colvin@mahler.llnl.gov (Mike Colvin) (07/23/88)
Has anyone read in the newsgroup read the article: "Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE" in the June 30 Nature on page 816? It's also discussed in an editorial entitled "When to Believe the Unbelievable" on page 787 of the same issue. The article reports an extremely weird result which would seen to have no sensible physical explaination. The researchers set out to find the fractional cell degranualtion at various antibody concentrations. They found that there was *no* level of dilution at which the fraction of cell degranulation went to zero. EVEN WHEN THEY DILUTED THE SOLUTION DOWN TO 1 x 10**120. Since Avagadro's number is only about 6 * 10**23, this means that there is not even a single antibody present in these solutions. Note that degranulation is a very specific reaction which does not occur spontaneously or in the presence of other proteins. To futher rule out contamination the diluted solution was run through an ultrafiltration system, but the filtrate still caused degranulation. Interestingly, this activity can be inactivated by freeze-thawing or heating the solution above 70 C. Of course the experiment has been rerun several times by 6 research groups in 4 countries using normal double blind procedures. The authors have no explaination but hypothesize that the antibody is somehow leaving its "imprint" on the water molecules, but this explaination is unsatisfactory for many reasons. Nature is sponsoring an overview committee to monitor repititions of this experiment. Anyway, I just wanted to point out this truly bizarre article and would like to hear what other people have to say about it. -Mike Colvin
jackson@esosun.UUCP (Jerry Jackson) (07/23/88)
This sounds related to Rupert Sheldrake's Hypothesis of Formative Causation -- Would anyone who knows more about Sheldrake's recent work care to comment on this experiment? (Briefly for anyone who hasn't heard of this work -- Sheldrake is a developmental biologist who has taken a radical approach to explaining morphogenesis -- He postulates the existence of 'morphogenetic fields' that influence the development of forms. For systems with a clear lowest energy state, the energetic considerations leave no room for the effects of these fields... That's why all hydrogen atoms look alike. In complex systems, however, there may be an enormous number of states with nearly equal energy -- this leaves some room for the morphogenetic fields to influence the time development of the system.. For instance, proteins have very distinct patterns in which they fold; so far, the rapid folding of identical proteins into identical shapes is very difficult to explain. Sheldrake suggests that the morpho. fields direct the developmental path of the protein molecules... A related suggestion is that crystals of a particular type should be easier to form after they have been formed in the past. Another suggestion is that an animal behavior may be easier to learn when many other animals have already learned it e.g. the 100th monkey. There is actually experimental evidence supporting this last conjecture that was arrived at when testing the Lamarckian inheritance hypothesis for rats. The idea of the test was to teach a subset of a group of rats a behavior then see if the descendants of the educated rats would perform better on the behavior without training -- The actual results did not support Lamarck (Big surprise :-). What did occur, however, made no sense until years later -- *all* the new rats performed better than the previous set. Hmm..) A caveat -- I know this sounds absurd... However, morphogenesis is such an incredibly difficult problem with no deep understanding in sight that it seems worthwile to consider unusual ideas. Until the standard explanations actually *explain*, I don't think someone should be discouraged from trying new approaches. BTW: Sheldrake seems to be far from a raving crackpot.. On the contrary, his book is very measured and careful to avoid glossing over difficulties or pretending his hypothesis is more than just that. In any case, it would be very nice to hear more from someone in the know. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jerry Jackson UUCP: seismo!esosun!jackson | | Geophysics Division, MS/22 ARPA: esosun!jackson@seismo.css.gov | | SAIC SOUND: (619)458-4924 | | 10210 Campus Point Drive | | San Diego, CA 92121 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
dd@beta.lanl.gov (Dan Davison) (07/23/88)
In article <10465@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, colvin@mahler.llnl.gov (Mike Colvin) writes: > > Has anyone read in the newsgroup read the article: "Human basophil > degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE" in > the June 30 Nature on page 816? It's also discussed in an editorial > entitled "When to Believe the Unbelievable" on page 787 of the same issue. > [much description deleted] > Anyway, I just wanted to point out this truly bizarre article and > would like to hear what other people have to say about it. I've been surprised by the lack of comment on the article in this newsgroup. I had to read the thing over 5 times before being comfortable with it. The extensive testing and reproducibiliy help a lot. This case appears to fall in one of two categories: (1) the famous "polywater" class, where some Russian scientists reported finding a state of water with very unusual properties, which eventually turned out to be contaminants. (2) A major paradigm breakdown. The latter would have impressively widespread consequences; my general feeling that any result that breaks that much physics and chemistry needs to be extremely carefully checked out. We will now have to endure years of extravagant homeopathic claims to the effect that mainline science now supports homeopathic theories; it may well turn out that they do, but a lot more evidence will have to be accumulated. This reminds me of the time (yes, Dizzy and Sam, I'm that old) when evidence was accumulating that DNA and RNA were not necessarily colinear. It seemed very unlikely, then just unlikely, then yeah maybe, then obviously true. Splicing, though *fit*; the current state of knowledge about the infinite-dilutibility of antibodies doesn't. -- dan davison/theoretical biology/t-10 ms k710/los alamos national laboratory los alamos, nm 875545/dd@lanl.gov (arpa)/dd@lanl.uucp(new)/..cmcl2!lanl!dd "I think, therefore I am confused"
mayo@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Bob Mayo) (07/23/88)
In article <10465@lll-winken.llnl.gov> colvin@mahler.llnl.gov.UUCP (Mike Colvin) writes:
]
] Has anyone read in the newsgroup read the article: "Human basophil
] degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE" in
] the June 30 Nature on page 816? It's also discussed in an editorial
] entitled "When to Believe the Unbelievable" on page 787 of the same issue.
] [...]
] The authors have no
] explaination but hypothesize that the antibody is somehow leaving its
] "imprint" on the water molecules, but this explaination is unsatisfactory
] for many reasons.
One thing which struck me as odd is that they aren't diluting with water.
See the "methods" section in Figure 1. The solution used for dilution
contains NaCl, KCl, HEPES, EDTA-Na4, glucose, heuman serum albumin (HSA),
and heparin). I don't know what all of these are, but it seems like a complex
organic soup to me.
I would think that no great leap is required to hypothesize
that the IgE anitserum catalyzed an as-yet-undiscovered reaction in this stuff.
And perhaps once the reaction gets going it doesn't really need IgE to be
around so dilution has no effect.
But the authors and nature hypothesize changes in the state of water molecules,
etc.. I am missing something? Shouldn't we look at the complex organic stuff
before hypothesizing more radical things such as changes in the state of water?
--Bob Mayo
P.S. I know nothing about immunology and biochemistry. Please correct me if
my statements are wrong.
<Sorry for the repost, if any. My article didn't appear on our machine so I
assume it was lost.>blm@cxsea.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (07/24/88)
Dan Davison (dd@beta.lanl.gov) writes: |In article <10465@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, colvin@mahler.llnl.gov (Mike Colvin) writes: |> Has anyone read in the newsgroup read the article: "Human basophil |> degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE" in |> the June 30 Nature on page 816? It's also discussed in an editorial |> entitled "When to Believe the Unbelievable" on page 787 of the same issue. |> [much description deleted] |> Anyway, I just wanted to point out this truly bizarre article and |> would like to hear what other people have to say about it. | |I've been surprised by the lack of comment on the article in this |newsgroup. I had to read the thing over 5 times before being |comfortable with it. The extensive testing and reproducibiliy |help a lot. Forgive my ignorance, but could someone give a quick summary of what the first paragraph above means? The whole discussion sounds interesting, but I don't know enough about biology or chemistry to understand why everyone's up in arms. -- Brian L. Matthews blm@cxsea.UUCP ...{mnetor,uw-beaver!ssc-vax}!cxsea!blm +1 206 251 6811 Computer X Inc. - a division of Motorola New Enterprises
robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) (07/26/88)
>They found that there was *no* level of dilution at which the fraction >of cell degranulation went to zero. EVEN WHEN THEY DILUTED THE SOLUTION >DOWN TO 1 x 10**120. Since Avagadro's number is only about 6 * 10**23, this >means that there is not even a single antibody present in these solutions. I'm not a biologist, but I know something about organic material. Isn't it possible that these antibodies are reproducing themselves in solution? Perhaps they're just splitting into smaller pieces. Maybe the degranulation can occur with only a small part of the orginal present. Why don't they try a better test for the presence of these antibodies, if that's what they think is actually there. Or, if it's *changed* the water, use a filter which is so small that ONLY water moelcules can go through. Just some thoughts on not believing the unbelievable. =Steve=
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (07/26/88)
In article <11063@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes: [Account of the results on antibody dilution from Beneviste's lab] > >I'm not a biologist, but I know something about organic material. Isn't it >possible that these antibodies are reproducing themselves in solution? Perhaps Well...no...that is I doubt it...that is to say, that would break more rules than the explanation they suggest...but, wouldn't that turn some heads (actually, it does not fit the data--see below). >Why don't they try a better test for the presence of these antibodies, if that's >what they think is actually there. Or, if it's *changed* the water, use a >filter which is so small that ONLY water moelcules can go through. > >Just some thoughts on not believing the unbelievable. >=Steve= Well Steve, you may not be a biologist, but you are a scientist (or you should be). Actually, the experiments you suggested were among the controls they did. You might like to read the paper for yourself, though the writing style makes it pretty hard going. They did pass it through a milipore filter and the activity did come through. They also ran it over a column and it came out in the void (buffer only) volume while the antibody would be retained in both cases. They establish also that sensitivity to heat and freeze- thawing of the dilute activity is different then that of the starting material (antibodies or ionophores, which also show the same effect). The thing having the effect in the dilute solution is NOT the antibody. As for what it is...the water idea is no less crazy then any other I have heard or thought of. In fact, the controls done by these people were about as thorough as I have ever seen. And, the experiments were repeated in 6 different labs. All of the easy "you-missed-this-obvious-point" explanations have been ruled out. Two things seem clear: 1.that the paper accurately reports a strange-but-true phenomenon unless there is a big hoax being perpetrated by the French on the uncivilised portion of the world; 2.there is almost certainly no hoax. Beneviste seems to HATE this result. One gets the impression that he really wishes there was be a simple explanation. He is not touting it as some great discovery. I don't think he believes it anymore than we do. Nature is planing a follow-up report in a couple of weeks. This will be based on investigations currently being conducted by a group of "experts." This group includes not only other immunologists but also "The Amazing Randi" (No joke, they really are sending him). I rather doubt Beneviste is sending secret messages to the cells through a radio transmitter, but, perhaps he can help. Beneviste is cooperating fully in the investigation (which is more than Uri Geller ever did). Oh well, there may be a missed control somewhere, but I doubt it. If I were of a different religious inclination, I would suggest that this is God's way of saying to us scientists "Hey, don't get cocky!" -tony
mayo@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Bob Mayo) (07/26/88)
In article <2444@cxsea.UUCP> blm@cxsea.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: >Forgive my ignorance, but could someone give a quick summary of what the >first paragraph above means? The whole discussion sounds interesting, Ultra condensed summary: Substance A causes effect Y on substance B. When substance A is diluted to the point where *none* of it remains, it still has effect Y on substance B. Experiment is repeated at other laboratories and with all conceivable controls, yielding the same results.
werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) (07/27/88)
The paper on Basophil degranulation by IgE at infinite dilutions
has already entered into the lexicon. In lab recently, after coming in from
a run and discovering the hall water fountain was broken, someone took a
quick drink of distilled water, smacked his lips, and when asked if it
hit the spot, responded, "Yep, that water could degranulate a basophil at
50 paces..."
--
Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4 years down, 3 to go)
werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine
(1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
"Man posesses limited intelligence, but alas, unlimited stupidity."ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (07/27/88)
> |In article <10465@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, colvin@mahler.llnl.gov (Mike Colvin) writes: > |> Has anyone read in the newsgroup read the article: "Human basophil > |> degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE" in > |> the June 30 Nature on page 816? It's also discussed in an editorial > |> entitled "When to Believe the Unbelievable" on page 787 of the same issue. > |> [much description deleted] > |> Anyway, I just wanted to point out this truly bizarre article and > |> would like to hear what other people have to say about it. > | I see in today's newspaper that an investigation by Nature discovered that there were at least two problems (fatal problems) with the laboratory protocol. First, the experimenters knew at all times which solutions were which (i.e. control and experiment) and this is well known to produce biased results. Second, the laboratory notebooks revealed a large number of cases that produced negative results but were not included in the statistics. In other words, the experimental setup allowed for unconcious bias, and the data reduction included a fair amount of concious bias. This is all supposed to come out in Nature in the near future. The author (Benveniste ?) is standing by the work and has denounced the investigation as sloppy and unprofessional. As with any truly startling result, the sensible thing is to believe it only when such questions have been cleared. Far firmer and more believable results have collapsed under examination. -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
dgary@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (D Gary Grady) (07/27/88)
It is claimed that a biologically active substance diluted in solution
retains its bilogical activity even when effectively diluted out of
existence. The author of the Nature paper suggests that the solution
has somehow retained a memory of its previous contents. Well, maybe.
