HI
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Miguel Roig wrote:
> I hope that I am not alone on this list in holding the view
> that allegations of fraud in ANY area of SCIENTIFIC
> investigation should be taken very seriously and should NOT
> be made lightly. So, let's review for the moment what has
> transpired:
Hypothesizing that fraud might have played a role in some effect
is not the same as claiming that fraud did occur. Again,
independent replication in different labs is the normal
scientific answer to this hypothesis, which, for real effects, is
why it seldom needs to be expressed explicitly.
> First, based on Jim's clarification of his previous statement
> we find that Blackmore's allegations of possible cheating
> apply to only one lab experiment, possibly two (I do not know
> how many ganzfeld experiments she had actually observed).
> Furthermore, the above characterization is consisted with my
> quote of Berger's review of her first edition of the book:
> Blackmore observed some inconsistencies in _one_ laboratory
> protocol which _could conceivably_ be interpreted as
> cheating/fraud. Based on that evidence Jim states that:
The import of the observations depends on what you are counting.
In fact, most positive Ganzfeld studies have been done in just a
couple of labs, including the one that Blackmore is talking
about. So it could have consequences for a number of studies,
unless you want to claim that problems with possible cheating
when Blackmore was actually observing are _less_ likely to have
occurred when no one from outside the lab was observing.
> >I was not referring to methodological concerns when using the
> >term "cheating." Contrary to Miquel, I do not see the charge as
> >a worse ethical violation than leaving Psi results to stand
> >without including this hypothesis.
>
> How can I possibly respond to this?
Perhaps it would be easier if you had included my ethical
concern; that is, that persistence of unfounded beliefs in
parapsychology has very negative consequences for people. The
example that always sticks in my mind is a young mother who lost
a baby spending money they could not afford on the telephone with
a psychic who was communicating with her dead infant. Who knows
what Reagan's belief in astrology cost the American public?
> As David Epstein pointed out in a previous post in another reference to
> research fraud (f-word) unrelated to parapsychology:
>
> "The f-word can end a career, and thus it
> can be used to intimidate researchers whose results make us
> uncomfortable."
As I have mentioned several times, it is a trivial charge to
dismiss when you have a reliable effect that can be reproduced in
different labs.
> Perhaps the possibility of the existence of ESP makes Jim
> Clark and others on this list a little uncomfortable?
Since there is little or no possibility of the existence of ESP,
it doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. I can't speak for
others. What does make me uncomfortable is: (1) scientists who
appear to have such an a priori conviction about something that
they will grasp at the slightest straw and ignore the
overwhelming preponderance of negative evidence, and (2) who in
doing so provide an unwarranted foundation for the widespread
belief in parapsychology in the general population, a belief that
even the believers must acknowledge is completely incommensurate
with the scientific evidence.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
