Sheldrake dissertation

You've got to be kidding me.

By Wiseman's own account (in his papers; one he hasn't always stuck to in the popular press) his research came about after television coverage of Sheldrake's experiments with the dog. It was in direct response to another person's research. To say that they began around the same time implies two independent projects (an implication Wiseman has made at times in the popular press) and completely misrepresents what happened.

Sheldrake's initial observations did not involve the video recordings he used later for his formal research, but rather logs kept by Smart and her parents. Yes, Wiseman's research came about after television coverage of the dog which included interviews with Sheldrake about his initial observations, but both began the formal investigations using video recordings at around the same time. Wiseman was not responding to research Sheldrake had already performed or published. At that point, there hadn't been a formal investigation using video recordings (other than that done by the Austrian TV crew), nor had Sheldrake published or presented the results of his preliminary investigations. He did not do so until 3 years after Wiseman completed his experiments. Also, Sheldrake at that point had been looking at whether or not the dog gave a signal and whether or not that signal was given when Pam was on her way home - the very thing that Wiseman looked at which you and others have derided him for doing. 

And of course Wiseman didn't have to hold off on publishing his work until Sheldrake did his; there's no legal requirement; but I would think it's self-evident that a response study should follow the initial one, especially when the initial researcher was cooperating with the response study, done by a party he must have known wasn't sympathetic to some of his ideas.

There wasn't anything for Wiseman to have been responding to, at that point. Wiseman wasn't performing a "response study". In both cases, Wiseman and Sheldrake were undertaking a formal investigation for the first time, using video recordings. If you want to call the logs kept by Smart and her parents at Sheldrake's request the initial research, that "research" wasn't published until 3 years after Sheldrake and Wiseman began their formal investigations, and 3 years after Wiseman finished his experiments. Why on earth would you expect Wiseman not to publish the results of his formal research, just because Sheldrake was dragging his feet on the matter? And how on earth could you expect that Wiseman was responding to a study which was still three years away from being reported on or published?

You've got to be kidding me indeed.

Linda

Sheldrake's initial observations did not involve the video recordings he used later for his formal research, but rather logs kept by Smart and her parents. Yes, Wiseman's research came about after television coverage of the dog which included interviews with Sheldrake about his initial observations, but both began the formal investigations using video recordings at around the same time. Wiseman was not responding to research Sheldrake had already performed or published. At that point, there hadn't been a formal investigation using video recordings (other than that done by the Austrian TV crew), nor had Sheldrake published or presented the results of his preliminary investigations. He did not do so until 3 years after Wiseman completed his experiments. Also, Sheldrake at that point had been looking at whether or not the dog gave a signal and whether or not that signal was given when Pam was on her way home - the very thing that Wiseman looked at which you and others have derided him for doing. 


There wasn't anything for Wiseman to have been responding to, at that point. Wiseman wasn't performing a "response study". In both cases, Wiseman and Sheldrake were undertaking a formal investigation for the first time, using video recordings. If you want to call the logs kept by Smart and her parents at Sheldrake's request the initial research, that "research" wasn't published until 3 years after Sheldrake and Wiseman began their formal investigations, and 3 years after Wiseman finished his experiments. Why on earth would you expect Wiseman not to publish the results of his formal research, just because Sheldrake was dragging his feet on the matter? And how on earth could you expect that Wiseman was responding to a study which was still three years away from being reported on or published?

You've got to be kidding me indeed.

Linda

In point of fact, I have not derided Wiseman for what he chose to look at - I haven't written a single word about that. I also haven't claimed that Sheldrake had anything published prior to these experiments.

I consider Wiseman's work a response to Sheldrake's, because the only reason Wiseman entered into the picture in the first place was because he was invited to by Sheldrake, after the Austrian TV segment that Sheldrake helped arrange attracted media attention and skeptical commentary by Wiseman. That TV segment came about because there was initial interest and investigation of the dog, that Sheldrake decided to build on. Wiseman was lent Sheldrake's video equipment, and he discussed how to conduct the experiment with Sheldrake and Pam Smart. This wasn't something Wiseman just decided to do on his own independently at the same time Sheldrake started his video experiments. The entire enterprise was done in response to something someone else was already doing, at their invitation and with their cooperation. To use a phrase Sheldrake employed, it seems scientific bad manners to publish first when you're responding to something someone else was working on. An (imperfect) analogy to my own field would be if I were to hear about a novella someone else was writing, was invited to write my own novella on the same subject by the author with their advice, but ended up getting my novella published first, to greater publicity.

