Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 76 of 237 (532133)
10-21-2009 1:18 PM


Online Precog Experiment
In recent posts I have discussed the quantum quackery and misleading use of pseudoscientific terminology present in Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic field" theory.
However it turns out that as well as such general theoretical quantum quackery Sheldrake is also involved in experiments seeking specifically to demonstrate precognition and other paranormal phenomenon. See Sheldrake's Online Precognition Experiment - Sign Up Here for an example of the sort of experiments he is conducting. As well as the opportunity to register as a participant in this particular precognition example.
It seems many of Sheldrake's more controversial experimental conclusions are based on anecdote and methods of informal experimentation of the type linked to. Methods where controls are lax. To say the least.
In fairness Sheldrake has also collaborated with others such as Chris French in more controlled studies of the sort of phenomenon in question such as This. However Sheldrake's results have been unable to be replicated in these tightly controlled conditions.
Chris French writes:
I personally have never had any success in replicating the effects that Rupert has designed, not only that, my project students who are not as skeptical as I am, and in fact are usually big fans of Rupert’s, they’ve also failed to replicate the effects that Rupert got. Chris French Interview
However in explanation for these failings Sheldrake responds:
Sheldrake writes:
Chris insisted on a procedure whereby all the people who were calling them had to be in a particular place at a particular time. They all had to be filmed. The subjects had to be filmed and in these experiments the results were pretty near chance. He would say this because when you do it really rigorously the effect goes away. I would say that if you get people doing something fairly sensitive like telepathy, which works unconsciously, you get everyone on edge, you get them really nervous, feeling they’re being treated as if they’re cheating, everyone involved is treated as if they’re a cheat.
Then you create conditions of nervousness that interfere with the phenomenon. Sheldrake Interview
The bottom line here is that, for whatever reason, none of Sheldrake's claims have been able to be definitively replicated in highly controlled conditions. Until they are any confidence in the experimental rigor or results in favour of Sheldrake's paranormal conclusions are unjustified.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 4:06 AM Straggler has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4326 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 77 of 237 (532220)
10-22-2009 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Straggler
10-21-2009 1:18 PM


Re: Online Precog Experiment
quote:
The bottom line here is that, for whatever reason, none of Sheldrake's claims have been able to be definitively replicated in highly controlled conditions. Until they are any confidence in the experimental rigor or results in favour of Sheldrake's paranormal conclusions are unjustified.
I believe it's equally possible that this phenomenon is telepathy rather than precognition. At the moment there's no way of ascertaining.
Your statement above about none of Sheldrake's claims being replicated is false. You have chosen to ignore my invitation to look at the Jaytee and Nkisi experiments and found this instead, which you seem to believe proves definitively that Sheldrake is a quack. I still think that this subject is OT because your OP talks about precognition and quantum physics. Telepathy may exist, may have nothing to do with precognition, and may also have little or nothing to do with quantum physics.
I also think Sheldrake makes a good point about increasingly strict controls possibly eliminating any effects. We're looking at a phenomenon that may well require spontaneity and relaxation on the part of both sender and receiver. Sheldrake gave the hypothetical (and weird to imagine) example of someone having to prove that an erection is possible, when they are sat in a lab surrounded by video cameras and people in white coats with clipboards. French's conclusions could be similar to the scientists in this situation saying that erections don't exist because they do not occur under strictly controlled conditions.
I think that RAZD's intelligent summary in the pseudoskepticism thread is apt here. Taking one negative experiment in which the original parameters were changed, and using this to claim that it invalidates Sheldrake's work, is hardly an open-minded skeptical or even a logical position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2009 1:18 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2009 7:06 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 78 of 237 (532233)
10-22-2009 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Kitsune
10-22-2009 4:06 AM


Rock Solid Evidence
You have chosen to ignore my invitation to look at the Jaytee and Nkisi experiments and found this instead
You said these examples were off-topic. In fact you are still saying they are off-topic. Whilst the examples I have linked to Sheldrake himself describes as "precognition". Do you want me to consider the Jaytee and Nkisi experiments here or not?
I still think that this subject is OT because your OP talks about precognition and quantum physics. Telepathy may exist, may have nothing to do with precognition, and may also have little or nothing to do with quantum physics.
