3 ms·

I suspect the "ESP guy" is actually meant to refer to Daryl Bem? https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-br

by moyix 4y ago

I suspect the "ESP guy" is actually meant to refer to Daryl Bem? https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-prove... https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-o...

jrochkind1 4y ago
Aha, I hadn't been paying attention, thanks! I have known about Rhine since before Bem published his thing in 2010. It's interesting that neither of those articles on Bem mentions Rhine explicitly (at least the first one does link to him on "dating to the 1930s".) This has all happened before. And as far as we can tell Rhine did almost exactly the same thing as Bem, cherry-picked the "successful" runs, with statistically flawed results. But Rhine was actually a lot more succesful at convincing mainstream people of his results... but while by the 1950s or 1960s nobody believed them anymore, as far as I can tell there wasn't any conclusive single turning point where everyone by consensus agreed that they had been wrong, and why. It just sort of faded away. And isn't currently talked about much. It's sort of embaressing to scientists, I think, that so many believed in ESP from Rhine's experiments. As a result, it isn't part of general cultural knowledge, or scientific education, nor is an understanding of why Rhine wasn't right after all... and therefore, Bem is just a repeat. Or, more worrisome, the same mistakes could be made in more 'conventional' topics as well. [I don't think either Rhine or Bem were doing intentional fraud, I think they both believed themselves. It really does look like a repeat].
- buescher 4y ago
  The same mistakes are made in all kinds of conventional research. I would go so far as to say they are institutionalized. That's the real reason ESP research is so embarassing. People had literally been talking about preregistration for decades before the replication crisis.

by moyix 4y ago

jrochkind1 4y ago

Aha, I hadn't been paying attention, thanks! I have known about Rhine since before Bem published his thing in 2010. It's interesting that neither of those articles on Bem mentions Rhine explicitly (at least the first one does link to him on "dating to the 1930s".) This has all happened before. And as far as we can tell Rhine did almost exactly the same thing as Bem, cherry-picked the "successful" runs, with statistically flawed results. But Rhine was actually a lot more succesful at convincing mainstream people of his results... but while by the 1950s or 1960s nobody believed them anymore, as far as I can tell there wasn't any conclusive single turning point where everyone by consensus agreed that they had been wrong, and why. It just sort of faded away. And isn't currently talked about much. It's sort of embaressing to scientists, I think, that so many believed in ESP from Rhine's experiments. As a result, it isn't part of general cultural knowledge, or scientific education, nor is an understanding of why Rhine wasn't right after all... and therefore, Bem is just a repeat. Or, more worrisome, the same mistakes could be made in more 'conventional' topics as well. [I don't think either Rhine or Bem were doing intentional fraud, I think they both believed themselves. It really does look like a repeat].

buescher 4y ago
The same mistakes are made in all kinds of conventional research. I would go so far as to say they are institutionalized. That's the real reason ESP research is so embarassing. People had literally been talking about preregistration for decades before the replication crisis.