Randi CONFESSED he LIED !!! -- Rupert Sheldrake

[Edx]

Im having a discussion on another forum and Rupert Sheldrakes name has come up. You can read the whole post here (http://tinyurl.com/bqj5zt)but I will post here a few quotes.

He started off saying this:

"I've seen a scientist, having a presentation on google techtalks (it's even here somewhere) about his rigorously proven everyday telepathy and he talked about how Randi lied about the refutation of that telepathy reaserch findings. . Randi even gave up and confessed he lied. "

I then pressed him for what he is talking about and he posts this youtube video for a Google Techtalks presentation by Rupert Sheldrakes (http://tinyurl.com/aoeq4u) and says this:

"(towards the end of the video, during final open questions)

Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist, is that scientist talking here on google techtalks about how them both tried to discredit his research without their own evidence and without any interest in discussing Sheldrake's evidence."

I had never heard about Sheldrake before and cant find that much information on him on here so can someone please point me in the right direction, or at least tell me what the whole deal with Randi was?

As I say you can read more of what this guy said to me here (http://tinyurl.com/bqj5zt)if it helps.

[kittynh]

Ask Randi himself. Shoot off an email. I've read about Sheldrake and the guys research is a joke among the scientific community. Or as one of my daughters profs at MIT said, "Sheldrake is the village idiot of the scientific community, or would be if any serious sceintist would even want to include him in our community".

[jimtron]

For those of us who don't want to view the other thread and watch the 97 minute video, could you please tell us if Sheldrake cites a source, or if you can cite a source for Randi lying?

[Edx]

@kittynh: Thanks, might do as its probably the best idea.

@jimtron: This is the claim here (http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/randi.html). The main issue with it is when he says... "This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape".

Theres also this (http://www.skeptiko.com/blog/?p=13)page which has some email correspondence between Randi and Alex Tsakiris, and this (http://www.skeptiko.com/blog/?p=12)article which claims:

"...this is exactly the kind of independent research, by a major university, James Randi has been calling for. We even agreed to forgo the million dollar prize he offers in order to secure his involvement and resolve this question scientifically, but he refused."

The responce I have seen Randi give is this, but there may be more I dont know of.

" In describing his "dog" tests some years back, I made an error, promptly admitted it, and seemed at that point to have been written off his list as an incompetent, a condition that's remained ever since. "
--- Jan 17th 2003 Commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/011703.html)

[jimtron]

I followed those links, but I don't see where Randi "confessed" to a lie.

[MattusMaximus]

Sounds to me like Sheldrake is taking a page from the Book of Woo - after you've been thoroughly discredited, make up a controversy to give everyone some sense that you actually matter.

Sheldrake is a wedge, the simplest of all the tools. :rolleyes:

[Roadtoad]

You're too kind, Matt. Truth is, Sheldrake has never offered scientific proof of his claims, mainly because he can't.

EDX, seriously; you have better ways to spend your time.

[Edx]

I followed those links, but I don't see where Randi "confessed" to a lie.

My point exactly, Sheldrake claims Randi made claims about the video tape but then claims Randi subsequently says he never saw the tape. I guess thats what this guy Im talking with is talking about when he says Randi confessed he lied, but I want to know if Sheldrake pulled this out of his ass totally or if it refers to a real event thats got distorted or something. :boggled:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

My point exactly, Sheldrake claims Randi made claims about the video tape but then claims Randi subsequently says he never saw the tape. I guess thats what this guy Im talking with is talking about when he says Randi confessed he lied, but I want to know if Sheldrake pulled this out of his ass totally or if it refers to a real event thats got distorted or something. :boggled:

Without even bothering to Google this, ISTR that this refers to the "dog going to the window" video. Randi said that "we had seen it" and did not find it convincing. He later "had to admit" that he had not seen it but depended on a report from a German associate. If you note that Randi did not say "I saw it", the statement can easily seen as him speaking for the JREF organization.

The fact that the Woos have to bring this up over and over again as though it proves something awful about "the perfidious lying Randi", just shows the paucity of their case.

Let Randin's friends prove they have ever completed and submitted an application for the MDC and I would be really impressed.

As far as Sheldrake's experiments and conclusions are concerned, not only has he failed to convince the "failed washed up atheist magician", he has also failed to convince any scientist. :jaw-dropp

[Foolmewunz]

Randi and Sheldrake have quite a history. You might want to go farther into looking at some more SWIFT issues. (Not as much fun as the Randi/Gary Schwarz history, but still very interesting.)

Unless Sheldrake has something signed in ink or an actual video of Randi saying something, I wouldn't put much store in his homeopathological arguments. (Homeopatho- because like Dr. Gary, he has an infusion of about 1 part evidence or truth to about a million parts blah-blah.)

[RoboTimbo]

But the OP had words in ALL CAPS!!!! With EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!1!1!!!

[Ernie M]

For those of us who don't want to view the other thread and watch the 97 minute video, could you please tell us if Sheldrake cites a source, or if you can cite a source for Randi lying?

At about 00:05:52 into the video,
Rupert Sheldrake cites a source:
"it's part of a theory I've developed, which I don't have time to explain today."

Rupert earned a Ph.D. and lectures?

[Aitch]

"it's part of a theory I've developed, which I don't have time to explain today."
Rupert earned a Ph.D. and lectures?

Presumably in Advanced Tergiversation and Applied Procrastination. :cool:

[babbits]

I can't see any sense in this at all.

First of all, EDX sends us to a site where some ignoramus is refusing to back up his accusation that Randi lied.

Then I listened to Sheldrake's speech until my eyes glazed over. I admit I could not hack the entire showing. Sheldrake gives notiong but anecdotal evidence of the powers he describes:

"Wild animals can sense someone looking at them [using esp]."

Any hunter will counter that with other anecdotal evidence, such as "If you're downwind, quiet and stealthy, and conceal yourself with a blind or by hiding most of your body out of sight of the animal, better yet use camouflaged clothing, you can get your shot."

Sheldrake quotes an anecdote from a book to support his claim that "people can sense wild animals looking at them."

He cites the tiger hunter Jim Corbett (born July 1875 – died 1955). I have read that book. It describes dozens of native people being stalked by maneaters and then the animal rushes them and takes them down. Why didn't they sense the animals?

Sheldrake believes that our consciousness extends beyond our brains, and this belief is the basis of his hypothesis to explain the existence of esp and similar phenomena.

Sheldrake hypothesizes that the the retinal image we have when we see an object is actually outside of our brain; the image is the object itself, so our consciousness is as big as our field of vision.

Well, my TV has shown me space shots of objects as far away as Jupiter's moons.. Therefore my television set is almost as big as the planetary solar system.

Then to support that Randi lied, EDX says "The responce [sic] I have seen Randi give is this, but there may be more I dont [sic] know of."