I try to keep an open mind, but...
It seems to me there's a logical problem here. Suppose the results are
valid. Was the water used in these experiments somehow primordial
(i.e., was it perhaps created by burning hydrogen)? Otherwise, it would
seem, it might carry with it the memory of some past contaminants,
unless dionization or distillation produced aquatic amnesia..
Also, if the results are true, it bodes ill for wastewater treatment.
Once contaminated, always contaminated might be the rule, barring (say)
distillation or electolysis.
Where *do* homeopaths get their water, by the way?
--
D Gary Grady
(919) 286-4296
USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnetmike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) (07/27/88)
From this mornings NYT, July 27, 1988, page 7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report in Scientific Journal Is Held to Be Flawed
A team of investigators has concluded that a report published in the
journal Nature last month that seemed to defy the rules of physics was
based on scientifically unreliable experiments.
After spending a week in the French laboratory that astonished the
scientific world with the assertion that water, no matter how diluted,
seems to "remember" medicinal properties it once had, the
investigators concluded that the report's hypothesis was "as
unnecessary as it is fanciful."
The investigating team consisted of John Maddox, editor of the British
journal, which published the original report June 30 with expressions
of skepticism; Walter Stewart of the National Institutes of Health in
Bethesda, Md., an investigator of scientific fraud, and James Randi,
the magician, who has also worked to expose scientific fraud.
The team concluded that the report was based "chiefly on an extensive
series of experiments which are statistically ill-controlled, from
which no substantial effort has been made to exclude systematic error,
including observer bias, and whose interpretation has been clouded
by the exclusion of measurements in conflict with the claim."
...
The investigators wrote that, according to Dr. Benveniste, most of the
experiments that "worked" were conducted by one scientist at the
French laboratory and a co-author of the original report, Elizabeth
Davenas. Dr. Stewart said he believed that Dr. Davenas and other
researchers had allowed "wishful thinking" to influence their
interpretation of the data.
...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article also says that the full report of the team's investigation
will be published in this week's issue of Nature, along with a
rebuttal by the chief scientist in the original study, Jacques
Benveniste. Benveniste charged the investigators with "amateurism"
and compares the inquiry to the "Salem witch hunts".
--
Mike Coffin mike@arizona.edu
Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci. {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4}!arizona!mike
Tucson, AZ 85721 (602)621-4252eddy@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Sean Eddy) (07/27/88)
article <4520@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: >I see in today's newspaper that an investigation by Nature discovered >that there were at least two problems (fatal problems) with the >laboratory protocol. First, the experimenters knew at all times >which solutions were which (i.e. control and experiment) and >this is well known to produce biased results. Second, the laboratory >notebooks revealed a large number of cases that produced negative >results but were not included in the statistics. If the first part is true, someone is in big trouble. The Nature article describes an elaborate set of double (or triple, even?) blind experiments involving multiple experimenters and coded tubes. As for the second part, newspaper reporters may have a hard time accepting the fact that experiments quite often fail for reasons quite distinct from refutation of a hypothesis (for instance, the grad student performing the experiment had one too many cups of coffee that morning). Manipulation of a complex biological system can be more art then science at times. The ability to reproduce a positive result in biology can be much more telling than even a series of inexplicable experimental failures. (Not that I believe the result, you understand...) - Sean Eddy - Molecular/Cellular/Developmental Biology; U. of Colorado at Boulder - eddy@boulder.colorado.EDU !{hao,nbires}!boulder!eddy - - "Just as the locusts, once they are through with a field, have simplified - it horribly, could we not say that this is also true of some of the - great generalizations of biology?" - - biochemist Erwin Chargaff
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (07/27/88)
In article <4520@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: >I see in today's newspaper that an investigation by Nature discovered >that there were at least two problems (fatal problems) with the >laboratory protocol. First, the experimenters knew at all times >which solutions were which (i.e. control and experiment) and >this is well known to produce biased results. This does not sound right. I hate to suggest that you do someting radical like read the original paper, but they state in the paper that each initial tube was coded with two different codes by two different pairs of observers (not actually doing the experiment). They do point out that, not long after the experiments were begun, it was possible for the experimenter to tell which was which from the results. This is a problem that is hard to overcome, believe me. Even if someone else labels your samples in code, the experimental sample can have an appearance so distict that you can tell which it is. From that point on, you know which tube is which. >Second, the laboratory >notebooks revealed a large number of cases that produced negative >results but were not included in the statistics. This could be a big problem; or it could be that it does not work all the time. Do your expermints work all the time? Unless you have never tossed a data point, don't be too quick to judge. But, this requires some explanation. >This is all supposed to come >out in Nature in the near future. The author (Benveniste ?) is >standing by the work and has denounced the investigation as sloppy >and unprofessional. > >As with any truly startling result, the sensible thing is to believe it >only when such questions have been cleared. No argument there. I am a bit surprised that someone who seems to be proud of his skepticism has assumed that "the Amazing Randi" and Co. have the definitive, final word on the accuracy of a scientific work. What did they have to say about the fact that 6 independent labs got the same result? Or, does that mot matter? > I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas > I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan > there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU > - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Let's wait until all the data are in--I don't think they are yet. -tony
ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (07/28/88)
In article <2301@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) writes: > In article <4520@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: > >I see in today's newspaper that an investigation by Nature discovered > >that there were at least two problems (fatal problems) with the > >laboratory protocol. First, the experimenters knew at all times > >which solutions were which (i.e. control and experiment) and > >this is well known to produce biased results. > > This does not sound right. I hate to suggest that you do someting radical > like read the original paper, but they state in the paper that each initial > tube was coded with two different codes by two different pairs of observers > (not actually doing the experiment). They do point out that, not long after > the experiments were begun, it was possible for the experimenter to tell > which was which from the results. This is a problem that is hard to overcome, > believe me. Even if someone else labels your samples in code, the experimental > sample can have an appearance so distict that you can tell which it is. > From that point on, you know which tube is which. I have read the original paper. My statement was based on the article in the NY Times. I am aware of the conflict between the two. I don't see any way for me to judge who is telling the truth except by the credibility of the sources, in this case a group of fairly credible people on all sides. > > >Second, the laboratory > >notebooks revealed a large number of cases that produced negative > >results but were not included in the statistics. > > This could be a big problem; or it could be that it does not work all the time. > Do your expermints work all the time? Unless you have never tossed a > data point, don't be too quick to judge. > But, this requires some explanation. I'm a theorist. My experiments never work (or they always do) :-) I have also listened to a large number of very impressive experimental talks whose results have evaporated in subsequent years. I try to be both slow to believe and slow to disbelieve any particular result. > > >This is all supposed to come > >out in Nature in the near future. The author (Benveniste ?) is > >standing by the work and has denounced the investigation as sloppy > >and unprofessional. > > > >As with any truly startling result, the sensible thing is to believe it > >only when such questions have been cleared. > > No argument there. I am a bit surprised that someone who seems to be proud > of his skepticism has assumed that "the Amazing Randi" and Co. have > the definitive, final word on the accuracy of a scientific work. > What did they have to say about the fact that 6 independent labs got the > same result? Or, does that mot matter? I never said that the Amazing Randi has had the last word. I implied his criticisms need to be convincingly answered. Surely this is a modest request. As for the independent labs, again there seems to be conflicting information. The investigation team from Nature ascribed almost all the positive results to a single researcher working in two different labs. > Let's wait until all the data are in--I don't think they are yet. They never will be. However, I remain quite willing to alter my stance in light of further information. F i l l e r F o r t h e machine -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
dkhusema@faui44.UUCP (Dirk Husemann) (07/28/88)
From article <2263@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, by pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier): > [A lot of stuff deleted ...] > ... > > Nature is planing a follow-up report in a couple of weeks. This will be based > on investigations currently being conducted by a group of "experts." > This group includes not only other immunologists but also "The Amazing > Randi" (No joke, they really are sending him). I rather doubt Beneviste is > sending secret messages to the cells through a radio transmitter, but, > perhaps he can help. Beneviste is cooperating fully in the investigation > (which is more than Uri Geller ever did). At the begining of the week I read the results of this in the papers here (Sueddeutsche Zeitung). The publisher of Nature was reported as being really rejective about Beneviste's work now. Beneviste himself was quoted with a rather low opinion of the investigators. What I can't understand is why they sent it those people as in- vestigators in the first place. After all, what *is* Nature, the Sun (Na- tional Enquirer) of the sciences? At least it seems like a pretty weird practise to send in a *magician* ("The Amazing Randi") to investigate an issue which has been verified by other labs also ... But - after all, I'm *not* a biologist either ... ------------------ Smile, tomorrow will be worse! ------------- Business: Dirk Husemann Home: Dirk Husemann Friedrich-Alexander University Aufsess-Str. 19 Erlangen-Nuremberg D-8520 Erlangen Comp.Science Dep. IMMD IV West Germany Martensstrasse 1 +49 9131 302036 D-8520 Erlangen West Germany +49 9131 857908 email: dkhusema@immd44.informatik.uni-erlangen.de or: {pyramid,unido}!fauern!faui44!dkhusema ------------------ Did I say smile? Forget it! ---------------- Disclaimer: The opinions, views, statements, ..., expressed here are NOT those of the university nor those of the student body as a whole. In fact, they're mine! --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Oh well, there may be a missed control somewhere, but I doubt it. > If I were of a different religious inclination, I would suggest that this > is God's way of saying to us scientists "Hey, don't get cocky!" > > -tony
lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) (07/28/88)
In article <492@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >I found the data on the Amazing Randi's investigation of the Nature article >unfortunate and unsurprising. >Randi already "knows" that nothing unusual could ever happen. He is no >scientist, nor does he have the spirit of the true scientific investigator, in >my opinion, which is a committment to discover the truth, whatever it be. >Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge >Institute for Research in Metapsychology >950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Well, I have seen Randi speak, and the first thing he pointed out was that he is not a scientist, he is a magician. The next thing he pointed out was that being a magician is more useful training for uncovering many of the more common ways of faking supernatural phenomena than being a scientist, because magicians learn all the tricks, whereas scientists, by and large, expect people to have honest intentions. Randi has been kept busy just uncovering such frauds, and the pervasiveness of them puts an extra burden on anyone doing legitimate research into such areas. That isn't Randi's fault, however, but the fault of those who uncritically accept such claims, and those who exploit them. -- Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9, UUCP ames!lamaster NASA Ames Research Center ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov Moffett Field, CA 94035 Phone: (415)694-6117
sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (07/29/88)
I found the data on the Amazing Randi's investigation of the Nature article unfortunate and unsurprising. Randi already "knows" that nothing unusual could ever happen. He is no scientist, nor does he have the spirit of the true scientific investigator, in my opinion, which is a committment to discover the truth, whatever it be. Instead, he is committed to debunking. He commits the same error as he imagines to be committed by those he attacks -- starting out from a determination to prove a particular point and then twisting the facts to fit that viewpoint. He, and his fellow "CSICOP" professional debunkers, are, in my view, doing the scientific community a disservice by intimidating and ridiculing those who have unusual ideas that could lead to major breakthroughs in unimagined areas. Perhaps 99.9999 % of these wild ideas are fallacious, but if some are not and are not being given a fair trial because of the negative PR generated by CSICOP, then we could be missing out on some pretty exciting advances. It's like the mutation theory of evolution -- perhaps 99.9999 % of mutations are lethal or contra-survival, but if we took steps to eliminate all mutation altogether, what would happen to evolution? Fallacious ideas -- mainstream or otherwise -- are eventually discovered in the course of unbiased, dispassionate investigation. We do not need a special "thought police" to protect us from ourselves. I do think that a claim that lays waste to a useful scientific schema requires a higher standard of proof than a claim that is compatible with that schema. A certain conservatism is beneficial. But the possibility of error in the received schema must always be considered to be there, for a true scientist. -- -------------------- Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301
david@mirror.TMC.COM (David Chesler) (07/29/88)
In article <492@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >I found the data on the Amazing Randi's investigation of the Nature article >unfortunate and unsurprising. > >Randi already "knows" that nothing unusual could ever happen. He is no >scientist, nor does he have the spirit of the true scientific investigator, in >my opinion, which is a committment to discover the truth, whatever it be. >Instead, he is committed to debunking. He commits the same error as he >imagines to be committed by those he attacks -- starting out from a >determination to prove a particular point and then twisting the facts to fit >that viewpoint. He, and his fellow "CSICOP" professional debunkers, are, in my >view, doing the scientific community a disservice by intimidating and >ridiculing those who have unusual ideas that could lead to major breakthroughs I have read the Skeptical Inquirer, the publication of CSICOP. In general they bring Randi in to debunk magicians, and as an excellent magician and mentalist he is very quick to point out sleight of hand where someone claims e.g. telekinesis. Other writers debunk various legends: spontaneous human combustion (several specific reported instances diagnosed as fat drunks falling on candles) or specific alien visitations. They try their best not to work on principles, but only specific acts. If a scientific truth can withstand the test of reproducibility, CSICOP will accept it, but too often we are faced with legends, half-truth and fraud. The author's of the Nature article expressed their own disbelief. Who better to clear or condemn the experiment than the "Scientific Method Police"? Their charter talks about a priori beliefs. They do have prejudices which are ocassionally observed in their articles (only when they debunk things I still believe :-)) but in general they are incredibly dry and methodical, certainly not intimidating and ridiculing. When they claim something is bad science, or fraud, they provide their evidence. ---- David Chesler david@prism.TMC.COM {mit-eddie, pyramid, harvard!wjh12, cca, datacube}!mirror!david Mirror Systems Cambridge, MA 617-661-0777, x170 "He may drive a fancy car, but he sure ain't no cherry picker."
