PEAR closing!

[delphi_ote]

It's true (http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_new/PAW06-07/04-1108/notebook.html#Notebook8)!
:eye-poppi
Everyone join me now...
Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!

[RichardR]

Apparently due to lack of funding (http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epaw/archive_new/PAW06-07/04-1108/notebook.html#Notebook8).

Sometime next spring, the Prince-ton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory (PEAR), a little-known but sometimes-controversial participant in the University’s research community, will clear its shelves and close its door, bringing an end to 27 years of exploring mind-matter interactions in a scientific context.

[Snip]

The lab employed as many as seven full-time researchers and amassed mountains of data, including millions of trials from its random-event generator, a device that produces a series of 0’s and 1’s while users try to influence its output by favoring one or the other. PEAR also has published about 200 papers; most appeared in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which covers a range of topics on the fringes of conventional science, from UFOs to the search for Sasquatch. (Jahn serves on the journal’s editorial board.)


Jahn’s general conclusions are that anomalous phenomena are real, can be studied scientifically in large data sets, and could be used in applications. He admitted that some of his faculty colleagues view the research with skepticism, and others have been completely dismissive.

[RichardR]

Damn - beat me by one minute (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68992).

But I did provide a longer link.

[delphi_ote]

Jinx! :D

[RichardR]

Jinx! :DEvidence, finally, of psychic powers?

[Zep]

What a pity they got sidetracked by obviously woo stuff.

However it does bear out reasonably well the ultimate conclusion in the "Shapes In The Clouds (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm)" commentary.Why try to impress them in this way? Let me posit a simple answer: the money. Consider the alternative. If PEAR had indeed published a summary of 25 years of remote viewing data and allowed the null conclusion to be clearly visible then their stream of support funding from their supporters becomes in jeopardy. However if this result could be buried in gobbledegook and made up to look like research was ongoing and yielding results then the income stream is protected. The impression on the rest of the scientific world is really secondary – the Hansen Utts Markwick paper is not really a major issue. The sinecure of retaining PEAR’s continued existence and funding, not to mention prestige, would probably count more highly.

[Zep]

What did I tell you all?! :D

[CFLarsen]

Phrenology, cold fusion, biorhythms, EMF scares, vaccine scares, E-meters, Q-Ray bracelets, Zener cards, Free Energy Machines.

Add a PEAR, and leave in the trashcan.

Too bad, T'ai Chi.

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

Will there be a closing-down Sale, d'you think?

YBW

[CFLarsen]

Well, there's money in hot air, so.....

[davidsmith73]

However it does bear out reasonably well the ultimate conclusion in the "Shapes In The Clouds (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm)" commentary.

Why try to impress them in this way? Let me posit a simple answer: the money. Consider the alternative. If PEAR had indeed published a summary of 25 years of remote viewing data and allowed the null conclusion to be clearly visible then their stream of support funding from their supporters becomes in jeopardy. However if this result could be buried in gobbledegook and made up to look like research was ongoing and yielding results then the income stream is protected.


I thought your article was saying that PEAR was more likely to get funding by using obscure, impressive sounding language in their report. :confused:

[Garrette]

I thought your article was saying that PEAR was more likely to get funding by using obscure, impressive sounding language in their report. :confused:He did, as does the quotation. What neither says is that such language would guarantee funding.

[Anacoluthon64]

Er, shouldn't that be more like this:

Dunne, Dunne! The witch, etc.

'Luthon64

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So what will the Global Orgasm Project do now?

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

So what will the Global Orgasm Project do now?

~~ Paul
Well, they might be lost. But Rebecca has the whole orgasm thing (http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=254) covered with "International Screw for Science Day."

Skepchicks are so cool.

[T'ai Chi]

~30 years, pretty goodrun. :)

[delphi_ote]

~30 years, pretty goodrun. :)
And zero positive results. Even pitchers have better averages than that.

[Pyrrho]

So, will all the data sets and analysis protocols be released to the general public?

[Kaylee]

Delphi, Richard and Zep -- thanks for the links. I often wondered who wasa funding PEAR.

[Zep]

I thought your article was saying that PEAR was more likely to get funding by using obscure, impressive sounding language in their report. :confused:I posited that PEAR calculated that that particular method (ongoing publication of deliberately obscure and meaningless but scholarly-looking papers) was the one they considered most likely to continue their financial sinecure indefinitely.