And EDX sends us to a site which contains this quotation:

" In describing his "dog" tests some years back, I made an error, promptly admitted it, and seemed at that point to have been written off his list as an incompetent, a condition that's remained ever since. "

--- Jan 17th 2003 Commentary

EDX, this is insulting to us. The site you quote makes no mention of Randi at all. The quotation is attributed to "UK rader Peter Fox ". The full quotation is

"My experience with Rupert Sheldrake has all been by e-mail, and my attempts to test his wonders have been refused. In describing his "dog" tests some years back, I made an error, promptly admitted it, and seemed at that point to have been written off his list as an incompetent, a condition that's remained ever since. "

[Foolmewunz]

Babbits,
I think you're leaning towards thinking that EDX is doing a set-up, here. Yet, I think, that EDX is "Ed" over there - the one asking them for any actual evidence.
Mind you, your points are accurate, but I think you're seeing something a little bit sinister, and I see someone who just hasn't organized his thoughts (or post) very well. We see this semi-regularly around here. (We also see anti-Randi trolls, too, but I don't feel that EDX is in that group.

EDX,
I read this as you - acting as a skeptic - having difficulty with the bombast of one of the people in the discussion. If that's correct, Babbits' summary is very good. As I was insinuating above, there's a long history of Sheldrake trying to get people to take his "research" seriously, but not producing any real research. And, more to the point of your discussion - Sheldrake's (as with Gary Schwarz) argument is EXACTLY the same sort of hyperbole that that poster is throwing at you.

"Hey, man! You talk about science! I could bring you science, because boy do I have science. Yeah, I'm all sciencey and stuff, but this is just a chat and you need to trust people 'cuz if you don't, man, you're just like too dumb, ya know!" It's like an old flower child argument supporting pyramid power or crystals. Just open your mind up and you'll be free. WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP.

This kind of argument can be very frustrating if you're the lone voice of reason. All you can do is brush away all the rhetoric and keep to the single point - "Yeah, that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee, but what about that evidence you were going to provide?"

If you want to see a similar approach, see Jeff's current SWIFT and the commentary. "Can't you just be nicer to the little psychics who really aren't bothering you?" Poppycock.

[biomorph]

Even if Randi commits murder, it doesn't make Sheldrake's delusions any nearer to reality.

[babbits]

Hi Foolmewunz,

No, I didn't think EDX was setting us up. I think he found the site frustrating. Jimtron did too, I think. But he was politer than I was.:blush:

I hope I was not unfair. I, too, found the site "thezeitgeistmovement.com" to be rather irritating. But I thought EDX didn't do a good job of presenting the issue to us.

Maybe he was just frustrated with it.

[babbits]

I'm not much good with statistics, but this Sheldrake chappie should perhaps not tell us he's a biologist. His reasoning is unscientific.

Example: Sheldrake supports his claims re esp by citing many reports by mothers (anecdotal "evidence ").
Mothers, babies and breastfeeding:

Mothers report that when they are away from their babies, they can tell when the baby "needs them".

First of all, they may begin spontaneously lactating. (I guess that's the soggy bra syndrome. :rolleyes: )
Second, they "believe" that their baby needs them.

Typical anecdote.

Woman is out shopping. Suddenly she believes that her baby needs her. At the same instant, approximately, she may begin spontaneously lactating. She phones home. Some person answers the telephone. That person confirms that, yes indeed, the baby actually needs the mother!

By "needs the mother" may we assume S. means the baby needs to breastfeed?

Since Sheldrake does not define baby, may we assume he means a child under the age of one year?

Since Sheldrake does not define the caregiver basis for deciding whether or not to report that the baby needs the mother, as opposed to having some other need, we ask:

What criteria can we accept, for the purposes of determining if the baby is transmitting its need to its mother?
- Baby cries?
- Baby is fussing?
- Baby sends esp signals to the caregiver ?
- Caregiver is tired of taking care of the baby?

May we assume the caretaker reports that the baby is fussing or crying?

Outcomes:

a) The mother goes home and confirms that the baby did in fact need her.

b) The mother goes home and finds that her belief was wrong; the baby did not need her.

Sheldrake says he has calculated the odds against outcome (b) at a billion to one against pure chance.

A billion to one!

In the face of such virtually impossible odds, the hypothesis that the mother and child communicate by esp is not just supported, but confirmed? :boggled:

[Foolmewunz]

Babbits,

Okay - we concur. I think we're just more familiar(some of us) with the infamous moving of goal posts and dodging of issues of some of these guys.

Essentially, what you cite is Sheldrake's overall problem (and once again, the problem of Gary S). These people cite a group of anecdotes that they've put into card files as scientific evidence. And if that evidence consists of scoring a full hit for answering positively to, "Have you ever had the feeling that your baby needed you and then had that turn out to be true?", then they're going to get scores of 90/95%. They don't mention the number of times that the baby was sound asleep.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm not much good with statistics, but this Sheldrake chappie should perhaps not tell us he's a biologist. His reasoning is unscientific.

Example: Sheldrake supports his claims re esp by citing many reports by mothers (anecdotal "evidence ").
Mothers, babies and breastfeeding:

Mothers report that when they are away from their babies, they can tell when the baby "needs them".

First of all, they may begin spontaneously lactating. (I guess that's the soggy bra syndrome. :rolleyes: )
Second, they "believe" that their baby needs them.

Typical anecdote.

Woman is out shopping. Suddenly she believes that her baby needs her. At the same instant, approximately, she may begin spontaneously lactating. She phones home. Some person answers the telephone. That person confirms that, yes indeed, the baby actually needs the mother!

By "needs the mother" may we assume S. means the baby needs to breastfeed?

Since Sheldrake does not define baby, may we assume he means a child under the age of one year?

Since Sheldrake does not define the caregiver basis for deciding whether or not to report that the baby needs the mother, as opposed to having some other need, we ask:

What criteria can we accept, for the purposes of determining if the baby is transmitting its need to its mother?
- Baby cries?
- Baby is fussing?
- Baby sends esp signals to the caregiver ?
- Caregiver is tired of taking care of the baby?

May we assume the caretaker reports that the baby is fussing or crying?

Outcomes:

a) The mother goes home and confirms that the baby did in fact need her.

b) The mother goes home and finds that her belief was wrong; the baby did not need her.

Sheldrake says he has calculated the odds against outcome (b) at a billion to one against pure chance.

A billion to one!

In the face of such virtually impossible odds, the hypothesis that the mother and child communicate by esp is not just supported, but confirmed? :boggled:

And what baby does not always need its mother. Has a mother ever rushed home and her baby not been awfully glad to see her?

Me thinks that Sheldrake might think he knows his dogs but is absolutely clueless about babies. I wonder if he has ever seen one? :covereyes

[Professor Yaffle]

Mother rushes home, sensing that baby needs her because baby needs feeding every 3 hours, and she is late, hence her milk leaking everywhere...

[recursive prophet]

Anybody remember 'morphogenic fields?' Mice in China would learn a maze and others in U.S. would as a result learn it faster? The big test with a beloved Japanese children's poem, a new poem, and Japanese gibberish and the test group was supposed to recall the oft heard children's poem.

The test was a total joke, and even then they didn't get strong results. He and Uri should do a combo act in Vegas. :D

[Jackalgirl]

Anybody remember 'morphogenic fields?' Mice in China would learn a maze and others in U.S. would as a result learn it faster? The big test with a beloved Japanese children's poem, a new poem, and Japanese gibberish and the test group was supposed to recall the oft heard children's poem.

The test was a total joke, and even then they didn't get strong results. He and Uri should do a combo act in Vegas. :D

Do you have a link? I don't doubt you, but I want to read up on it, and honest-to-god the first thing I thought of when you said "morphogenic fields" was the cat Greebo turning into a man in Terry Pratchett novels... ; )

It would not surprise me at all to discover that this was some ridiculous real-world hypothesis at which Pratchett was poking fun and that I didn't get the joke out of sheer ignorance.

