Ψ!

Science is suppose to explain things, not to put forward funny symbols (Ψ) and then pretend to have explain something.

This is just ridiculous.

I know, let's say that the explanation for the "dogs that know phenomena" is Ŋ. Cooooollllllll... LOL

[eyemsougly]

Morphic Reasonance is a great theory because it is actually even more offensive to Skeptics than Psi. And whereas Psi only pisses off Skeptics and physicists, Morphic Reasonance manages to alienate biologists as well. Way to go Rupert!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

Morphic Reasonance is a great theory because it is actually even more offensive to Skeptics than Psi. And whereas Psi only pisses off Skeptics and physicists, Morphic Reasonance manages to alienate biologists as well. Way to go Rupert!

Now if he would just use quantum mechanics to explain morphic resonance, we'll have come full circle.

~~ Paul

[eyemsougly]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Now if he would just use quantum mechanics to explain morphic resonance, we'll have come full circle.

Don't count on it, Sheldrake knows physicists hate him already, his next goal will probably be to get Geologists to hate him.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Could Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" have been falsified by the dog experiments?

Sheldrake was testing dog telepathy. He wasn't specifically testing morphic resonance. His papers (on these experiments) only mention 'morphic fields' once..

'....Jaytee's reactions could be described as telepathic, psychic or as dependent on a "sixth sense". We favour an interpretation in terms of morphic fields..'

Could there have been a result that would there have been a result that would have made Sheldrake change his mind?

Could there be a result that would change your mind Chris? If Sheldrake had conducted more complex experiments on dogs sharing collective psi (to attempt to test morphic resonance) perhaps Chris you would have just criticized him instead for just different reasons?

The only thing that could change your mind Chris, is doing your own experiments. It seems you aren't going to trust anyone else's experiment finding psi.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

Morphic Reasonance is a great theory
because it is actually even more offensive to Skeptics than Psi. And whereas Psi only pisses off Skeptics and physicists, Morphic Reasonance manages to alienate biologists as well. Way to go Rupert!

LOL ... it is a good theory too for more noble reasons