67 replies to this topic

[Seeker79]

Imaginarynumber1, on 28 May 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

One of the principles of science is to question. If experiment after experiment produces no evidence and the hypothesis still calls for a rewriting of everything we know, it's safe to say that it is not true, i.e; homeopathy or the Earth resting on the back of turtles.
Personal anecdotes are not evidence, no matter how much one might want to believe otherwise.





And this ^^^^

But sheldrake has repeatable evidence. Why isn't it taken seriously? He obviously is very open about his research and encourages people to reproduce it.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Seeker79, on 28 May 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

But sheldrake has repeatable evidence. Why isn't it taken seriously? He obviously is very open about his research and encourages people to reproduce it.

A quick search of the internet turns up this; (from wiki)

Quote

In 1990 neurobiologist Steven Rose experimented jointly with Sheldrake to test the hypothesis of morphic resonance. The experiment involved training day-old chicks to react negatively to a small yellow light when the light was followed 30 min later by an injection which caused temporary illness. Chicks become strongly averse to pecking the stimulus again. Sheldrake predicted that successive batches of day-old chicks would progressively become more averse to pecking the light for the first time, because morphic resonance would cause them to "remember" the experience of previous generations of chicks. Rose predicted that no such effect would be observed.^[58][59]
Rose wrote that he and several scientists who reviewed the data were convinced that there was no evidence of morphic resonance.^[58] Sheldrake, however, said that the proportion of test chicks taking longer than 10 sec for the first peck, compared with control chicks, gradually increased in successive batches and believed therefore that the experiment supported his theory.^[59]
In a separate paper, Rose responded that there were several confounding details of the experiment which skewed the results, such as the experimenter improving his skills with practice over the course of the experiment. Rose said there was no trend for an increase in the latency, in fact a slight decrease, thus disconfirming Sheldrake's prediction. In an independent analysis of the data, biologist Patrick Bateson agreed with Rose that the results ran counter to the prediction of morphic resonance.^[60]

and this;

Quote

David Marks and John Colwell, writing in the Skeptical Inquirer (2000), criticized the experimental procedures Sheldrake had developed for tests designed to demonstrate the existence of the staring effect.^[62] Apart from the fact that Sheldrake had encouraged the involvement of lay members of the public in research of the effect, Marks and Colwell suggested that the sequences used in tests followed the same patterning that people who guess and gamble like to follow.^[62] These guessing patterns have relatively few long runs and many alternations.^[62] The non-randomness of test sequences could thus lead to implicit or explicit pattern learning when feedback is provided.^[62] When the patterns being guessed mirror naturally occurring guessing patterns, the results could go above or below chance levels even without feedback.^[62] Thus significant results could occur purely from non-random guessing.^[62] Non-randomization is one of seven flaws in parapsychological research identified by Marks.^[63]
Michael Shermer wrote in Scientific American (2005) that there were a number of objections to Sheldrake's experiments on the sense of being stared at, reiterating Marks' and Colwell's points about non-randomization and the use of unsupervised laypeople, and adding confirmation bias and experimenter bias to the list of potential problems; he concluded that Sheldrake's claim wasunfalsifiable.^[64]
Sheldrake (2004, 2005) responded to the criticisms by stating that the experiments had been widely replicated; the results from an independent meta-analysis, which had excluded all data from unsupervised tests, were shown to be highly significant; and the Marks-Colwell suggestion of non-randomization had been refuted by thousands of trials with different randomization methods, including coin-tossing, yielding positive and highly statistically significant results, whatever the randomization method.^[65][6

It would appear the Sheldrake has run several experiments, but has simply denied all the results the disprove his hypothesis and soldiered on with naught but pseudoscience.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 28 May 2012 - 05:45 PM.

[Seeker79]

Imaginarynumber1, on 28 May 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

A quick search of the internet turns up this; (from wiki)
[/size][/font][/color]
and this;



It would appear the Sheldrake has run several experiments, but has simply denied all the results the disprove his hypothesis and soldiered on with naught but pseudoscience.