But you either don't understand what my main issue with Wiseman is, or you've chosen to ignore it - Wiseman's overall behavior. Prior to publishing, he was already going to conferences to claim he'd debunked the claims of psychic pets. In the years since, he covered the whole incident in one of his books as if it were a fun debunking exercise he'd undertaken, with Sheldrake reduced to a footnote. In interviews, he's either downplayed the connection between his and Sheldrake's work, or in at least one instance implied that it was he, Wiseman, who embarked on these experiments, with Sheldrake coming along after. All of this, a pattern of behavior over several years, is deceptive and misleading. And I say that while being agnostic to skeptical on the whole idea of psychic pets.

It looks as though Philip Stevens is an editor of Wikipedia. If he's the right one, I should be able to send him an email to ask permission to host a copy of the dissertation here, if that would be helpful.

I contacted Philip, and he has kindly given permission for a copy of his dissertation to be hosted here. He has also provided a version which he thinks is more complete than the one that used to be available at Skeptiko, which lacked pictures.

I contacted Philip, and he has kindly given permission for a copy of his dissertation to be hosted here. He has also provided a version which he thinks is more complete than the one that used to be available at Skeptiko, which lacked pictures.

Thanks for your efforts Chris (and Philip).

In point of fact, I have not derided Wiseman for what he chose to look at - I haven't written a single word about that.

I'm sorry. It was others who did so in this and previous threads.

I also haven't claimed that Sheldrake had anything published prior to these experiments.

I realize that.

I consider Wiseman's work a response to Sheldrake's, because the only reason Wiseman entered into the picture in the first place was because he was invited to by Sheldrake, after the Austrian TV segment that Sheldrake helped arrange attracted media attention and skeptical commentary by Wiseman. That TV segment came about because there was initial interest and investigation of the dog, that Sheldrake decided to build on. Wiseman was lent Sheldrake's video equipment, and he discussed how to conduct the experiment with Sheldrake and Pam Smart. This wasn't something Wiseman just decided to do on his own independently at the same time Sheldrake started his video experiments. The entire enterprise was done in response to something someone else was already doing, at their invitation and with their cooperation. To use a phrase Sheldrake employed, it seems scientific bad manners to publish first when you're responding to something someone else was working on. An (imperfect) analogy to my own field would be if I were to hear about a novella someone else was writing, was invited to write my own novella on the same subject by the author with their advice, but ended up getting my novella published first, to greater publicity.

You seem to under a misapprehension about how science works. Scientists are always building on the work of others, performing experiments in parallel with other scientists, and even working in competition on the same project. There is no expectation that one scientist has some sort of responsibility towards another scientist's work, other than to make reference to it as a source of inspiration/information. There are no copyright protections on a scientist's idea, so anyone is free to work on it once it has become known. And a scientist is only responsible for their own work. Every scientist is expected to present their results when they are known, so it was Sheldrake's responsibility to make his research known, not for Wiseman to do it for him or to wait for him to go first. The scientific process depends upon people publishing when ready, rather than following some sort of arcane Code Duello. Otherwise, if it went as you suggest, Sheldrake could simply shut down all the research which has been performed which disproves his ideas by failing to publish any of his own research, while making claims that this unexamined research supports his ideas.  

But you either don't understand what my main issue with Wiseman is, or you've chosen to ignore it - Wiseman's overall behavior. Prior to publishing, he was already going to conferences to claim he'd debunked the claims of psychic pets. In the years since, he covered the whole incident in one of his books as if it were a fun debunking exercise he'd undertaken, with Sheldrake reduced to a footnote. In interviews, he's either downplayed the connection between his and Sheldrake's work, or in at least one instance implied that it was he, Wiseman, who embarked on these experiments, with Sheldrake coming along after. All of this, a pattern of behavior over several years, is deceptive and misleading. And I say that while being agnostic to skeptical on the whole idea of psychic pets.

I understand what your main issue with Wiseman is. The problem is that your criticism is not valid. These are all descriptions of good scientific practice. Scientists, including parapsychologists, often present their findings at conferences. In fact, the bulk of scientific research is presented at conferences with only a small portion going on to be published in peer-reviewed journals. So it was wholly ordinary, and behaviour which most parapsychologists engage in, for Wiseman to first present his work at a conference. And scientists then go on to continue to talk about their work with other scientists and in any public venues available to them in order to spread their research to other scientists and interested parties. So it was also wholly ordinary for Wiseman to continue to talk about his research. The interviews I have seen or read, and Wiseman's papers, make Sheldrake's role in initiating Wiseman's experiments clear. Wiseman is under no obligation otherwise to do Sheldrake's work for him. Sheldrake is the one who is responsible for publishing and presenting his own work on this subject. And scientists present their conclusions, so of course Wiseman should be presenting the conclusions he drew from his research. To suggest that he is deceptive and misleading because he engages in ordinary scientific practices - practices which other parapsychologists engage in, including Sheldrake - is bizarre.