[Questioninggeller]

My point exactly, Sheldrake claims Randi made claims about the video tape but then claims Randi subsequently says he never saw the tape. I guess thats what this guy Im talking with is talking about when he says Randi confessed he lied, but I want to know if Sheldrake pulled this out of his ass totally or if it refers to a real event thats got distorted or something. :boggled:

I agree. As with other Sheldrake claims, this should be treated skeptically as well until we have actual evidence-such as Randi's own words- and not just Sheldrake's words.

[Kuko 4000]

EDX, this is insulting to us. The site you quote makes no mention of Randi at all. The quotation is attributed to "UK rader Peter Fox ". The full quotation is

"My experience with Rupert Sheldrake has all been by e-mail, and my attempts to test his wonders have been refused. In describing his "dog" tests some years back, I made an error, promptly admitted it, and seemed at that point to have been written off his list as an incompetent, a condition that's remained ever since. "


I don't think that's right though, from my understanding this is Randi talking, take another look:

http://www.randi.org/jr/011703.html

UK Reader Peter Fox confronted a major actor in the paranormal field, one who has written extensively on the subject, and is a popular person on interview shows in the UK. My experience with Rupert Sheldrake has all been by e-mail, and my attempts to test his wonders have been refused. In describing his "dog" tests some years back, I made an error, promptly admitted it, and seemed at that point to have been written off his list as an incompetent, a condition that's remained ever since.

Peter did well, I think, in spite of being in "enemy territory," so to speak. Battling on another man's turf is usually unwise, but sometimes unavoidable...

[Roadtoad]

Good God. Haven't we beaten this to death already?

Let this damned thing DIE already.

[cj.23]

Randi made a mistake, or lied, depending on the motive: he said he had seen the video - he had not. I think it was an honest mistake, honestly admitted, nothing more, nothing less. We all make mistakes.

I am FAR more concerned about this -- http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/469-randi-speaks-questioning-the-bible.html which is utterly dreadful woo/ct promotion. See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137026 I have drawn it to the attention of a few academics in the relevant area - Tim has replied. Was he paid to promte this nonsense? I have spent many years defending James Randi, but even the best can occasionally be misled.

cj x

[The Professor]

It's wild to see you guys defend Randi's LIES!!!!!!!
You are true followers :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=channel_page

[Improbable Joe]

It's wild to see you guys defend Randi's LIES!!!!!!!
You are true followers :)


What is "wild" is your defense of Sheldrake, who is either a liar or delusional, and ho has never shown any proof of any of the ridiculous claims he has made. Let's accept your stupid assertion that Randi "lied"... for the sake of argument, let's pretend that Randi is completely unreliable, or doesn't even exist at all. Now, we are left with the fact that Sheldrake's claims are still stupid, still unsubstantiated, still without any merit whatsoever.

Making a personal attack on James Randi doesn't mean that Sheldrake's claims are any less idiotic. James Randi could be the worst person on Earth, completely nonexistent, or anything else that makes you feel better. Discrediting him doesn't make Sheldrake any less illegitimate.

[Roadtoad]

It's wild to see you guys defend Randi's LIES!!!!!!!
You are true followers :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=channel_page

Show how Sheldrake is correct, or even how you are. Then, and only then, do you have the room to talk.

[RoboTimbo]

It's funny, in a pathetic kind of way, how Slim or Jim Callahan will come back here once in a while and spout nonsense out of the blue. Almost as if they need attention and when they aren't getting it, they drop in here to say something inane.

Slow days at The Magic Cafe, Slim?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

It's funny, in a pathetic kind of way, how Slim or Jim Callahan will come back here once in a while and spout nonsense out of the blue. Almost as if they need attention and when they aren't getting it, they drop in here to say something inane.

Slow days at The Magic Cafe, Slim?

I always figured they were kept locked up somewhere but were occasionally let out to visit the public library. :boggled:

. . . . . . . . but you may be right. ;)

[Wowbagger]

Even if we assume Randi really did lie, and confessed to it, etc. How does that vindicate Rupert Sheldrake's ideas? Can he demonstrate that they are scientifically reliable and repeatable? Does he have the theoretical framework to extract a strong "signal", or is he just playing with "noise"?

[Aitch]

Randi CONFESSED he LIED

Isn't this just a variation on the Epimenides paradox? :boggled:

[Sideroxylon]

Anybody remember 'morphogenic fields?' Mice in China would learn a maze and others in U.S. would as a result learn it faster? The big test with a beloved Japanese children's poem, a new poem, and Japanese gibberish and the test group was supposed to recall the oft heard children's poem.

The test was a total joke, and even then they didn't get strong results. He and Uri should do a combo act in Vegas. :D

Ahh that’s where I have heard of Sheldrake. This was all tied up with that 100th Monkey nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100th_Monkey

[godless dave]

Randi made a mistake, or lied, depending on the motive: he said he had seen the video - he had not.

No, he said "we" had seen the video, meaning the JREF. He neither lied nor made a mistake.

[applecorped]

I have never lied, not once. If I have, may God strike me dead.........................

[applecorped]

.........still here!!!!!


Hah, take that religious people. I have just proved tha....................

[cj.23]

No, he said "we" had seen the video, meaning the JREF. He neither lied nor made a mistake.

OK, just was not clear then! :)

cj x

[cj.23]

Even if we assume Randi really did lie, and confessed to it, etc. How does that vindicate Rupert Sheldrake's ideas? Can he demonstrate that they are scientifically reliable and repeatable? Does he have the theoretical framework to extract a strong "signal", or is he just playing with "noise"?


a) it doesn't

and

b) no idea, but I'm still waiting publication of an experiment of his in text message telepathy conducted last year - I'll know more after that!

cj x

[hokie]

I'm new to this forum and I can say this thread has been an interesting read. It is funny how quackery thrives on attention. What is more fun for me is that I've had to look up some of the interesting commnets made here. Cheers to all who've shown me interesting ideas.

[TheSkepticCanuck]

If Randi lied or not is completely irrelevant. Either Sheldrake can do what he claims to be able to do, and prove it, or he can't. If he can, then whether Randi lied or not will have no meaning, as Randi will be one voice of dissension among a myriad of scientists who have studied the evidence and were able to verify it as accurate. This would make Randi's statements against it irrelevant. If he can't, then it also makes no difference whether Randi lied or not, as he will have failed to convince anyone else either. Either way, who cares.

[The Professor]

"If Randi lied or not is completely irrelevant."

So it doesn't matter if Randi LIES or NOT .... You will follow blindly then?

[Roadtoad]

"If Randi lied or not is completely irrelevant."

So it doesn't matter if Randi LIES or NOT .... You will follow blindly then?

Actually, we know Randi doesn't. You, on the other hand...

[Vitor Moura]

If Randi lied or not is completely irrelevant. Either Sheldrake can do what he claims to be able to do, and prove it, or he can't. If he can, then whether Randi lied or not will have no meaning, as Randi will be one voice of dissension among a myriad of scientists who have studied the evidence and were able to verify it as accurate. This would make Randi's statements against it irrelevant. If he can't, then it also makes no difference whether Randi lied or not, as he will have failed to convince anyone else either. Either way, who cares.