kdo@edsel (Ken Olum) (07/29/88)
In article <492@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >Randi already "knows" that nothing unusual could ever happen. He is >no scientist, nor does he have the spirit of the true scientific >investigator, in my opinion, which is a committment to discover the >truth, whatever it be. Instead, he is committed to debunking. He >commits the same error as he imagines to be committed by those he >attacks -- starting out from a determination to prove a particular >point and then twisting the facts to fit that viewpoint. He, and his >fellow "CSICOP" professional debunkers, are, in my view, doing the >scientific community a disservice by intimidating and ridiculing ... Why do you say that Randi isn't committed to the truth? Every time he goes to investigate some claim of paranormal phenomena the claim turns out false, but perhaps that's because they are actually all false, rather than because Randi is biased. The debunkings of CSICOP have always seemed correct to me -- do you think that they are "twisting the facts" to accomplish their debunking? Also I don't understand how CSICOP is intimidating people -- their techniques usually seem pretty straightforward. I agree that CSICOP ridicules people with paranormal claims, and probably they shouldn't do this. On the other hand, the hundreds of deliberate hoaxes in this field do tend to discredit its proponents. As Hugh Lamaster says in another posting, Randi is not setting out to be a scientist. I believe his role is to check for cheating and self-deception -- to throw things out that are bogus, rather than to search for the truth. As long as he only debunks things that are actually bunk, this is an important service. If the Nature article research is not bunk, then Randi should not be able to debunk it. > ... those who have unusual ideas that could lead to major breakthroughs >in unimagined areas. Unusual ideas are dirt cheap. There's no shortage of people who have unusual ideas, and those who are unwilling to research them scientifically are worse than useless to any possible breakthrough. Ken Olum
gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) (07/29/88)
In article <492@metapsy.UUCP>, sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: > I found the data on the Amazing Randi's investigation of the Nature article > unfortunate and unsurprising. > > Randi already "knows" that nothing unusual could ever happen. He is no > scientist, nor does he have the spirit of the true scientific investigator, in > my opinion, which is a committment to discover the truth, whatever it be. > ..... > He, and his fellow "CSICOP" professional debunkers, are, in my > view, doing the scientific community a disservice by intimidating and > ridiculing those who have unusual ideas that could lead to major breakthroughs > in unimagined areas. Perhaps 99.9999 % of these wild ideas are fallacious, but > if some are not and are not being given a fair trial because of the negative PR > generated by CSICOP, then we could be missing out on some pretty exciting > advances. This is incorrect. I agree that some super large percentage of these ideas are bogus. And how much time would be spent pursuing 999,999 bogus (and often fradulent, in fact) claims, time which couldn't be spent pursuing valid claims? And what about support for science from the public, gvmnt, universitys, when lots of effort is spent on stuff which is garbage? It's very valuable to detect and discard bogosity as soon as possible. The fact is, nearly all such claims are nonsense, and the most efficient thing to do to advance science is to treat them just that way: "almost certainly nonsense." As someone (forget who) once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". You disagree with this tenent; you claim that extraordinary claims should be accepted on the basis of "ordinary" proofs, extraordinary claims that as other posters have pointed out, would throw a monkey wrench into practially all fields of physical and organic chemistry. Sending James Randi was a completely appropriate thing to do. Come on, Sarge, use your diagnostic talents: Here you have this *extraordinary* claim. It can be explained three different ways: 1) it's true 2) the experimenters fucked up accidentally 3) fraud Of the three, you yourself admit that #1 is pretty damn unlikely. And #2 is less likely because the experimenters claim that they used great care and replicated the experiment - it's not a 'research note' by someone who is getting anomolous results from dirty glassware. So #3 has to loom big in your mind. Fraud happens on a daily basis in the scientific world. There are many many examples of key scientific studies that were fraudulent. Some famous twin studies come to mind, and the guy who injected ink into mice to make their coats turn colours. Given the facts of this case, fraud is a very very plausible hyphothesis, and Randi is an expert at detecting fraud. Scientists usually think that they're too smart to be defrauded, and yet they've been shown, time and again, to be easy marks. (There was a case of a legitimate scientist who was doing ESP research. Randi offered to vet his protocol to protect against fraud, but he said, "no, no one will be able to fool me". Randi explicitly warned him against magicians and conjurers. Then Randi had a couple of teenage magicians enroll as subjects, and they EVEN LISTED THEIR OCCUPATIONS AS MAGICIANS on the forms they filled out. They then proceeded to run this guy around in circles, with tricks that seem to us, when we read about them, as trivial and obvious. After this guy announced his amazing findings, Randi's cohorts revealed themselves. In some of the cases, the magicians even had their own video tapes of them pulling the tricks. I heard on the radio the French scientist bitching about Randi being there, him saying indignantly, "They were *looking* for fraud." Damn right they were. No appologies. The odds of their being fraud are 1000 times greater than the odds of the result being correct. If I were the experimenter, I'd realize this and not be offended. I'd say, "there's no fraud, so let them look." Nobody has every produced even a semi-plausable argument that Randi lies or makes up evidence of fraud. If he can't find any, he'll say so. > It's like the mutation theory of evolution -- perhaps 99.9999 % of > mutations are lethal or contra-survival, but if we took steps to eliminate all > mutation altogether, what would happen to evolution? You've got it all wrong. The issue is not to kill - to ignore heritical ideas. That would be easy. Circular file the paper. Forget those guys. Don't send Randi to france, just say "it ain't so because I say so." Since they DID send an investigative team, it shows that they WEREN'T discarding wild ideas. They were just testing them to make sure that time and money and effort wasn't wasted on a wild goose chase, which history shows us is nearly always the case. > Fallacious ideas -- > mainstream or otherwise -- are eventually discovered in the course of unbiased, > dispassionate investigation. We do not need a special "thought police" to > protect us from ourselves. No thought police here. As per my previous paragraph. This isn't the church saying "we don't want to hear it", this is just some guys saying "we wanna strip search you because your claim is so extraordinary." > I do think that a claim that lays waste to a useful scientific schema requires > a higher standard of proof than a claim that is compatible with that schema. A > certain conservatism is beneficial. But the possibility of error in the > received schema must always be considered to be there, for a true scientist. Exactly right. So where's your beef? Such a wild claim needed to meet a really high standard. And that means inspection for fraud, going over everything with a fine tooth comb, etc., etc. To sum up, the fact that this effort was taken shows that the possibility of error in a received schema was considered, you betcha. Otherwise, why waste your time? And if your complaint is that the investgator's report said, "invalid experiment", then YOU'RE the one who is denying facts and data in favor of your schema, because you're not arguing that the investigation was done poorly, or that they came to their conclusion incorrectly, you're just saying that they done wrong to investigate and conclude "bullshit". > -- > -------------------- > Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge > Institute for Research in Metapsychology > 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Gordon Letwin Microsoft
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (07/29/88)
In article <4520@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: > >I see in today's newspaper that an investigation by Nature discovered >that there were at least two problems (fatal problems) with the >laboratory protocol. [...] > The author (Benveniste ?) is >standing by the work and has denounced the investigation as sloppy >and unprofessional. [...] > >-- > I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas > I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan > there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU > - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU This is funny. That denial is worded almost identically to the one given by [something] Methodist University [something] in the Daily Free Press (the B.U. paper) about a report one of _its_own_ comittees gave which confirmed reports of much unprofessionalism in the B.U. School of Theology. It seems those hoping for a biased result are in the same groove when it comes to supporting thair suspect actions. Or it could be E.S.P. --Blair
ayermish@athena.mit.edu (Aimee Yermish) (07/29/88)
It's extremely unlikely that the antibodies would reproduce themselves, considering that they don't have the machinery around to do it with. I don't know enough about the structure of the molecules involved to answer the splitting issue, but I will suggest that if you're diluting to 10**120, whether you started with 100 molecules or 500 molecules is really pretty immaterial. I vote for a combination of some loosening up by the organic gunk and some mechanical shear provided by the vortexing (they did say vigorous, right?), will have to really pick at their protocols in my copious free time. It would be really good to find something that answers the IgG control... If they filtered it such that only water molecules could get through, and the results turned out believable again, don't you think *someone* would suggest that they filtered out the somehow changed water molecules that were responsible for the effect in the first place. (grin) --Aimee ------------------------------------------------------------------ Aimee Yermish ayermish@athena.mit.edu MIT couldn't care less about anything I say. (as long as I finish that last paper...)
eddy@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Sean Eddy) (07/29/88)
In article <1653@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) writes: > (...) > 3) fraud > >... So #3 has to >loom big in your mind. Fraud happens on a daily basis in the scientific >world. There are many many examples of key scientific studies that >were fraudulent. > >Given the facts of this case, fraud is a very very plausible hyphothesis... I have to take exception to this. Fraud may occur in science (although I would question the sanity of someone who were to commit fraud on *this* scale), but the whole business of science is based on truth. Fraud is a monstrous offense. Accordingly, one does not go about accusing a scientist of fraud simply because some results are unbelievable. I should prefer shouting "rape" at a priest to shouting "fraud" at a scientist. It may be that Benveniste's results are not always reproducible. Dealing with mammalian cells (especially immune system cells) is tricky; Benveniste has explained that the staining procedure used is delicate. Personally, I would have great difficulty reproducing a delicate experiment with some aggressive debunker hanging over my shoulder saying, "you know, if this screws up, I'm gonna make a fool of you in every newspaper in the world..." Perhaps we should wait until other scientists can or cannot reproduce the result. After all, that's the way science is supposed to work. - Sean Eddy - Molecular/Cellular/Developmental Biology; U. of Colorado at Boulder - eddy@boulder.colorado.EDU !{hao,nbires}!boulder!eddy - - "God give me unclouded eyes and freedom from haste. God give me quiet and - relentless anger against all pretense and all pretentious work and all - work left slack and unfinished. God give me a restlessness whereby I may - neither sleep nor accept praise till my observed results equal my - calculated results or in pious glee I discover and assault my error. - God give me strength not to trust in God!" - - Sinclair Lewis, in _Arrowsmith_
logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118) (07/29/88)
In article <492@metapsy.UUCP>, sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: > [Randi] is committed to debunking. This may or may not be true, but your claim that he twists facts to fit his own notions -- requires substantiation. > We do not need a special "thought police" Debunkers, as distasteful as we may find them, are not police because they have no coercive power. If you don't like what they say, don't listen to them. The effect of debunkers, to the disapproval of their targets, is to scare away money and students. Both of these are valuable resources. I think it is always in the interest of these individuals to have access to all sides of an argument. To suppress one side or the other would lead to stagnation or quackery. True science has a tendency to win in the long run. Astronomy triumphed over tourture. I think modern "theories" can handle a little debunking. - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - {...rutgers!dayton, ...amdahl!ems, ...uunet!rosevax!mmm} !viper!ns!logajan -
diaz@aecom.YU.EDU (Dizzy Dan) (07/29/88)
Look, these degranulation results with Beneviste's infinitely diluted
antibody are certainly funky. What's just as funky are the explanations
people will come up with when such a mystery arises.
X-ray diffraction of polypeptides and polynuclotides has shown that
water molecules associated with amino acids and nucleotides will often
order themselves in a regular pattern, detectable using
crystallographic methods. Such ordered water can also be seen with
nuclear magnetic resonance. Such ordered molecules are either directly
in contact with a macromolecular component or another water which is
itself associated with the protein or nucleic acid. In all cases, such
ordered water shells are no more than 1-2 molecules thick to my
knowledge. Despite the great electrostatic fields generated by
macromolecules they usually do not influence the structure of water more
than a few Van der waals radii beyond their surfaces.
What I'm leading to is the fact that aside from its association with
solutes and self-association in the solid phase, water usually takes on
a random structure. If we've got some water "ghost" of the
immunoglobulin degranulating the basophils then how did we get it? The
structure of the antibody is presumably complementary to the structure
of its binding site on the surface antibodies on the basophil. So first
we have to have an ordered water matrix which is complementary to the
degranulating antibody, right? We then have to make a complementary
ordered matrix of this first impression in order to regenerate the
antibody combining site of the degranulating antibody. Sounds as
complicated as protein synthesis to me! We've got some serum albumin
and salts in the diluent. Are these components sufficient to induce
this primary and secondary antibody impression duplication system?