Now, since they actually lost supporting funding, how successful do you think that approach has been, ultimately? And why do you think this financial support has evaporated? There were some obscenely rich corporate sponsors among their supporters, each of which could have easily supported PEAR for decades just out of the petty-cash drawer...what has happened to their support? I don't know the answers to this, but I think it might be fun to do some real research, don't you?

What neither says is that such language would guarantee funding.Indeed! I think the correct term is "gambit". Or possibly "charade"...

[Kaylee]

INow, since they actually lost supporting funding, how successful do you think that approach has been, ultimately?

You're kidding, right? I'm not in academics, but from what I hear, the hardest things to do in that field is to successfully get grant money and to successfully get published -- both of which is necc. in order to get tenure.

Jahn succeeded in doing this in spades. He got the the grant money from his employer's alumni who believed in paranormal phenomena but obviously did not have scientists review the quality of the work they were funding.

Most of his 200 papers were published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal which according to this link (http://www.scientificexploration.org/founding-members.html) he helped found and according to the OP's link he was on its editorial board.

Now that's genius. He apparently didn't contribute much to scientific knowledge, but he apparently wrote the book on how to get a tenured position in an Ivy League university.

After almost 30 years, he is probably ready to retire anyway .. so I would say he played university politics very well.

[Zep]

You're kidding, right? I'm not in academics, but from what I hear, the hardest things to do in that field is to successfully get grant money and to successfully get published -- both of which is necc. in order to get tenure.

Jahn succeeded in doing this in spades. He got the the grant money from his employer's alumni who believed in paranormal phenomena but obviously did not have scientists review the quality of the work they were funding.

Most of his 200 papers were published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal which according to this link (http://www.scientificexploration.org/founding-members.html) he helped found and according to the OP's link he was on its editorial board.

Now that's genius. He apparently didn't contribute much to scientific knowledge, but he apparently wrote the book on how to get a tenured position in an Ivy League university.

After almost 30 years, he is probably ready to retire anyway .. so I would say he played university politics very well.

I suspect we are in violent agreement on that, if you look more closely. You have summed up "the game" very nicely!

[CFLarsen]

So, will all the data sets and analysis protocols be released to the general public?

Not a chance. Now begins the myth making.

[davidsmith73]

I posited that PEAR calculated that that particular method (ongoing publication of deliberately obscure and meaningless but scholarly-looking papers) was the one they considered most likely to continue their financial sinecure indefinitely.

Now, since they actually lost supporting funding, how successful do you think that approach has been, ultimately? And why do you think this financial support has evaporated? There were some obscenely rich corporate sponsors among their supporters, each of which could have easily supported PEAR for decades just out of the petty-cash drawer...what has happened to their support? I don't know the answers to this, but I think it might be fun to do some real research, don't you?


Well, its obviously sad and true that PEAR's funding has evaporated. I have to agree with you that their approach at trying for more funding appears to have been unsuccessful of late. I'm sceptical about your assessment of their motives however. As in most areas of acedemia, there is pressure to get funding and secure the future of your work. Jumping to the conclusion that their reporting is deliberately obscure and meaningless is seeing what you want to see IMO. I do agree that their papers are hard to read sometimes! Maybe PEAR's supporters simply no longer understood what the research was about!

[RSLancastr]

Maybe PEAR's supporters simply no longer understood what the research was about!Or perhaps they finally realized what it was all about.

[Foolmewunz]

Or perhaps they finally realized what it was all about.

It was "about" (as in approximately) thirty years of blowing smoke up kilts and publishing fractionally minute "positives" as some sort of proof.

[T'ai Chi]

Are you able to tell us what the universe 'is all about' without doing any experiments?

[Zep]

Well, its obviously sad and true that PEAR's funding has evaporated. I have to agree with you that their approach at trying for more funding appears to have been unsuccessful of late. I'm sceptical about your assessment of their motives however. As in most areas of acedemia, there is pressure to get funding and secure the future of your work. Jumping to the conclusion that their reporting is deliberately obscure and meaningless is seeing what you want to see IMO. I do agree that their papers are hard to read sometimes! Maybe PEAR's supporters simply no longer understood what the research was about!I think you have underestimate the abilities of many other researchers to evaluate and comment on the PEAR research. My commentary referred the reader to a much more comprehensive drubbing of PEAR's technical efforts by fellow scientists than I could have ever mounted. I didn't have to repeat that when it was already spelled out so clearly. And it doesn't need a genius to understand the overall plot without having to get inside the heads of the individual characters.

