Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1447 sci.misc:2293
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!wyse!mips!prls!pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
From: sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...)
Summary: The best way to disprove an observation is to fail to duplicate it.
Keywords: skepticism debunking
Message-ID: <503@metapsy.UUCP>
Date: 4 Aug 88 01:17:38 GMT
References: <1911@aecom.YU.EDU> <6445@megaron.arizona.edu> <492@metapsy.UUCP> <1930@aecom.YU.EDU> <498@metapsy.UUCP> <27780@bbn.COM>
Reply-To: sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Organization: Metapsychology, Woodside, CA
Lines: 40

In article <27780@bbn.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes:

>There are two approaches out at the "leading edge" of one field or
>another: you can be VERY critical and start from the position that a
>theory-revolutionizing result is more likely to be the result of an
>error, intentional or otherwise, rather than a breakthrough.  Or you
>can assume that every experimenter is pretty much straight-arrow and
>careful.  To my taste, there are a LOT more sloppy experiments and
>just plain head cases out there than there are Einsteins and Bells,
>so I'd think it was MUCH more prudent (and time- and cost-effective)
>to start from the skeptical, instead of the trusting, position.

As I said, I agree that one should be more careful in dealing with
such apparently contradictory results.  And I am not at all convinced
that the observations were accurate.  But the general way of dealing
with this situation is to try to duplicate the experiment under more
controlled conditions, not to employ argumentum ad hominem in
imputing fraudulent intentions (conscious or "unconscious") to the
experimenter.  That is the only way of really *demonstrating* the
invalidity of an experimental result.  What Randi has done (as he
generally seems to do) is not to disprove the results, but to cast
suspicion on them.  A definitive answer requires a repeat experiment.

>Let me try this same thing a different way: let's say that a scientist
>requistions a chunk of lunar rock and does some analysis on it and finds...
>CHEESE.  So he writes it up, and is very pompous and important about how
>carefully he found confirmation of the age-old hypothesis that the moon is
>made of chess... yes even green cheese.  Well, I'd just as soon have
>someone like a Randi come along and ask the obvious: What did you have for
>breakfast that morning, what did your _assistant_ have for breakfast that
>morning, etc.

How about simply having someone else analyse the sample?  That seems a
lot more straightforward (though perhaps not so dramatic) as calling
in the Psi-police.
-- 
--------------------
Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.  Palo Alto, CA 94301