What I wonder is whether whatever is degranulating the basophils is
working by the same mechanism as the antibody. Before we start this
physically and biochemically dubious game of postulating ordered water
ghosts, we'd better find out whether the observed degranulation has
anything to do with the surface antibodies on the basophil. If there's
some ordered water matrix that mimics the antibody combining site then
it seems to me that this ghost should bind to an Fab fragment of the
antibody on the basophil. If we study the binding of water by
diffraction or NMR we should see something different when using first
deionized water and secondly infinitely diluted antibody solution.
My guess is that it's all a curious artifact we'll all be telling our
graduate students about in a few years.
--
dn/dx Dept Molecular Biology diaz@aecom.yu.edu
Dizzy Dan Al Einstein's Med School Big Bad Bronx, NYzeus@zapodid.aero.org (Dave Suess) (07/30/88)
In article <492@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >Randi already "knows" that nothing unusual could ever happen. He is no >scientist, nor does he have the spirit of the true scientific investigator, in >my opinion, which is a committment to discover the truth, whatever it be. >... Where did Randi say that? How can one already "know" what Randi already "knows"? Is this opinion about Randi's spirit based on this homeopathy experiment flap, or on some past opinion? >Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge >Institute for Research in Metapsychology I'm not a scientist, "psientist," nor a magician. I respect Randi, but I have a job that deals with science, so perhaps I am biased toward things known to be useful. Dave Suess - zeus@aerospace.aero.org
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (07/30/88)
In article <1653@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) writes: >In article <492@metapsy.UUCP>, sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: > > > > Randi already "knows" that nothing unusual could ever happen. He is no > > scientist, nor does he have the spirit of the true scientific investigator, in > >The fact is, nearly all such claims are nonsense, and the most efficient thing >to do to advance science is to treat them just that way: "almost certainly >nonsense." As someone (forget who) once said, "extraordinary claims > >Sending James Randi was a completely appropriate thing to do. Come on, Having around a professional "debunker" such as the Amazing Randi is a good thing, in general. But we must be careful that, as someone else has pointed out, we do not let the skeptics do what they are claiming the scientists are doing: allowing a bias to influence their interpretation of the result. Randi is qualified for detecting out-and-out fraud, he is really not qualified to determine how well an honest experiment was done. That is why he was not the only one on the investigative committee. I think few of us thought Benveniste was forging his results. Who would be so crazy? From the NY Times article however, it seemed as though their was a direct contradiction between the paper and the investigation, namely, whether the experiments were done blind or not. If the experiments were truly not done blind and coded as stated in the paper, then this is fraud. But, before jumping to this accusation, we should consider that this is a disagrement reguarding what "blind" is. The authers point out that, even though the tubes were coded prior to dilution and experimentation, the experimentors were able to discern which tubes were which as soon as they began to assay. The article also points out that not all the trials worked and these were not included in the paper. It would bother me if, in some trials, the controls showed activity, but that the activity was not always detectable does not bother me at all. I don't know about you, but my notebook is full of trials that didn't work. There is an old joke-set of "translations" to assist a person reading a scientific paper. It includes: "the phrase: 'results of a typical experiment are shown below...' should be read as 'results of the only experiment that actually worked are shown below....'" As I said in a previous posting, unless you have never tossed a data point yourself, don't be too quick to judge. By now, most of you probably think I believe the result. That is not true. I have found no reason to toss it away as bogus. Until then, it warrents our consideration. We cannot toss out a result simply because we don't want to believe it, or because there is no place for it in our current world view. The investigators seemed to be hunting for any reason to disreguard the result. If the points raised in the Times article are the best they can do, I would say Benveniste is vindicated. Even if Benveniste failed to report that the activity could not always be detected and even if they often figured out which tube was which halfway through the experiment (presumably, they could do this because there IS something going on that is reproducible), the result must be considered. There is one bit of information published in a local paper here that concerns me as to motives and the possibility of fraud. It seems that two scientists in Benveniste's lab are also Homeopathic Doctors and the lab recieves funding from some group looking to support Homeopathy. The first bit of information was also in a "Science" article. Has anyone more data on this? In this economy, one can hardly be faulted from taking any money offered. But, it does trouble me a bit. I am aware of the fact that many "startling results" have turned out to be horse-pucky. We must also remember that the current list of Nobel Laureates includes many people who used to be crazy. People who proposed such absurdities as: genes can transpose from one site in the DNA to another, when everybody *knew* DNA had to be more stable; or that RNA can be used as a template to make DNA, when everybody *knew* the central dagma of molecular biology says DNA-->RNA-->Protein; or that distance and time are not absolutes but dependent on where you are and how fast you are going, which was far too absurd for almost any logical person to consider. Anyway, I guess I am a raving moderate. > >And if your complaint is that the investgator's report said, "invalid >experiment", then YOU'RE the one who is denying facts and data in favor >of your schema, because you're not arguing that the investigation was >done poorly, or that they came to their conclusion incorrectly, you're >just saying that they done wrong to investigate and conclude "bullshit". > > >Gordon Letwin > Microsoft And if you decide that the Amazing Randi's word is final and absolute, YOU'RE the one letting bias affect your decision--you accept his word because it fits your world view better. Where is your skepticism now? Is it not possible that these investigators allowed their biases to influence their result? What Bnveniste did not like about them "Looking for fraud" is that they seemed to be convinced it was there before they started--they were looking for fraud when they should have been looking for truth. What would you say if the investigators claimed that Benveniste, in the course of his experiments, was "Looking for support of Homeopathy." ? I suspect that would make you think they were biased. -tony
dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) (07/30/88)
The fact that B. reacted to the debunking team by attacking their knowledge of biology is to me quite damning. Pseudoscientists often defend their work by personal attacks on critics. That Randi is a magician is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. I don't care if they used a witch doctor; what matters is that they spotted flaws in B.'s methodology. How they were spotted is transparent to the user. Nature should not have accepted this paper. By doing so, it has given homeopathy undeserved recognition, and has tarnished its own reputation. In the unlikely event the findings are not the result of error or fraud, publication in a lesser journal would have sufficed. Doing so would not have attracted as much media attention. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Record one "yes" vote for establishing a Nobel Booby Prize.)
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (07/30/88)
In article <19778@cornell.UUCP> dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) writes: >The fact that B. reacted to the debunking team by attacking their >knowledge of biology is to me quite damning. Pseudoscientists often >defend their work by personal attacks on critics. > >That Randi is a magician is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. I don't care if >they used a witch doctor; what matters is that they spotted flaws >in B.'s methodology. How they were spotted is transparent to the user. > Let me see if I get this straight. You are saying that: 1. A person's qualifications have nothing to do with whether his oppinion should be believed; and 2. Since honest people never object to being accused, the fact that Benveniste got defensive means he must be guilty. Hmmm. You have an interesting mind. What I and others are suggesting is that: 1. the investigators are not without bias; and 2. The "flaws" to which they point seem, if I have understood correctly, to be trivial. The eperiments did not always produce an activity after dilution and the experimentors were able to discern which tubes were which. So what? Frankly, I would be more leary of the honesty of the researchers if the notebooks showed that the procedure *always* worked. And, keeping an experiment blind is very dificult when the experimental samples behave differently from the controls. At least the experimentors acknowledge that the "blind" nature of the experiments could not be maitained. >Nature should not have accepted this paper. By doing so, it has >given homeopathy undeserved recognition, and has tarnished its >own reputation. In the unlikely event the findings are not the result >of error or fraud, publication in a lesser journal would have >sufficed. Doing so would not have attracted as much media attention. > > Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu > (Record one "yes" vote for establishing a Nobel Booby Prize.) If the results are true (which I do not yet believe), they represent one of the most important findings in recent history. Why should they be put in a lesser journal? If true, they warrent media attention. In the unlikely event that the results do represent a biologically important phenominon, the question Nature will have to face is: why did they sit on an important discovery for 2 years simply because it did not fit the current conventional wisdom. There would be books written about how Benveniste was persecuted by the establishment because he dared to speak the truth. Don't believe me? Look at some history of science books. I think Nature showed about the correct level of restraint. They had it reviewed by several competent scientists (who are far more familiar with scientific method than Randi...but I forgot, you don't think qualifications and experience have anything to do with credibility). They had the experimentors do many sets of controls and move the experiment into independent labs. The experimentors responded to every criticism the reviewers had. You cannot call someone a liar simply because what they are saying is unbelievable. What possible grounds could they have for denying the paper publication? You seem to forget (if indeed you ever knew) that the perpose of publication is to get scientific work out in community of scientists so that it can be tested, criticised and, perhaps, explained. -tony
dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (07/30/88)
In article <575@faui44.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> dkhusema@faui44.UUCP (Dirk Husemann) writes: >From article <2263@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, by pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier): > After all, what *is* Nature, the Sun (Na- >tional Enquirer) of the sciences? At least it seems like a pretty weird >practise to send in a *magician* ("The Amazing Randi") to investigate an >issue which has been verified by other labs also ... > I think my source for this is Canadian radio, but I recall that "The Amazing Randi" is a leading (founding?) member of SICOP (Society for the Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal"), and has a terrific record of exposing hoaxes involving mediums (media??), hauntings, spoon-bendings, etc. I think he is well qualified to investigate experimental methods, possible biases, etc. Any SICOP members read this group? (BTW, SICOP publishes The Skeptical Enquirer.) dmark@joey.cs.buffalo.edu
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/30/88)
In article <575@faui44.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> dkhusema@faui44.UUCP (Dirk Husemann) writes: >At least it seems like a pretty weird practise to send in a *magician* >("The Amazing Randi") to investigate an issue which has been verified by >other labs also ... It not only seems like a sensible thing to do to me, I wish they had done some investigation like that before publishing such an article. I seem to recall that "polywater" was also verified by other labs.
werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) (07/31/88)
In article <492@metapsy.UUCP>, sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: > I found the data on the Amazing Randi's investigation of the Nature article > unfortunate and unsurprising. > > Randi already "knows" that nothing unusual could ever happen. He is no Actually, Randi's only assumption was that "all known laws of physics are valid." Even Beneviste admits that the results of his Basophil degranulation experiments cannot be explained by known laws of physics, so we are left with four explanations: 1. New laws of physics. 2. Novel extrapolations from old laws, which is the route Beneviste took when he tried to explain the experiments by long-lived Hydrogen bonds. Hey, it is a little known fact that there is no accepted model for the structure of liquid water -- all models are poor extrapolations from the structure of solid ice, so this is as good as any other model, if it stands the test of time. 3. Artifact 4. Fraud James Randi's place on the investigating committee is to rule out (3) and/or (4). Some people give him hell for that, but let's face it, most of the time he goes out looking for fraud, he finds it. And, when he sets up a testable experiment, most of the time, "Chance" wins. Take a different example: Uri Geller's bent spoons. James Randi rigged The Tonight Show so that Geller couldn't pull any fast ones, and sure enough, Geller couldn't make the spoon bend. Now James Randi can bend spoons with the best of them, and make it look convincing too, and he won't tell you his secret, but he will be the first to admit that it is all an illusion. -- Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4 years down, 3 to go) werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "It's tough to incriminate a bread mold."
gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) (08/01/88)
In article <2366@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, eddy@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Sean Eddy) writes: > In article <1653@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) writes: > >Fraud happens on a daily basis in the scientific > >world. There are many many examples of key scientific studies that > >were fraudulent. > > > >Given the facts of this case, fraud is a very very plausible hyphothesis... > > I have to take exception to this. Fraud may occur in science > (although I would question the sanity of someone who were to commit fraud > on *this* scale), but the whole business of science is based on truth. > Fraud is a monstrous offense. Accordingly, one does not go about > accusing a scientist of fraud simply because some results are > unbelievable. I should prefer shouting "rape" at a priest to shouting > "fraud" at a scientist. And *I* take exception to this. Nobody accused them of fraud. They *checked* for fraud. Go to the bank and ask to get into your safe deposit box. They'll ask for ID. Are they *accusing* you of fraud and theft? Certainly not, they're just checking. And sending Randi et. al. to the lab is *checking* for fraud. His presense is in no way an accusation. And in fact, their final report doesn't claim fraud on anyone's part. As for the sanity of pulling a high level fraud that they must know will become exposed, I can't understand that either, but it happens all the time. In a lot of scientific frauds it seems clear the perpetrator figured that he'd get away with it, but (examples now hazy in my mind) I have read of at least a few where it was clear that they guy would get found out. I think that sometimes people, when under pressure, go from the frying pan into the fire because the frying pan is now and the fire is future. This illogic can claim even 'scientists', it seems.