About the dog's tests, even Wiseman replicated his findings:

http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/wiseman.html

With the help of his assistant, Matthew Smith, he did four experiments with Jaytee, two in June and two in December 1995, and in all of them Jaytee went to the window to wait for Pam when she was indeed on the way home. As in my own experiments, he sometimes went to the window at other times, for example to bark at passing cats, but he was at the window far more when Pam was on her way home than when she was not. In the three experiments Wiseman did in Pam's parents' flat, Jaytee was at the window an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home. This difference was statistically significant. When Wiseman's data were plotted on graphs, they showed essentially the same pattern as my own. In other words Wiseman replicated my own results.

Even Wiseman now admits it:

http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Wiseman_psi.html

Although Richard Wiseman originally claimed that his experiments with Jaytee refuted the "psychic pet phenomenon", in an interview on April 17, 2007, with Alex Tsakiris, on the Skeptiko website he now admits that "I don't think there’s any debate that the patterning in my studies is the same as the patterning in Rupert's studies...it's how it's interpreted."

Sheldrake made many others experiments that confirms telepathy, wich fraud is impossible:

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/telepathy/Nolan.html

The average success rate in nonvideotaped trials, described elsewhere (Sheldrake & Smart, 2003), was 40%, with 95% confidence limits from 36% to 45%. If the highly significant scores in the unfilmed trials were due to cheating, then scores should have declined dramatically in videotaped trials, in which cheating would have been much more difficult, if not impossible. In fact under the more strictly controlled conditions reported here, the average score was 45% (i.e., higher). This strongly argues against the cheating hypothesis. (...)

We worked with 4 different participants in these videotaped trials. It would seem very unlikely that all 4 had independently invented and put into practice this same elaborate deception. None of the participants knew each other, and all lived in different parts of England. Nevertheless, it is not impossible.

The only way to be sure would be to have an independent witness observing the participant, in addition to the video camera. This is what we did in our fourth series of tests with Sue Hawksley, in which an independent cameraman was continuously present in Sue’s house (see Table 5). He saw no accomplice; there was no one else present except Sue and the cameraman himself. Sue’s success rate of 47% was similar to that in her other series. This evidence refutes the accomplice hypothesis.

It really doesn't seem to me that Sheldrake is incompetent. In fact, he published many articles in scientific journals of the mainstream, including Nature:

01- Testing for Telepathy in Connection with E-Mails
Perceptual and Motor Skills (2005), 101, 771-786
(by Rupert Sheldrake and Pamela Smart)

02- Testing a Return-Anticipating Dog, Kane
Anthrozoös, (2000) 13, 203-212

03- Polar Auxin Transport in Leaves of Monocotyledons
Nature (1972), 238, 352-353

[Doubt]

About the dog's tests, even Wiseman replicated his findings:


No, he did not duplicate his findings. Findings involve interpretation of data. Sheldrakes experiments were not even blinded.

Wisemen is quite critical of Sheldrake's work due to poor experiment design. If Sheldrake really wanted to prove his ideas he would design another experiment that takes into account Wisemen's critique.

Rather than relying on Sheldrake, Read what Wiseman wrote about it:

http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4696633

[Hokulele]

Doubt, were you trying to link to something in your post? It gives me a "Reply" box.

[Vitor Moura]

01-No, he did not duplicate his findings. Findings involve interpretation of data. Sheldrakes experiments were not even blinded.

This is not true.

http://amnap.blogspot.com/2007/06/skepticism-and-disconfirmation-bias.html

the experimental design (...) involved both "observational" and double-blind and randomized components. The researcher who analyzed the videotape data was blind to the experimental conditions, as was everyone in the house (including the dog).

http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/

The N'kisi Project is a series of controlled experiments and ongoing research in interspecies communication and telepathy conducted by Aimee Morgana and her language-using parrot N'kisi.(...)
N'kisi would often describe what Aimee was thinking about, reading, or looking at in situations where there were no possible ordinary clues. When Aimee saw Rupert Sheldrake's book Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home she contacted him, and they collaborated in designing an experiment to try to replicate and document this phenomenon under controlled conditions. Based on a pre-specified list of key words, a selection of photographs depicting items from N'kisi's unedited vocabulary was prepared, sealed in opaque envelopes, then randomized and numbered by an independent party. No one knew what image was in any of the envelopes, which is known as a "double blind" test. In a series of timed two minute sessions, Aimee was videotaped as she looked at these images, while another synchronized camera filmed N'kisi in his cage. Aimee was in an enclosed room on a different floor, with no possible line of sight for any 'cueing'. Their locations were approximately 55 feet apart, and separated by several solid walls. In responding to the tests, N'kisi generally put target keywords and descriptions in related sentences, and he often described a detail at the exact moment that Aimee noticed it. N'kisi appears to telepathically "surf" the leading edge of Aimee's consciousness, responding to the spontaneous moment of discovery rather than to any consciously projected thoughts. Aimee found that her state of mind was critical, and if she intentionally tried to "send" the information, it wouldn't work. N'kisi responded best when Aimee's full attention was genuinely immersed in exploring the images, without any thought of the experiments. Three independent transcripts were made of each test session, and there was a remarkably good agreement between the transcribers. These transcriptions were done "blind", meaning the transcribers did not know what pictures Aimee was looking at, nor when each trial period began and ended.

02- Wisemen is quite critical of Sheldrake's work due to poor experiment design. If Sheldrake really wanted to prove his ideas he would design another experiment that takes into account Wisemen's critique.

He replied all Wiseman's criticisms: http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/wiseman.html

03- Rather than relying on Sheldrake, Read what Wiseman wrote about it:

http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4696633

The link you provided is wrong.

[Doubt]

01-

This is not true.

http://amnap.blogspot.com/2007/06/skepticism-and-disconfirmation-bias.html

the experimental design (...) involved both "observational" and double-blind and randomized components. The researcher who analyzed the videotape data was blind to the experimental conditions, as was everyone in the house (including the dog).

http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/

The N'kisi Project is a series of controlled experiments and ongoing research in interspecies communication and telepathy conducted by Aimee Morgana and her language-using parrot N'kisi.(...)
N'kisi would often describe what Aimee was thinking about, reading, or looking at in situations where there were no possible ordinary clues. When Aimee saw Rupert Sheldrake's book Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home she contacted him, and they collaborated in designing an experiment to try to replicate and document this phenomenon under controlled conditions. Based on a pre-specified list of key words, a selection of photographs depicting items from N'kisi's unedited vocabulary was prepared, sealed in opaque envelopes, then randomized and numbered by an independent party. No one knew what image was in any of the envelopes, which is known as a "double blind" test. In a series of timed two minute sessions, Aimee was videotaped as she looked at these images, while another synchronized camera filmed N'kisi in his cage. Aimee was in an enclosed room on a different floor, with no possible line of sight for any 'cueing'. Their locations were approximately 55 feet apart, and separated by several solid walls. In responding to the tests, N'kisi generally put target keywords and descriptions in related sentences, and he often described a detail at the exact moment that Aimee noticed it. N'kisi appears to telepathically "surf" the leading edge of Aimee's consciousness, responding to the spontaneous moment of discovery rather than to any consciously projected thoughts. Aimee found that her state of mind was critical, and if she intentionally tried to "send" the information, it wouldn't work. N'kisi responded best when Aimee's full attention was genuinely immersed in exploring the images, without any thought of the experiments. Three independent transcripts were made of each test session, and there was a remarkably good agreement between the transcribers. These transcriptions were done "blind", meaning the transcribers did not know what pictures Aimee was looking at, nor when each trial period began and ended.

