Register to reply

Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal

Share this thread:
Ivan Seeking
#55
Jan10-11, 09:52 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
It should be noted that so far, all objections are only opinions and anecdotes. The rebuttal paper can only be considered anecdotal evidence - it cannot be used as evidence that he original paper was flawed - unless/until it is published in a mainstream journal. It is fine to discuss the objections, but they cannot be declared valid at this time.

Likewise, one published paper proves nothing. We have experimental evidence for the claim that is subject to peer review and verification.
JaredJames
#56
Jan10-11, 10:13 PM
P: 3,387
Personally, I still stand by my original thoughts which where that 3% isn't that significant.

OK, it's above average (53% correct in an area with 50/50 odds). But given the way the test was performed it didn't prove anything as far as I'm concerned.

If you really want to do something like this, take 1000 people, sit them down and toss a coin for them (via some coin toss machine) and get them to predict the outcome.

No need for anything excessive given the subject.

After that trial, if you have 53% it means that 30,000 of the guesses were correct when they shouldn't have been. Now that is significant.

Regardless, the biggest problem I see with tests like this is that I could sit calling heads each time and the odds say I'll break even, so any additional would count towards precognition. If this happens with a number of subjects, you could end up with a skewed result.
Although you would expect equal numbers of each, it is quite possible for you to get a larger number of heads than tails during the test and so the above system would skew things.

Perhaps you could do the test as outlined above and use the continuous heads/tails method as a set of benchmarks.
harrylin
#57
Jan11-11, 02:42 AM
P: 3,187
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
It should be noted that so far, all objections are only opinions and anecdotes. The rebuttal paper can only be considered anecdotal evidence - it cannot be used as evidence that he original paper was flawed - unless/until it is published in a mainstream journal. It is fine to discuss the objections, but they cannot be declared valid at this time.

Likewise, one published paper proves nothing. We have experimental evidence for the claim that is subject to peer review and verification.
I had overlooked that there is a rebuttal paper - thanks, I'll read it now! But such a rebuttal as by Wagenmaker et al cannot be considered "anecdotal", that's something very different; and the publication or not of a paper in a "mainstream journal" cannot be taken as evidence for a paper's correctness, just as an email that passed your spam filter isn't necessary true, nor are all emails that have not yet been sent or that fall in your spambox spam. What matters in physics are presented facts and their verification. Discussions on this forum may be limited to peer reviewed stuff for exactly the same anti-spam purpose, but a forum discussion should not be confused with the scientific method.

Harald

Edit: I now see that the essence of Wagenmaker's paper has been accepted for publication: it's "a revised version of a previous draft that was accepted pending revision for Journal of Personality and Social Psychology."
harrylin
#58
Jan11-11, 02:51 AM
P: 3,187
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
Here is a PDF of a response paper:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1018886/Bem6.pdf

[..]
Thanks a lot for that preview! I'll read it with interest, as it may be useful in general.
pftest
#59
Jan11-11, 03:14 PM
P: 271
These are supposedly 3 failed replications of Bems testresults (dont know if they are the same ones as mentioned in the NYT article):
1 / 2 / 3

There must be more replication efforts out there.

Quote Quote by nismaraatwork
Oh lord... listen pftest... the NYtimes isn't a peer reviewed journal, so what you're talking about is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. I am also NOT suggesting anything about the NYTimes... I really know very little about them and don't use it for my news; I prefer more direct sources. I did read THIS, but the OPINIONS of 9 people are just that... and not scientific support. AGAIN, I don't believe you're familiar with standards like this, so you're running into trouble... again.

Calm down chap, i just posted an article with an abundance of relevant information. I didnt claim the NYT is a peer reviewed scientific journal...
nismaratwork
#60
Jan11-11, 03:47 PM
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by pftest View Post
These are supposedly 3 failed replications of Bems testresults (dont know if they are the same ones as mentioned in the NYT article):
1 / 2 / 3

There must be more replication efforts out there.


Calm down chap, i just posted an article with an abundance of relevant information. I didnt claim the NYT is a peer reviewed scientific journal...
Sorry, I've been jumping between thread, and threads and work too much. I don't agree with what you clearly believe, but nonetheless I was rude. I apologize.
harrylin
#61
Jan11-11, 05:57 PM
P: 3,187
Quote Quote by pftest View Post
These are supposedly 3 failed replications of Bems testresults (dont know if they are the same ones as mentioned in the NYT article):
1 / 2 / 3

There must be more replication efforts out there. [..].
Well, in view of Wagenmakers et al's response paper and their reinterpretation, those are actually successful replications!
Jack21222
#62
Jan11-11, 06:51 PM
P: 772
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
It should be noted that so far, all objections are only opinions and anecdotes. The rebuttal paper can only be considered anecdotal evidence - it cannot be used as evidence that he original paper was flawed - unless/until it is published in a mainstream journal. It is fine to discuss the objections, but they cannot be declared valid at this time.

Likewise, one published paper proves nothing. We have experimental evidence for the claim that is subject to peer review and verification.
I don't think you know what an "anecdote" means. Pointing out methodological flaws isn't an anecdote. You may argue that it isn't scientifically accepted evidence yet, but it's very convincing if you ask me, especially the part where they formed and tested the hypothesis with the same set of data.

