[ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer.
thespike at satx.rr.com
Tue Dec 7 16:16:11 UTC 2010
On 12/7/2010 8:14 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> Every time a phenomenon can be explained as a statistical artifact, I
> would be more inclined to go with this solution...
Agreed, of course, that's the only rational attitude.
I'm waiting to hear from critics what the artifacts are in Bem's case.
This is why it's important to pay attention to even the shoddy attempted
refutation of Bem's work by Alcock. But *only* if equal attention is
paid to Bem's response.
It might turn out that Bem (or any other psi researcher) has left
serious holes in his protocol, or used the wrong analytical, evaluative
methods, etc. Because that's always possible, it's necessary to have
strenuous criticism. But it's pointless saying, as BillK just did, "Even
if you allow more extraordinary causes, there is still no reason to make
a preference for psi, rather than other woo-woo. Any of them 'might' be
the cause," unless you can make a stab at showing what sorts of errors
might yield those results in a given experiment.
Science doesn't falsify an experiment by shouting "BULLSHIT! I don't
believe that, and I don't have to say why in this case because the whole
idea is *crazy*." A lot of people thought QT was crazy and intolerable,
but they didn't think they'd got rid of the results just by saying so.
They tried their best to find countervailing evidence and explanations
for the annoying data--and failed to.
More information about the extropy-chat