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (08/01/88)
From what I read about this in SCIENCE and elsewhere, the real sticky part is that NATURE sent its investigating team out before publication, but then went ahead and published anyway before the team reported. The editor defended this by saying that the results were already being reported in the French press and he didn't want to look like he was sitting on a discovery. This after delaying 2 years from receipt. Now isn't that a HELL of a way to run a railroad? It seems clear to me that what prompted NATURE to send in a team featuring Randi and his intrepid band of spoon-straighteners was the presence of homeopathic doctors on the French team, not to mention that it WAS a French team to begin with. Homeopathy, for those who aren't familiar with it, believes (among other things) that you can administer microscopically tiny doses of harmful agents (infectious and otherwise) to a patient and by doing so counteract or immunize against the deleterious effects the harmful things would cause in normal doses. Obviously a result that showed you could dilute an antibody infinitely but retain its effect, would be music to the ears of homeopaths the world over. I'm sure that's why the homeopathic foundation supported Beneviste's research, and why those h.p. doctors themselves were on the team. The discipline is far more popular in Europe than it is in the US or the UK, which is one potential source of cultural bias when an Anglo-American journal tries to deal with h.p. funded results. Let's put it this way, if Beneviste had been working at Johns Hopkins with a bunch of Texans and Bostonians on his team, and Pfizer paying, I doubt Randi would have paid that call. :-) Of course, had the above been the case perhaps the result wouldn't have been obtained. We'll find this out when more people try to reproduce the results. But sending Randi was an insult. The man is a macrophage. He makes his living from charlatanism as surely as Madame Zolana and her palmistry shop down the street. Madame Z produces it, Randi debunks it. It's a neat ecology. Research does not take place in a vacuum, political or economic. Sending "The Amazing Randi" [sheesh] after a serious experimenter is like sending the Child Abuse Squad to visit your bachelor uncle. Sure, it's easy to say "if nothing is amiss, they won't be able to prove anything." But tell that to the neighbors! Tell it to the grants board next time around. Beneviste is not claiming to be able to bend spoons for crissake, he's claiming to be able to dilute an antibody astronomically but still detect activity via a special staining technique. What's Randi's job, to look for an Algerian midget under the lab table? Maybe a trick microscope? Disappearing ink in the notebooks, perhaps. I fault NATURE on two counts: putting a professional debunker and showman like Randi on its team, and then publishing anyway before the team had reported. Beneviste undoubtedly laid himself open to this trouble by taking homeopath money and emplying homeopath assistants *ON A PROJECT* so likely to be dear to their hearts. Regardless of whether the results bear out, I hope he learned a lesson. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
rpjday@violet.waterloo.edu (Rob Day) (08/01/88)
In article <19778@cornell.UUCP> dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) writes: >The fact that B. reacted to the debunking team by attacking their >knowledge of biology is to me quite damning. Pseudoscientists often >defend their work by personal attacks on critics. > >That Randi is a magician is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. I don't care if >they used a witch doctor; what matters is that they spotted flaws >in B.'s methodology. Just a small point here, I think the fact that Randi is a magician is fairly relevant, not so much that he is a magician as it is that he is NOT a researcher in the area under discussion. Because of this, he is far less likely to be distracted by irrelevancies. Other investigators may, at the critical moment of observation, be mulling over in their mind whether there is some bizarre property of IgE while Randi is single-mindedly keeping track of what is happening in front of him. Randi is also far less likely to dismiss something as unimportant, while others may be saying to themselves, "Well, that last step was a bit odd, but I can't think of any way that it will affect the outcome, so I'll just forget it." In Randi's case, ignorance of the science probably makes him a much tougher critic to buffalo, deliberately or otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert P. J. Day // rpjday@violet.waterloo.{edu|cdn} Dept. of Comp. Sci. // rpjday@violet.uwaterloo.ca University of Waterloo // uunet!watmath!violet!rpjday _______________________________________________________________________
sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (08/01/88)
In article <668@ns.UUCP> logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118) writes: >Debunkers, as distasteful as we may find them, are not police because they >have no coercive power. >The effect of debunkers, to the disapproval of their targets, is to scare >away money and students. Both of these are valuable resources. The words "scare" seems correct. Debunkers, like bigots, seem to me to play on our xenophobia, our dislike of new and strange world-views, in much the same way as McCarthyites played on our fear of Communism. A dread of having to live in some different sort of world seems to be extremely common. After all -- we fight wars to maintain the "American Way of Life", don't we? To me, what CSICOP was founded to do, and what it does do, is to engage in intellectual lynchings of people whose views are disturbing to its members. I believe their actions are intended to be coercive, even if not in a physical way. A person with a new, revolutionary theory is in a very vulnerable position, even when not confronted by an organization whose intent appears to be to stamp out such theories. Why make life even more difficult for such persons by hunting them down and pillorying them in public? >I think it is always in the interest of ... individuals to have >access to all sides of an argument. To suppress one side or the >other would lead to stagnation or quackery. Exactly my point. >True science has a tendency to win in the long run. Astronomy triumphed over >torture. I think modern "theories" can handle a little debunking. It would be nice, though, if, in this modern age, scientists with new ideas or observations did not have to go through what Galileo et al had to go through in the old days. The last thing we need is a New Inquisition. -- -------------------- Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301
diaz@aecom.YU.EDU (Dizzy Dan) (08/01/88)
In article <19778@cornell.UUCP>, dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) writes: > Nature should not have accepted this paper. By doing so, it has > given homeopathy undeserved recognition, and has tarnished its > own reputation. In the unlikely event the findings are not the result > of error or fraud, publication in a lesser journal would have > sufficed. Doing so would not have attracted as much media attention. Nature was placed in a difficult position. It held on to Beneviste, et al.'s paper for some time while the experiments were repeated around the world. As I've pointed out in another posting, the suggestion that water molecules are being imprinted with an image of the degranulating antibody is hard to believe. I do, however, salute Nature for publishing the paper and tackling the issue of homeopathy once and for all. We shouldn't base the acceptance of scientific papers on our concerns about its interpretation. If Beneviste's results are earthshaking, then its wonderful, if they are artefactual or fraudulent we will soon find out. Science is served either way. I respect the way Nature serves as a sounding board for all sorts of views. The journal publishes material submitted by creationists, people who believe life came here on an asteroid, people who believe Archaeopteryx is a hoax, as well as people who believe water has a memory. I may disagree with many of them, but better that they debate their views in an open scientific arena than moan about how the scientific establishment refuses to give them an ear. Hooray for Nature and John Maddox. -- dn/dx Dept Molecular Biology diaz@aecom.yu.edu Dizzy Dan Al Einstein's Med School Big Bad Bronx, NY
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (08/01/88)
I'm as much of a skeptic as anybody, but I do have to say this. If you asked James "The Amazing" Randi what he thought of an experiment where the experimenter was looking for a particular result, he would say it was suspect. Randi is a "debunker." He calls himself that. Thus if he examines something and declares "bunk," one wonders if this does not have some distant similarities to somebody who calls himself a "UFOlogist" declaring "alien beings." Now as for diluted antibodies, who knows? Was the multiple lab duplication faked? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) (08/01/88)
In article <5826@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > But sending Randi was an insult. The man is a macrophage. He makes > his living from charlatanism as surely as Madame Zolana and her > palmistry shop down the street. Madame Z produces it, Randi debunks > it. It's a neat ecology. This is a gross misrepresentation of the man and his works. Randi has never advertised himself as anything other than a professional magician and illusionist. From his life-long study of the performance of magic tricks and illusions, he has become an expert in how tricks and illusions can be performed, and an expert in spotting such things. Unfortunately, it turns out that scientists in general are very poor themselves at spotting trickery, since a true scientist HAS to BELIEVE that the results reported are being reported accurately and in a manner consistent with the ethical code true scientists follow. Scientists are easy picking for a "medium" (or whatever the current stylish nom de fraud is) or an unscrupulous collegue. > Research does not take place in a vacuum, political or economic. Very true. Unfortunately, neither does unethical activity or self delusion. > Sending "The Amazing Randi" [sheesh] after a > serious experimenter is like sending the Child Abuse Squad to visit > your bachelor uncle. Not quite. What was done was more akin to sending a chemist to the biology investigation to examine the chemical basis for the claims. Randi is an expert in an area that none of the other investigators is an expert, the art and science of illusion. I am only surprized that the people forming the team were smart enough to include him!! > Sure, it's easy to say "if nothing is amiss, they > won't be able to prove anything." But tell that to the neighbors! Tell > it to the grants board next time around. Beneviste is not claiming to > be able to bend spoons for crissake, he's claiming to be able to dilute > an antibody astronomically but still detect activity via a special > staining technique. What's Randi's job, to look for an Algerian midget > under the lab table? Maybe a trick microscope? Disappearing ink in > the notebooks, perhaps. I cannot presume to guess what he might look for in this investigation. I do recognize him as an expert in illusion and trickery, and assume that his role was to be alert for such during the course of the investigation. Certainly, one could not expect trusting scientists to spot such things!! Rich Strebendt ...!att![iwsl6|ihlpe|ihaxa]!res
zeus@zapodid.aero.org (Dave Suess) (08/01/88)
In article <495@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >... Debunkers, like bigots, ... play on our xenophobia ... in much the >same way as McCarthyites played on our fear of Communism. ... CSICOP >was founded ... to engage in intellectual lynchings of people whose >views are disturbing to its members. ... >A person with a new, revolutionary theory is in a very vulnerable position, >even when not confronted by an organization whose intent appears to be >to stamp out such theories. Why make life even more difficult for >such persons by hunting them down and pillorying them in public? I think it's because such persons insist on (or have the unfortunate problem of) widespread press coverage. It shakes the credibility of science in the eyes of the public when speculations that turn out to be mistakes are given such a hullaballoo, especially when the "new, revolutionary theory" involves areas whose proponents have included shysters, frauds, and unscientific mercenaries. >It would be nice, though, if, in this modern age, scientists with new >ideas or observations did not have to go through what Galileo et al >had to go through in the old days. The last thing we need is a New >Inquisition. It's a truism to me that extraordinary claims require extra- ordinary proof. It's also a truism to me that old arguments never go away: people on the fringes of science and hucksterism frequently plead "Galileo! Galileo!" when their world view is not adopted by the world. Funny, this didn't happen to Galileo in the scientific world ... nor did Newton and Einstein meet with persecution (reluctance, yes -- for their extra- ordinary claims required extraordinary proof, like Eddington's eclipse expedition). How about updating the argument to use someone who's theory was wrongfully suppressed by the scientific community and later validated? -- Dave Suess zeus@aerospace.aero.org
sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio) (08/01/88)
Randi is a self-confessed charlatan -- so why believe anything he says or
does? He does fine on TV talk shows, but has no place in a scientific
"investigation".
The whole business of this investigation is out of place in the scientific
community -- disputed results occur all the time -- but do we dispatch the
inquisition? If results can be duplicated at another lab, by those w/o
a vested interest in the outcome -- or if such results are not found outside
the aspirants' lab -- then we can come to conclusions.
Remember Bruno, Vico, Gallileo, Semmelweiss????????
I imagine if I were standing over your shoulder while you work, and you
"knew" I was there to scrutinize your work, would that have an effect on the
results?
BTW, I am skeptical about the results of these experiments -- but I don't
believe it would be too difficult to confirm or deny the results, nor
would it be too expensive. So instead of spending money on the Spanish
Inquisition, why not fund a redo of the experiment?
