4 ms·

OK, "Critical views of science in the news" is probably a useful avenue of "hard looking" and quality control for science. But I think it behooves us to be a li

by Elrac 12y ago

OK, "Critical views of science in the news" is probably a useful avenue of "hard looking" and quality control for science. But I think it behooves us to be a little more critical in our choice of critics. This struck me when the author, in his introduction, mentioned a previous Q&A with telepathy proponent Rupert Sheldrake. Sheldrake only gets a brief mention in this piece as a critic of science, and I hasten to add that I don't have any beef with the article from that point on. For anyone who doesn't know, Sheldrake has for years been trying to convince people that telepathy is real. To this end, he's done a series of experiments which had the kind of inconclusive results you'd expect, yet in spite of a dearth of convincing, published results, in spite of a global failure to replicate his results, he keeps badgering science to take him seriously. Having been met with apathy and mild derision, he now blames science on his failure to be taken seriously. So yes, Sheldrake is a "science critic." So are many of the purveyors of homeopathy, of miracle cancer cures, of coffee enemas, of dowsing and of Intelligent Design. Science is empirical, and people without evidence like to call this a shortcoming of science. So my question is: how much debunking, how much finger pointing and pantsless emperors is required before we can in good conscience exclude certain groups of people from discussions about the philosophy of science? Those discussions are important, no doubt - and this is why I think we should be wary of allowing them to be bogged down by the contributions of frauds and crackpots.

jchrisa 12y ago
They have to keep the conversation lighthearted, or else there's a chance we might actually talk about all the real problems with taking a scientistic view of the world. That is, the crackpots are way less threatening than someone with real critiques.
apalmer 12y ago
The answer as to when can we exclude certain groups from the discussion is never. If Sheldrake or whoever makes a valid point then it is what it is.
alphydan 12y ago
> Sheldrake has for years been trying to convince people that telepathy is real. To this end, he's done a series of experiments which had the kind of inconclusive results you'd expect. Do you have a reference? The dog experiment seems statistically significant (http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/a-dog-that-seems-to-know-when-his-owner-is-coming-home-videotaped-experiments-and-observations http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/a-dog-that-s..., shows ANOVA, F-value (df 2,22)=20.46; p<0.0001). ). What exactly about that experiment is inconclusive? Note that I'm not saying telepathy exists. I'm discussing an experiment for which I have no sensible explanation. Is there some data/papers/methods I'm missing?
- Elrac 12y ago
  I am the one missing papers. Why didn't Sheldrake get this published under peer review? I don't feel qualified to judge his setup or analysis, so it would be that much more interesting to read about reactions from scientists who are. By the rules of the game, if he's not participating in this exercise he's not doing science.
  - alphydan 12y ago
    The paper was published under peer review. http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_2_sheldrake.pdf http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_2_sheldr... If you look at the editorial board in http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/ http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/ there are PhDs from a lot of prestigious institutions (Princeton, Sorbone, John Hopkins, Cornell) which of course is no warranty or rigor, but it may be an indication. The submission conditions show that the papers are peer-reviewed (http://www.scientificexploration.org/documents/instructions_for_authors.pdf http://www.scientificexploration.org/documents/instructions_...). > I don't feel qualified to judge his setup or analysis then we should suspend our judgement about the validity of the results, not discredit them by principle.
    - Elrac 12y ago
      Thank you for pointing out that this paper of Sheldrake's was indeed peer reviewed. That paper also mentions that three independent scientists were invited to attempt to replicate Sheldrake's work. In this paper by one of those scientists http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/psychicdogreply.pdf http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/psychicdogreply.pdf one of the scientists (Wiseman) reports that they were in fact not able to confirm Sheldrake's findings, that Sheldrake had criticized their criteria for measurement _after_ they had led to failure, and badgered them into arbitrarily establishing other criteria for success. Wiseman also complains that he and his colleagues were badly misrepresented in Sheldrake's paper, and that Sheldrake tried to present excuses for the failed trials. This post hoc selection of evaluation criteria is one way in which crackpots massage experimental data to substantiate their claims. Honest scientists usually do their best to avoid it. In conclusion, in the one instance where an attempt was made to verify Sheldrake's strongest results, he was seen to be acting in a manner suspiciously characteristic of trying to introduce a bias in the direction he preferred. Even if he isn't intentionally dishonest, this man is almost certainly a crackpot.

by Elrac 12y ago

jchrisa 12y ago

They have to keep the conversation lighthearted, or else there's a chance we might actually talk about all the real problems with taking a scientistic view of the world. That is, the crackpots are way less threatening than someone with real critiques.

apalmer 12y ago

The answer as to when can we exclude certain groups from the discussion is never. If Sheldrake or whoever makes a valid point then it is what it is.

alphydan 12y ago

> Sheldrake has for years been trying to convince people that telepathy is real. To this end, he's done a series of experiments which had the kind of inconclusive results you'd expect. Do you have a reference? The dog experiment seems statistically significant (http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/a-dog-that-seems-to-know-when-his-owner-is-coming-home-videotaped-experiments-and-observations http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/a-dog-that-s..., shows ANOVA, F-value (df 2,22)=20.46; p<0.0001). ). What exactly about that experiment is inconclusive? Note that I'm not saying telepathy exists. I'm discussing an experiment for which I have no sensible explanation. Is there some data/papers/methods I'm missing?

Elrac 12y ago
I am the one missing papers. Why didn't Sheldrake get this published under peer review? I don't feel qualified to judge his setup or analysis, so it would be that much more interesting to read about reactions from scientists who are. By the rules of the game, if he's not participating in this exercise he's not doing science.
- alphydan 12y ago
  The paper was published under peer review. http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_2_sheldrake.pdf http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_2_sheldr... If you look at the editorial board in http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/ http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/ there are PhDs from a lot of prestigious institutions (Princeton, Sorbone, John Hopkins, Cornell) which of course is no warranty or rigor, but it may be an indication. The submission conditions show that the papers are peer-reviewed (http://www.scientificexploration.org/documents/instructions_for_authors.pdf http://www.scientificexploration.org/documents/instructions_...). > I don't feel qualified to judge his setup or analysis then we should suspend our judgement about the validity of the results, not discredit them by principle.
  - Elrac 12y ago
    Thank you for pointing out that this paper of Sheldrake's was indeed peer reviewed. That paper also mentions that three independent scientists were invited to attempt to replicate Sheldrake's work. In this paper by one of those scientists http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/psychicdogreply.pdf http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/psychicdogreply.pdf one of the scientists (Wiseman) reports that they were in fact not able to confirm Sheldrake's findings, that Sheldrake had criticized their criteria for measurement _after_ they had led to failure, and badgered them into arbitrarily establishing other criteria for success. Wiseman also complains that he and his colleagues were badly misrepresented in Sheldrake's paper, and that Sheldrake tried to present excuses for the failed trials. This post hoc selection of evaluation criteria is one way in which crackpots massage experimental data to substantiate their claims. Honest scientists usually do their best to avoid it. In conclusion, in the one instance where an attempt was made to verify Sheldrake's strongest results, he was seen to be acting in a manner suspiciously characteristic of trying to introduce a bias in the direction he preferred. Even if he isn't intentionally dishonest, this man is almost certainly a crackpot.