The REAL pity of this, as I see it, is that these are highly trained and very capable academics, and there are indeed "borderline" areas of study that may prove worthy of genuine well-conducted research that will reveal potential bounties. And yet they failed abjectly to apply one to the other properly. That they chose to allow some of their primary research to become so sub-par at all is a tragic waste of effort. And that they stubbornly persisted with this practice for so long, despite peer warnings, admonitions to lift their game, and outright ridicule, is tragic and unforgiveable. And bafflingly unexplainable in terms of any genuine scientific endeavour.

So looking more broadly at other reasons besides pure research, Occam's Razor says that money and longevity of tenure would be a viable explanation. In fact, a very good explanation. Which is what I suggested, and attempted to support. I agree I didn't have any conclusive evidence - no smoking gun of an email or something. However this recent development, where a funding drought from ultra-rich corporate sponsors shuts them down, tends to gel rather well with my original hypothesis. And that would be some drought, incidentally - PEAR was not a giant expensive research group...

Then again, perhaps it could have all been for the fame, notoriety, free bar tabs, and the endless stream of dancing-girls.

Well...maybe not the dancing-girls...

[CFLarsen]

Maybe PEAR's supporters simply no longer understood what the research was about!

Is that your way of explaining the lack of funding? Seriously?

Are you able to tell us what the universe 'is all about' without doing any experiments?

Science isn't just about "doing experiments". There is also observation of a phenomenon, hypothesizing, independently repeated experiments and refining of the hypothesis based on the outcome of the experiments. PEAR has failed on all accounts.

But first, your experiments have to be well designed and well carried out. PEAR fails on both as well.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Are you able to tell us what the universe 'is all about' without doing any experiments?
If only they'd had the guts to propose a theory after 30 years of data mining, hell, I would have given them some money.

Where's the theory?

~~ Paul

[davidsmith73]

If only they'd had the guts to propose a theory after 30 years of data mining, hell, I would have given them some money.

Where's the theory?

~~ Paul

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/Overview.pdf

The models don't seem to be very detailed, but you have to start somewhere.

[davidsmith73]

Is that your way of explaining the lack of funding? Seriously?


It was a tongue in cheek comment. I don't know the real reason why they have lost funding. Its seems reasonable to think that the people who funded PEAR have lost faith in their work. Its also may be true that the benefactors are under the impression that PEAR haven't produced any positive results in all the years.

[Dragon]

Are you able to tell us what the universe 'is all about' without doing any experiments?Are you able to post without playing semantic games?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The models don't seem to be very detailed, but you have to start somewhere.
Yes, I've seen the usual list of suspects. I suppose it's a start of sorts, but come on, pick one, derive some hypotheses from the theory, and test them.

Oh wait, though. It's hard to do that if you can't get the basic results to repeat.

~~ Paul

[CFLarsen]

It was a tongue in cheek comment. I don't know the real reason why they have lost funding. Its seems reasonable to think that the people who funded PEAR have lost faith in their work. Its also may be true that the benefactors are under the impression that PEAR haven't produced any positive results in all the years.

What about you? How does this impact your beliefs?

[Kaylee]

I suspect we are in violent agreement on that, if you look more closely.
Yeah, I was tired and I left out a sarcastic smiley or something.

You have summed up "the game" very nicely!
Aw shucks. :p

But you and a few others spotted it first and have brought it up in a few threads in the past.

Thanks to you and others, I've learned that a prestigous degree and other affliations with "respectable" institutions doesn't mean by itself that the research is worth the paper its typed on. I really use to think that an affliation with an Ivy League university or similar was a sufficient screening tool, now I know it's not.

[sackett]

…I'm not in academics, but from what I hear, the hardest things to do in that field is to successfully get grant money…

On the contrary, in the sciences and engineering grant and contract money is plentiful and fairly easy to get – if your science is good. I’ve been in the pre-award side of academic funding since late 1969, and since early 1970 I’ve been telling faculty, especially new faculty, that excellence is what drives the grant biz. No smoke, no mirrors: write a good proposal and you WILL get funding.

So I have to tip the old hat to PEAR and its successful snake-oil operation. Fooling even a rich and silly tradesman for 27 years can’t be easy.

If they’d been dealing with scientists, i.e., with NSF or NIH, they would never have scored a rusty nickel.

