3 ms·

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 th

by 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.
  - alphydan 12y ago
    Thanks for the reference. I was unaware of Wiseman's replication. Here is Wiseman's peer reviewed paper, http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/petsBJP.pdf http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/petsBJP.pdf with most of the data at the end. Some data is missing like the time of departure, which could reveal other correlations. However, I would say, that with the information available in that paper it seems pretty random and doesn't suggest any unexplained phenomenon.

by Elrac 12y ago

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.
- alphydan 12y ago
  Thanks for the reference. I was unaware of Wiseman's replication. Here is Wiseman's peer reviewed paper, http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/petsBJP.pdf http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/petsBJP.pdf with most of the data at the end. Some data is missing like the time of departure, which could reveal other correlations. However, I would say, that with the information available in that paper it seems pretty random and doesn't suggest any unexplained phenomenon.