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

[SkepticalBry]

On Open Source Science (OSS), Main Page - OpenSourceScience, Alex Tsakiris, A.K.A. Skeptiko, announced a project for open, collaborative development of psi experiments, the first of which tests, "Can Dogs Anticipate Their Owner's Return?" The site seems to have gone silent around May or June 2007, without completing any experimental design. There had been some good discussion of needed controls, but no resolution; no statement of controls, no criteria for success or failure, no schedule.

In April 2008 Tsakiris put videos on YouTube in which he claims to have the results of trials of his "Psychic Dog Experiment": YouTube - skeptiko's Channel This is clearly the same experiment he described on OSS, but as near as I can tell, Tsakiris completely ignored all the open and collaborative principles he had stated, as well as the controls that participants on OSS had discussed.

His results look like selective reporting of parts of tests that he made up as he went along -- pretty much the opposite of what he said he was going to do. Both videos credit the outcome to "Tommy's telepathic link with his owner", as if they were proof of psi. The first makes the statement that the dog's owner, "has been randomly running errands." What does that mean? Good randomness is vital in psi tests; is Tsakiris trying to pass off the inexactness of running errands as experiment-quality randomness?

Do I have my facts wrong here? Is OSS just a fraud? What's the deal?

[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

[SkepticalBry]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Do we have to start throwing words like 'fraud' about just because the time scale has slipped?

Of course not. That's why I did no such thing. I can't tell what your response has to do with what I wrote.


I see that Tsakiris updated at least one page on the site was in June of 2008, but those updates are to announce another experiment. I don't find any info on why Tsakiris did not follow his open process on first experiment.

-Bryan

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by SkepticalBry

Of course not. That's why I did no such thing. I can't tell what your response has to do with what I wrote.

-Bryan

Have a look at the last line of your original post! OK, maybe it was an oversight on your part of some sort.

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by SkepticalBry

On Open Source Science (OSS), Main Page - OpenSourceScience, Alex Tsakiris, A.K.A. Skeptiko, announced a project for open, collaborative development of psi experiments, the first of which tests, "Can Dogs Anticipate Their Owner's Return?" The site seems to have gone silent around May or June 2007, without completing any experimental design. There had been some good discussion of needed controls, but no resolution; no statement of controls, no criteria for success or failure, no schedule.

In April 2008 Tsakiris put videos on YouTube in which he claims to have the results of trials of his "Psychic Dog Experiment": YouTube - skeptiko's Channel This is clearly the same experiment he described on OSS, but as near as I can tell, Tsakiris completely ignored all the open and collaborative principles he had stated, as well as the controls that participants on OSS had discussed.

His results look like selective reporting of parts of tests that he made up as he went along -- pretty much the opposite of what he said he was going to do. Both videos credit the outcome to "Tommy's telepathic link with his owner", as if they were proof of psi. The first makes the statement that the dog's owner, "has been randomly running errands." What does that mean? Good randomness is vital in psi tests; is Tsakiris trying to pass off the inexactness of running errands as experiment-quality randomness?

Do I have my facts wrong here? Is OSS just a fraud? What's the deal?

First off, you're teetering on falling into the No-Asshole Rule... there are many hours of Skeptiko podcast devoted to this experiment and it's design. Plus, we're working with the University of Florida's Canine Cognition Lab to develop and implement the final protocol. I'm keeping folks update thru the podcast and forums, but may move it to OSS as we get further along.

Moreover, I'm happy to have open-minded folks contribute to OSS and just recetnely called for volenteers to help flesh out the medium deomonstartion on OSS.

[SkepticalBry]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Have a look at the last line of your original post! OK, maybe it was an oversight on your part of some sort.

David

I faulted OSS on several things, none of which were slipping of the time scale. David, you had, "just because the time scale has slipped".

Clear enough?

-Bryan

[SkepticalBry]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

First off, you're teetering on falling into the No-Asshole Rule...

Alex, did you just today made up that rule? When you are party to a debate, is it your intent to play judge in your own cause?

Jacob, who if I understand correctly runs this site, wrote, "I liked your inquiry about OpenSourceScience on the forum, by the way." Guide to a trainee skeptic - Parapsychology articles and blog

I wasn't offended; skeptics get used to this kind of thing. Alex, feel free to call me an asshole any time you want. I will not respond in kind. In fact, I'd be likely to quote you on it.

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

there are many hours of Skeptiko podcast devoted to this experiment and it's design.

