Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1388 sci.misc:2207 Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!convex!killer!ames!ucsd!rutgers!sunybcs!boulder!pell From: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...) Keywords: skepticism debunking Message-ID: <2368@boulder.Colorado.EDU> Date: 29 Jul 88 17:49:15 GMT References: <1911@aecom.YU.EDU> <6445@megaron.arizona.edu> <492@metapsy.UUCP> <1653@microsoft.UUCP> Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU Reply-To: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Lines: 100 In article <1653@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) writes: >In article <492@metapsy.UUCP>, sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: > > > > Randi already "knows" that nothing unusual could ever happen. He is no > > scientist, nor does he have the spirit of the true scientific investigator, in > >The fact is, nearly all such claims are nonsense, and the most efficient thing >to do to advance science is to treat them just that way: "almost certainly >nonsense." As someone (forget who) once said, "extraordinary claims > >Sending James Randi was a completely appropriate thing to do. Come on, Having around a professional "debunker" such as the Amazing Randi is a good thing, in general. But we must be careful that, as someone else has pointed out, we do not let the skeptics do what they are claiming the scientists are doing: allowing a bias to influence their interpretation of the result. Randi is qualified for detecting out-and-out fraud, he is really not qualified to determine how well an honest experiment was done. That is why he was not the only one on the investigative committee. I think few of us thought Benveniste was forging his results. Who would be so crazy? From the NY Times article however, it seemed as though their was a direct contradiction between the paper and the investigation, namely, whether the experiments were done blind or not. If the experiments were truly not done blind and coded as stated in the paper, then this is fraud. But, before jumping to this accusation, we should consider that this is a disagrement reguarding what "blind" is. The authers point out that, even though the tubes were coded prior to dilution and experimentation, the experimentors were able to discern which tubes were which as soon as they began to assay. The article also points out that not all the trials worked and these were not included in the paper. It would bother me if, in some trials, the controls showed activity, but that the activity was not always detectable does not bother me at all. I don't know about you, but my notebook is full of trials that didn't work. There is an old joke-set of "translations" to assist a person reading a scientific paper. It includes: "the phrase: 'results of a typical experiment are shown below...' should be read as 'results of the only experiment that actually worked are shown below....'" As I said in a previous posting, unless you have never tossed a data point yourself, don't be too quick to judge. By now, most of you probably think I believe the result. That is not true. I have found no reason to toss it away as bogus. Until then, it warrents our consideration. We cannot toss out a result simply because we don't want to believe it, or because there is no place for it in our current world view. The investigators seemed to be hunting for any reason to disreguard the result. If the points raised in the Times article are the best they can do, I would say Benveniste is vindicated. Even if Benveniste failed to report that the activity could not always be detected and even if they often figured out which tube was which halfway through the experiment (presumably, they could do this because there IS something going on that is reproducible), the result must be considered. There is one bit of information published in a local paper here that concerns me as to motives and the possibility of fraud. It seems that two scientists in Benveniste's lab are also Homeopathic Doctors and the lab recieves funding from some group looking to support Homeopathy. The first bit of information was also in a "Science" article. Has anyone more data on this? In this economy, one can hardly be faulted from taking any money offered. But, it does trouble me a bit. I am aware of the fact that many "startling results" have turned out to be horse-pucky. We must also remember that the current list of Nobel Laureates includes many people who used to be crazy. People who proposed such absurdities as: genes can transpose from one site in the DNA to another, when everybody *knew* DNA had to be more stable; or that RNA can be used as a template to make DNA, when everybody *knew* the central dagma of molecular biology says DNA-->RNA-->Protein; or that distance and time are not absolutes but dependent on where you are and how fast you are going, which was far too absurd for almost any logical person to consider. Anyway, I guess I am a raving moderate. > >And if your complaint is that the investgator's report said, "invalid >experiment", then YOU'RE the one who is denying facts and data in favor >of your schema, because you're not arguing that the investigation was >done poorly, or that they came to their conclusion incorrectly, you're >just saying that they done wrong to investigate and conclude "bullshit". > > >Gordon Letwin > Microsoft And if you decide that the Amazing Randi's word is final and absolute, YOU'RE the one letting bias affect your decision--you accept his word because it fits your world view better. Where is your skepticism now? Is it not possible that these investigators allowed their biases to influence their result? What Bnveniste did not like about them "Looking for fraud" is that they seemed to be convinced it was there before they started--they were looking for fraud when they should have been looking for truth. What would you say if the investigators claimed that Benveniste, in the course of his experiments, was "Looking for support of Homeopathy." ? I suspect that would make you think they were biased. -tony