Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Susan Blackmore's accusations against Daryl Bem
#1
In a comment on a blog post about Daryl Bem's work by Ulrich Schimmack, Susan Blackmore said this today:
This fascinating article serves only to increase my concerns about Bem’s work.
You may like to see my recent article in ‘Skeptical Inquirer’ describing Bem’s dubious practices and suppression of data over ESP in the ganzfeld back in the 1980 and 90s. Perhaps, at last, this is all coming out.
Blackmore, S. 2018, Daryl Bem and psi in the ganzfeld, Skeptical Inquirer, 42:1, 44-45
https://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/daryl-bem-psi-ganzfeld/

Looking at Blackmore's article, apparently what she means by "dubious practices and suppression of data" is that in a paper by Bem and Honorton published in 1994, the authors failed to discuss the concerns she had published in 1987 about her observation of Carl Sargent's work in 1979. Sargent's work had been included in a meta-analysis published by Honorton in 1985, which Bem and Honorton discussed in their paper, along with Hyman's meta-analysis from the same year. But Blackmore is mistaken in thinking Sargent's work was included in Bem and Honorton's own meta-analysis, which dealt with the subsequent auto-ganzfeld work.

Perhaps Bem and Honorton should have included the Blackmore/Sargent controversy in their summary of previous literature, but is it really appropriate to accuse them of "dubious practices and suppression of data" for failing to do so?
"There are more things in philosophy than are dreamt of in heaven and earth."
[-] The following 3 users Like Chris's post:
  • Kamarling, Obiwan, Ninshub
Reply
#2
(01-08-2018, 03:59 PM)Chris Wrote: Perhaps Bem and Honorton should have included the Blackmore/Sargent controversy in their summary of previous literature, but is it really appropriate to accuse them of "dubious practices and suppression of data" for failing to do so?

Of course not. It's unwarranted partisanship.

Caveat: I am relying on you to have accurately conveyed the situation, given that I have read none of these papers.
[-] The following 2 users Like Laird's post:
  • Doug, Ninshub
Reply
#3
(01-08-2018, 04:18 PM)Laird Wrote: Caveat: I am relying on you to have accurately conveyed the situation, given that I have read none of these papers.

Could be dangerous...  Wink
"There are more things in philosophy than are dreamt of in heaven and earth."
Reply
#4
(01-08-2018, 04:23 PM)Chris Wrote: Could be dangerous...  Wink

I live on the edge. Probably explains why I'm so unbalanced. Hmm, public self-psychoanalysis? Yep, that's living on the edge.
Reply
#5
More seriously: you've proven yourself to be trustworthy, Chris. Not very dangerous at all.
[-] The following 2 users Like Laird's post:
  • Kamarling, Obiwan
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)