What's the deal on Skeptiko's Open Source Science?

[Mizzark]

Originally Posted by SkepticalBry

On Open Source Science (OSS), Main Page - OpenSourceScience,

Is OSS just a fraud?

Well, you definitely did throw out the possibility of a fraud. I have to say, at the risk of breaking the "No Asshole Rule" on my second post, that, with all due respect, that does not seem to be a very bright question, at least if it is meant as a serious inquiry. Did you seriously expect Alex to come on and say:

Yep, you got me. It's all a fraud.

That seems very unlikely to me. I think that it is more likely that the question was meant as a comment disguised as a question, and I also think that that is what the posters are responding to. If you wanted an update on why the website had been the way it was for so long, you could have just said, "Why has the website not been updated in so long?" That would have gotten the point across just as well without all the insult - not to mention a lot less typing.

[SkepticalBry]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

If, for example, you felt concern that 'random errands' might not consume a truly random amount of time, why not ask Alex to elaborate.

Good example. See the post above where I asked "Alex, did you do that? What did you mean by, 'randomly running errands'?"

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Clearly Alex would find it next to impossible to find participants who would agree to regularly leave home and wait - possibly for hours - doing nothing, just waiting for a random number to come up!

Could be, but whether a control is affordable to the experimenter has no effect on whether it is needed in the experiment.

With a little imagination there are many valid ways to structure the experiment that do not involve the dogs's owners sitting around for hours. They separate from their pet; we flip a coin: heads they get dinner out; tails they get dinner and a movie.

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Furthermore, in any experiment, there is an informal phase during which one tests and adjusts the setup before a formal series of data gathering trials are performed. I suspect Alex is still in that phase.

See his videos' section 4, "Results", where he claims, "Tommy's telepathic link with his owner caused..."

Originally Posted by David Bailey

It does seem to me that a large number of Ψ experiments of various types seem to generate positive results (and OK, a few do not). Unfortunately, some skeptics are so wedded to their view of how reality works, that for them the only possible explanation for these results is fraud or carelessness.

For the most part, I think the problem is naivety on just how careful one must be. But let me run with "fraud or carelessness", which I find a reasonable skeptical position.

Money sporadically goes missing from the drawers of bank tellers; there's no question this phenomenon exists. Suppose I suggest that the cause is paranormal; psi is sucking the money out of the universe. If that seems ludicrous, are the controls on parapsychology experiments stronger than those banks use to protect cash? Is there a reason to believe scientists are more honest or better counters and tabulators than bank tellers?

Which is the more reasonable position: my psi theory, or fraud and carelessness? Do you have a reason for your choice that is not based on being "wedded to [your] view of how reality works"? If this is a straw-man argument, what's the key difference?

-Bryan

[SkepticalBry]

Originally Posted by Mizzark

Well, you definitely did throw out the possibility of a fraud. I have to say, at the risk of breaking the "No Asshole Rule" on my second post, that, with all due respect, that does not seem to be a very bright question, at least if it is meant as a serious inquiry. Did you seriously expect Alex to come on and say:

Yep, you got me. It's all a fraud.

That seems very unlikely to me. I think that it is more likely that the question was meant as a comment disguised as a question, and I also think that that is what the posters are responding to. If you wanted an update on why the website had been the way it was for so long, you could have just said, "Why has the website not been updated in so long?" That would have gotten the point across just as well without all the insult - not to mention a lot less typing.

First, you are certainly correct that my questions were largely comments.

The issue is not why the web site went a long time without updates. The issue is that on OSS Alex stated an open and collaborative process for this experiment, then went with it but ignored that process. Alex just left OSS there, saying the experiment would be something it already was not.