The phenomenon under consideration is described by Sheldrake himself as "precognition". He attempts to explain such phenomenon in terms of ethereal fields comprising of non-physical energy and immaterial matter. All of which is ultimately justified by invoking a "universal quantum field that forms the substratum of the physical world". If you don't want to take part in this thread LindaLou then don't. But please don't tell me what is on and off topic in a thread that I setup explicitly to look at exacly this sort of quantum mysticism.
which you seem to believe proves definitively that Sheldrake is a quack
Me calling him a quack has nothing to do with his paranormal research as such. It is his bogus abuse of scientific terminology to give credence to his spiritual "hypothesis" that I most deeply object to. Sheldrake needs to decide whether he is proposing a spiritual answer or a scientific answer. Because his "morphic fields" claim invokes the entirely supernatural/spiritual/divine and materially unknowable but describes this in terms of "fields", "energy" and "matter". All under the banner of quantum mysticism. This is intellectually dishonest, desperatley (and I believe intentionally) misleading to the public who read his books and consider them scientific in nature and of detriment to both genuine science and genuine notions of spirituality.
For Christ's sake LindaLou he is invoking immaterial matter!! Or "subtle matter" as he calls it to avoid the blatant terminological contradiction. Which part of this is not the very definition of pseudoscience?
I also think Sheldrake makes a good point about increasingly strict controls possibly eliminating any effects.
Then the effects are conveniently irrefutable. Nearly as irrefutable as his ethereal field hypothesis. All of which I would say is a reason for at least some cynicism in itself. The truth can always be questioned. Those who claim it cannot are usually hiding something.
The morphic fields Sheldrake uses to explain these claimed experimental phenomenon are far more powerful than the physical fields with which he conflates his spiritual notions. Undiminished by distance. Unhindered by time. His fields are all reaching and instantaneous. And yet if we point a camera at a test subject this miraculous phenomenon fades to zero effect. Uncanny.
Sheldrake gave the hypothetical (and weird to imagine) example of someone having to prove that an erection is possible, when they are sat in a lab surrounded by video cameras and people in white coats with clipboards. French's conclusions could be similar to the scientists in this situation saying that erections don't exist because they do not occur under strictly controlled conditions.
And yet we do know that erections exist LindaLou. In fact I would say that the objective evidence for this particular phenomenon is rock solid.
I think that RAZD's intelligent summary in the pseudoskepticism thread is apt here.
LindaLou agrees completely and in every way with RAZD. Why am I not shocked. No doubt you will be equally shocked to hear that I think RAZD has woefully misrepresented the position held by his opponents regarding even the possibility of any sort of certainty. No doubt you will also be stunned to find out that as a result of this complete misinterpretation he has watched the entire point sail blissfully over his head in his summary. But cest la vie.
Taking one negative experiment in which the original parameters were changed, and using this to claim that it invalidates Sheldrake's work, is hardly an open-minded skeptical or even a logical position
I have not taken "one negative experiment". I have looked at a lot of this guys work these last couple of days and scanned through a couple of his books. Sheldrake's morphic field theory is spiritualism disguised as science. As discussed in Message 66.
His experimental work on chicks was discussed in Message 61 and the conclusion of the independent adjudicator was as follows
Independent Adjudicator writes:
"....runs counter to the prediction from the morphic resonance hypothesis, and [Sheldrake's] analysis obscures this fact".
Then we have the tightly controlled telephone experiment that you are referring to as "one negative experiment". Then we have the example of his online precognition experiment and a range of other similar investigations. These are methodologically flawed by any standard of experiment. I could go on with more detail (and I will if you want me to) but essentially any decent experiment will seek to eliminate false positives. This is why randomised, double blind, large scale etc. etc. etc. are the most reliable tests. In a word "controls". But if you look at Sheldrake's work (e.g. the online experiment I linked to) it is full of opportunity for false positives. He pays lip service to controls and accepts them when he collaborates with others. But then he gets negative results and complains about the controls that are in place during these collaborations. In summary Sheldrake's theories are spiritualism masquerading as science and the results of his paranormal experimental research are methodologically disputable to say the very least.
Your statement above about none of Sheldrake's claims being replicated is false.
Can you point me in the direction of these independently corroborated and strictly controlled replicated results? Because I have been unable to find them.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 4:06 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 8:49 AM Straggler has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4326 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 79 of 237 (532240)
10-22-2009 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Straggler
10-22-2009 7:06 AM


Re: Rock Solid Evidence
quote:
The phenomenon under consideration is described by Sheldrake himself as "precognition"
He has the final say does he? Seems to me that if you know who's on the phone before you pick it up, you could possibly be receiving their thoughts directed at you. He has said this elsewhere, and his phone experiments are sometimes called "telephone telepathy."
quote:
But please don't tell me what is on and off topic in a thread that I setup to look at exacly this sort of thing.