02-

He replied all Wiseman's criticisms: http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/wiseman.html

03-

The link you provided is wrong.

Taking these in reverse order. Yes, the link was wring:

http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/psychicdogreply.pdf

As for Sheldrakes reply, it amounts to somebody saying "your wrong for not seeing it my way". If Sheldrake has any confidence in his experiment he should instead be doing a version that could be published in a credible Journal. Start by using more than one dog. Also don't create arbitrary measurement criteria designed to reach a predetermined conclusion. Quoting from Wiseman's paper linked to above:


When reviewing RW’s videotape PS correctly remarked that Jaytee only stayed at the porch
for a fairly brief period of time during his 19.57 visit (53 seconds) and that a better indicator
of his signal might be him remaining there for a longer period of time. There were three
occasions when Jaytee stayed at the porch for more than 2 minutes (20.09, 20.58, 21.04) and
two of these were close to the departure time of 21.00. For this reason the authors decided
that any future study should not take the first time that he inexplicably went to the porch as
his ‘signal’ but instead, the first time that he inexplicably visited the porch for more than two minutes .

Also your link about blinding does not discuss the Jaytee experiments, which is what we are discussing here. Pam Smart's parents were present at home during the experiments according to Wiseman.

If you want to know what Wiseman thinks about Sheldrake's work, your primary source should not be Sheldrake.

[Vitor Moura]

Taking these in reverse order. Yes, the link was wring:

http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/psychicdogreply.pdf

As for Sheldrakes reply, it amounts to somebody saying "your wrong for not seeing it my way". If Sheldrake has any confidence in his experiment he should instead be doing a version that could be published in a credible Journal.

The link you provided was before Wiseman admit that he replicated Sheldrake's research. And Sheldrake replicated his experiment with ANOTHER dog and published in a credible journal:

Testing a Return-Anticipating Dog, Kane

Anthrozoös, 13(4), 2000

by Rupert Sheldrake and Pamela Smart

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/animals/dogkane.html

Are you happy now? Anthrozoos is a scientific journal that has impact factor.

Start by using more than one dog.

Well, there are now two dogs and a parrott with telepathy. I wonder if it will need all the animals of the zoo to convince you...and the relevant statistic here is the number of trials, not "sample size".

Also don't create arbitrary measurement criteria designed to reach a predetermined conclusion. Quoting from Wiseman's paper linked to above:

Well, Sheldrake answered this, and says that was Wiseman who created arbitray measurement criteria: He wrote (and the credible journal accepted the argument):

The same dog was tested independently in four separate trials by skeptics, who claimed that the dog had failed to signal his owner's return (Wiseman et al. 1998). But their claim depended on an arbitrary criterion based on two minutes of the dog's behavior, rather than taking into account all the data. When their published data were plotted on graphs , they showed the same pattern as has been reported previously (Sheldrake 1999b).

Also your link about blinding does not discuss the Jaytee experiments, which is what we are discussing here. Pam Smart's parents were present at home during the experiments according to Wiseman.

Wrong. I provided a link that discuss the Jaytee experiments:

http://amnap.blogspot.com/2007/06/skepticism-and-disconfirmation-bias.html

"the experimental design (...) involved both "observational" and double-blind and randomized components. The researcher who analyzed the videotape data was blind to the experimental conditions, as was everyone in the house (including the dog). "


If you want to know what Wiseman thinks about Sheldrake's work, your primary source should not be Sheldrake.

Well, are you saying Wiseman did not says what he says in Skeptiko?

"I don't think there’s any debate that the patterning in my studies is the same as the patterning in Rupert's studies...it's how it's interpreted."

[wicked_ways]

but I am confused about something. Is the experiment about telepathy in all animals or just these specific animals? I know all animals could not be tested but surely more than three?

Well, there are now two dogs and a parrott with telepathy. I wonder if it will need all the animals of the zoo to convince you...and the relevant statistic here is the number of trials, not "sample size".

[Vitor Moura]

Just these especific animals. And again, the relevant statistic here is the number of trials, not "sample size".

[Doubt]

The link you provided was before Wiseman admit that he replicated Sheldrake's research. And Sheldrake replicated his experiment with ANOTHER dog and published in a credible journal:

Testing a Return-Anticipating Dog, Kane

Anthrozoös, 13(4), 2000

by Rupert Sheldrake and Pamela Smart

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/animals/dogkane.html

Are you happy now? Anthrozoos is a scientific journal that has impact factor.


And just what is that impact factor? Not a subject I know well, but a bit of googling found the following:

http://161.200.96.214/link/if99.txt

ANTHROZOOS 0.261

Maybe somebody here knows a good source to find more recent rankings, but I am not really impressed. How many journals was the article submitted too?


Well, there are now two dogs and a parrott with telepathy. I wonder if it will need all the animals of the zoo to convince you...and the relevant statistic here is the number of trials, not "sample size".

Where are the control results for the non-psychic dogs so we can compare them? Are there control results for what happens when the owner does not come home for extended periods of time? As in days?


Well, Sheldrake answered this, and says that was Wiseman who created arbitray measurement criteria: He wrote (and the credible journal accepted the argument):

The same dog was tested independently in four separate trials by skeptics, who claimed that the dog had failed to signal his owner's return (Wiseman et al. 1998). But their claim depended on an arbitrary criterion based on two minutes of the dog's behavior, rather than taking into account all the data. When their published data were plotted on graphs , they showed the same pattern as has been reported previously (Sheldrake 1999b).
[/qote]

The problem here being that the source of the 2 min. Is Pamela Smart, Jaytee's owner and Sheldrake's collaborator. Somehow Sheldrake fails to point that out in his answer.


As for the rest, you need to look at your own words more carefully. The words "findings" and "results" are not synonyms. Findings refers to the conclusions. Results in this case would refer to how often the dog went to the door. Findings would be what the dogs trips to the door really mean.

The notion of the Jatee experiments being double blinded falls out of the picture when you know the relation between Pam Smart and Sheldrake. She is or was his research assistant. That alone contaminates the experiment.

[Vitor Moura]

And just what is that impact factor? Not a subject I know well, but a bit of googling found the following:

http://161.200.96.214/link/if99.txt

ANTHROZOOS 0.261

Maybe somebody here knows a good source to find more recent rankings, but I am not really impressed. How many journals was the article submitted too?

You can find a more recent impact factor (2006) here:

http://www.umsha.ac.ir/new/Upload/Impact%20Factor-JCR-2006.pdf

ANTHROZOOS 0,333

And I have the most recent impact factor (2007). I put it here:

http://www.4shared.com/file/104720133/e3f29bd6/Impact2007.html

ANTHROZOOS 0,479

I don't know how many journals the article was submitted, this is a quention that only Sheldrake can answer. What is important is that it was published in a journal of the mainstream, peer-reviewed.

http://www.bergpublishers.com/BergJournals/Anthrozo%C3%B6s/tabid/519/Default.aspx

Anthrozoös is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that has enjoyed a distinguished history as a pioneer in the field since its launch in 1987.