I can hardly over-emphasize the importance of following one's stated method. I found mind-energy.net when web-master Jacob announced his experiments. At the end of the first, I wrote: "Jacob, I've been critical of the experiment's designs. Nevertheless, I note that you said you would run the experiments and report the results, then you ran the experiments and reported the results." I wrote that in May 2007, not knowing that Alex would later provide a contrasting example. Results to Psi Experiment 2 published - Parapsychology articles and blog


-Bryan

[Mizzark]

Well, I'm not sure I understand the entirety of your argument, but that's probably because I'm not as familiar with the specifics of the OSS that you speak of, so I'll defer to what you say, as I'm not going to look it up myself, nor am I interested in getting into an argument about the intricacies of OSS. (I would probably lose) I just think that what people were responding to more than anything was bringing up the possibility of fraud. You can accuse someone of being contradictory without necessarily saying that they might be engaging in fraud. That sort of strong accusation is not something that you want to bring up when there are other realistic possibilities.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I am sure Alex has a busy schedule, and the dog owner(s) may have been on holiday/been on holiday. Do we have to start throwing words like 'fraud' about just because the time scale has slipped? The LHC in Cern is behind schedule, but I don't expect the staff are trying to fake the results!

Anyway, I am sure Alex will say something himself.

David

David, you have to at least concede that Alex is not as straightforward with informations as he should be.

I've been very active here, and I have listened to every single skeptiko episode, and for exemple I still don't know how many trials Alex exactly did so far in his "dog that knows" experiment, and the results of those. On the 2 YouTube videos, Alex is talking like he did more than 2 trials. So were are the informations about those?

Also, why did he put the second YouTube video in second, since is content predate the first one?

Also do we have somwhere a full description of the protocol? Since when other people that the owner (like his son in the second video) became also a possible hit. Who else are included in that (every people in the owner familly? the postman? the neighboors walking in front of the door? who else?).

And also my question about the effects of other people in the house wasn't answer (the fact that he is stating the opposite of Sheldrake in his video):

Alex's religious beliefs?

So Alex can't hardly claim to play the transparency game here. He's giving up a few information at the time, not responding to some other questions, and so on.

Alex posted his second video 4 months ago. What happened since then? We just don't know.

[SkepticalBry]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

- yea, I'll judge... let me re-cap. Here's what you wrote:

And note

-- IMHO this was an "ass hole" kinda comment. It cynical. It's disparaging. It doesn't seek any real dialog or new information (it's not like to tried to collaboarte on OSS and were somehow unable to do so),

Actually it is like that, Alex. You run OSS, right? Check out when SkepticalBry registered there. I was putting together my analysis on the need for real randomness when I noticed the dates and realized I'd be posting to a dead thread. You had already abandoned the open collaborative process.

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

it just finds fault.

And the faults are entirely real. Alex, you claimed to have a result showing an effect due to a telepathic link. You have no such result. Pointing that out is a good and worthwhile thing to do whether you find it helpful or not.

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

The "no ass hole rule" is an attempt to change the tone of this forum to one of true collaboration, and intelligent dialog.

True collaboration? Isn't that what you said you would do on OSS, but then abandoned it? Contributors had given you some good analysis; their time was wasted, and you stated utterly bogus results. Why should anyone believe you this time?

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

If you have something to contribute along these lines -- great -- if not, or if you can't tell the difference (i.e. you don't see what's wrong with your comment), find another forum.

I came to forum.mind-energy.net at Jacob's invitation. I criticized his experiments to -- you might want to check -- but he did what he said he'd do and did not claim results he did not get.

At this point Alex, what your experiment needs is debunking.

-Bryan

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by SkepticalBry

The issue is not why the web site went a long time without updates.

Of course it is! Anyone could (and still can) pick up the ball with OSS. I am available to discuss the experiment in that forum, but YOU never joined YOU never contributed.

If anything OSS is a testament to my naivete about how so many Skeptics operate -- they like throwing stones, but don't like rolling up their sleeves and doing the work. This process I went thru is well chronicled in my podcasts interviews.

The issue is that on OSS Alex stated an open and collaborative process for this experiment, then went with it but ignored that process.

That a ridiculous statement. I interview everyone I could find who had ever written or spoken about the experiement (openness). I then funded a replication with a skeptically oriented researcher (remember the interview with Clive Wynne) at a major US university (that's collaboration).