I was just looking at your OP. It looks to me like it would now be appropriate to talk in detail about some of his other experiments, which I will try to do this afternoon, though as I said before:
a) They could be about telepathy rather than precognition.
b) The mechanism that causes them may have nothing to do with morphic fields or quantum physics, and the experiments do not answer this question; they simply give evidence that the phenomena exist.
quote:
It is his bogus abuse of scientific terminology to give credence to his spiritual "hypothesis" that I most deeply object to.
Whatever. You seem to want me to get into this subject with you when I told you I didn't know much about it. Personally I find the idea of morphic fields intriguing, if not very well supported by evidence, and if you read in any real detail you would find that Sheldrake attempts to use them to explain certain phenomena that current science cannot satisfactorily explain, such as the movements of birds and fish in large groups or the behaviour of termites in their nests. I've never said I thought he was correct; I said I don't know -- which shouldn't be surprising really, since as you know I have similar views to RAZD about things which are neither proved nor unproved. Interestingly, you (true to form as well) are very keen to dismiss all of this as nonsense, and are keen as well to pick out any evidence from "failed" experiments to support this declaration. You may have read in one of your links that self-styled skeptics tend to dismiss positive data, saying there must be something wrong with it; while negative data is instantly seized upon as definitive proof? Can you honestly say you're not doing the same thing?
quote:
Then the effects are conveniently irrefutable.
What, because the phenomena may require conditions of relaxation and spontaneity? Presumably in the world you inhabit, all phenomena created by humans must be able to be produced regardless of a person's state of mind, or else it isn't real? Shedrake also mentioned that it might be helpful to do the experiments with people who claim to have unusual ability in that particular area and see what the results are. I don't see any problem with that; it could make any positive results more obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2009 7:06 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 10:45 AM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 81 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2009 10:46 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4326 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 80 of 237 (532260)
10-22-2009 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Kitsune
10-22-2009 8:49 AM


Dogs that Know experiments
"Dogs that Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home"
Rupert Sheldrake set out to test the idea that some dogs seem to anticipate the arrival home of their owners. If you are interested in discussing these experiments then please read Sheldrake's paper here. I will provide as concise a summary as possible:
Random household surveys in the UK and US showed that 45-52% of dog owners believe their pets demonstrate this ability.
Sheldrake set up the experiments to rule out the following possibilities that the dog could:
-- Be hearing or smelling its owner approaching;
-- Be reacting to routine times of return;
-- Be responding to subtle cues from people at home who know when the absent person is returning;
-- Go to the place at which it waits for its owner when the person is not on their way home, and people only selectively remember its apparent anticipation when the owner returns home shortly afterwards.
Basic details about the experimental conditions:
The owner's (Pam Smart) journeys home varied from 7-22 km, at various times of the day or evening, and followed no routine pattern. She used her own car, a taxi, and cars belonging to her sisters or friends. The dog's (Jaytee) behaviour did not vary with the mode of transport. Usually Pam did not know in advance when she'd be coming home; the people the dog was left with were never informed. 95 videotaped observations were made in 3 different environments. When Pam was out, Jaytee's visits to the window and absences from it were monitored continuously on videotape, which was mounted on a tripod and left running for up to 4 hours at a time.
In a series of 12 experiments, return times were randomly selected by the following method: Pam was beeped on a pager by a person in London, 300 km away. The return times were determined by throws of dice.
There were 10 control experiments in which Pam came home unusually late or not at all. Her parents, with whom Jaytee was left, were not informed of this. These results agreed with the null hypothesis that Jaytee should spend about the same average amount of time at the window during any time period.
There were 50 videotaped observations of Jaytee on his own. Jaytee showed anticipatory behaviour in some but not all of these, and on average there was statistically significant anticipatory behaviour but less than in the main experiments.
Sheldrake used two methods to tabulate the data: one for all visits to the window, even if the dog was obviously barking at cats etc; one when visits to the window that seemed to have nothing to do with anticipatory behaviour were excluded.
Sheldrake's paper discusses this in more detail. Unfortunately I am unable to copy any of the tables as images to display here, but if you look at the paper you will see in the first two graphs that Jaytee spent significantly more time at the window when Pam left for home, and while she was travelling.
In a Randomized Permutation Analysis, the probability that the observed pattern differed from the null hypothesis was p<0.000003.
Richard Wiseman, a prominent skeptic, was critical of the idea of animal telepathy, and accepted an invitation to replicate the experiments with Pam and Jaytee in 1999. Wiseman and his team used some methods that were different to those of Sheldrake, and they did not plot their results on graphs. At first, Wiseman considered an experiment successful if the first time that Jaytee inexplicably went to the window occurred in the first 10-minute time block after Pam left for home. Then he tried looking at the first time Jaytee inexplicably went to the window for more than 2 minutes after Pam started for home. His results were negative.
