As a long time Fortean, I'm aware of Benveniste, but will watch that later, ta.
But, sorry to bring this up again, we have no choice as to who does an experiment. I could decide to do a experiment on immunology right now, and you couldn't stop me. If my experimental method follows certain rules, I could even get it published. The only choice you have is to believe it or not, and if you don't believe my results, then you can either do an experiment of your own to disprove it, or wait for someone else to do so.
But, sorry to bring this up again, we have no choice as to who does an experiment. I could decide to do a experiment on immunology right now, and you couldn't stop me. If my experimental method follows certain rules, I could even get it published. The only choice you have is to believe it or not, and if you don't believe my results, then you can either do an experiment of your own to disprove it, or wait for someone else to do so.
Quite!
Much as I love reading about it, I suspect a lot of cosmology fits into that bracket, - holographic universe anyone?
What you're saying here is just as irrelevant as it was the first time you said it.
In this instance we're dealing with the person who was chosen to 'debunk' certain results - Randi. Any clearer now?
Did you personally choose Randi to do the experiment? If not, my point stands, all we can do is interpret the overall results with our own biases.
What you're saying here is just as irrelevant as it was the first time you said it.
Definition of INNUENDO
1
a : an oblique allusion : hint, insinuation; especially : a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation
You seem very interested in who is doing the work, as though that is some sort of guarantor of quality and neutrality. As you point out yourself, there are people who are experts in a very narrow field, but that may be a very good reason why they cannot see the wood for the trees. PinkMouse is saying that Randi's findings are no better or worse than anyone else's because of bias, as everyone is biased in some way or another. But hopefully their experimental methods cancel that bias from their actual results. My contention is that it is not always possible to spot experimental errors even when you look for them, and that some fields look scientific, but their results may really just be a direct result of the researchers' own biases. Anything that relies on statistics or computer modelling and which cannot be tested in reality is an example.
In the absence of any evidence the remark of Bertrand Russell comes to mind : 'The method of "postulating" what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil.'
Perceptual distortion exhibit A - unwarranted personalisation of the argument. If you'd asked I would of course have explained that personalities are irrelevant in science.
Sure, it may. Which is why we'd need to explore in more detail if it actually is the case, or not.
But if he's really saying that its obviously a mistake because there are degrees of bias. There are also directions of bias - its at least a vector, not a scalar quantity.
Over the long term, I'm sure that's the case yes. The result being a general slowing down of progress in science from what otherwise would be possible.
Yes - this case illustrates that very nicely. Irrespective of the results of the 'debunking'.
So you say. So will you also include string theory in that?
Can I chip in with a few comments? Just so you know where I am coming from, I have had a few peer-reviewed papers published and have also been a reviewer.
The fact that a paper has been published after peer-review does not necessarily mean it is considered to be correct. It merely means that the editor and his reviewers have reached the considered conclusion that it is likely to be correct and is worth publishing so others can consider it too. Journalists in particular seem unaware of this.
The fact that a paper has been refused publication after peer-review does not necessarily mean it is incorrect. It may be that it doesn't quite fit the journal it was submitted to, it may be that the reviewers didn't understand it or agree with it, it might be that it contains too much/too little maths.
Peer review is a rough filter - the degree of filtering depends partly on the prestige of the journal. Conferences add complications too. For some reason some parts of the world take more notice of conference papers than regular journal articles, even though conference papers have weaker peer review (50% acceptance is typical, a good journal will accept more like 20%). I remember a few years ago being asked to review a paper - I decided to reject it on the grounds that it contained little new information and was poorly written, but I later found that it had already been presented at a conference. I have found that I get more citations from a conference report than the fuller and better journal articles which followed.
Scientists are human beings. They know this, but knowing this does not prevent them behaving like human beings. I have sometimes had difficulty getting a paper published, either because it said something people did not want to hear (a useful assumption was actually wrong) or because it didn't suit them in some other way (too much maths for an engineering journal - I kid you not!). I think Maddox was correct to publish the water memory article, even though in his bones he thought it must be wrong - most editors would have rejected it. However, even then he displayed bias because he set out to check it in a way he would not for any other claim.
What is Randi's qualification for investigating science? He is/was a stage magician, so is an expert at fooling people. Knowing how to fool people means that he knows something about the ways that people can fool themselves, either deliberately or accidentally. Scientists do not have this knowledge, as they generally assume that things are what they appear to be.