Linda

I'm sorry. It was others who did so in this and previous threads.


I realize that.


You seem to under a misapprehension about how science works. Scientists are always building on the work of others, performing experiments in parallel with other scientists, and even working in competition on the same project. There is no expectation that one scientist has some sort of responsibility towards another scientist's work, other than to make reference to it as a source of inspiration/information. There are no copyright protections on a scientist's idea, so anyone is free to work on it once it has become known. And a scientist is only responsible for their own work. Every scientist is expected to present their results when they are known, so it was Sheldrake's responsibility to make his research known, not for Wiseman to do it for him or to wait for him to go first. The scientific process depends upon people publishing when ready, rather than following some sort of arcane Code Duello. Otherwise, if it went as you suggest, Sheldrake could simply shut down all the research which has been performed which disproves his ideas by failing to publish any of his own research, while making claims that this unexamined research supports his ideas.  

Fair enough that the system of scientific publications doesn't condemn anything Wiseman did, but I haven't been discussing this in terms of standard practice; I've been looking at it as basic interaction, one human being to another. Under my novella analogy - literature builds on the work of others. It's impossible to produce anything in a vacuum. If we suppose the novella was written within a certain well-established genre, like Gothic horror, the influence of others' work would be more pronounced. And I didn't commit outright plagiary, and the work I was responding to was unfinished; I haven't technically broken any standard practices. Except it's not as simple as standard practices. I would have written my novella only at the invitation of the original writer; I would have been entirely in her debt. If she, and others, saw my getting to the publishers' first, and to greater publicity, as discourteous at the least, they'd be well within their right.

I understand what your main issue with Wiseman is. The problem is that your criticism is not valid. These are all descriptions of good scientific practice. Scientists, including parapsychologists, often present their findings at conferences. In fact, the bulk of scientific research is presented at conferences with only a small portion going on to be published in peer-reviewed journals. So it was wholly ordinary, and behaviour which most parapsychologists engage in, for Wiseman to first present his work at a conference. And scientists then go on to continue to talk about their work with other scientists and in any public venues available to them in order to spread their research to other scientists and interested parties. So it was also wholly ordinary for Wiseman to continue to talk about his research. The interviews I have seen or read, and Wiseman's papers, make Sheldrake's role in initiating Wiseman's experiments clear. Wiseman is under no obligation otherwise to do Sheldrake's work for him. Sheldrake is the one who is responsible for publishing and presenting his own work on this subject. And scientists present their conclusions, so of course Wiseman should be presenting the conclusions he drew from his research. To suggest that he is deceptive and misleading because he engages in ordinary scientific practices - practices which other parapsychologists engage in, including Sheldrake - is bizarre.

Linda

It's only invalid if you discount all of Wiseman's statements that contradict the timeline of events, detailed in his own papers. Once again - he has done so, on multiple occasions, in interviews and in popular books. And if you don't get why that's a problem, then I don't know what to tell you.

Fair enough that the system of scientific publications doesn't condemn anything Wiseman did, but I haven't been discussing this in terms of standard practice; I've been looking at it as basic interaction, one human being to another. Under my novella analogy - literature builds on the work of others. It's impossible to produce anything in a vacuum. If we suppose the novella was written within a certain well-established genre, like Gothic horror, the influence of others' work would be more pronounced. And I didn't commit outright plagiary, and the work I was responding to was unfinished; I haven't technically broken any standard practices. Except it's not as simple as standard practices. I would have written my novella only at the invitation of the original writer; I would have been entirely in her debt. If she, and others, saw my getting to the publishers' first, and to greater publicity, as discourteous at the least, they'd be well within their right.

Ah, I see. Well the practice of science would be significantly harmed if courtesy were to take precedence over making results known. It's different when you're talking about whether or not yet another piece of fiction is produced.

It's only invalid if you discount all of Wiseman's statements that contradict the timeline of events, detailed in his own papers. Once again - he has done so, on multiple occasions, in interviews and in popular books. And if you don't get why that's a problem, then I don't know what to tell you.

I would regard it as a problem if he did so. I haven't seen something where he has, although I also don't hang on his every word. It sounds like you follow him more closely than I do (I tend to read research articles, rather than the popular press). Can you give some examples of where he has done this?