Where are the control results for the non-psychic dogs so we can compare them?

This kind of test don't require non-psychic dogs. All that is needed is to make impossible conventional explanations.

Dog owners often ascribe their animals' anticipations to telepathy or a "sixth sense", but there could be more conventional explanations:
First, the dog could be hearing or smelling its owner approaching.
Second, the dog could be reacting to routine times of return.
Third, it could be responding to subtle cues from people at home who know when the absent person is returning.
Fourth, the animal may go to the place at which it waits for its owner when the person is not on the way home; the people at home may remember its apparent anticipation only when the person returns shortly afterwards, forgetting the other occasions. Thus the phenomenon could simply be an artifact of selective memory.

In order to test these possibilities, the dog should be capable of reacting at least ten minutes in advance, the person to whom the dog responds should come home at non-routine times, the people at home should not know when this person is coming, and the behavior of the dog should be recorded in such a way that selective memory can be ruled out (Sheldrake, 1994). This recording of the dog's behavior can be done most effectively by means of time-coded videotape.

Are there control results for what happens when the owner does not come home for extended periods of time? As in days?

Yes.

Did Jaytee behave in a similar way when she returned after short absences and after longer ones? To explore this question, we have divided the data up into three groups: long, medium and short absences, defined respectively as 180 minutes or more; 110-170 minutes; and 80-100 minutes .

(...)

in control experiments in which Pam did not come home, Jaytee did not go to the window more and more as time went on (Sheldrake, 1999b, Figure B.2).


In addition, we describe 95 videotaped observations of Jaytee's behavior in three different environments. We made these observations to find out more about the natural history of the dog's anticipatory behavior. On these occasions, PS did not return at randomly-selected times, but rather at times of her own choosing. She went out and about shopping, visiting friends or members of her family, attending meetings or visiting pubs and returned when she felt like it. Her journeys varied in distance between 7 and 22 km away from home. They took place at various times of the day or evening and followed no routine pattern. When she left Jaytee with members of her family, they were not informed when she would be returning, and she usually did not know in advance herself. On 50 occasions, Jaytee was left on his own.

We also carried out a series of 10 control observations in which Jaytee was filmed continuously on evenings when PS was not returning home, or was returning unusually late.


The problem here being that the source of the 2 min. Is Pamela Smart, Jaytee's owner and Sheldrake's collaborator. Somehow Sheldrake fails to point that out in his answer.

See below.


As for the rest, you need to look at your own words more carefully. The words "findings" and "results" are not synonyms. Findings refers to the conclusions. Results in this case would refer to how often the dog went to the door. Findings would be what the dogs trips to the door really mean.

Ok.


The notion of the Jatee experiments being double blinded falls out of the picture when you know the relation between Pam Smart and Sheldrake. She is or was his research assistant. That alone contaminates the experiment.

What? This is the historical of Pam:

PS adopted Jaytee from Manchester Dogs' Home in 1989 when he was still a puppy, and soon formed a close bond with him. She lived in Ramsbottom, Greater Manchester, in a ground-floor flat, adjacent to the flat of her parents, William and Muriel Smart, who were retired. When she went out, she usually left Jaytee with her parents.

In 1991, when PS was working as a secretary in Manchester, her parents noticed that Jaytee used to go to the French window in the living rrom almost every weekday at about 4:30 PM, around the time she set off to come home. Her journey usually took 45-60 minutes, and Jaytee would wait at the window most of the time she was on her way. Since she worked routine office hours, the family assumed that Jaytee's behavior depended on some kind of time sense.

PS was laid off from her job in 1993, and was subsequently unemployed. She was often away from home for hours at a time, and was no longer tied to any regular pattern of activity. Her parents usually did not know when she would be returning, but Jaytee still continued to anticipate her return. His reactions seemed to occur around the time she set off on her homeward journey.

In April 1994, PS read an article in the British Sunday Telegraph about the research Rupert Sheldrake (RS) was doing on this phenomenon (Matthews, 1994) and volunteered to take part.

Until April 1994, Sheldrake and Pam didn't knew each other. And more:

The videotapes were analyzed "blind" by Jane Turney and/or Dr Amanda Jacks, who did not know when PS set off to come home or other details of the experiments. (...) In cases where the same tape was scored blind by both people, the agreement between their records was excellent, showing occasional differences of only a second or so. (Although the scoring was carried out blind, when the end of the tape was reached and PS was seen entering the room, the judges then knew at what time she had arrived, and hence were no longer blind. But by this time the data had all been recorded and were not subsequently altered.) Some of the videotapes were also scored independently by PS and RS to see how well their records corresponded to each other and to the blind scores by Jane Turney of Amanda Jacks. Again the agreement was excellent, with occasional differences of only a second or two.

[Doubt]

Vitor,

I am no expert on this case, but neither are you:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_65/ai_78487198/pg_2/?tag=content;col1

Even other psi researchers don't buy what Sheldrake is saying. And about Pam Smart from the article:


There is a slight fly in the ointment in this impressive result that I cannot ignore. Smart, the owner of Jaytee, had become Sheldrake's research assistant during the time of these experiments. The parapsychological literature is replete with instances of unwitting or unconscious cuing that can occur betwe en experimenter and participants, and although theoretically both Sheldrake and Smart were out of contact with the research participant (in this case, Jaytee), there are a number of scenarios in which subtle cuing between both Sheldrake and Smart may have influenced each other to make the decision to return home at the time that Jaytee would probably (as in more often than not) move to the French window.


So where are you getting your history about Pam?

Still not impressed by Anthrozoos. Not exactly "Nature", now is it? And what field is it respected by?

[Vitor Moura]

Vitor,

I am no expert on this case, but neither are you:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_65/ai_78487198/pg_2/?tag=content;col1

Even other psi researchers don't buy what Sheldrake is saying.

Sheldrake answered Robin Taylor's criticisms:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_2_65/ai_76737825/

Taylor focused attention on what he called "a slight fly in the ointment in this impressive result that I cannot ignore." He suggested that Jaytee's owner, Pam Smart, and I may have been involved in "unwitting or unconscious cueing," somehow influencing each other to make the decision for Pam to return home at the time that Jaytee would probably move to the French window. Taylor admits that this could not have happened by normal sensory means: Smart was at least 5 miles from the dog, and I beeped her from London, more than 175 miles away.

I suggested that the results would best be explained in terms of telepathy between Smart and Jaytee, who appeared to be responding to her intention to return. Taylor proposed an alternative scenario:

Sheldrake or Smart (or both) are clairvoyantly picking up on when Jaytee is about to move toward the window, and this is their (either of them or both) cue to allow Smart to come home. Sheldrake does not consider this possibility .... (p. 92)

But as Taylor himself pointed out, this possibility could be avoided by the use of "appropriate randomized times."

In fact, Smart and I did use randomized times, which were determined before the experimental period began and therefore incapable of being influenced by Jaytee (unless Taylor postulates retroactive PK by the dog on the die I threw in London).


And about Pam Smart from the article:

So where are you getting your history about Pam?

From Sheldrake's article: http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/animals/dog_video.html

Still not impressed by Anthrozoos. Not exactly "Nature", now is it? And what field is it respected by?

Anthrozoology. It is the Official journal of the International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ).

