Landrew wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Landrew wrote:What amazes me is the hasty desire to shove the square-peg evidence into round little holes. When dogs go to wait by the door as soon as the owner forms the intention of returning home, something unexplained is at work. Not to say that dogs are psychic, but I don't believe a plausible scientific explanation for this behavior has been offered so far.

This means either that a simple scientific explanation has not yet been found, or something not-so-simple is happening.

Either way, it's a job for science to do; not for skeptics to ridicule and dismiss away.

The problem is that it is not unambiguously shown that dogs do go to wait by the door as soon as the owner forms the intention of returning home? Indeed, going 10 min before is counted as a hit.

Richard Wiseman has some interesting things to say on Sheldrake's methodology and interpretation.

It looks to me that the Sheldrake data is inadequate to decide that anything inexplicable is going on.

If you know of better evidence please tell me about it.

The problem is actually that the results which score far above probability, have not been plausibly explained by anyone. The experimenter has satisfied the burden of proof with evidence; now those who discount the evidence must support their claims.

They don't 'score far above probability' unless the interpretation is right. The prior probability seems to be unknown because factors such as rising anxiety conditioned response and subtle clues have not been quantified.

Are there any properly double blind experiments on this?
Has someone dealt designed experiments to eliminate or quantify conditioning?

I'm not saying Sheldrake is wrong, although I am sceptical. I am just saying he doesn't have the sort of evidence that gets you to anything that warrants explanation and is inexplicable. He hasn't shown that a dog knows when its owner is coming home.

GrahamH wrote:

Landrew wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Landrew wrote:What amazes me is the hasty desire to shove the square-peg evidence into round little holes. When dogs go to wait by the door as soon as the owner forms the intention of returning home, something unexplained is at work. Not to say that dogs are psychic, but I don't believe a plausible scientific explanation for this behavior has been offered so far.

This means either that a simple scientific explanation has not yet been found, or something not-so-simple is happening.

Either way, it's a job for science to do; not for skeptics to ridicule and dismiss away.

The problem is that it is not unambiguously shown that dogs do go to wait by the door as soon as the owner forms the intention of returning home? Indeed, going 10 min before is counted as a hit.

Richard Wiseman has some interesting things to say on Sheldrake's methodology and interpretation.

It looks to me that the Sheldrake data is inadequate to decide that anything inexplicable is going on.

If you know of better evidence please tell me about it.

The problem is actually that the results which score far above probability, have not been plausibly explained by anyone. The experimenter has satisfied the burden of proof with evidence; now those who discount the evidence must support their claims.

They don't 'score far above probability' unless the interpretation is right. The prior probability seems to be unknown because factors such as rising anxiety conditioned response and subtle clues have not been quantified.

Are there any properly double blind experiments on this?
Has someone dealt designed experiments to eliminate or quantify conditioning?

I'm not saying Sheldrake is wrong, although I am sceptical. I am just saying he doesn't have the sort of evidence that gets you to anything that warrants explanation and is inexplicable. He hasn't shown that a dog knows when its owner is coming home.

I have no quarrel with anyone who wants to examine the data and the methodology of the experiments. My beef is against those who claim there's no need, and want to form their conclusions without evidence.

Landrew wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Landrew wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

The problem is that it is not unambiguously shown that dogs do go to wait by the door as soon as the owner forms the intention of returning home? Indeed, going 10 min before is counted as a hit.

Richard Wiseman has some interesting things to say on Sheldrake's methodology and interpretation.

It looks to me that the Sheldrake data is inadequate to decide that anything inexplicable is going on.

If you know of better evidence please tell me about it.

The problem is actually that the results which score far above probability, have not been plausibly explained by anyone. The experimenter has satisfied the burden of proof with evidence; now those who discount the evidence must support their claims.

They don't 'score far above probability' unless the interpretation is right. The prior probability seems to be unknown because factors such as rising anxiety conditioned response and subtle clues have not been quantified.

Are there any properly double blind experiments on this?
Has someone dealt designed experiments to eliminate or quantify conditioning?

I'm not saying Sheldrake is wrong, although I am sceptical. I am just saying he doesn't have the sort of evidence that gets you to anything that warrants explanation and is inexplicable. He hasn't shown that a dog knows when its owner is coming home.

I have no quarrel with anyone who wants to examine the data and the methodology of the experiments. My beef is against those who claim there's no need, and want to form their conclusions without evidence.

And do you have evidence to support your conclusion ?

When dogs go to wait by the door as soon as the owner forms the intention of returning home, something unexplained is at work.

Is that based only on Sheldrake and one dog?

