Susan Blackmore's accusations against Daryl Bem

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-b...-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?

[Laird]

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.

Caveat: I am relying on you to have accurately conveyed the situation, given that I have read none of these papers.

Could be dangerous... 

[Laird]

You've proven yourself to be trustworthy, Chris. Not very dangerous at all.

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page - on her Psychology Today blog, Susan Blackmore has another go at Daryl Bem:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...-phenomena

Partly she seems unhappy that in a revised version of his paper "Writing an Emprical Article," Bem has removed some statements that she was previously unhappy with (statements on the basis of which he has been accused of endorsing "p-hacking," though that accusation usually relies heavily on selective quotation).

Also she repeats the incorrect statement discussed above, that [in 1994] "Bem used Sargent’s data in his meta-analysis, with Sargent’s studies making up a quarter of those involved." Sargent's data had been used in an earlier meta-analysis by Honorton in 1985, before Blackmore raised concerns about Sargent's work, but were not included in the new meta-analysis published by Bem and Honorton in 1994.

Bryan J. Williams has responded in detail to Blackmore's blog post in a commentary entitled "Making Too Much of Too Little?"
https://en-gb.facebook.com/notes/bryan-j...002782050/

It's also worth noting that while she now refers to her 1987 paper as "showing how Sargent had cheated," of course that is not what Blackmore wrote at the time. In the paper she referred to cheating as one possible hypothesis that could explain what she had seen, but concluded "I think there is still doubt as to the correct hypothesis."

Bryan J. Williams has responded in detail to Blackmore's blog post in a commentary entitled "Making Too Much of Too Little?"
https://en-gb.facebook.com/notes/bryan-j...002782050/

It's also worth noting that while she now refers to her 1987 paper as "showing how Sargent had cheated," of course that is not what Blackmore wrote at the time. In the paper she referred to cheating as one possible hypothesis that could explain what she had seen, but concluded "I think there is still doubt as to the correct hypothesis."

Not the first time I've seen those rebuttals - has Blackmore ever responded to them?

This explains why that article by Bryan Williams appeared on the SPR facebook page. I thought it was odd that he'd suddenly dug up an old debate with Susan Blackmore. Now I see she's writing about it again (despite having, apparently, completely left the field in 2000) it all becomes clearer.

It's quite discouraging to see people engaging in the same debate that was going on when I first got interested in parapsychology over twenty years ago with no progress having been made in the interim. It's an old story: skeptics want good results removed, proponents want them kept in.

This explains why that article by Bryan Williams appeared on the SPR facebook page. I thought it was odd that he'd suddenly dug up an old debate with Susan Blackmore. Now I see she's writing about it again (despite having, apparently, completely left the field in 2000) it all becomes clearer.

It's quite discouraging to see people engaging in the same debate that was going on when I first got interested in parapsychology over twenty years ago with no progress having been made in the interim. It's an old story: skeptics want good results removed, proponents want them kept in.

Having become interested somewhat more recently than that, the reiterations can be useful to catch up, but I can understand the frustration. And as I've already said - not seeing a response to rebuttals is an issue.

Having become interested somewhat more recently than that, the reiterations can be useful to catch up, but I can understand the frustration. And as I've already said - not seeing a response to rebuttals is an issue.

The problem with the Blackmore/Williams debate is that one is relying on her unreliable memories while the other is relying on conclusions in secondary sources.

The only rebuttal to Blackmore's article is that she's wrong: Sargent's work was not in Bem & Honorton's 1994 meta-analysis. That's it. The other two points he makes are irrelevant. Williams states that Blackmore's article criticising Sargent's work was published two years after Honorton's 1985 meta-analysis as if that undermines its relevance. This is true but the article was written in 1979 and available from the SPR library and was, apparently, well known in parapsychology long before it was ever published. The third point Williams makes is an odd one: Sargent's work doesn't effect the overall results of the ganzfeld meta-analysis so you may as well keep them in. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but there you go.

This is a minor spat between two people who aren't really engaging with the data in any real way. They're merely reinforcing their own world views.