Linda

Ah, I see. Well the practice of science would be significantly harmed if courtesy were to take precedence over making results known. It's different when you're talking about whether or not yet another piece of fiction is produced.

I very greatly doubt that the question of psychic pets - or many other lines of scientific inquiry - are of such import that both can't be accommodated.

I would regard it as a problem if he did so. I haven't seen something where he has, although I also don't hang on his every word. It sounds like you follow him more closely than I do (I tend to read research articles, rather than the popular press). Can you give some examples of where he has done this?

The popular press is where the majority of people who ever hear about these issues are first going to find them.

In fact, I don't follow Wiseman at all. I've just looked into this specific issue.

And you can find an example within the dissertation that this thread is about, quoted from an interview Wiseman gave to Steven Novella: "The dog thing we did - I can’t remember now, too many years ago - and it was when the claim wasn’t very well formed about really what the dog was doing - how it was informing you that its owner was allegedly coming home. And so we tested the dog very early on in that process, we didn’t find any evidence of psychic ability. Rupert then came along (emphasis mine), did his own tests using a different procedure and claimed the dog was psychic and then reanalysed our data and found the same patterns in our data he had in his."

I'd consider that an outright lie regarding the timeline of events; at best, it's a misleading recollection that implies two independent projects with no relation to each other, and also implies that Wiseman was the one who made the initial study on his own accord. He does the same thing on his website, though he provides links to his paper and its contradictory timeline of events. In his popular book Paranormality, Wiseman leaves out Sheldrake's role altogether, except as a footnote that he also did some experiments with the dog.

EDIT: You can get a free preview of (some of) Will Storr's The Unpersuadables for another third-party assessment on Google Books.

And you can find an example within the dissertation that this thread is about, quoted from an interview Wiseman gave to Steven Novella: "The dog thing we did - I can’t remember now, too many years ago - and it was when the claim wasn’t very well formed about really what the dog was doing - how it was informing you that its owner was allegedly coming home. And so we tested the dog very early on in that process, we didn’t find any evidence of psychic ability. Rupert then came along (emphasis mine), did his own tests using a different procedure and claimed the dog was psychic and then reanalysed our data and found the same patterns in our data he had in his."

I finally got around to reading Philip Stevens's dissertation yesterday. I think it's well worth reading, particularly for people who are interested in the question of whether Sheldrake has been treated fairly by the scientific community, which is Stevens's theme.

I very greatly doubt that the question of psychic pets - or many other lines of scientific inquiry - are of such import that both can't be accommodated.

That's quite a suggestion. I suspect you will find that when the Ministry of Unnecessary Research declares that psychic pet research falls under that category, there will be a considerable outcry from the parapyschology community at the very least.

The popular press is where the majority of people who ever hear about these issues are first going to find them.

The popular press is a piss poor source of scientific information, though. That isn't Richard Wiseman's fault.

In fact, I don't follow Wiseman at all. I've just looked into this specific issue.

And you can find an example within the dissertation that this thread is about, quoted from an interview Wiseman gave to Steven Novella: "The dog thing we did - I can’t remember now, too many years ago - and it was when the claim wasn’t very well formed about really what the dog was doing - how it was informing you that its owner was allegedly coming home. And so we tested the dog very early on in that process, we didn’t find any evidence of psychic ability. Rupert then came along (emphasis mine), did his own tests using a different procedure and claimed the dog was psychic and then reanalysed our data and found the same patterns in our data he had in his."

I'd consider that an outright lie regarding the timeline of events; at best, it's a misleading recollection that implies two independent projects with no relation to each other, and also implies that Wiseman was the one who made the initial study on his own accord.

That's a pretty pathetic example. He somewhat misremembers something once and he's suddenly a liar? People misremember stuff all the time in informal interviews, including parapsychologists/proponents who have offered up much worse examples. The courteous thing to do would be to give them a break, especially when their written work offered in reference is accurate.

He does the same thing on his website, though he provides links to his paper and its contradictory timeline of events.

Huh? On his website he accurately describes Sheldrake's role in the process, including links to Sheldrake's blog (although the link is now broken, but that would be Sheldrake who moved the link, not Wiseman).

In his popular book Paranormality, Wiseman leaves out Sheldrake's role altogether, except as a footnote that he also did some experiments with the dog.

So your complaint is that it is Wiseman's job to toot Sheldrake's horn for him? Offering references to Sheldrake's work isn't enough?

These are pretty empty complaints. At this point, considering how appallingly Wiseman has been treated, he has shown remarkable patience. A lesser person would have lashed out at Sheldrake or ignored him altogether.

Linda