GrahamH wrote:

Landrew wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Landrew wrote:
The problem is actually that the results which score far above probability, have not been plausibly explained by anyone. The experimenter has satisfied the burden of proof with evidence; now those who discount the evidence must support their claims.

They don't 'score far above probability' unless the interpretation is right. The prior probability seems to be unknown because factors such as rising anxiety conditioned response and subtle clues have not been quantified.

Are there any properly double blind experiments on this?
Has someone dealt designed experiments to eliminate or quantify conditioning?

I'm not saying Sheldrake is wrong, although I am sceptical. I am just saying he doesn't have the sort of evidence that gets you to anything that warrants explanation and is inexplicable. He hasn't shown that a dog knows when its owner is coming home.

I have no quarrel with anyone who wants to examine the data and the methodology of the experiments. My beef is against those who claim there's no need, and want to form their conclusions without evidence.

And do you have evidence to support your conclusion ?

When dogs go to wait by the door as soon as the owner forms the intention of returning home, something unexplained is at work.

Is that based only on Sheldrake and one dog?

Someone needs to research the topic before making up conclusions about the findings.

Traffic lights respond to emotional states. When I'm in a hurry for something important lights are more likely to turn red as I approach. I'm sure you have noticed that yourself.

I think this inexplicable phenomenon should be researched by scientists.

GrahamH wrote:Traffic lights respond to emotional states. When I'm in a hurry for something important lights are more likely to turn red as I approach. I'm sure you have noticed that yourself.

I think this inexplicable phenomenon should be researched by scientists.

I believe Shaldrake goes into detail in one of his books, how the quality of his opposition from "the skeptics" is much diminished by the fact that most of their assertions, intended to falsify his results, are evidence-free.

Landrew wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Landrew wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

They don't 'score far above probability' unless the interpretation is right. The prior probability seems to be unknown because factors such as rising anxiety conditioned response and subtle clues have not been quantified.

Are there any properly double blind experiments on this?
Has someone dealt designed experiments to eliminate or quantify conditioning?

I'm not saying Sheldrake is wrong, although I am sceptical. I am just saying he doesn't have the sort of evidence that gets you to anything that warrants explanation and is inexplicable. He hasn't shown that a dog knows when its owner is coming home.

I have no quarrel with anyone who wants to examine the data and the methodology of the experiments. My beef is against those who claim there's no need, and want to form their conclusions without evidence.

And do you have evidence to support your conclusion ?

When dogs go to wait by the door as soon as the owner forms the intention of returning home, something unexplained is at work.

Is that based only on Sheldrake and one dog?

Someone needs to research the topic before making up conclusions about the findings.

First you state that there is an inexplicable phenomena to be explained (a conclusion) then you indicate you have not researched the topic and know of no evidence for it except the dubious data from Sheldrake.

GrahamH wrote:

Landrew wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Landrew wrote:
I have no quarrel with anyone who wants to examine the data and the methodology of the experiments. My beef is against those who claim there's no need, and want to form their conclusions without evidence.

And do you have evidence to support your conclusion ?

When dogs go to wait by the door as soon as the owner forms the intention of returning home, something unexplained is at work.

Is that based only on Sheldrake and one dog?

Someone needs to research the topic before making up conclusions about the findings.

First you state that there is an inexplicable phenomena to be explained (a conclusion) then you indicate you have not researched the topic and know of no evidence for it except the dubious data from Sheldrake.

Once again, I need to explain that an unfalsified hypothesis is just that; no one is claiming that it's proved. This one even has data which has been published and peer reviewed, yet for some particular reason, that doesn't seem to count for anything according to some.

At the very least, science has a job to do; either by falsifying this hypothesis or providing corroborative support. Ridicule and dismissal accomplish nothing at all in that direction, but to attempt to obstruct further investigation of this phenomenon.

Landrew wrote:
Yar, well in my opinion, if Sheldrake thinks something is true, it's probably false. The guy is an outstanding source of bullshit. I think a few others have mentioned this.

Sheldrake has written extensively about the quality of of the criticism leveled at his work. He claims that his assertions are all evidence-based and published in peer-reviewed journals, but so far as he can tell, the opinions of his critics are evidence-free.[/quote]

That looks remarkably similar to someone else I might mention.

Landrew wrote:

Weaver wrote:Citation, Landrew?

Heard him in a radio interview, explaining that he wrote an entire chapter on the subject in his new book, not yet released in the U.S. I'll be sure to cite it for you when that happens.

