cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper DTN-225-5819) (02/04/86)
Matthew P. Wiener (weemba@brahms.UUCP) writes: >But because of the (unfortunate) track record of sloppiness in past >psi research, I will remain skeptical. And Dave Trissel ({seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!im4u!oakhill!davet) responds: >Considering the sloppiness of research in this area, alas this has been true. >It was realized about ten years ago that the parapsychologist would have to >clean up their act and self-police by rejecting the incompetents out of the >field. But such things are not easy to do. Sorry Dave, I'm going to have to disagree with you -- sort of. Parapsychology suffers from the problem that *anyone* may announce that they are a parapsychologist and/or conduct experiments which they do not have adequate training for. There are thus many people out there who are considered from outside the field (including by themselves) as being inside the field, but in reality are not. One common case of this is when people arrive on the scene from the "hard sciences" and announce that they are going to put things on a "scientific" basis. They then precede to repeat many of the same errors which have long since been recognized and avoided in parapsychology. Some of these people disappear after some embarrassing incident, some learn from their experience and "join" the field, and others continue on the periphery. So how does one distinguish people "really" in the field from those who are not? The same as in any other field: you look at where there articles are published. Articles published in sources juried by parapsychologists, such as the "Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research", the "European Journal of Parapsychology" or the "Journal of Parapsychology", can be considered to have been judged of interest to parapsychologists and therefore, in essence, to be parapsychology. If we restrict ourselves to these sources, I would say that parapsychology has a record of experimental tightness which few fields can match. This is not to say that no published parapsychology experimental reports are sloppy but only that no more of them are than in any other field. There is a constant awareness in the field that things must be kept tight. When someone enters the field from another field they find that the "paradigms" (in the sense of Kuhn) of the new field are different from what they are used to. They decide that this is the reason that the results have not been "accepted" by the scientific community. They send out a clarion call for reform. The hard scientists want all that sloppy stuff with "ill-defined" psychological variables eliminated, while the soft scientists want "more concern for the human angles" and less for all that "mechanistic stuff". This happens every few years. Currently, for example, Robert Jahn (Dean of Engineering at Princeton U.) is questioning, among other things, the use of multiple simultaneous analyses (it is not uncommon in parapsychology to get results like "ESP scores are positively correlated to intelligence in extroverts but negatively correlated in introverts"). His criticism is not that it is in any way formally incorrect, just that it is "sloppy": that's just not the way they do it in engineering. In reality, there is a room for (and need for) many different kinds of work. Frequently, as in any field, some work which is not the "tightest" possible gets published. This is because it is thought interesting even if it is not evidentially very strong. It may introduce a new experimental technique which needs, however, some refining. Or it may be suggesting of a new phenomenon. The experiment currently being discussed, as it happens, is in this latter category. The experiment was not actually conducted by Dr. Nash, but rather by some premed students under his supervision. The limitations of the procedures were carefully noted in the actual article. Unfortunately, such qualifications tend to get dropped in summaries such as the one Dave reprinted for us. If you believe that the anomalies in *all* parapsychological research are due to sloppy techniques, then there is nothing here to convince you otherwise. If, on the other hand you believe, on the basis of more tightly done experiments, that one or more unexplained phenomena are the cause of many of the anomalies, then this experiment suggests a possible new manifestation of those phenomena: "PK" influenced mutation. But it will take some better experiments to actually demonstrate this, even to parapsychologists. Topher Cooper USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper ARPA/CSNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for them.
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (02/06/86)
Keywords:Oh, no , not this shit again!!!!
x
Hey, all you net.sci readers:
This parapsych stuff was run through the wringer 8 months
ago in net.physics. It was hard work but we finally got the BS to
stop showing up. Let's not go through another cycle of clowns and
apologists wasting our time and net money "discussing" this "topic".