What I asked is why you did not do what you said you would do on Open Source Science. You had claimed an open and collaborative process, not that people should listen to your podcast for what you choose to reveal about what you choose to do.

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Plus, we're working with the University of Florida's Canine Cognition Lab to develop and implement the final protocol.

Alex, both of your current videos end with a "results" section where you claim a telepathic link between owner and dog, as I previously quoted. How can you conclude that without already having a protocol?

Furthermore to eliminate ordinary, non-telepathic channels, the owner's return-time must be randomly chosen after the owner has separated from the dog. There was some discussion of this on OSS moths ago. Alex, did you do that? What did you mean by, "randomly running errands"?

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

I'm keeping folks update thru the podcast and forums, but may move it to OSS as we get further along. Moreover, I'm happy to have open-minded folks contribute to OSS and just recetnely called for volenteers to help flesh out the medium deomonstartion on OSS.

And I will continue to offer what I believe is valid analysis and criticism of bad experiments resulting in false claims of paranormal results.

-Bryan

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by SkepticalBry

Alex, did you just today made up that rule? When you are party to a debate, is it your intent to play judge in your own cause?

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

On Open Source Science (OSS), Main Page - OpenSourceScience, Alex Tsakiris, A.K.A. Skeptiko, announced a project for open, collaborative development of psi experiments, the first of which tests, "Can Dogs Anticipate Their Owner's Return?" The site seems to have gone silent around May or June 2007, without completing any experimental design. There had been some good discussion of needed controls, but no resolution; no statement of controls, no criteria for success or failure, no schedule.

In April 2008 Tsakiris put videos on YouTube in which he claims to have the results of trials of his "Psychic Dog Experiment": YouTube - skeptiko's Channel This is clearly the same experiment he described on OSS, but as near as I can tell, Tsakiris completely ignored all the open and collaborative principles he had stated, as well as the controls that participants on OSS had discussed.

His results look like selective reporting of parts of tests that he made up as he went along -- pretty much the opposite of what he said he was going to do. Both videos credit the outcome to "Tommy's telepathic link with his owner", as if they were proof of psi. The first makes the statement that the dog's owner, "has been randomly running errands." What does that mean? Good randomness is vital in psi tests; is Tsakiris trying to pass off the inexactness of running errands as experiment-quality randomness?

Do I have my facts wrong here? Is OSS just a fraud? What's the deal?

-- 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), it just finds fault.

Of course this doesn't mean you're and "ass hole". I don't know you, so I can't judge. But, your comment comes close to violating the "no asshole rule" because it's not a real attempt at dialog -- it doesn't add anything to the conversation.

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

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by SkepticalBry

I wasn't offended; skeptics get used to this kind of thing. Alex, feel free to call me an asshole any time you want. I will not respond in kind. In fact, I'd be likely to quote you on it.

I can think of at least one comment from a non-skeptic that I considered broke Alex's rule - this is not just a dig against skeptics, I think.

Yes, I guess skeptics carry more than 50% of the responsibility - presumably because so much of their argument seems to rest on an assumption of fraud and carelessness on the part of others.

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

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.

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.

Such people can't seem to accept any expression of optimism from an experimenter! Go into any chemistry or physics lab, and you will encounter people discussing their experiments. They will say things like "my experiment is still a bit tempramental", or "this equipment is working really well" - i.e. they will feel emotion about what they are doing, but nobody will therefore assume that they are cheating. Therefore, why shouldn't Alex show us some examples that he thinks illustrates success with his experiment?

David

[alextsakiris]

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.

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.

Such people can't seem to accept any expression of optimism from an experimenter! Go into any chemistry or physics lab, and you will encounter people discussing their experiments. They will say things like "my experiment is still a bit tempramental", or "this equipment is working really well" - i.e. they will feel emotion about what they are doing, but nobody will therefore assume that they are cheating. Therefore, why shouldn't Alex show us some examples that he thinks illustrates success with his experiment?

David

Moreover, as I documented in the podcasts and blog posts my goal has been to move the experiment into the University of Florida's Canine Cognition Lab where a skeptical group of researchers can dig in. This has happened... and there's still plenty of room for input, dialog and discussion about how those tests should move forward.

If Bryan, or anyone else would like to re-invigorate the OSS effort in a way that seeks to enhance the experiment and generate constructive dialog between skeptics and believers, I would applaud his effort (and I'm sure the U of F researchers would as well)... but this was not the spirit of his comment.