The fact that a paper has been published after peer-review does not necessarily mean it is considered to be correct. It merely means that the editor and his reviewers have reached the considered conclusion that it is likely to be correct and is worth publishing so others can consider it too. Journalists in particular seem unaware of this.
The fact that a paper has been refused publication after peer-review does not necessarily mean it is incorrect. It may be that it doesn't quite fit the journal it was submitted to, it may be that the reviewers didn't understand it or agree with it, it might be that it contains too much/too little maths.
Peer review is a rough filter - the degree of filtering depends partly on the prestige of the journal. Conferences add complications too. For some reason some parts of the world take more notice of conference papers than regular journal articles, even though conference papers have weaker peer review (50% acceptance is typical, a good journal will accept more like 20%). I remember a few years ago being asked to review a paper - I decided to reject it on the grounds that it contained little new information and was poorly written, but I later found that it had already been presented at a conference. I have found that I get more citations from a conference report than the fuller and better journal articles which followed.
Scientists are human beings. They know this, but knowing this does not prevent them behaving like human beings. I have sometimes had difficulty getting a paper published, either because it said something people did not want to hear (a useful assumption was actually wrong) or because it didn't suit them in some other way (too much maths for an engineering journal - I kid you not!). I think Maddox was correct to publish the water memory article, even though in his bones he thought it must be wrong - most editors would have rejected it. However, even then he displayed bias because he set out to check it in a way he would not for any other claim.
What is Randi's qualification for investigating science? He is/was a stage magician, so is an expert at fooling people. Knowing how to fool people means that he knows something about the ways that people can fool themselves, either deliberately or accidentally. Scientists do not have this knowledge, as they generally assume that things are what they appear to be.
Certainly - and scientsts are people too as you've already pointed out
Evidence please that this is the case? I watched this video on TED a few months back and it was clear from that that he's really got almost zero clue. IOW he doesn't think he's subject to the assumption errors himself as he makes two huge ones in this show - can you spot them?
YouTube - James Randi's fiery takedown of psychic fraud
Evidence that this is the case please?
25mA please - you must be confusing me with that ancient DF92!!
Like other people, I was offering an opinion based on my experience, not writing a peer-reviewed sociology paper. But as you asked, here is a tiny piece of evidence: I am a scientist and I believe that I can be fooled even though I am aware that I can be fooled (my field is physics and electronics, not optical illusions or placebo effects etc.). You will have to search more widely and ask other scientists if you require more evidence.
Experience isn't a matter of opinion. Experience is interesting stories and anecdotes
I've already considered the evidence - that video I linked to on YouTube. Nothing more needs to be added, I got it from the horse's mouth. The evidence says you have indeed been fooled by Randi.
(I sometimes wonder, are these forums a testing ground for the Turing Test..?)
Will the case of the water memory experiment do? That's why I raised it, after all. An actual example of scientists unable to see bias in their own work.
In another thread, I gave the case where I fooled myself in a listening test, hearing what I expected to hear. I don't regard that as hard evidence of anything, but it was quite a valuable little lesson for me, making me very wary of taking anecdotal evidence of anything at face value.
I am not sure what you (abraxalito) are claiming. I know very little about Randi. I strongly suspect there are areas of reality and human experience in which Randi and I would take opposite views, but to discuss this would take us well away from DIY audio! Let's just say that hardline rationalists sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Last edited:
Well if I'm claiming something I hope you'll pick me up on it. I hope that I'm doing science here in examining the evidence, but as you say, everyone's human (except CopperTop might be reaching the conclusion there's one exception to that). That's why we have forums.
Well if you can't tell us on 'Everything Else' then where else?
Your question was not which scientists cannot see their own bias, but a demand for evidence that scientists are not aware of their capacity to fool themselves. The water memory experiment is evidence of at least one occasion when 'scientists' have fooled themselves. We may not be certain which scientist it was that was fooling himself, but the contradictory results shows that one of them was!
Indeed so.
Where? To my knowledge I've asked questions, not 'demanded' anything but I'm already aware of people's (in general, not just scientists') capacity for self-delusion. So once again this looks like perceptual distortion. Is that beginning to sound like a common refrain perchance?
That's not an inclusive 'we' there - I'm aware that Maddox was, I'm unaware that JB was, which is why I said evidence for that would prove interesting.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.