Interesting how "armchair skeptics" (his term, not mine) feel they can just let it stand, to fling out insults, ridicule and dismissal and consider the matter settled, but when a serious researcher presents compelling evidence, it's never "credible" enough to warrant their serious consideration. If that's not skeptics behaving badly, nothing is.

Of course, it's not like people have actually gone and tried to directly reproduce his experiments and found no correlation... they were just ALL wrong, because he was right, and they were skeptics, so they're automatically at fault - right Landrew?

Landrew wrote:

Fallible wrote::rofl:

Yes, exactly what he was talking about. No evidence at all, just a firm conclusion.

Did anyone notice Landrew proferring evidence?

I don't think I've ever seen that occur yet.

Landrew wrote:I hate to let the air out of the debate, but this could be quickly settled by examining peer-reviewed data which has been published from research in this subject. Unless of course, it can all be disqualified as evidence, up-front, and without examination.

I take it that you've also read the attempts by others to reproduce Sheldrake's experiments? I mean... if you are going to support a position, you've certainly informed yourself first, right?

Landrew wrote:

tolman wrote:

Landrew wrote:I hate to let the air out of the debate, but this could be quickly settled by examining peer-reviewed data which has been published from research in this subject. Unless of course, it can all be disqualified as evidence, up-front, and without examination.

Have attempts at replicating this evidence been made by other people, and if so, with what results?

After all, as everyone with any scientific understanding knows, 'peer review' is distinctly limited in capability, often being able to do little more than spot mistakes where mistakes are obvious, or question methodology within the limits of how extensively and clearly such methodology has been described.
If, for example, someone was having data contaminated by a subtle flaw in an experiment, in many situations that wouldn't be something which peer review would be expected to be able pick up on.

You might want to check the works of Rupert Sheldrake, who claims all his findings have been peer-reviewed by reputable scientists.

This is becoming incredibly mealy-mouthed. Do you maintain that Sheldrake's work is actually peer-reviewed and validated by other scientists, or are you just reporting that this is what he says?

Landrew wrote:What amazes me is the hasty desire to shove the square-peg evidence into round little holes. When dogs go to wait by the door as soon as the owner forms the intention of returning home, something unexplained is at work.

Methinks you haven't done the reading, have you?

Try looking at what other scientists attempting to reproduce this found.

I'll give you a hint: no correlation.

The problem is with statistical bias. Sheldrake ignored all the times the dog went to the window (not the door) when the owner wasn't on their way home.

It'd be interesting as well for you to consider how exactly they worked out precisely when the owner formed the intention of going home.

Landrew wrote:Not to say that dogs are psychic, but I don't believe a plausible scientific explanation for this behavior has been offered so far.

This means either that a simple scientific explanation has not yet been found, or something not-so-simple is happening.

Either way, it's a job for science to do; not for skeptics to ridicule and dismiss away.

What amazes me is how you repeatedly use your credulity as a device for attacking people who don't just uncritically accept anything at face value.

Landrew wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Landrew wrote:What amazes me is the hasty desire to shove the square-peg evidence into round little holes. When dogs go to wait by the door as soon as the owner forms the intention of returning home, something unexplained is at work. Not to say that dogs are psychic, but I don't believe a plausible scientific explanation for this behavior has been offered so far.

This means either that a simple scientific explanation has not yet been found, or something not-so-simple is happening.

Either way, it's a job for science to do; not for skeptics to ridicule and dismiss away.

The problem is that it is not unambiguously shown that dogs do go to wait by the door as soon as the owner forms the intention of returning home? Indeed, going 10 min before is counted as a hit.

Richard Wiseman has some interesting things to say on Sheldrake's methodology and interpretation.

It looks to me that the Sheldrake data is inadequate to decide that anything inexplicable is going on.

If you know of better evidence please tell me about it.

The problem is actually that the results which score far above probability, have not been plausibly explained by anyone. The experimenter has satisfied the burden of proof with evidence; now those who discount the evidence must support their claims.

You really haven't done much reading on this topic, have you? Doesn't surprise me at all.

More experiments on this have been conducted by people other than Sheldrake - a lot more. They can't validate his findings. What's the likely explanation for that, Landrew?

Landrew wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Traffic lights respond to emotional states. When I'm in a hurry for something important lights are more likely to turn red as I approach. I'm sure you have noticed that yourself.

I think this inexplicable phenomenon should be researched by scientists.

I believe Shaldrake goes into detail in one of his books, how the quality of his opposition from "the skeptics" is much diminished by the fact that most of their assertions, intended to falsify his results, are evidence-free.

Lovely how you are just operating as a crackpot's propaganda mouth-piece here. Again, I am mostly interested as to why you exhibit such defensive behaviour when you clearly haven't done much reading around the topic. I can furnish you with links if you'd like?

