Fallible wrote::rofl:

stijndeloose wrote:So you have compelling evidence? Do you have an actual hypothesis this time?

Landrew wrote:

stijndeloose wrote:So you have compelling evidence? Do you have an actual hypothesis this time?

Still asking me to support a claim? I expected better.

Landrew wrote:

Fallible wrote:

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

Landrew wrote:

stijndeloose wrote:So you have compelling evidence? Do you have an actual hypothesis this time?

Still asking me to support a claim? I expected better.

Landrew wrote:No disrespect intended, but it's more important what evidence supports a hypothesis, not what anyone feels about it. Truth is not predicated on what anyone feels; it's simply not relevant.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:I have no idea how this effect would be established...but I think it would make sense for animals to develop this kind of sixth sense as a survival mechanism against predators.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:I have no idea how this effect would be established...but I think it would make sense for animals to develop this kind of sixth sense as a survival mechanism against predators.

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.

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.

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.

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.

tolman wrote:

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.

You might want to answer the question I asked about replication, which specifically pointed out that peer review has fairly specific limitations.

In the papers I have written, I could have made results up, or had accidental errors in the data, or been consciously or unconsciously biasing results by choices in data selection, or had flaws in the experimental setup which the description was not comprehensive enough to allow someone to spot, without any of those things being likely to cause a peer-reviewer to notice.

Something being peer-reviewed really doesn't necessarily say much at all about the quality of the data, and doesn't say anything about the experimental design which couldn't be worked out by anyone else looking at the paper.

That's in no way a criticism of any individual, it's simply a statement about the way science works - a peer-reviewer is in many ways a proof-reader, hoping to spot obvious mistakes such as internal inconsistencies or breaches of basic 'laws of science' before publication, and also paying some attention to academic niceties like whether the work may be ripped off from elsewhere.

Landrew wrote:Well, I agree with you that everything is "doubtible," but you shouldn't get to assign credibility based on your personal likes/dislikes of the subject matter. I believe that science, when practiced properly, is our best tool for assigning weight to experimental findings.

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.

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.