Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1453 sci.misc:2298
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...)
Keywords: skepticism debunking
Message-ID: <27939@bbn.COM>
Date: 4 Aug 88 15:12:13 GMT
References: <1911@aecom.YU.EDU> <6445@megaron.arizona.edu> <492@metapsy.UUCP> <1930@aecom.YU.EDU> <498@metapsy.UUCP> <27780@bbn.COM> <503@metapsy.UUCP>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 91

In article <503@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
}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. ... 
}>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.

  Just so -- the thing that Randi can supply (and as I read the comment
  in New Scientist about it, that was all he had done) is to point out
  various *procedural* (!not! _scientific_!!) weak places in the
  experiment.  It is entirely conceivable that the experiment has some
  _inherent_ problem, having NOTHING to do with the merits of the
  science it claims to demonstrate, and having  someone who will look
  at the experiment, _itself_, from procedurally-skeptical eyes seem
  like a good thing to do and can provide good guidance for future
  experiments.

  The imputation of fraudulent intentions may be present but is surely
  in the eye of the beholder (I haven't seen anything ad hominem -- has
  there been such?).  When we have design reviews in my part of BBN, we
  bring in several off-the-wall, unrelated to the project, "bright
  people"... JUST to make sure that we haven't gone down some bad path
  due to myopia or wishful thinking or whatever.  Am I (or should I be)
  insulted that my designs are in-part reviewed by folk who know little
  or nothing of the details of the problem it was trying to solve or
  the constraints on the solution?  I am not -- I figure that if I
  can't convince a bright, disinterested person that what I've done
  makes sense without resorting to claims of
  lack-of-their-understanding, I figure I haven't done a very good
  job... I _welcome_ the opportunity to think through where we are
  through unprejudiced, unmyopic eyes.  I don't understand why a
  detailed looking-for-soft-places review of the procedures followed is
  inappropriate or insulting in this case.

}>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.

  No no.  You miss my point.  At _that_ point, *everyone* would agree
  that there _is_ cheese (green) in _that_ sample.  The question, which
  additional observers can say NOTHING to one way or the other, is what
  hypotheses, if any, ought that experiment serve as evidence for.  If
  there really are _no_ apparent procedural loopholes, then maybe the
  cheese was _really_ there...  who knows?  Investigating the procedure
  still seems to me JUST as valid as investigating the science.

  And, speaking of ad hominem attacks, I object to your use of "Psi
  police".  Replace that with "seriously skeptical procedural review"
  and the difference in our views is clear: I'd review the procedures
  _first_, and then waste the time, money and effort to duplicate the
  experiment _later_.

  Dramatic is as dramatic does: one might argue that the "dramatic"
  part has already happened in the publishing of the original article
  in Nature, and that if it proves to be bogus (as many, if not most
  all, of us probably believe), Beneviste has _already_ gotten his
  publicity and will be "famous" for a long time -- no one will bother
  to follow the dry follow on articles that dispute or refute the
  original, and it will probably be cited for YEARS to come, no matter
  the outcome.  By making a high-profile response, maybe the
  *resolution* will garner as much attention as the claim.

   __
  /  )                              Bernie Cosell
 /--<  _  __  __   o _              BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238
/___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_             cosell@bbn.com