The key premise of Anthrozoös is to address the characteristics and consequences of interactions and relationships between people and non-human animals across areas as varied as anthropology, ethology, medicine, psychology, veterinary medicine and zoology. Articles therefore cover the full range of human-animal relations, from their treatment in the arts and humanities, through to behavioral, biological, social and health sciences.

About ISAZ: ISAZ was formed in 1991 as a non-profit, non-political organization for the scientific and scholarly study of human–animal interactions. The society has a worldwide, multidisciplinary membership of students, scholars and interested professionals. Membership is open to individuals currently or previously involved in conducting scholarly research within the broad field of human–animal interactions. In addition to various benefits, ISAZ members receive a subscription to Anthrozoös.

[hokie]

Our dog knows when my wife comes home. The dog is by the door pawing it right before my wife comes into the driveway. The cue is not from me. It's not telepathy. I believe that the dog is clued in by its stomach because my wife feeds the dog.

[Vitor Moura]

I think this hypothesis woul fit in the second tested by Sheldrake:

Second, the dog could be reacting to routine times of return.

Sheldrake tested this, and is not the answer, at least for Jaytee and Kane. Maybe this could be the answer for your dog, maybe not. Sheldrake is not saying that all dogs have telepathy.

[Doubt]

Sheldrake answered Robin Taylor's criticisms:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_2_65/ai_76737825/

What I see in Sheldrake's response is a lot of hand waving. If we were to accept that telepaty is real (which I don't, pending real evidence) there is still no control for who is doing what. That, there is no control dealing with who is the psychic. Is it Pam or her dog?

From Sheldrake's article: http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/animals/dog_video.html

So does Sheldrake ever acknowledge that Pam is his research assistant? Ever? Is is more than a little issue here. Even if Pam is not involved in choosing what time she is home some of the text used in the write ups show that her parents were home for at least part of the experiments.

It is also rather curious that Sheldrake likes to talk about Wiseman using different criteria to measure the dogs actions and ignores the source of the criteria. That source being Pam again.

[Fireshadow]

See, I always assumed that dogs knowing when their people would be coming home was a combination of an internal time sense and their exceptional hearing. In my experience, dogs (and cats, for that matter), are creatures of habit. They may not consciously "know' what time something happens, but they have to have some experience of duration--and they therefore would know "Hey, about this time yesterday, my person came home, so it will probably happen again today." The more often that happens, the stronger the reinforcement of that "prediction" becomes. It's no different than Pavlov's conditioned response. Add to that the hearing thing--I know my cats know when I'm coming home because they hear my car, and hear enough different cars that they can tell which one is mine. Thus we have not one, but two, separate and distinct explanations, neither of which requires any psychic ability on the part of the pets.

[Vitor Moura]

What I see in Sheldrake's response is a lot of hand waving. If we were to accept that telepaty is real (which I don't, pending real evidence) there is still no control for who is doing what. That, there is no control dealing with who is the psychic. Is it Pam or her dog?

As far I could tell, Pam never claimed anything like that she is a psychic. So, I would say it is the dog. Sheldrake says:

If the possibility of telepathy is admitted, then the simplest and most straightforward explanation is that the dogs themselves are responding to their owners directly. In the present case, the hypothesis that best fits the facts is that Kane himself responded telepathically to his owner's thoughts and intentions when she was on the way home. The problem with this suggestion is that some people reject the very possibility of telepathy on theoretical grounds (e.g. Humphrey 1995). And even among those who regard the existence of telepathy as a question to be answered empirically rather than theoretically, no one knows how it might work. Nevertheless, there is already much empirical evidence for person-to-person telepathy (for a review and meta-analysis of experimental research, see Radin 1997) and also for person-to-animal telepathy (reviewed by Sheldrake 1999a).

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/animals/dogkane.html


So does Sheldrake ever acknowledge that Pam is his research assistant? Ever? Is is more than a little issue here. Even if Pam is not involved in choosing what time she is home some of the text used in the write ups show that her parents were home for at least part of the experiments.

So what? The parents didn't knew when she would return also.

PS did not usually tell her parents in advance when she would be coming home, nor did she telephone to inform them. Indeed, she often did not know in advance when she would be returning after shopping, visiting friends and relations, attending meetings or after an evening out. But it is possible that her parents might in some cases have guessed when she might be coming, and then, consciously or unconsciously, communicated their expectation to Jaytee. Some of his reactions might therefore be due to her parents' anticipation, rather than depending on some mysterious influence from PS herself.

To test this possibility, we carried out experiments in which PS set off at times selected at random after she had left home. These times were unknown to anyone else. In these experiments, Jaytee started to wait when she set off, even though no one at home knew when she would be coming (Sheldrake & Smart, 1998). Therefore his reactions could not be explained in terms of her parents' expectations.

And Jaytee was alone in many experiments:

3. Picking up clues from people at home. PS did not tell her parents or her sister when she would be coming home, and often did not know in advance herself. But perhaps in some of PS's ordinary homecomings, her parents or her sister might have guessed approximately when she would return and consciously or unconsciously communicated their expectation to Jaytee. But this possibility cannot account for Jaytee's behavior in the trials with randomly-selected return times (Figs 1,2 and 7) nor when he was alone (Fig. 6B).


It is also rather curious that Sheldrake likes to talk about Wiseman using different criteria to measure the dogs actions and ignores the source of the criteria. That source being Pam again.

I fact was not only Pam, but about Pam even Wiseman et al. correctly point out that pet owners [Pam] could draw false conclusions about an animal's 'signal' if they considered only one of the possible signals and ignored others; they rightly emphasize the need for 'a complete and accurate recording of the pet's behaviour.' But having made such a record, they then disregard it in favour of a single 'signal' - a 'signal' defined by themselves on the basis of a remark on a television programme.

So Sheldrake did not ignored the source of the criteria. And the source was not only Pam.

They did not discuss this criterion with me, but based it on oversimplified remarks about Jaytee's behaviour made by commentators on two British television programmes which re-broadcast an extract from the ORF experiment (Wiseman, Smith & Milton, 1998). These television programmes stated that Jaytee went to the window every time that his owner was coming home. In fact, he did so on 86 per cent of the occasions (Sheldrake & Smart, 1998). And on one of these programmes it was said that Jaytee went to the window "when his owner Pam Smart starts her journey home." In fact Jaytee often went to the window a few minutes before PS started her journey, while she was preparing to set off (Sheldrake & Smart, 1998).

[Vitor Moura]

See, I always assumed that dogs knowing when their people would be coming home was a combination of an internal time sense and their exceptional hearing. In my experience, dogs (and cats, for that matter), are creatures of habit. They may not consciously "know' what time something happens, but they have to have some experience of duration--and they therefore would know "Hey, about this time yesterday, my person came home, so it will probably happen again today." The more often that happens, the stronger the reinforcement of that "prediction" becomes. It's no different than Pavlov's conditioned response. Add to that the hearing thing--I know my cats know when I'm coming home because they hear my car, and hear enough different cars that they can tell which one is mine. Thus we have not one, but two, separate and distinct explanations, neither of which requires any psychic ability on the part of the pets.

But Sheldrake showed that this was not an explanation in Jaytee's case:

Jaytee's anticipatory reactions usually began when PS was more than 6 km away. He could not have heard her car at such distances, especially against the background of the heavy traffic in Greater Manchester and on the M66 motorway, which runs close to Ramsbottom. Moreover, Mr and Mrs Smart had already noticed that Jaytee still anticipated PS's return when she arrived in unfamiliar vehicles.