However, Sheldrake had found that Jaytee went to the window a few minutes before Pam started her journey. Wiseman also hadn't watched Jaytee's overall behaviour after Pam set out; he did wait at the window significantly more often. When Wiseman's data was analysed including these details, the results were similar to Sheldrake's. Jaytee was at the window 4% of the time during Pam's main period of absence, and 78% of the time when she was coming home.
Wiseman claimed for 8 years that he had "debunked" Sheldrake's claims. In 2007 he admitted on the Skeptico podcast that his data does correspond with Sheldrake's.
These experiments seem to show that dogs are able to anticipate when their owners are coming home, using an as-yet unexplained innate ability. What's more, they seem to be able to sense the intention to come home, since the anticipatory behaviour often begins when the decision to come home is made but the owner has not yet begun the journey. The dog goes to the window less often when it is at home by itself. Sheldrake hypothesizes that the anticipatory behaviour evolved as a signal to other members of the animal's family or group, and would like to see these experiments tried on wolves in the wild.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 8:49 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2009 10:54 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 81 of 237 (532261)
10-22-2009 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Kitsune
10-22-2009 8:49 AM


An Open Mnded Skeptic Like Me
Straggler writes:
The phenomenon under consideration is described by Sheldrake himself as "precognition"
He has the final say does he?
Well he calls it "Rupert Sheldrake's Email precognitiontest". Why are you so insistent that it be called telepthy? What difference does it really make? Did you read the link Sheldrake's Online Precognition Experiment - Sign Up Here
You cannot blame me for either the fact that Sheldrake describes his own experiments as exploring precognition or for the fact that his morphic field hypothesis is intrinsically shrouded in quantum mysticism and conflationary pseudoscientific terminology. Don't shoot the messenger.
Whatever. You seem to want me to get into this subject with you when I told you I didn't know much about it.
Mod raised Sheldrake. I had never heard of him so I looked into him and his claims. These seemed to fit the bill perfectly as examples of exactly the sort of quantum mystical pseudoscience I intended this thread to be about. That is all. I originally had Deeprak Chopra and his quantum healing in mind.
I was just looking at your OP. It looks to me like it would now be appropriate to talk in detail about some of his other experiments, which I will try to do this afternoon, though as I said before:
a) They could be about telepathy rather than precognition.
b) The mechanism that causes them may have nothing to do with morphic fields or quantum physics, and the experiments do not answer this question; they simply give evidence that the phenomena exist.
Do as you will. But everything I have read suggests that Sheldrake explains paranormal phenomenon in terms of quantum mysticism by means of "morphic fields". Quantum mysticism is what this entire thread is about and this is the context in which any examples are going to be analysed. How is this phenomenon explained? Does the explanation put forward invoke quantum mysticsim at all? Whilst I will gladly point out any experimental methodological flaws that are blatant and glaring even to an amateur idiot like me in any examples you detail, my focus will be upon uncovering any quantum based explanations that Sheldrake or others might be citing for these phenomenon.
As I have repeatedly stated in this thread I am quite happy to accept, for the sake of argument, paranormal parrots and telepathic dogs. It is the pseudoscientific quantum explanations for such phenomenon that I am primarily interested in here. After all what else would you expect from an open minded skeptic like me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 8:49 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 82 of 237 (532263)
10-22-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Kitsune
10-22-2009 10:45 AM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
Excellent. Telepathic dogs. I love dogs.
So how does Sheldrake explain this fascinating phenomenon in terms of morphic fields? Or does he provide some other explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 10:45 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 12:32 PM Straggler has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4326 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 83 of 237 (532278)
10-22-2009 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Straggler
10-22-2009 10:54 AM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
Gosh, thanks for paying zero attention to the information I posted. I believe that it does show that telepathy is a possible reality. That's what we need to do before we posit any explanations as to what could cause such a thing to occur: accepting that it even happens in the first place.
It would be interesting to see you take this possibility seriously, rather than, say, have a laugh at some stuff that sounds kooky, and people's kooky explanations for it. I'm not yet convinced from your posts to me that this isn't your intention here.
