Psience Quest

(2017-09-10, 07:54 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]More Bailey control freakery... (as for the rest, it appears you've not read the paper).

Have you not found something else to do other than pretending that sound is the explanation?

(2017-09-10, 08:49 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]What else should I point at than noise artifacts which the authors haven't yet accounted, for as an explanation of their results.

  might you consider the possibility that it is real?

(2017-09-03, 09:47 AM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]https://osf.io/zsgwp/

Very interesting and I think it's an independent replication as well - exciting stuff!

The link is now broken.

(2017-09-10, 03:48 PM)DaveB Wrote: [ -> ]I think there are a number of problems involved in dissecting a paper in this way.

1)           Researches may check for a possible problem without actually stating that fact in the paper. I think it is only fair to ask the author of the experiment for his response before discussing the supposed flaw on the internet.

I'm not sure about this. Seems a little precious to me. I didn't notice that practice here  

Quote:2)           Reports of experiments supporting a ψ effect can expect to be rigorously refereed. If the referees didn't find fault, it is rather unlikely that others will.

I assume you're talking about the peer review here. As far as I can make out an OSF preprint has undergone no peer review. Under those circumstances the author should be much more grateful for any forum critiques.

Quote:3)           Ideally (in normal science) if a potential explanation for an effect is suggested, another experiment would be performed to test if the explanation was adequate to explain the effect. When discussing ψ, it all too often seems that a potential flaw - however implausible - is enough to allow sceptics to abandon the research with a sigh of relief.

I agree. This is frustrating.

I think you have the http:// bit of the address duplicated in your link, Malf.

(2017-09-11, 12:51 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I think you have the http:// bit of the address duplicated in your link, Malf.

No, he is right, the link in the OP is not working. As to "why" that is, it's hard to know. It may be undergoing an edit or preparing for actual peer review. We will know eventually.

(2017-09-10, 08:49 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]What else should I point at than noise artifacts which the authors haven't yet accounted, for as an explanation of their results.

Come on mate, both authors have responded to you and shown they took sound as a potential artifact seriously and took steps to mitigate it. At this point you're being disengenuous and a little dishonest.

(2017-09-11, 12:41 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure about this. Seems a little precious to me. I didn't notice that practice here  


I assume you're talking about the peer review here. As far as I can make out an OSF preprint has undergone no peer review. Under those circumstances the author should be much more grateful for any forum critiques.


I agree. This is frustrating.

To respond to your second point this paper is going to be peer reviewed - the author won't grant us an interview until this has been done.

(2017-09-10, 11:38 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]The link is now broken.

Thanks for letting me know mate - I don't know of any other links to it - if anyone finds one and sends it to me or if i find any I'll edit my OP and add it.

(2017-09-11, 01:33 AM)E. Flowers Wrote: [ -> ]No, he is right, the link in the OP is not working. As to "why" that is, it's hard to know. It may be undergoing an edit or preparing for actual peer review. We will know eventually.

I've been in contact with the author, and he did mention that he was planning to revise the preprint. I assume that's why it's been taken offline.