Nevertheless, to check that Jaytee was not reacting to the sound of PS's car or other familiar vehicles, we investigated whether he still anticipated her arrival when she travelled by unusual means: by bicycle, by train and by taxi. He did (Sheldrake & Smart, 1998).

[godless dave]

Just these especific animals. And again, the relevant statistic here is the number of trials, not "sample size".

Why isn't sample size relevant?

[Vitor Moura]

Because what we want to know is it: if that especific dog knows when Pam is returning home. It is exactly like to test someone who claim paranormal powers, but in this case it's a dog. Sheldrake is not saying that all dogs have telepathy, so, there is absolutly no problem with sample size = 1. What is important here is the number of trials and effect size.

[Doubt]

As far I could tell, Pam never claimed anything like that she is a psychic. So, I would say it is the dog. Sheldrake says:

If the possibility of telepathy is admitted, then the simplest and most straightforward explanation is that the dogs themselves are responding to their owners directly. In the present case, the hypothesis that best fits the facts is that Kane himself responded telepathically to his owner's thoughts and intentions when she was on the way home. The problem with this suggestion is that some people reject the very possibility of telepathy on theoretical grounds (e.g. Humphrey 1995). And even among those who regard the existence of telepathy as a question to be answered empirically rather than theoretically, no one knows how it might work. Nevertheless, there is already much empirical evidence for person-to-person telepathy (for a review and meta-analysis of experimental research, see Radin 1997) and also for person-to-animal telepathy (reviewed by Sheldrake 1999a).

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/animals/dogkane.html


The above quote is irrelevant to what I wrote. There is no reason to assume it is the dog rather than Pam. Or even Sheldrake for that matter. There is no reason to rule out that if a person can be psychic then they may only be able to send but not receive. Especially true if you are willing to accept the idea that a dog can read minds but not transmit it's own thoughts to non-telepaths. Also even more so when all of the evidence is based around inducing a single type of behavior. If a dog can really read it's owners mind, then all sorts of behavior should be able to be induced by making it clear to the dog via telepathy that it will be rewarded for selecting the correct numbered box out of 10 possible selections. I am sure there are other ways to test this as well.

Of course, what this all points to is that the experiments with Jaytee were never properly blinded in the first place. Pam having contact with the dog before leaving creates opportunity to transmit info to the dog and also creates problem when those analyzing the data have a vested interest in a given result.

I note that Sheldrake also had people unaware of the nature of the experiment counting the dogs trips as if that is also blinding. It is not. The people doing the counting would still know what they are counting. It is the equivalent of doing a medication trail with no placebo and just not telling the people administering the medication what it is supposed to do.

[Vitor Moura]

The above quote is irrelevant to what I wrote. There is no reason to assume it is the dog rather than Pam. Or even Sheldrake for that matter.

I think it can't be Sheldrake, because the claim already existed before the study.

There is no reason to rule out that if a person can be psychic then they may only be able to send but not receive.

But if so, why this only happen with her dog? If Pam is a psychic, she should have demonstrated this before she buy the dog. I think it's more safe to say that the dog is the psychic.

Especially true if you are willing to accept the idea that a dog can read minds but not transmit it's own thoughts to non-telepaths. Also even more so when all of the evidence is based around inducing a single type of behavior. If a dog can really read it's owners mind, then all sorts of behavior should be able to be induced by making it clear to the dog via telepathy that it will be rewarded for selecting the correct numbered box out of 10 possible selections. I am sure there are other ways to test this as well.

I really don't think that all sorts of behavior should be able to be induced. No one knows the modus operandi of the telepathy. Maybe telepathy works better with a kind of behavior than others. But Sheldrake tested that exactly behavior that you suggest, but with a parrot, and it was not numbered box, but photographs inside a numbered sealed envelope and a list of key words.

During these trials Aimée and the parrot were both videotaped continuously. At the beginning of each trial, Aimée opened a numbered sealed envelope containing a photograph, and then looked at it for two minutes. These photographs corresponded to a prespecified list of key words in N'kisi's vocabulary, and were selected and randomized in advance by a third party. We conducted a total of 149 two-minute trials. The recordings of N'kisi during these trials were transcribed blind by three independent transcribers. Their transcripts were generally in good agreement. Using a majority scoring method, in which at least two of the three transcribers were in agreement, N'kisi said one or more of the key words in 71 trials. He scored 23 hits: the key words he said corresponded to the target pictures.

In a Randomized Permutation Analysis (RPA), there were as many or more hits than N'kisi actually scored in only 5 out of 20,000 random permutations, giving a p value of 5/20,000 or 0.00025. In a Bootstrap Resampling Analysis (BRA), only 4 out of 20,000 permutations equalled or exceeded N'kisi's actual score (p = 0.0002). Both by the RPA and BRA the mean number of hits expected by chance was 12, with a standard deviation of 3. N'kisi repeated key words more when they were hits than when they were misses. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that N'kisi was reacting telepathically to Aimée's mental activity.

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/animals/parrot_telepathy_abs.html

I think this is exactly what you asked for.

Of course, what this all points to is that the experiments with Jaytee were never properly blinded in the first place. Pam having contact with the dog before leaving creates opportunity to transmit info to the dog and also creates problem when those analyzing the data have a vested interest in a given result.

I really don't see in this experiment how Pam could have an opportunity to transmit info to the dog (do you mean by normal ways?). About some kind of problem when those analyzing the data have a vested interest in a given result, even Wiseman now admits that he replicated the results. And the journal Anthrozoo accepted Sheldrake's arguments about this.

I note that Sheldrake also had people unaware of the nature of the experiment counting the dogs trips as if that is also blinding. It is not. The people doing the counting would still know what they are counting. It is the equivalent of doing a medication trail with no placebo and just not telling the people administering the medication what it is supposed to do.

But this is still blind. The people who received the medication still don't know if received a placebo or a real medication. For example, if the medication is for AIDS and you have people with AIDS and people with H1N1, the medication for AIDS should not work with the same efficacy in people with H1N1.

And Sheldrake's study is blind because the people doing the counting don't know when Pam would return. So some kind of fraud - I think is this what you are suggesting - is not possible.

[The Professor]

Im having a discussion on another forum and Rupert Sheldrakes name has come up. You can read the whole post here (http://tinyurl.com/bqj5zt)but I will post here a few quotes.

He started off saying this:

"I've seen a scientist, having a presentation on google techtalks (it's even here somewhere) about his rigorously proven everyday telepathy and he talked about how Randi lied about the refutation of that telepathy reaserch findings. . Randi even gave up and confessed he lied. "

I then pressed him for what he is talking about and he posts this youtube video for a Google Techtalks presentation by Rupert Sheldrakes (http://tinyurl.com/aoeq4u) and says this:

"(towards the end of the video, during final open questions)

Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist, is that scientist talking here on google techtalks about how them both tried to discredit his research without their own evidence and without any interest in discussing Sheldrake's evidence."

I had never heard about Sheldrake before and cant find that much information on him on here so can someone please point me in the right direction, or at least tell me what the whole deal with Randi was?

As I say you can read more of what this guy said to me here (http://tinyurl.com/bqj5zt)if it helps.

I find everything here to be 100% of what it claims to be.