[wipeout]

Oh, what a pity. And just when additional funding would have provided conclusive results at some unspecified time in the future, as additional funding is always said to do. ;)

[Tricky]

This point has been made many times, but bears repeating. The paranormal has been investigated for centuries, much longer than most fields of science, yet it has never yeilded a single useful thing. Now it is true that some fields of science are not expected to give us anything other than knowledge, like investigations into the Big Bang. But at least they do indeed provide knowledge. Solid, independantly verifiable knowledge. Contrast that with PEAR and the difference is obvious to the most casual observer. PEAR hasn't even produced knowledge. Of course, if telepathy or telekinesis or remote viewing or any of those things did exist, it would have tremendous value for mankind (as opposed to, say, knowledge of black holes). The practical applications would be almost unlimited.

But there have been no practical applications. No knowledge (of the independantly verifiable kind). No value whatsoever. That is why PEAR died. Bad ideas die all the time. That is the way science works. PEAR had its shot with adequate money and lots of time, and it produced diddly-squat.

Time to move on.

[jmercer]

Gee.

I wonder if they saw it coming. :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Did all the REGs go burp when the announcement was made?

~~ Paul

[Zep]

Thanks to you and others, I've learned that a prestigous degree and other affliations with "respectable" institutions doesn't mean by itself that the research is worth the paper its typed on. I really use to think that an affliation with an Ivy League university or similar was a sufficient screening tool, now I know it's not.That's a good point worth remembering too, w.r.t. PEAR. They were not really affiliated closely with Princeton at all; they just resided on-campus in sponsor-paid-for premises. However that didn't stop them trying to feed off the cachet of that university's good name and reputation.

Which would suggest that those academics who are directly involved in Princeton's research areas would most likely be subject to the usual rigorous review processes that sharpen their research, verify their results, and ultimately justify their ongoing work. And weed out the poor performers...

[Zep]

On the contrary, in the sciences and engineering grant and contract money is plentiful and fairly easy to get – if your science is good. I’ve been in the pre-award side of academic funding since late 1969, and since early 1970 I’ve been telling faculty, especially new faculty, that excellence is what drives the grant biz. No smoke, no mirrors: write a good proposal and you WILL get funding.

So I have to tip the old hat to PEAR and its successful snake-oil operation. Fooling even a rich and silly tradesman for 27 years can’t be easy.

If they’d been dealing with scientists, i.e., with NSF or NIH, they would never have scored a rusty nickel.Thanks for that info! I feel...vindicated in writing what I did!

[Kaylee]

That's a good point worth remembering too, w.r.t. PEAR. They were not really affiliated closely with Princeton at all; they just resided on-campus in sponsor-paid-for premises. However that didn't stop them trying to feed off the cachet of that university's good name and reputation.

Which would suggest that those academics who are directly involved in Princeton's research areas would most likely be subject to the usual rigorous review processes that sharpen their research, verify their results, and ultimately justify their ongoing work. And weed out the poor performers...

Hmmm, I went to the Pear web site to try to see what they had to say about their affiliation (or lack of affiliation) with Princeton University. I got this statement from their home page (http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epear/index.html (http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epear/index.html) )

The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice.

And of course their web page is under the princeton.edu domain name, and so are Jahn's and Pear's general contact e-mail addies (rgjahn@princeton.edu (jahn@princeton.edu) and pearlab@princeton.edu).

I can't find anything that shows PEAR is not just another subdivision of Princeton University. What am I suppose to look for? :confused:

[Kaylee]

On the contrary, in the sciences and engineering grant and contract money is plentiful and fairly easy to get – if your science is good. I’ve been in the pre-award side of academic funding since late 1969, and since early 1970 I’ve been telling faculty, especially new faculty, that excellence is what drives the grant biz. No smoke, no mirrors: write a good proposal and you WILL get funding.

All areas of the sciences? And regardless if the research will lead to commercial applications? Just curious...

So I have to tip the old hat to PEAR and its successful snake-oil operation. Fooling even a rich and silly tradesman for 27 years can’t be easy.

If they’d been dealing with scientists, i.e., with NSF or NIH, they would never have scored a rusty nickel.
Given the results, I'm still amazed that they received so many years of funding. I'm curious what their yearly expenditures were. Would anyone happen to know if that type of information available to the public?

[Zep]

Hmmm, I went to the Pear web site to try to see what they had to say about their affiliation (or lack of affiliation) with Princeton University. I got this statement from their home page The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice.
(http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epear/index.html (http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epear/index.html) )

And of course their web page is under the princeton.edu domain name, and so are Jahn's and Pear's general contact e-mail addies (rgjahn@princeton.edu (jahn@princeton.edu) and pearlab@princeton.edu).