1st off cirtisizm is necessary but not at all conclusive. It would be a deductive fallacy to consider something as false or invalid just because there are potentials for mistakes. Ruparts work attracts a lot of it. I can intligently criticize the law of gravity or the speed of light. That dosn't make the problems true. This is common for skeptics to look up cirtisizm and offer it as evidence to the contrary.

Experiments are data points. While working on the truth there are bound to be dead ends and new avenues. Not all of ruparts experiments are successes. His morphic fields with reptiles show zero results. So what. If  ruparts critisizers are right about one experiment with one aspect of morphic fields, then so be it. If Rupert thinks there was an effect he can now design a new experiment to flesh it out.  It might be a dead end. He has plenty of other data that suggest effects even when reproduced, but the common bias will dismiss it even with a simple untested critisizm. why not refute his experiments with dogs? Or his positive data with randomized looking tests ( no patterns to discerne). Better yet. Do the experiment yourself.

Most of his oponants critisize but don't actually offer up anything to refute. The material in your second quote is just talk. Potential errors which sheldrake is continually and honestly addressing. But because people don't agree, they call it pseudo science. this attitude  is pseudo science in of itself.

Edited by Seeker79, 28 May 2012 - 06:14 PM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Seeker79, on 28 May 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

1st off cirtisizm is necessary but not at all conclusive. It would be a deductive fallacy to consider something as false or invalid just because there are potentials for mistakes. Ruparts work attracts a lot of it. I can intligently criticize the law of gravity or the speed of light. That dosn't make the problems true. This is common for skeptics to look up cirtisizm and offer it as evidence to the contrary.

Experiments are data points. While working on the truth there are bound to be dead ends and new avenues. Not all of ruparts experiments are successes. His morphic fields with reptiles show zero results. So what. If  ruparts critisizers are right about one experiment with one aspect of morphic fields, then so be it. If Rupert thinks there was an effect he can now design a new experiment to flesh it out.  It might be a dead end. He has plenty of other data that suggest effects even when reproduced, but the common bias will dismiss it even with a simple untested critisizm. why not refute his experiments with dogs? Or his positive data with randomized looking tests ( no patterns to discerne). Better yet. Do the experiment yourself.

Most of his oponants critisize but don't actually offer up anything to refute.

In all honesty I don't care about this guy or his 'work'. It's bunk. It's been tested. It's failed. It's pseudoscience at best and isn't worth any further experimentation.

[Seeker79]

Imaginarynumber1, on 28 May 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

In all honesty I don't care about this guy or his 'work'. It's bunk. It's been tested. It's failed. It's pseudoscience at best and isn't worth any further experimentation.

Show the tests. His work with people and phones. Randomized guessing of who is calling. His work with dogs.  Show actual repetitions of his experiments that have failed. Don't quote some criticism from wiki or use a fallacious apeal to authority from obviously biased parties. This is why data and actual results are supposed to reign supreme.

Honestly im not sold on morphic fields either.... But I don't discount them. I think what he is discovering is laying the foundation for a much larger concept than his theories ( rightfully so by the way) allow for.

[unit]

when we say 'placebo' we end up implying 'the persons mind did it'
...and isn't that much much more amazing?

..may as well have come in posting about space fairies being the cause?

Quote

...a much larger concept...

ffs.. if i ever have to start injecting baby chicks to learn something i think it's best for me to leave that field of study alone for a while.. what good is it for a man to gain the world only to lose his soul?

[ouija ouija]

unit, on 31 May 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

. if i ever have to start injecting baby chicks to learn something

Where did THAT come from?

[WilliamW]

unit, on 31 May 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

when we say 'placebo' we end up implying 'the persons mind did it'
...and isn't that much much more amazing?

Yes.  
It deserves a thread all of it own.