cooper@pbsvax.dec.com (07/23/86)
In message <14680@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Matthew P. Wiener (weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU) says: >Topher has managed to extract falsehoods from my statements by twisting >my meanings. I wish to put back in what I was referring to. He then proceeds to vehemently and aggressively provide support for my position. This has occurred several times now. Am I totally failing to be clear? Or is Matthew simply assuming that nothing I say could possibly make sense so I must have meant the opposite of what I said? Or is it a bit of both? I'm going to try once again: 1) There are two distinct types of experimental "repetition" in science, or more accurately there is a continuum with two poles. 2) The first type is "strict replication". In strict replication the original experiment is duplicated, as accurately as possible on the basis of the published report. The function of this type of experiment is to support the belief that all factors relevant to producing the results are known. Ideally, strict replication is theory-free. It is a confirmation of a statement that if you do precisely thus and thus and thus such-and-such will result, irrespective of any interpretation of what those results mean. In practice, some kind of theory, justified or not, must be used to select those factors to be reported as being part of the experiment. Most elementary discussions of the philosophy of science (including college level courses for scientists) seem to discuss this type of repetition. *For*good*and*sufficient*reasons* strict replication is rarely done in most scientific fields and is published even less often. 3) The second type of experimental repetition is what I called "confirmation of conclusions." In this case the repetition is strongly guided by the conclusions or the interpretation given the results. The original experiment is used as a guide in setting up another experiment under different conditions. The experiment and the conditions may only be slightly different or may be radically different. The purpose of this type of repetition is to provide support for the belief that what seemed to have happened in the original experiment really did happen. 4) This whole discussion started when someone presented the tired stereotype of parapsychologists as unconcerned with reliability and repeatability. I countered this suggestion by pointing out that much more of the parapsychological literature was devoted to attempts at strict replication than most other fields. This was not meant to denigrate those other fields -- they operate under different conditions. It was only meant to demonstrate a concern for repeatability on the part of the parapsychological community. 5) Matthew attempted to show that there was a high rate of published replications by giving several examples. I used those examples to illustrate that we were talking about two different types of experimental repetition. Matthew objects to my "twisting his meanings" by talking about something different than he was. I intended no such thing. I was attempting to show that we were in fact talking about two different things. 6) The basic effects of parapsychology have been confirmed in literally thousands of well controlled experiments. What is lacking is a set of conditions under which psi effects occur consistently. That is, strict replicability still eludes us. What this means is that some of the conditions which are necessary for psi to occur are still unknown, or cannot generally be accurately produced or measured. This is a situation that parapsychology shares with *most* fields of science. Nobody calls meteorologists pseudoscientists because their predictions are frequently wrong. 7) Critics often base their criticism on parapsychology's lack of a "repeatable experiment". If there is any discussion of the point (usually there is not) it is made clear that what is being required is a strict replication. Frequently the demand is made that the experiment be repeatable by "anyone", apparently without regard to skill, training, talent, and access to subjects and other resources. This is a requirement frequently not met even in physics -- some physicists are known for there skill in performing experiments, while others are best kept to theory or experimental *design*. As we start dealing with biological systems, then higher animals and finally human subjects the requirements of personal skill become more and more important (and more and more openly discussed). When you realize that under the hypothesis being tested *double blind conditions are impossible*, the requirement becomes ludicrous. It can only be expected to be met if psi does not exist. 8) If Matthew feels, as he seems to, that strict replication is of secondary importance, he'll find me in complete agreement. He should be arguing with critics such as Flew, Hyman, Gardner and Marks. Matthew directs a number of specific questions at me. In case he didn't intend them to be rhetorical, I'll provide brief answers. >How do you draw the border between *exact* duplication and independent >confirmation? I don't, they are extremes on a continuum. One can frequently distinguish, however, whether the principal intent was to confirm specific results or specific conclusions. >There are only a few ways to find charm. In the past decade, they've been >used over and over again. (Or do you consider, for example, the use of el- >ectrons accelerated by method X to be different than electrons accelerated >by method Y?) Seems extremely unlikely to me. Much more likely to effect the outcome is such factors as the nature of the particle being used, the density of the beam, the intensity of magnetic/electrical fields being used to control it, whether the "target" is a counter-rotating beam of anti-particles or a a fixed target of aggregate matter, in the latter case the aggregate targets nature, plus many details of how the results are detected. >> The Michelson-Morley experiment may well >>have been replicated, I don't know, but what is being refered to is refined >>versions of the experiment being performed with different, more sensitive >>apparatus. > >So? Do you object? Even if the apparatus is of equal sensitivity, it >still is different, right? At this rate, you'll soon be able to say that >no experiments are ever replicated, since *sameness* is impossible across >time, or some such nonsense. Of course I don't object, just the contrary. As I said in the article you're quoting, pure "strict-replication" cannot be accomplished in practice. I don't attach any great importance to this, however. >Experimental claims of such medium range modifications have run around for >at least the last ten years or so. I have absolutely no idea why the Eot- >vos reanalysis in particular is getting so much prominence. I don't either (although I could make some guesses). What has this got to do with what we were discussing? Topher Cooper USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!pbsvax.dec.com!cooper INTERNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl.dec.com Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for them.