That is a horrible abuse of data points.
nismaratwork
#63
Jan11-11, 07:41 PM
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
I don't think you know what an "anecdote" means. Pointing out methodological flaws isn't an anecdote. You may argue that it isn't scientifically accepted evidence yet, but it's very convincing if you ask me, especially the part where they formed and tested the hypothesis with the same set of data.

That is a horrible abuse of data points.
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying... do the rules allow for something published so openly, but not peer reviewed to be considered more than anecdotal? It may be an issue of the rules of the site vs. the standard terminology... I hope.
Jack21222
#64
Jan11-11, 07:51 PM
P: 772
Quote Quote by nismaratwork View Post
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying... do the rules allow for something published so openly, but not peer reviewed to be considered more than anecdotal? It may be an issue of the rules of the site vs. the standard terminology... I hope.
An anecdote is a story. What I linked is not a story. It's a criticism based on methodology.
coelho
#65
Jan12-11, 12:27 AM
P: 52
Quote Quote by nismaratwork View Post
For instance, would it be logical to assume the existence (i.e. truth of hypothesis) of something, then go about to prove your assumption? That's called... NOT SCIENCE...
I agree that it is not science.

Yet, it is exactly what disbelievers of ESP/paranormal do. They assume that it does not exist, then go about to prove it, finding errors in the procedures, statistical analysys, etc, of the ESP experiments.

So, it seems they are being as unscientific as the ones they criticise.
harrylin
#66
Jan12-11, 01:52 AM
P: 3,187
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
An anecdote is a story. What I linked is not a story. It's a criticism based on methodology.
Note that it is just as much peer reviewed as the paper that it criticizes.

The main issue is I think, that the original paper seems to have been a fishing expedition, without properly accounting for that fact. Anyway, I'm now becoming familiar with Bayesian statistics thanks to this.

Harald
Jack21222
#67
Jan12-11, 06:30 AM
P: 772
Quote Quote by coelho View Post
I agree that it is not science.

Yet, it is exactly what disbelievers of ESP/paranormal do. They assume that it does not exist, then go about to prove it, finding errors in the procedures, statistical analysys, etc, of the ESP experiments.

So, it seems they are being as unscientific as the ones they criticise.
Finding errors in other peoples work is the ENTIRE BASIS OF SCIENCE. That's how we have so much confidence in what survives the scientific process, because it HAS been thoroughly attacked from every angle, and it came out the other end alive.

To use your example, if ESP was real, even after the disbelievers go about to disprove it, attempting to find errors in the procedure, statistical analysis, etc, the evidence would still hold up. If it doesn't hold up, that means it isn't accepted by science yet, come back when you have evidence that can survive the scientific process.

To say that those things you mentioned are "unscientific" is just about the most absurd thing you can possibly say. It's like saying giving live birth and having warm blood is "un-mammalian."
JaredJames
#68
Jan12-11, 09:21 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by coelho View Post
Yet, it is exactly what disbelievers of ESP/paranormal do. They assume that it does not exist, then go about to prove it, finding errors in the procedures, statistical analysys, etc, of the ESP experiments.

So, it seems they are being as unscientific as the ones they criticise.
Firstly, if you claim ESP exists then it is up to you to prove it.

You give evidence of its existence, people then 'tear it apart'. That's science.

Every flaw, every error, every single thing you can find wrong with the evidence / procedure, whatever is there, is a mark against it. But, if after all of that the evidence still holds, then ESP would still be accepted.

The default assumption is that science has nothing to say on a subject without evidence. Until verifiable evidence comes to light, there is no reason to entertain the notion of it existing. Simple.

The fact is, the evidence for ESP / the paranormal doesn't hold up to even the simplest examination. And let's not get started on the test methods.

There is nothing unscientific about finding flaws in data and test methods (heck, you're encouraged to). There is nothing unscientific in requiring valid evidence for claims.
nismaratwork
#69
Jan12-11, 10:23 AM
P: 2,284
Coelho: Jack and Jared have replied to your fundamental lack of understanding of science, better than I could.
Ivan Seeking
#70
Jan12-11, 11:24 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
I don't think you know what an "anecdote" means. Pointing out methodological flaws isn't an anecdote. You may argue that it isn't scientifically accepted evidence yet, but it's very convincing if you ask me, especially the part where they formed and tested the hypothesis with the same set of data.
Until we see a published rebuttal, all arguments are anecdotal or unsupported. Unpublished papers count at most as anecdotal evidence, which never trumps a published paper.

We don't use one standard for claims we like, and another for claims we don't like. See the S&D forum guidelines.
nismaratwork
#71
Jan12-11, 11:28 AM
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Until we see a published rebuttal, all arguments are anecdotal or unsupported.

We don't use one standard for claims we like, and another for claims we don't like. See the S&D forum guidelines.
This is my understanding of "anecdote" as per the scientific method, and not just a PF-rules issue; Would that be correct?
Ivan Seeking
#72
Jan12-11, 11:31 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
Quote Quote by nismaratwork View Post
This is my understanding of "anecdote" as per the scientific method, and not just a PF-rules issue; Would that be correct?
In science, an unpublished paper counts for nothing. They are only allowed for discussion here as they do often constitute anecdotal evidence for the claim or argument.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Has anybody here been published in a scientifc journal ? Academic Guidance 85
Published paper is needed General Physics 10
New published issue of Journal of Physics Students (JPS) General Physics 0
New published issue of Journal of Physics Students (JPS) General Physics 0
Getting Published in a Journal General Discussion 2