I'm not bothered about Sheldrake's explanations for his experimental results. I've said several times that I am "agnostic" about morphic fields, yet you talk to me as if I'm their most fervent supporter or as if the validity of the telepathy experiments hinges on their existence. What I do know is that there is currently no scientific explanation for the "Dogs that Know" results. I expect someone could find one, though it will probably involve some original thinking. I also believe the explanation will enhance what we already know about science, as discoveries tend to do, rather than threaten the fabric of reality as we know it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2009 10:54 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by onifre, posted 10-22-2009 12:59 PM Kitsune has replied
 Message 105 by Straggler, posted 10-23-2009 6:21 AM Kitsune has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 84 of 237 (532284)
10-22-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Kitsune
10-22-2009 12:32 PM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
Hi Linda Lou,
Sorry to interrupt yours and Stragglers discussion, but I wanted to comment on this:
LL writes:
What I do know is that there is currently no scientific explanation for the "Dogs that Know" results.
I fail to see where science has declared that there is an actual phenomenon concerning dogs?
It seems like the phenomenon is founded on assertions by some dog owners who feel there is something going on. Are these assertions really something science needs to delve into?
Have I missed something?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 12:32 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 1:06 PM onifre has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4326 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 85 of 237 (532286)
10-22-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by onifre
10-22-2009 12:59 PM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
Hi Onifre,
Try reading Message 80.
Cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by onifre, posted 10-22-2009 12:59 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by onifre, posted 10-22-2009 1:28 PM Kitsune has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 86 of 237 (532288)
10-22-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Kitsune
10-22-2009 1:06 PM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
Try reading Message 80.
Thanks, Linda.
I did read that message, including the link that you provided. That's how my question came up.
Your link states:
quote:
Rupert Sheldrake set out to test the idea that some dogs seem to anticipate the arrival home of their owners.
Random household surveys in the UK and US showed that 45-52% of dog owners believe their pets demonstrate this ability.
What I gathered from that, and the paper, is that dog owners believe their pets demonstate this ability.
IOW, dog owners believe there is a phenomenon that should be looked into.
But I asked if science has made any declarations about this phenomenon, or is this just something dog owners feel is happening?
The reason I ask is because you said:
quote:
What I do know is that there is currently no scientific explanation for the "Dogs that Know" results.
Well, how can there be a scientific explanation to something science isn't asking a question for?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 1:06 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 1:34 PM onifre has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4326 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 87 of 237 (532289)
10-22-2009 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by onifre
10-22-2009 1:28 PM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
I feel I'm missing something too . . . Sheldrake conducted more than 100 experiments, which were replicated by Richard Wiseman. Contrary to what Straggler claimed here, Sheldrake does not content himself with anecdotal data; he tests it experimentally, and some of his experiments have been successful. Do you have any problems with how his "Dogs that Know" experiments were designed, conducted or analysed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by onifre, posted 10-22-2009 1:28 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 10-22-2009 2:03 PM Kitsune has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 88 of 237 (532290)
10-22-2009 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Kitsune
10-22-2009 1:34 PM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
Do you have any problems with how his "Dogs that Know" experiments were designed, conducted or analysed?
No, not at all. They seem honestly conducted.
My only issue is with your comment that science, as of yet, didn't have an answer for it.
My question is: Is there an actual phenomenon that science should be looking into?
You said science had no answer. I submit that science doesn't know there's a question.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 1:34 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 2:12 PM onifre has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4326 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 89 of 237 (532294)
10-22-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by onifre
10-22-2009 2:03 PM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
I think what's confusing me is these two statements:
quote:
No, not at all. They seem honestly conducted.
quote:
My question is: Is there an actual phenomenon that science should be looking into?
The unambiguous result of the experiments is that dogs really do seem to know when their owners are coming home -- often from the moment the person decides she's coming home but hasn't started the journey. You seem to be saying that you have no criticisms of this -- and then you immediately say that this phenomenon does not exist. I subsequently submit to you that it does exist, unless you can find fault with the experiments.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 10-22-2009 2:03 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by onifre, posted 10-22-2009 2:37 PM Kitsune has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 90 of 237 (532302)
10-22-2009 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Kitsune
10-22-2009 2:12 PM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
I gave you a personal opinion on the expirement. My opinion is irrelevant to science.
Do you think science has a question they should be answering?
You said science, in it's entirety, had no answer - I again state that science has not claimed there's a question to answer.
What I see is an experiement conducted due to assertions from dog owners. Are there people in science claiming the same as the dog owners, that there is a phenomenon to look into?
If there aren't any scientist claiming that there might be a phenomenon, then how could science even have an answer for it? Your claim that science, as of yet, doesn't have an answer, seems to be an unnecessary claim.
Again, science has not claimed there's a question to have an answer for, unless you can cite something from scientist that claims there's a phenomenon...?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 2:12 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2009 3:01 PM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024