I will continue to open source as much of the process as possible going forward (Dr. Wynne and his research associate Dr. Nicole Dorey seem to be in favor of this idea), but am going to rely on them to move the experient forward. I'm assisting them in locating dogs they can test locally (in Gainseville FL).

I'm also going to be collecting more video from the dog in my first two YouTube videos, but I'm not sure whether any of that data will make it into Dr. Wynne's final experiment (may be too far away for him to apply adequate controls).

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by SkepticalBry

Actually it is like that, Alex. You run OSS, right? Check out when SkepticalBry registered there. I was putting together my analysis on the need for real randomness when I noticed the dates and realized I'd be posting to a dead thread.

Anything you posted there would have pinged me. You didn't post!

You had already abandoned the open collaborative process.

That's a ridiculous, unsupported statement.

And the faults are entirely real. Alex, you claimed to have a result showing an effect due to a telepathic link. You have no such result. Pointing that out is a good and worthwhile thing to do whether you find it helpful or not.

The youtube video makes it clear this is one result from an ongoing experiment.

True collaboration? Isn't that what you said you would do on OSS, but then abandoned it?

OSS is there and available. I'm here and availalbe. I've included many skeptics in the dialog regarding this experiment. And, I funded a very skeptical researcher to do the real research.

Repeating the same false claim over and over violates the "no asshole rule".

[QUOTE]I came to forum.mind-energy.net at Jacob's invitation.[QUOTE]

Please consider yourself uninvited from the Skeptiko part of the forum.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Venom

I've been very active here, and I have listened to every single skeptiko episode, and for exemple I still don't know how many trials Alex exactly did so far in his "dog that knows" experiment, and the results of those. On the 2 YouTube videos, Alex is talking like he did more than 2 trials. So were are the informations about those?

First off, I have state all of this prevously, but not all in one place at one time:

1. I am not a researcher, just helping researchers -- I've made this point repeatedly. The trials with Tommy were preliminary (to see if the dog should be tested further). If nothing further ever comes of this research no one (including me) is going to put much stock in the results (even though they were quite amazing).

2. I used the Tommy video and the youtube post to recruit other participants and to genreate interest from the real researchers... since then I've handed off the real research to Dr. Clive Wynne at the U of F... said this many times... remember the whole thing with James Randi?... it was all about whether Dr. Clive Wynne would be fit to run the tests, not about anything that had been done in this video.

3. I collected 4-5 videos of Tommy. They were of different lengths and quality (various problems). The two I posted clearly showed the waiting behavior, the others did not for reasons that may or may not be relevant to the experiment.

Also, why did he put the second YouTube video in second, since is content predate the first one?

Didn't realize the dates until the first one had been posted.

Also do we have somwhere a full description of the protocol?

Preliminary test, simple protocol... covered many times.

And also my question about the effects of other people in the house wasn't answer (the fact that he is stating the opposite of Sheldrake in his video):

You didn't understand the point... some dogs seem show more waiting behavior when they are waiting with other members of the family... but, if everyone in the house is gone, and the dog is waiting, and then on one person comes back the gdog is going to react, and from that point forward it's very difficult to control what happens... you've totally changed things. We're just going to try and avoid this situation in the real experiment.

Alex posted his second video 4 months ago. What happened since then? We just don't know.

The owner has not been able to participate this summer, hope to resume in the fall.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

3. I collected 4-5 videos of Tommy. They were of different lengths and quality (various problems). The two I posted clearly showed the waiting behavior, the others did not for reasons that may or may not be relevant to the experiment.

This is the first time I have seen a direct answer to this question even though I asked it shortly after you posted your youtube videos.

This information is vitally important in how the two videos should be interpreted. You did not make this clear at the time.

Seriously, anytime you start picking out "positive" results and inventing reasons to discard "negative" results you are in serious danger of going straight down the path of pseudoscience and crankery.