C'mon, everyone. Please drop this or put it into net.general ( :==>)
Darwin's Dad ( Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates)
{decvax,linus,ihnp4,ima,wjh12,wanginst}!bbncca!aoa!carl
{wjh12,mit-vax}!biomed!aoa!carl
54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140
617-864-0201x356
"Selmer MarkVI, Otto Link 5*, and VanDoren Java Cut."dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) (02/10/86)
In article <402@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: > This parapsych stuff was run through the wringer 8 months >ago in net.physics. It was hard work but we finally got the BS to >stop showing up. Let's not go through another cycle of clowns and >apologists wasting our time and net money "discussing" this "topic". I don't know about anyone else, but I was not around 8 months ago, and I am interrested in this topic. Parapsychology is getting around to being classified as an 'official' science (I think it should have been long ago) and thus should be allowed here (net.sci). If certain people don't like the discussions, they can always not read them. Gryphon
jlg@lanl.ARPA (Jim Giles) (02/10/86)
In article <192@ulowell.UUCP> dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) writes: >I don't know about anyone else, but I was not around 8 months ago, and I am >interrested in this topic. Parapsychology is getting around to being >classified as an 'official' science (I think it should have been long ago) >and thus should be allowed here (net.sci). > Gryphon Most researchers in the field of Parapsychology would be more careful than this. Even the most avid supporters of Paranormal phenomena agree that the main problem is lack of reproducable results and independent verification. Without this, there is no real evidence of a phenomena to study, much less any good way to begin studying it. I think this stuff should stay out of net.sci mainly because the only responsible researchers in the field are not on the net (or don't contribute anyway). This leaves only the lunatic fringe - and room for dogma on both sides. And THAT kind of discussion certainly doesn't belong here. Maybe on net.religeon or net.occult. (Is there a net.occult? Seems like the net gets into arguments like this all the time and something like net.occult would be a good way out.) J. Giles Los Alamos
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (02/10/86)
In article <192@ulowell.UUCP>, dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) writes: > In article <402@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: > > This parapsych stuff was run through the wringer 8 months > >ago in net.physics. [There follows a plea for silence on this topic.] > > I don't know about anyone else, but I was not around 8 months ago, and I am > interrested in this topic. Parapsychology is getting around to being > classified as an 'official' science (I think it should have been long ago) > and thus should be allowed here (net.sci). > Parapsychology has been "getting around" to be classified as an official science for over a hundred years. The progress made is not impressive to my jaundiced eye. On the other hand, the AAAS, in one of their sillier decisions, officially recognized it some years at the urging of Margaret Meade. Although attempts have been made to rescind that decision I believe it is still in force. That being the case I think its supporters have a case for discussing it in net.sci (although not in net.physics). If this seems too much for some people, then one could always grant it its own newsgroup i.e. net.para, just like net.astro, net.physics and net.origins ( :-) sort of). -- "These are not the opinions Ethan Vishniac of the administration of {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan the University of Texas, ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU but they are the opinions Department of Astronomy of your favorite deity, who University of Texas is in daily communication with me on this (and every other) topic.
dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) (02/20/86)
In article <954@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: >In article <192@ulowell.UUCP> dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) writes: >> Parapsychology is getting around to being >>classified as an 'official' science (I think it should have been long ago) >>and thus should be allowed here (net.sci). >> Gryphon > >I think this stuff should stay out of net.sci mainly because the only >responsible researchers in the field are not on the net (or don't >contribute anyway). This leaves only the lunatic fringe - and room for I don't consider myself a lunatic fringe, but... >dogma on both sides. And THAT kind of discussion certainly doesn't belong Agreed. >. Maybe on net.religeon or net.occult. (Is there a net.occult? Seems >like the net gets into arguments like this all the time and something like >net.occult would be a good way out.) I agree completly. That solves most flame problems. But, how do you go about getting an new net started...? Please, if it can be done, get one started. This makes many people happy. Thanx. Gryphon > >J. Giles >Los Alamos