Landrew wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Landrew wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

And do you have evidence to support your conclusion ?


Is that based only on Sheldrake and one dog?

Someone needs to research the topic before making up conclusions about the findings.

First you state that there is an inexplicable phenomena to be explained (a conclusion) then you indicate you have not researched the topic and know of no evidence for it except the dubious data from Sheldrake.

Once again, I need to explain that an unfalsified hypothesis is just that; no one is claiming that it's proved. This one even has data which has been published and peer reviewed, yet for some particular reason, that doesn't seem to count for anything according to some.

At the very least, science has a job to do; either by falsifying this hypothesis or providing corroborative support. Ridicule and dismissal accomplish nothing at all in that direction, but to attempt to obstruct further investigation of this phenomenon.

Proved hypotheses? What on earth are you talking about now?

Published and peer-reviewed?

Want to cite the journal, Landrew? Only, I know where he published this.

Which journal? I'm probably in a good position to tell you how sound it is

j x

GrahamH wrote:

Landrew wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Landrew wrote:
The problem is actually that the results which score far above probability, have not been plausibly explained by anyone. The experimenter has satisfied the burden of proof with evidence; now those who discount the evidence must support their claims.

They don't 'score far above probability' unless the interpretation is right. The prior probability seems to be unknown because factors such as rising anxiety conditioned response and subtle clues have not been quantified.

Are there any properly double blind experiments on this?
Has someone dealt designed experiments to eliminate or quantify conditioning?

I'm not saying Sheldrake is wrong, although I am sceptical. I am just saying he doesn't have the sort of evidence that gets you to anything that warrants explanation and is inexplicable. He hasn't shown that a dog knows when its owner is coming home.

I have no quarrel with anyone who wants to examine the data and the methodology of the experiments. My beef is against those who claim there's no need, and want to form their conclusions without evidence.

And do you have evidence to support your conclusion ?

When dogs go to wait by the door as soon as the owner forms the intention of returning home, something unexplained is at work.

Is that based only on Sheldrake and one dog?

I did a bit of research on this dog thing a year or so ago, we had a very long discussion about it here, and yes it was based on one dog and one owner. Multiple times the dog was observed going to a front window about ten minutes before the owner arrived home. This might be amazing if Sheldrake had recorded how many times a day and at what intervals the dog went to the window when the owner was not ten minutes away from home and the only time that the dog went to the window was when the owner was in fact ten minutes from home.

Sheldrake is a kook and his "experiments" are flawed. Sheldrake could have attempted to falsify his "hypothesis" in a number of ways but he didn't. One way that I thought of doing it was have the owner gone for a twenty-four hour period and record how often the dog went to the window, but he didn't do that.

With his phone call experiment that included one group of sisters guessing which sister was calling he could have set up and experiment, lasting a determined amount of time, with a hundred people or a thousand where before answering the phone they wrote down who they thought was calling. Add up the hits and the misses and do the math. Sheldrake didn't do anything like this.

It is not a proper experiment if you end the experiment when the data collected meets your expectations.

As for being watched from behind and being able to feel it? It is superstitious nonsense, probably born out of bad literature. Some people might want to believe that it's true, but there is absolutely no evidence for it or reason to believe it.

Sheldrake forms badly constructed "hypotheses". Conducts sloppy experiments. Then publishes his "findings" not through scientific journals, but then claims that they have been peer reviewed when they haven't.

Oh! and let's not forget morphic resonance and the baby chick experiment where Sheldrake tried to prove that learning of negative stimuli could be passed in somewhat of a Lamarckian fashion from mother to offspring.

Sheldrake has in fact done a load of work with other ""psychic mutts" since Jaytee -- it forms the basis for his book :
Sheldrake, R. (1999b) Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home. London: Hutchinson. I have never read it. The thread on Jaytee and the psychic dog thing is here - www.rationalskepticism.org/paranormal/j ... 14297.html I happen to be friends with Dr Matthew Smith, who with Prof Richard Wiseman were the sceptics who conducted the original critique and experimental rebuttal - I think I cited what Matthew says now in that thread, but if not i can find it as he was kind enough to give me some thoughts on it all.

Sheldrake is not actually the only person to find the Remote Staring effect. There is a fairly massive literatuire, and I think I cited some of the papers earlier in the thread. I'm not a big fan of Rupert Sheldrake, but I don't think we can poison the well by ad hominems against him on the issue. I will happily have a proper look and write an assessment of the evidence if anyone really cares, but as I have possibly mentioned I find it all incredibly dull

j x