I can't find anything that shows PEAR is not just another subdivision of Princeton University. What am I suppose to look for? :confused:Your confusion arises because you have misunderstood what has been written here - it's rather political. What the words say is this:The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established at Princeton University...What you read it to mean (and what PEAR imply in so writing) is this:The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established by Princeton University...Now please read what I wrote about PEAR being on-campus. See the subtle difference?

[Zep]

Just to clarify further on the previous post:

A more accurate description of the relationship between PEAR and Princeton U would be that of "a loose affiliation". Princeton obviously made available to PEAR some on-campus premises, and various other facilities like computing and email, etc. And most likely stuff like the use of university building and maintenance, tool and instrument makers, electricians, etc, etc. However I strongly suspect that, since PEAR had to go to outside sponsors for funding, this all came at a price.

I hardly think this is an unusual situation. Large companies are known to invest heavily in "university research" in the fields they want studied that will benefit them. So of course there will be strings attached, and the university looks to get its cut out of the deal as well.

In the case of PEAR, it now appears that the "companies" investing in them were simply not getting a good return on investment. In fact, NO return on investment. A well-known business rule is to not keep throwing good money after bad (i.e. sunk capital). So probably the pin was pulled on that basis...

[CFLarsen]

Did all the REGs go burp when the announcement was made?

~~ Paul

I doubt it.

Remember, it has to be a GLOBAL event...... :D

[Darat]

I doubt it.

Remember, it has to be a GLOBAL event...... :D

Or just before or after a Global event, or a global USA event...

[CFLarsen]

..or a global event in Philly...

[Zep]

..or perhaps just a global event in Jahn's office drawer. The drawer is, technically, on the globe, so it is, by (PEAR) definition, a "global event". Easy when you know how to define your terms properly.

[Kaylee]

Your confusion arises because you have misunderstood what has been written here - it's rather political. What the words say is this:What you read it to mean (and what PEAR imply in so writing) is this:Now please read what I wrote about PEAR being on-campus. See the subtle difference?

I was all set to disagree with you and say that:

* I think that's a heck of a lot to read into a preposition which simply means where something is located.

* An alternative reason for PEAR and Jahn being held to a different standard than the "hard " sciences such as physics or engineering at Princeton University could be that, AFAIK, most universities require their professors to get published in a journal that's recognized by their peers. Jahn took care of that by being one of the founders for a journal for the sciences "ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science." (http://www.scientificexploration.org/mission.php)and is on that's journal's editorial board. (more info in post #21)

But to back my point up I did some more digging around Princeton's web site.

Per this web page (http://www.princeton.edu/main/academics/departments/), Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering is one of the academic departments's in Princeton University,

Per this web page (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/staff.html), Barbara J. Dunne is the Laboratory Manager at PEAR.

And on this web page (http://mae.princeton.edu/people/e57/dunne/profile.html?PHPSESSID=f646a65b7f8f50de68a4846c258 dd62f), she is listed as being part of the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering research staff.

Click on her name at the above link, and you will get her details including her titles:
PEAR Laboratory Manager; Senior Research Assistant
and her affiliate lab: PEAR

BUT none of the other MAE research staff I clicked on had an affiliate lab listed in their details -- so I guess you're right. I assume she works part-time for PEAR as a lab manager and part-time for MAE as an asst.

I really think that Princeton University should be much clearer about the nature of their relationship with PEAR.

There's a commercial that runs on late night TV in my area for a computer school called The Chubb Institute. At the end of every commercial they state they are not related to the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies (a Fortune 500 company that had actually started the school years ago.)

Why can't a supposedly respected Ivy League University match a tech school in clarity? :(

[davidsmith73]

What about you? How does this impact your beliefs?

It doesn't impact much on what I believe. I believed that psi research was poorly funded before PEAR closed and I still believe that.

[davidsmith73]

On the contrary, in the sciences and engineering grant and contract money is plentiful and fairly easy to get – if your science is good. I’ve been in the pre-award side of academic funding since late 1969, and since early 1970 I’ve been telling faculty, especially new faculty, that excellence is what drives the grant biz. No smoke, no mirrors: write a good proposal and you WILL get funding.


Do you think that a proposal to investigate remote viewing that was based on "good science" would get academic funding?

[CFLarsen]

It doesn't impact much on what I believe. I believed that psi research was poorly funded before PEAR closed and I still believe that.

I was thinking about the lack of confidence of the people who funded PEAR. That has no impact on your beliefs?

How much do you give to psi research?

[Garrette]

Do you think that a proposal to investigate remote viewing that was based on "good science" would get academic funding?I imagine the people who funded PEAR thought they were getting good science, so I'd have to say yes.