--
Michael Sierchio @ Small Systems Solutions
sierch@well.UUCP
{pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax,hoptoad}!well!sierchdgary@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (D Gary Grady) (08/01/88)
In article <495@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >... To me, what CSICOP >was founded to do, and what it does do, is to engage in intellectual >lynchings of people whose views are disturbing to its members. I >believe their actions are intended to be coercive, even if not in a >physical way. I know CSICOP founder Paul Kurtz and their chief operating officer Mark Plummer personally, and I can state that this simply isn't true. CSICOP's own statement of purpose condemns rejection of novel phenomena antecedant to inquiry, and they mean that sincerely. I'll grant that sometimes some members get a little overenthusiastic about debunking, but that is not characteristic of the organization. For example, one article in the Skeptical Inquirer showed experimental results strongly suggestive that astrology had no predictive power. Nevertheless, it said that advice offered by astrologers was frequently as sound as that offered by clinical psychologists. It even recommended that if someone had minor problems, an astrologer might be a better sourse of help than a psychologist, since they charge less and are no more likely to be charlatans! >It would be nice, though, if, in this modern age, scientists with new >ideas or observations did not have to go through what Galileo et al >had to go through in the old days. The last thing we need is a New >Inquisition. The Inquisition used force, not mere investigation and criticism. Are we going to equate any disagreement or any attempt to examine scientific procedures as an Inquisition or McCarthyism? One more point: It seems to me some recent comment smacks of elitism. James Randi started out as a magician, but he has devoted the past several years of his life to examining "claims of the paranormal" and has received a McArthur Foundation grant (a so-called "genius" grant given to numerous scientists) to support his work. He has uncovered outright fraud but also has illuminated instances of mere ineptitude. He produces solid evidence, not mere innuendo, to back up his criticisms. (I have heard plenty of people claim otherwise, which suggests to me they simply are not familiar with his writing but rely on hearsay.) In short, I have no reason to consider Randi less than a competent investigator in his area of expertise. But because he has been a stage magician, some people are prepared to dismiss his work out-of-hand. Just who is closed-minded here, I wonder? >Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge >Institute for Research in Metapsychology >950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 I never metapsychology I didn't like. -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet
mayo@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Bob Mayo) (08/01/88)
In article <492@metapsy.UUCP>, sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: > I found the data on the Amazing Randi's investigation of the Nature article I can see the headlines now... "Beneviste experiment degranulated by an infinitely dilute scientist"
eddy@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Sean Eddy) (08/02/88)
article <1663@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) writes: > > >Given the facts of this case, fraud is a very very plausible hyphothesis... > > >(me) > I have to take exception to this... > >And *I* take exception to this. Nobody accused them of fraud. Pardon me? Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "fraud is a very very plausible hypothesis"? Given that the experiment has been reproduced in other labs, something real could well be going on. You may, of course, continue to imply that six labs and multiple researchers are simply lying; however, to do so is blindly combative and contrary to basic principles of science. An experiment should be tested on scientific grounds before the experimenter is attacked on personal grounds. - Sean Eddy - Molecular/Cellular/Developmental Biology; U. of Colorado at Boulder - eddy@boulder.colorado.EDU !{hao,nbires}!boulder!eddy - - "But the scientist is intensely religious -- he is so religious - that he will not accept quarter-truths, because they are an - insult to his faith." - - Sinclair Lewis, in _Arrowsmith_
gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) (08/02/88)
In article <5826@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > But sending Randi was an insult. The man is a macrophage. He makes > his living from charlatanism as surely as Madame Zolana and her > palmistry shop down the street. Madame Z produces it, Randi debunks > it. It's a neat ecology. Randi doesn't receive much, if any, income from debunking. He's a professional magician and earns his keep that way. > Beneviste is not claiming to > be able to bend spoons for crissake, he's claiming to be able to dilute > an antibody astronomically but still detect activity via a special > staining technique. What's Randi's job, to look for an Algerian midget > under the lab table? Maybe a trick microscope? Disappearing ink in > the notebooks, perhaps. Beneviste is claiming a result "impossible" under the existing view of reality, a result caused by something which would have dramatic impact on a great deal of science. This is equivalent to spoon bending. The only difference is that Geller claims to be causing the spoon bending whereas Beneviste doesn't claim to be personally causing his result. Geller says that it's Mind Power, Beneviste says that its "unknown". An article I recently read explained why this result gets so much attention wheras a proposal of a 5th fundimental force hasn't generated a visit from Randi. The "5th force" proposal is an enhancement to current theory, something that if true can enhance and extend stuff that's today considered "well proven". Whereas Beneviste's result contradicts, or at least invalidates, most biological and organic chemistry results that have been obtained since the fields began. (Toss out ALL those results because the experimenters didn't control the previous uses of their water! ANd because dilution can *strengthen* the effect of a substance!) When someone proposes an enhancment, it may or may not be true, but most people take it calmly. But when someone says, "Electricity doesn't work" or "magic does work", then *that* generates a large interest, and attempting to prove it's not so is the best way to go. Note that I didn't say "denying it's true", I said "proving it's not true". When the one-in- ten thousandth case comes up where it *is* true, those debunking attempts will fail. Sure, the poor discoverer gets hassled for a few years. But his Nobel prize will make up for it. Much better than opening the floodgates to the endless crazy ideas that folks, misguided or fraudulent, propose. And as for Randi's job, you betcha he was looking under tables for Algerian midgets. And not disappearing ink in notebooks, but for alterations. Remember, Beneviste might not be the trickster himself; there have been many cases where legitimate scientists were fooled by associates, employees, subjects, etc. In fact, Randi's role in these things is usually as an aid to the experimenter to keep the subject(s) from cheating. I recall a relatively recent case of a girl who claimed ESP which was expressed through card tricks (forget the details). She impressed a lot of "scientists", but with Randi, an expert on card tricks, controlling the protocol she couldn't perform anymore. (Well, just once she managed to perform. They had an "official" camera and a hidden one. They conspiciously turned off the official camera and left the room for coffee after she'd failed a series of trials. When they went back in, she suddenly succeeded a trial! Of course, the hidden camera showed her cheating. > -- > Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff > "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF > will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) Gordon Letwin Microsoft
ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (08/02/88)
In article <2417@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, eddy@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Sean Eddy) writes: > Given that the experiment has been reproduced in other labs, something > real could well be going on. You may, of course, continue to imply that six labs > and multiple researchers are simply lying; however, to do so is > blindly combative and contrary to basic principles of science. > An experiment should be tested on scientific grounds before the > experimenter is attacked on personal grounds. Unfortunately, one of the points that is under dispute is whether or not the results were actually replicated independently in 6 labs. The report by the investigative team seems to contradict the original article by asserting that virtually all the positive results were produced by one researcher at two labs. On another point, I think the presence of the Amazing Randi was both appropriate and helpful. His skill lies in a long record both in detecting fraud, and also on methods to eliminate unconscious bias. I would take his comments on both topics (although not, of course, biological or chemical theory) *very* seriously. When such an unexpected and outrageous result is reported I don't think there is anything wrong with suspecting fraud by someone connected to the project. It certainly is an appropriate point to explore. In this case the investigating team (including Randi) seem to have concluded that no conscious fraud was involved. -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
kdo@edsel (Ken Olum) (08/02/88)
In article <495@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >The words "scare" seems correct. Debunkers, like bigots, seem to me >to play on our xenophobia, our dislike of new and strange >world-views, in much the same way as McCarthyites played on our fear >of Communism. Let me try this again. What exactly do you claim that debunkers are doing? Randi hears of some claim of paranormal stuff. He goes and investigates, and it turns out to be bunk. The proponent is fooling himself, or the statistics are bad, or the guy is just a liar. Now, hasn't Randi done us all a service? He's saved us from getting all excited about this new world-view when really there's no support for it. How do debunkers "play on xenophobia"? Ken Olum
sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (08/02/88)
In article <1663@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) writes: > >And sending Randi et. al. to the lab is *checking* for fraud. His presense >is in no way an accusation. I think that's like saying that being investigated by the House Unamerican Activities Commission in the '50s was no accusation of communist affiliations. The accusation is implicit, and the trial is by the press. The verdict is -- an unwarranted loss of money and reputation, despite the absence of any finding of fraud. The defendant was innocent, but the sentence was imposed anyway. Is that fair? -- -------------------- Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301
sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (08/02/88)
In article <1930@aecom.YU.EDU> werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: > Actually, Randi's only assumption was that "all known laws of physics >are valid." That's quite an assumption, when one is looking at something that may invalidate existing laws of physics. A prejudice, I would say. If all physicists had such an assumption, there would be no discoveries of new laws of physics, no progress in the field of physics. -- -------------------- Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301
trt@rti.UUCP (Thomas Truscott) (08/02/88)
> You seem to forget (if indeed you ever knew) that the perpose of publication > is to get scientific work out in community of scientists so that it can be > tested, criticised and, perhaps, explained. How about the "British Homeopathic Journal", or the (mainstream) British medical journal "Lancet", both of which have published positive homeopathic results? In retrospect, at least, it obvious that "Nature" was a bad choice! > A person with a new, revolutionary theory > is in a very vulnerable position, ... Homeopathic theory is at least two hundred years old. In 1985 homeopaths did $50,000,000 worth of business in the U.S. *alone*, and there were about 300 *licensed* practitioners. (Homeopathy is more popular in England, France, and several other countries). FDA officials regard homeopathy as relatively benign, and politically dangerous to attack, so it does not require homeopathic drugs to be effective or properly labelled. The FDA permits homeopathic products such as "Arthritis Formula", "Cardio Forte", and "Herpes", but acts against "BHI Anticancer Stimulating" and other products claimed to be effective against serious diseases. New and revolutionary theories come along all the time without anyone getting pilloried. But homeopathy is not a new theory -- it is an old theory justifying a potentially harmful business. Have the reputations of Benveniste et al. been harmed? Time will tell, but I doubt it. And now they are famous. I think the major issue, probably being asked by both authors for and readers of "Nature", is whether this is any way for a publisher to treat an author. Tom Truscott SUGGESTED READING "Homeopathic Remedies", Consumer Reports, January 1987 "Homeopathy: is it Medicine?", Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1987 Review of homeopathic research, A.M. Scofield, British Homeopathic Journal, 73:161-180 and 73:211-226, 1984.
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (08/02/88)
In article <498@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: }In article <1930@aecom.YU.EDU> werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: }> Actually, Randi's only assumption was that "all known laws of physics }>are valid." } }That's quite an assumption, when one is looking at something that may }invalidate existing laws of physics. A prejudice, I would say. If all }physicists had such an assumption, there would be no discoveries of new }laws of physics, no progress in the field of physics. Bullstock. All it means is that you are careful to eliminate the *expected* and the *erroneous* before you conclude that the basic laws need amending. The photoelectric effect experiments stood in contradiction to then-current theory, whether folk liked it or not. It would have been appropriate to examine the experiments _demonstrating_ the effect *very* closely (they are making an astounding claim, after all), but if the experiments are accurate then their results will survive the scrutiny, and sooner or later the results will have to be explained. There are two approaches out at the "leading edge" of one field or another: you can be VERY critical and start from the position that a theory-revolutionizing result is more likely to be the result of an error, intentional or otherwise, rather than a breakthrough. Or you can assume that every experimenter is pretty much straight-arrow and careful. To my taste, there are a LOT more sloppy experiments and just plain head cases out there than there are Einsteins and Bells, so I'd think it was MUCH more prudent (and time- and cost-effective) to start from the skeptical, instead of the trusting, position. Let me try this same thing a different way: let's say that a scientist requistions a chunk of lunar rock and does some analysis on it and finds... CHEESE. So he writes it up, and is very pompous and important about how carefully he found confirmation of the age-old hypothesis that the moon is made of chess... yes even green cheese. Well, I'd just as soon have someone like a Randi come along and ask the obvious: What did you have for breakfast that morning, what did your _assistant_ have for breakfast that morning, etc. __ / ) Bernie Cosell /--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238 /___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.com
lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) (08/02/88)
In article <6689@well.UUCP> sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio) writes: > >Randi is a self-confessed charlatan -- so why believe anything he says or Randi is not a self-confessed charlatan. When he is doing magic, he never claims that it is anything more than what it is: entertainment. >The whole business of this investigation is out of place in the scientific >community -- disputed results occur all the time -- but do we dispatch the >I imagine if I were standing over your shoulder while you work, and you >"knew" I was there to scrutinize your work, would that have an effect on the >results? Well, one definition of a systems programmer is someone who can get the system back up with about twenty people looking over his shoulder :-) Scientists scrutinize each other's work all the time. But, this time they had some extra help from Randi, so someone must have suspected self deception or worse. Anyway, Inquisition? Come on. Now, sometimes a thesis defense might be construed as an Inquisition, and since every PhD has already been through that at least once, a laboratory visit ought to seem pretty tame... -- Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9, UUCP ames!lamaster NASA Ames Research Center ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov Moffett Field, CA 94035 Phone: (415)694-6117
stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) (08/03/88)
Doug Gwyn writes:
I seem to recall that "polywater" was also verified by other labs.
Indeed, for a couple of years at least a few hundred scientists all
around the world worked on polywater, and published papers on it,
before this mysterious and wonderful new kind of water turned out
to be a mixture of roughly equal parts of dissolved silica, sweat,
and wishful thinking.
"Polywater!" by Felix Franks tells in great detail this embarassing
chapter in the story of chemistry. Before you give too much credence
to Benaviste's claims, you should read this little book.
Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center
stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfidavid@mirror.TMC.COM (David Chesler) (08/03/88)
In article <6689@well.UUCP> sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio) writes: > >Randi is a self-confessed charlatan -- so why believe anything he says or >does? Norton's Simulation Tool is a self-confessed mock-up. So why believe that any of his Tools actually do anything? (It is a magician's job to fool us. It is the Amazing Randi qua Ivestigator, not magician who is skeptically investigating the experiments.) -- David Chesler (david@prism.tmc.com) Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of any Norton software or any brand of personal computer. Just an example.
mvs@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Michael V. Stein) (08/03/88)
In article <5497@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes: [In reference to the CSICOP] >For example, one >article in the Skeptical Inquirer showed experimental results strongly >suggestive that astrology had no predictive power. Nevertheless, it >said that advice offered by astrologers was frequently as sound as that >offered by clinical psychologists. I guess they have no clinical psychologists as members. >It even recommended that if someone >had minor problems, an astrologer might be a better sourse of help than >a psychologist, since they charge less and are no more likely to be >charlatans! Somehow this doesn't make me feel reassured about their lack of bias and their devotion to seeking out truth. -- Michael V. Stein - Minnesota Educational Computing Corp. - Technical Services {bungia,cbosgd,uiucdcs,umn-cs}!meccts!mvs or mvs@mecc.MN.ORG
alex@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Alex Kashko) (08/03/88)
Considering that, as shown by Broadbent and Wade, in their book, "Betrayers of the truth", fraud is endemic in mainstream science, we should all ask ourselves whether our own work would stand up to an investigation by Randi. Computer Science is harder to fake, but not , I suspect impossible (I haven't even thaught how I could fake a result involving a working program unless I had control of the input, which is not always possible with, say, a compiler). Maybe every research team should include someone to check for fraud by the research team, or the funding bodies should employ profesional magicians to investigate ALL results. More generally maybe the speed with which most mainstream researchers cry fraud represents a guilty conscience ( What Freudians call projection ). Reverting to Beneviste's article, not only has the result been replicated elsewhere (Nature specifically asked for that) but Beneviste quotes older work showing similar results. I suggest that, despite the investigator's report, Beneviste's work still presents a case to answer.
rpjday@violet.waterloo.edu (Rob Day) (08/03/88)
In article <498@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >In article <1930@aecom.YU.EDU> werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: >> Actually, Randi's only assumption was that "all known laws of physics >>are valid." > >That's quite an assumption, when one is looking at something that may >invalidate existing laws of physics. A prejudice, I would say. If all >physicists had such an assumption, there would be no discoveries of new >laws of physics, no progress in the field of physics. Oh, please, your statement has the flavor of a rather well-known proponent of TM who graced the screens of sci.misc for some time. His response to statements that self-levitation violated every known physical law and then some was that, well, maybe it's time to rewrite Newton's laws. Sure, for no other reason than to accommodate someone's wishful thinking. If we were to take into consideration that every new and bizarre discovery could be explained by invalidating existing laws of physics, we'd certainly have an interesting system of science. I think you'll have to do better than accusations of prejudice directed at someone who simply wants to work within the framework of existing physical laws. Unless you have some good reasons to drop this assumption. And so far, all I've seen are rather nasty, ill-informed and rather ignorant statements directed at poor Mr. Randi. Prejudice, indeed. If this is a sample of metapsychology, I'm not sure I'm terribly impressed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert P. J. Day // rpjday@violet.waterloo.{edu|cdn} Dept. of Comp. Sci. // rpjday@violet.uwaterloo.ca University of Waterloo // uunet!watmath!violet!rpjday _______________________________________________________________________
sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio) (08/03/88)
Beneviste is not making a claim for something "impossible" in the
context of current theory. He is making a claim for an effect for
which the current theory has no explanation. Like Maxwell. Or
Semmelweiss.
Remember that the Royal Society said that meteorites were the products
of over-active imaginations -- as Lavoisier said (or whomever) --
there are no stones in the sky -- therefore, no stones can fall from the sky.
It may be that the effect he is describing IS the product of self-delusion
and systematic fraud. But your notions about the purpose of science and
the state of theory I find objectionable. Whenever someone says something
is impossible, put yer hand on yer wallet!
--
Michael Sierchio @ Small Systems Solutions
sierch@well.UUCP
{pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax,hoptoad}!well!sierchsarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (08/04/88)
In article <27780@bbn.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >There are two approaches out at the "leading edge" of one field or >another: you can be VERY critical and start from the position that a >theory-revolutionizing result is more likely to be the result of an >error, intentional or otherwise, rather than a breakthrough. Or you >can assume that every experimenter is pretty much straight-arrow and >careful. To my taste, there are a LOT more sloppy experiments and >just plain head cases out there than there are Einsteins and Bells, >so I'd think it was MUCH more prudent (and time- and cost-effective) >to start from the skeptical, instead of the trusting, position. As I said, I agree that one should be more careful in dealing with such apparently contradictory results. And I am not at all convinced that the observations were accurate. But the general way of dealing with this situation is to try to duplicate the experiment under more controlled conditions, not to employ argumentum ad hominem in imputing fraudulent intentions (conscious or "unconscious") to the experimenter. That is the only way of really *demonstrating* the invalidity of an experimental result. What Randi has done (as he generally seems to do) is not to disprove the results, but to cast suspicion on them. A definitive answer requires a repeat experiment. >Let me try this same thing a different way: let's say that a scientist >requistions a chunk of lunar rock and does some analysis on it and finds... >CHEESE. So he writes it up, and is very pompous and important about how >carefully he found confirmation of the age-old hypothesis that the moon is >made of chess... yes even green cheese. Well, I'd just as soon have >someone like a Randi come along and ask the obvious: What did you have for >breakfast that morning, what did your _assistant_ have for breakfast that >morning, etc. How about simply having someone else analyse the sample? That seems a lot more straightforward (though perhaps not so dramatic) as calling in the Psi-police. -- -------------------- Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301
sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (08/04/88)
In article <35118@aero.ARPA> zeus@zapodid.UUCP (Dave Suess) writes: >I think it's because such persons insist on (or have the unfortunate >problem of) widespread press coverage. It shakes the credibility of >science in the eyes of the public when speculations that turn out to >be mistakes are given such a hullaballoo, especially when the "new, >revolutionary theory" involves areas whose proponents have included >shysters, frauds, and unscientific mercenaries. Then the correct target is the press for makiing a hullabaloo, not the scientists who have the misfortune to be given such publicity. Unfortunately, Randi's dramatic style is tailor-made for press coverage, and he apparently seeks such coverage, whereas scientists generally do not. It is he that gives science a bad name by attacking scientists in public. >It's a truism to me that extraordinary claims require extra- >ordinary proof. No argument there. But they don't require attack. >How about updating the argument to use someone whose theory was >wrongfully suppressed by the scientific commuunity and later >validated? How about Semmelweiss? (If the medical community counts as scientific) -- -------------------- Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301
apm@oasis.icl.stc.co.uk (Andrew Merritt x2109) (08/04/88)
In article <6086@spool.cs.wisc.edu> mayo@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Bob Mayo) writes: %In article <492@metapsy.UUCP>, sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: %> I found the data on the Amazing Randi's investigation of the Nature article % %I can see the headlines now... % % "Beneviste experiment degranulated by an infinitely dilute scientist" ** Not quite a spelling flame ** More likely: "Benveniste experiment degranulated by an infinitely dilute scientist" ^^^^^^^^^^ At least get the guy's name right, it's only common courtesy. I've only seen second hand reports, in New Scientist, but it looks like there are procedural deficiencies in the experiments, and the results were not reproduced under the 'double-blind' conditions introduced by Randi et al. The involvement of homeopathy supporters at both Benveniste's and the corroborating laboratories is also a cause for doubts about unconscious bias. -- signed: Andrew Merritt (763) 2109 local: apm global: apm@iclbra.uucp apm@icl.stc.co.uk MSDOS: Just say NO. ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!stc!iclbra!apm
dgary@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (D Gary Grady) (08/04/88)
In article <1666@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) writes: >Randi doesn't receive much, if any, income from debunking. He's a professional >magician and earns his keep that way. Randi's current main source of income is a MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant. He also gets funding from CSICOP and from lecture fees about pseudoscience. >. . . In fact, Randi's role in these things is usually >as an aid to the experimenter to keep the subject(s) from cheating. Agree completely. Even when, sometimes, the experimenter doesn't want to be helped! -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (08/04/88)
In article <503@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: }In article <27780@bbn.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: } }>There are two approaches out at the "leading edge" of one field or }>another: you can be VERY critical and start from the position that a }>theory-revolutionizing result is more likely to be the result of an }>error, intentional or otherwise, rather than a breakthrough. Or you }>can assume that every experimenter is pretty much straight-arrow and }>careful. ... }>so I'd think it was MUCH more prudent (and time- and cost-effective) }>to start from the skeptical, instead of the trusting, position. } }As I said, I agree that one should be more careful in dealing with }such apparently contradictory results. And I am not at all convinced }that the observations were accurate. But the general way of dealing }with this situation is to try to duplicate the experiment under more }controlled conditions, not to employ argumentum ad hominem in }imputing fraudulent intentions (conscious or "unconscious") to the }experimenter. That is the only way of really *demonstrating* the }invalidity of an experimental result. What Randi has done (as he }generally seems to do) is not to disprove the results, but to cast }suspicion on them. A definitive answer requires a repeat experiment. Just so -- the thing that Randi can supply (and as I read the comment in New Scientist about it, that was all he had done) is to point out various *procedural* (!not! _scientific_!!) weak places in the experiment. It is entirely conceivable that the experiment has some _inherent_ problem, having NOTHING to do with the merits of the science it claims to demonstrate, and having someone who will look at the experiment, _itself_, from procedurally-skeptical eyes seem like a good thing to do and can provide good guidance for future experiments. The imputation of fraudulent intentions may be present but is surely in the eye of the beholder (I haven't seen anything ad hominem -- has there been such?). When we have design reviews in my part of BBN, we bring in several off-the-wall, unrelated to the project, "bright people"... JUST to make sure that we haven't gone down some bad path due to myopia or wishful thinking or whatever. Am I (or should I be) insulted that my designs are in-part reviewed by folk who know little or nothing of the details of the problem it was trying to solve or the constraints on the solution? I am not -- I figure that if I can't convince a bright, disinterested person that what I've done makes sense without resorting to claims of lack-of-their-understanding, I figure I haven't done a very good job... I _welcome_ the opportunity to think through where we are through unprejudiced, unmyopic eyes. I don't understand why a detailed looking-for-soft-places review of the procedures followed is inappropriate or insulting in this case. }>Let me try this same thing a different way: let's say that a scientist }>requistions a chunk of lunar rock and does some analysis on it and finds... }>CHEESE. So he writes it up, and is very pompous and important about how }>carefully he found confirmation of the age-old hypothesis that the moon is }>made of chess... yes even green cheese. Well, I'd just as soon have }>someone like a Randi come along and ask the obvious: What did you have for }>breakfast that morning, what did your _assistant_ have for breakfast that }>morning, etc. } }How about simply having someone else analyse the sample? That seems a }lot more straightforward (though perhaps not so dramatic) as calling }in the Psi-police. No no. You miss my point. At _that_ point, *everyone* would agree that there _is_ cheese (green) in _that_ sample. The question, which additional observers can say NOTHING to one way or the other, is what hypotheses, if any, ought that experiment serve as evidence for. If there really are _no_ apparent procedural loopholes, then maybe the cheese was _really_ there... who knows? Investigating the procedure still seems to me JUST as valid as investigating the science. And, speaking of ad hominem attacks, I object to your use of "Psi police". Replace that with "seriously skeptical procedural review" and the difference in our views is clear: I'd review the procedures _first_, and then waste the time, money and effort to duplicate the experiment _later_. Dramatic is as dramatic does: one might argue that the "dramatic" part has already happened in the publishing of the original article in Nature, and that if it proves to be bogus (as many, if not most all, of us probably believe), Beneviste has _already_ gotten his publicity and will be "famous" for a long time -- no one will bother to follow the dry follow on articles that dispute or refute the original, and it will probably be cited for YEARS to come, no matter the outcome. By making a high-profile response, maybe the *resolution* will garner as much attention as the claim. __ / ) Bernie Cosell /--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238 /___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.com
zeus@zapodid.aero.org (Dave Suess) (08/05/88)
In article <504@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >Then the correct target is the press for makiing a hullabaloo, not >the scientists who have the misfortune to be given such publicity. >Unfortunately, Randi's dramatic style is tailor-made for press >coverage, and he apparently seeks such coverage, whereas scientists >generally do not. It is he that gives science a bad name by attacking >scientists in public. Let me be more specific. If the news of some new breakthrough is disseminated to the public through the BIG media (not journals) but later proves to be erroneous, but the retractions and disproofs come in the LITTLE media (journals), and meanwhile a profession that is at odds with the scientific or medical communities stands to profit greatly at the expense of consumers and society -- is the public well served? Would they be better served if the BIG media were used to air the opposing opinions? Dave Suess zeus@aerospace.aero.org
sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (08/05/88)