[Hellbound]

Do you think that a proposal to investigate remote viewing that was based on "good science" would get academic funding?

I'd say no.

Those interested in good science won't waste money on an area of research that been unproductive in every well-controlled series of tirals there's record of.

Those who would fund it would not be interested in good science, but good results...which are not necesarily the same thing.

I believe the days of expecting good science in the paranormal, on any scale beyond small, individual tests, is over...barring some new information or phenomena that challeneges current understanding.

[davidsmith73]

I was thinking about the lack of confidence of the people who funded PEAR. That has no impact on your beliefs?

Well no not really. If the benefactors of PEAR no longer think the research is worth pursuing, I would disagree with them.


How much do you give to psi research?

Do you mean money?

[Bronze Dog]

Just a few more dollars, and they'll make some breakthroughs pretty soon (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/06/pretty_soon.html). That's what my perpetual motion engineer tells me.

[CFLarsen]

Well no not really. If the benefactors of PEAR no longer think the research is worth pursuing, I would disagree with them.

Do you mean money?

Yes, I mean money. How much money do you give to psi research?

[davidsmith73]

Yes, I mean money. How much money do you give to psi research?

nothing. If I had the money to give, I would.

[CFLarsen]

nothing. If I had the money to give, I would.

What, you have never sent PEAR a few bucks? Surely, you have a few bucks now and then?

[Zep]

I was all set to disagree with you and say that:

* I think that's a heck of a lot to read into a preposition which simply means where something is located.

* An alternative reason for PEAR and Jahn being held to a different standard than the "hard " sciences such as physics or engineering at Princeton University could be that, AFAIK, most universities require their professors to get published in a journal that's recognized by their peers. Jahn took care of that by being one of the founders for a journal for the sciences "ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science." (http://www.scientificexploration.org/mission.php)and is on that's journal's editorial board. (more info in post #21)

But to back my point up I did some more digging around Princeton's web site.

Per this web page (http://www.princeton.edu/main/academics/departments/), Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering is one of the academic departments's in Princeton University,

Per this web page (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/staff.html), Barbara J. Dunne is the Laboratory Manager at PEAR.

And on this web page (http://mae.princeton.edu/people/e57/dunne/profile.html?PHPSESSID=f646a65b7f8f50de68a4846c258 dd62f), she is listed as being part of the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering research staff.

Click on her name at the above link, and you will get her details including her titles:
PEAR Laboratory Manager; Senior Research Assistant
and her affiliate lab: PEAR

BUT none of the other MAE research staff I clicked on had an affiliate lab listed in their details -- so I guess you're right. I assume she works part-time for PEAR as a lab manager and part-time for MAE as an asst.

I really think that Princeton University should be much clearer about the nature of their relationship with PEAR.

There's a commercial that runs on late night TV in my area for a computer school called The Chubb Institute. At the end of every commercial they state they are not related to the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies (a Fortune 500 company that had actually started the school years ago.)

Why can't a supposedly respected Ivy League University match a tech school in clarity? :(Great work! I had seen some of that info before, but not all of it. MOST interesting!

Yes, the lines of demarcation are often VERY unclear in such issues. It's a balance between the financial sponsor getting the work they specifically want done under the aegis of the university's banner, and the university having the kudos of major leading-edge research attributed to them plus big dollars. When it all goes well, it's usually win-win.

The potential downsides include unwarranted outside influences on supposedly "pure" research (e.g. tobacco research), and stuff like PEAR and Gary Schwartz - tenure-freeloaders riding waves of misguided philanthropy.

None of this is unusual. This hasn't been the first time, nor will it be the last.

[Pyrrho]

Not a chance. Now begins the myth making.
Was there ever anything such as "PEAR@home"? IIRC there was something like that...I never followed PEAR enough to remember.

[T'ai Chi]

Yes, I've seen the usual list of suspects. I suppose it's a start of sorts, but come on,


So you admit they have at least something. Not liking that something is not good enough.


Oh wait, though. It's hard to do that if you can't get the basic results to repeat.


There are a lot of phenomenon that don't exactly repeat.

[CFLarsen]

Was there ever anything such as "PEAR@home"? IIRC there was something like that...I never followed PEAR enough to remember.

No.

[CFLarsen]

There are a lot of phenomenon that don't exactly repeat.

Example?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There are a lot of phenomenon that don't exactly repeat.
The phenomenon isn't repeatable and doesn't leave any evidence behind? Now that's tough science.

~~ Paul