In article <27939@bbn.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > The imputation of fraudulent intentions may be present but is surely > in the eye of the beholder (I haven't seen anything ad hominem -- has > there been such?). When we have design reviews in my part of BBN, we > bring in several off-the-wall, unrelated to the project, "bright > people"... JUST to make sure that we haven't gone down some bad path > due to myopia or wishful thinking or whatever. Sounds like a good procedure. And, I expect, part of normal scientific procedure. What I mainly object to is the marshalling of high-profile debunkers with lots of media coverage, when the standard procedure is simply to have other scientists (or "bright people") check the results. > Investigating the procedure still seems to me JUST as valid as > investigating the science. OK -- I see what you were driving at, and it sounds reasonable. > And, speaking of ad hominem attacks, I object to your use of "Psi > police". Well, it was not I who came up with the term "CSICOP" (read "Psi Cop"). Surely that was no coincidence? Perhaps one of our readers knows how that particular acronym was decided on. > Dramatic is as dramatic does: one might argue that the "dramatic" > part has already happened in the publishing of the original article > in Nature, and that if it proves to be bogus (as many, if not most > all, of us probably believe), Beneviste has _already_ gotten his > publicity and will be "famous" for a long time -- no one will bother > to follow the dry follow on articles that dispute or refute the > original, and it will probably be cited for YEARS to come, no matter > the outcome. By making a high-profile response, maybe the > *resolution* will garner as much attention as the claim. I don't think publishing scientific results is "dramatic" -- it is the human response to those data that contains the actual drama -- and politics. It sounded to me that *Nature* was trying to cover its backside and restore its public image by sending a high-profile individual like Randi out to disprove the result. I'd bet Beneviste did not seek and is not enjoying his notoriety. -- -------------------- Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (08/06/88)
Well, I just got through reading the Randi et al. report and Benveniste rebuttle. Unfortunately, I don't think they really clear anything up. That comes as little surprise to those uf us who have been insisting that repeating (or failing to repeat) the observations in the hands of other scientists is the only way to resolve things. It was clear tha Benveniste was doing some things wrong and that future attempts to test the experiments should should include some alterations. It also seems that the investigators biases were even worse than anyone would have imagined and, if one were to invoke the same skepticism as being put to the original results, their claims can hardly be accepted at face value. The main thing that troubles me reguarding the results is that some statistical considerations were ignored. Benveniste makes reference to a form of statistical analysis used at INSERM with which I am unfamiliar. But, the investigating team asserts, and the data seem to suport, that sampling error was not considered. The standard error given is far too low for the experiments the way they are described. And, along these lines, samples were sometimes counted several times only if the first count gave unexpected results. This could introduce alot of bias and error. Unfortunately, this legitimate complaint that needs to be addressed can be obscured by the circus of the rest of the investigation. If I were convinced, or wanted to be convinced, of the results, I could find ample reason to toss out the conclusions of the committee. The biases of the investigators are most apparent from the 4th experiment done in the presence of the investigators. The first three were done "open," in the fashion most frequently done in the lab. Walter Stewart, one of the investigators, challenged the experimentor by taking tubes, which had been diluted in his presence, and distributing them randomly in the mico-titer plates, so that there was no pattern to be discerned and only he knew the code. He apparently thought this would show up the experimentor. In fact, the results obtained were about the best the lab ever got, showing unusually high activity and the characteristic sinusoidal fluctuation. Stewart then declared the test, of his own design, valueless. He implyed that the experimentor must have set up the dilutions in a way that the result was guarenteed, presumably by sneaking exactly the right amount of anti-IGE into each tube. The crux of their argument, apart from the their analysis of the experimental design, which needs to be considered, is a set of experiments set up in a very amusing blind, involving secret codes wrapped in aluminum foil, sealed in an envelop and taped to the ceiling (this is science?--oh well, I guess, if you send a magician, you get a magic show). The main flaw with this experiment is that all of the investigators were trusted implicitly. They all knew the code and Stewart, while knowing the code, set up the titer plates. Given Stewart's behaviour in the case above, I do not think his impartiality is above reproach. Stewart, insisted upon complete quiet while he was observing the experimentors doing the counting etc., so that he would not be distracted and miss some cheating. However, while Stewart was setting up the plates, he allowed Randi to perform magic tricks for the technician who was to be observing him (Stewart). Even assuming that he was honest, the results, which failed to reproduce the phenominon, are suspect because of the circus atmosphere under which they were obtained. All in all, this was a remarkably unqualified team to send. The main thing that they were qualified to detect, namely fraud, was not evident. With that out of the way, perhaps some qualified scientists can test the results. I, for one, would love to see some qualified people come up with a reasonable explanation of this. If the mainstream science community relies on this kind of circus to refute the findings, the homeopaths will have ample reason to ignore what we are saying. It will do nothing but add further credence to their practices, without good reason. -tony
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (08/06/88)
(sorry if this is repeated) Well, I just got through reading the Randi et al report and Benveniste rebuttle. Unfortunately, I don't think they really clear anything up. That comes as little surprise to those uf us who have been insisting that repeating (or failing to repeat) the observations in the hands of other scientists is the only way to resolve things. It was clear that Benveniste was doing some things wrong and that future attempts to test the experiments should should include some alterations. It also seems that the investigators biases were even worse than anyone would have imagined and, if one were to invoke the same skepticism as being put to the original results, their claims can hardly be accepted at face value. The main thing that troubles me reguarding the results is that some statistical considerations were ignored. Benveniste makes reference to a form of statistical analysis used at INSERM with which I am unfamiliar. But, the investigating team asserts, and the data seem to suport, that sampling error was not considered. The standard error given is far too low for the experiments the way they are described. And, along these lines, samples were sometimes counted several times only if the first count gave unexpected results. This could introduce alot of bias and error. Unfortunately, this legitimate complaint that needs to be addressed can be obscured by the circus of the rest of the investigation. If I were convinced, or wanted to be convinced, of the results, I could find ample reason to toss out the conclusions of the committee. The biases of the investigators are most apparent from the 4th experiment done in the presence of the investigators. The first three were done "open," in the fashion most frequently done in the lab. Walter Stewart, one of the investigators, challenged the experimentor by taking tubes, which had been diluted under his observation, and distributing them randomly in the mico-titer plates, so that there was no pattern to be discerned and only he knew the code. He apparently thought this would show up the experimentor. In fact, the results obtained were about the best the lab ever got, showing unusually high activity and the characteristic sinusoidal fluctuation. Stewart then declared the test, of his own design, valueless. He implied that the experimentor must have set up the dilutions in a way that the result was guarenteed, presumably by sneaking exactly the right amount of anti-IGE into each tube. The crux of their argument, apart from the their analysis of the experimental design, which needs to be considered, is a set of experiments set up in a very amusing blind, involving secret codes wrapped in aluminum foil, sealed in an envelop and taped to the ceiling (this is science?--oh well, I guess, if you send a magician, you get a magic show). The main flaw with this experiment is that all of the investigators were trusted implicitly. They all knew the code and Stewart, while knowing the code, set up the titer plates. Given Stewart's behaviour in the case above, I do not think his impartiality is above reproach. Stewart, insisted upon complete quiet while he was observing the experimentors doing the counting etc., so that he would not be distracted and miss some cheating. However, while Stewart was setting up the plates, he allowed Randi to perform magic tricks for the technician who was to be observing him (Stewart). Even assuming that he was honest, the results, which failed to reproduce the phenominon, are suspect because of the circus atmosphere under which they were obtained. All in all, this was a remarkably unqualified team to send. The main thing that they were qualified to detect, namely fraud, was not evident. With that out of the way, perhaps some qualified scientists can test the results. I, for one, would love to see some qualified people come up with a reasonable explanation of this. If the mainstream science community relies on this kind of circus to refute the findings, the homeopaths will have ample reason to ignore what we are saying. It will do nothing but add further credence to their practices, without good reason. -tony P.S. Does anyone know for sure if this Walter M Stewart is the same fellow who is all over MIT for the famed David Baltimore Fraud case (D.B. was only of of many names on the paper, but easily the most recognizable one, and thus, the one the press and Stewart jumped on).
dalex@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (David Alexander) (08/06/88)
In article <558@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk> alex@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Alex Kashko) writes: > Considering that, as shown by Broadbent and Wade, in their book, >"Betrayers of the truth", fraud is endemic in mainstream science, It seems now that charges that fraud is endemic in mainstream science are endemic in mainstream journalism.
dalex@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (David Alexander) (08/06/88)
In article <2558@boulder.Colorado.EDU> pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) asks: >P.S. Does anyone know for sure if this Walter M Stewart is the same >fellow who is all over MIT for the famed David Baltimore Fraud case They both work for the National Institute of Health. They both specialize in the investigation of cases of suspected scientific fraud. It would be quite a coincidence if N.I.H. hired two Walter Stewart's and they both got involved in debunking. I'm pretty sure that they are one and the same.
sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (08/06/88)
In article <35415@aero.ARPA> zeus@zapodid.UUCP (Dave Suess) writes: > If the news of some new breakthrough > is disseminated to the public through the BIG media (not journals) > but later proves to be erroneous, but the retractions and > disproofs come in the LITTLE media (journals), and meanwhile a > profession that is at odds with the scientific or medical > communities stands to profit greatly at the expense of consumers > and society -- is the public well served? Would they be better > served if the BIG media were used to air the opposing opinions? Sure. But without the imputations of unethical behavior. A simple publication of the failure to duplicate the experiment would suffice. I guess part of the problem is that the press likes juicy stories and therefore might not print a simple disproof unless someone flamboyant is involved. But anyone who gets their scientific knowledge through the media is unlikely to have an accurate view of the state of the art anyway.... -- -------------------- Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301
dmr@alice.UUCP (08/07/88)
This affair is unfortunate. Although I thought well of Nature to
publish the paper, and considered the cautionary comments and
editorial printed with it entirely appropriate, their investigation
and the report they printed of it (Nature 334, 28 July) were indeed
badly handled.
The report (by Maddox, Randi, and Stewart) was much too hastily
prepared and is nearly incomprehensible because of editorial errors in
its preparation. It is not the sort of thing that in the ordinary
course of events would be accepted by Nature. Much of it is narrative
in flavor: "Benveniste ... offered to predict where the peaks and
troughs would fall in the data.... But his predictions proved to be
entirely wrong." Later, "Opening sealed envelopes is Randi's
expertise."
At the same time, it attempts to convey actual results through graphs,
but they appear to have botched the presentation; if someone can
explain to me what Figs 3, 4, 5 actually represent, I would be
grateful.
To give examples of the problems: Fig 3 has two graphs of
"degranulation" vs. "dilution". The figure's caption begins "Records
for the first two blind experiments (5-7 inclusive)...." What does
this mean? The top graph is labelled "Blind expt X" and has two data
sets on it, with a legend saying that the x marks are "EX" and black
circles "EY". The bottom graph has no such legends, and its two data
sets are marked with black circles and open squares. Although the
dispersion of the top and bottom graphs are similar, the ordinate
scales differ, so that one notices that the bottom graph looks
bouncier than the top one, though in fact they are about the same.
The text does not explain what the Expt X, Y, EX, EY mean, nor the
"two experiments" vs "5-7 inclusive."
In spite of the labels, the abscissas must really be log dilution, not
just dilution. The ordinate values in Fig. 3 have had something
subtracted from them (their values are sometimes negative) and are
clearly not "degranulation;" the first reference to Fig 3 in the text
talks about subtracting the mean. I guess that Fig 3 probably
represents normalized counts (not degranulation), but assignment of the
labels and referring the graph points to actual experiments is pure
guesswork.
The second reference to Fig. 3 in the text appears to be talking about
a combination of Figs. 4 and 5, graphs showing the same kind of data
as each other (normalized deviations of basophil counts from their
mean) but which are drawn in somewhat different styles, obstructing
comparison.
Fig 6 probably has a wrongly labelled ordinate (fractional
degranulation rather than percent as the label says), and its caption
says "Two duplicate Italian runs showing high degranulation, but
discordantly" while the text says "Figure 6 is typical of the data
from Milan. While there are no duplicate data measurements, and
therefore no direct evidence of sampling error, there is also some
evidence of degranulation at high dilution." What are the two meanings
of "duplicate" here? And there is no evidence for degranulation at
high dilution, because there is no way to know what the dilution
is--the abcissa in this graph is merely "tube number."
Aside from procedural matters recounted anecdotally, the two killer
criticisms are 1) Benveniste et al. got smaller sampling errors from
counting the basophils than could be expected, suggesting the
possibility of something fishy in their counting; 2) The whole effect
disappeared when blind counting (counter didn't know what was in the
tube) was used. But the report so screws up the presentation that you
must trust the authors of the report that these observations are true;
their graphs are meaningless.
The report ends with 5 specific criticisms, of which the first, "The
care with which the experiments have been carried out does not match
the extraordinary character of the claims made in their
interpretation," summarizes the rest, which go into a bit more detail.
Unfortunately, the care with which the investigation and the report
were prepared do not match the expectations engendered by the
extraordinary publicity the affair has received. The criticisms that
the report makes may well be trenchant, but its presentation is so
bady flawed that an unbiased reader would find it hard to take
seriously except in faith that Maddox, Randi, and Stewart can be
trusted. My guess (as a biased reader) is that a proper presentation
of their findings would support their conclusions.
Immediately following the report is a reply by Benveniste. Just as
unfortunately, he raves when he should be measured and modest. Much of
what he says sounds like Usenet, in fact: "Salem witchhunts or
McCarthy-like prosecutions will kill science. Science flourishes only
in freedom. We must not let, at any price, fear, blackmail, anonymous
accusation, libel and deceit nest in our labs." He also recounts
activities that were, at least, inappropriate-- "Stewart imposed a
deadly silence in the counting room, yet loud laughter was heard where
he was filling chambers. There, during this critical process, was
Randi playing tricks, distracting the technician in charge of its
supervision!"
It seems to me that Nature misread the issue and overreacted. The
observations that the original paper makes are so far from what can be
explained, and should be so easily checkable, that it should have been
sufficient to let others try to reproduce the results. At any rate, if
an investigatory team was to be sent, it should have been done with
less haste and greater care.
Dennis Ritchiesrt@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate) (08/08/88)
In article <5826@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > But sending Randi was an insult. The man is a macrophage. He makes > his living from charlatanism as surely as Madame Zolana and her > palmistry shop down the street. Madame Z produces it, Randi debunks > it. It's a neat ecology. You must be kidding.... If I understand your argument correctly, then the police are no better than criminals -- the criminals breaks laws, the police enforce laws. "It's a neat ecology." Sounds just like what you were saying...... Steve Tate ARPA: srt@cs.duke.edu CSNET: srt@duke UUCP: ..!{ihnp4,decvax}!duke!srt