The Present Phase of Stagnation in the Foundations of Physics Is Not Normal

Incidents of replication failures & fraud is just "science as usual"?

Heh, I don't think the spin is on my side there...

Yep that’s the thread. How are replication failures and fraud unearthed? Moreover, how can they be?

Yep that’s the thread. How are replication failures and fraud unearthed? Moreover, how can they be?

How is accounting fraud unearthed? How are major flaws in computer programs unearthed?

Does a massive amount of accounting fraud by corporations count as "accounting as usual"?

If programs across industry use are flawed is that "programming as usual?"

In any case now that I've linked the thread people can read through it and decide for themselves.

How is accounting fraud unearthed? How are major flaws in computer programs unearthed?

Improved practice within those disciplines? Understanding human frailties?

I’ve no doubt questionable practices have gone on in science (and other) fields. Science seems to have a better set of tools than most other fields to pick up such problems (as that thread demonstrates).

In any case now that I've linked the thread people can read through it and decide for themselves.

Indeed.

I’ve no doubt questionable practices have gone on in science (and other) fields. Science seems to have a better set of tools than most other fields to pick up such problems (as that thread demonstrates).

Heh, nice find on Psi-Cop. It's amusing to dismiss an entire field based on one person's work.

I think the fairer way to evaluate fields is to set a standard and have an AI rate the work. We aren't too far from this being possible IMO.

Heh, nice find on Psi-Cop. It's amusing to dismiss an entire field based on one person's work.

In this case, a particularly shoddy piece of work by Stuart Vyse, based in large part on distortion and innuendo.

Just to give one example of the level of misrepresentation, the section entitled "Is Psi Real?" briefly recounts Daryl Bem's involvement in Ganzfeld studies, and concludes "the current state of the Ganzfeld debate does not support the reality of psi (Bierman et al 2016)".
https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/s...bem_and_me

In fact, the paper referred to - which is an attempt to model the results of Ganzfeld studies by simulating the effects of hypothetical questionable research practices (QRPs) - found that the effect of QRPs alone produced a poor fit to the data. To obtain a good fit they had to include in addition a "real anomalous effect" (whether psi or a further unidentified methodological problem):
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0153049

More evidence of the dismal standards of sceptical comment ...

In this case, a particularly shoddy piece of work by Stuart Vyse, based in large part on distortion and innuendo.

Just to give one example of the level of misrepresentation, the section entitled "Is Psi Real?" briefly recounts Daryl Bem's involvement in Ganzfeld studies, and concludes "the current state of the Ganzfeld debate does not support the reality of psi (Bierman et al 2016)".
https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/s...bem_and_me

In fact, the paper referred to - which is an attempt to model the results of Ganzfeld studies by simulating the effects of hypothetical questionable research practices (QRPs) - found that the effect of QRPs alone produced a poor fit to the data. To obtain a good fit they had to include in addition a "real anomalous effect" (whether psi or a further unidentified methodological problem):
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0153049

The more I look at Vyse's article, the worse it seems.

Take his comment about the response to a 1994 article by Bem and Honorton, discussing the results of a set of Ganzfeld studies that had previously been published by Honorton, Berger, Varvoglis, Quant, Derr, Schechter and Ferrari in 1990:
"CSI Fellow Ray Hyman, who earlier published a joint paper with Honorton suggesting additional experimental controls for future Ganzfeld studies (Hyman and Honorton 1986), wrote a critique of Bem’s statistical methods in the same issue of Psychological Bulletin (Hyman 1994), and many other critiques followed."
[my emphasis]

Hyman's paper is here:
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Hyman1994.pdf

I don't believe there is anything in that paper that could reasonably be described as "a critique of Bem's statistical methods". What the paper does is to question the adequacy of the randomisation in the original study - of which Bem was not an author - and to bring to light some interesting statistical features of the results which Hyman thought might indicate a problem with randomisation, or might reflect interesting properties of psi, if psi existed. Hyman thought the tests of randomness reported in the original paper - of which Bem was not an author - were inadequate, and suggested an additional test should have been done. But he commented that in 1994 the necessary data were not available either to Bem or to him.

Hyman's paper was not a critique of Bem's statistical methods. But it's obvious why someone wanting to discredit Bem's more recent work, but lacking the evidence to do so, might wish to misrepresent it as such.

A "creationist scientist" proposes that fossils were created six thousand years ago,

The funny thing is, they don't have to!

Sciborg_S_Patel

Perhaps you should examine the author's positions / credentials before posting ad hominems?

In fact the article itself holds the answer regarding what to do about the problem, I even quoted that portion. It does not involved throwing science away.
1. How so? [Also "factual opinion" seems like an oxymoron?]

2. Science isn't by necessity reductive at all.

3. I just find your attempts at pretending to be a serious skeptic humorous. What's grounded about being ignorant of field effects? As for my age, what is the age of someone who runs away to JREF to find someone to attack Manaelli, calling him a "woo monger of the worst kind" b/c he actually had a physics degree but disagreed with you. [Ditto for Raymond Tallis being a neuroscientist who disagreed with you, whom you called a "damn fool" w.out explanation]

Let me state again. I have not the tiniest crumb of complain over what she wrote. Perhaps you lost your train of thought. It happens.

1. It may sound so but no. It's the same as an informed opinion. I'm sure you heard the term "informed opinion". It's what one reads or hears when an expert interprets then disseminates factual information. Conversely, an uninformed opinion is one without facts, such would for example be: the brain acts as a radio reciever for consciousness.

2. Psi sympathetic persons certainly complain about reductive science - a lot. I think the science that's not reductive is the science done by such psi luminaries and institutes as Beischel, Radin, Sheldrake, Stapp, Hameroff, PEAR, Noetic institute.... It's not reductive because it incorporates consciousness, spirituality, it elevates humans from being just meat robots, which I've noticed is a characterization that really rankles some people.

3. I'll take the bait and maybe it will finally shut you up. First you'll have refresh my memory about field effects. I only vaguely remember saying anything recently or in the past.
He was because he has the intellect to make his argument sound credible to less savvy readers. The thing he never realized about himself was he's human an just as prone as anyone else to faulty thinking. For example, he was certain he was going to be successful proving his idea as you may recall. We were out numbered at Skeptiko just as we are here that's why I tried to level the playing field.
I didn't mean Tallis is a complete damned fool just a partial damned fool. When I said that it was my opinion and will continue to be what I think unless he changes his mind to acknowledging consciousness is a product of brain functions. I'm not holding my breath though.
Lastly, my humble apologies for not meeting your expectations for a serious skeptic. This ad hom reminds me of a response I gave just recently on another forum.

    
   

Ah, a pejorative. Something I've noticed across psi sympathetic forums is when the sympathies are disturbed the disturbed reply with perjoratives.

What you should do Sci is respond with facts to change minds. I'll also bring to your attention not once have skeptics on this forum and Skeptiko ever resorted to using ad homs towards members they disagree with.

David001
I don't know what "throw science away" means, but if it means discard all the benefits of science and technology, if Sci did that, he would obviously instantly vanish from this forum!

We aren't politicians, who all too often simply play with words, so I imagine Sci means what he says!

Also, what Sci did was to quote from a blog by a well known theoretical physicist. It is her who is expressing those doubts (basically about String Theory), and her subject seems to be polarising into two camps - those that dislike String Theory because it is too mathematically vague (there  are vast numbers of String Theories - not just one), and because it has not produced any successful predictions, and those that like to discuss multiple universes, etc.

In short that's not what Sci means. You're new here and I don't see you listed at Skeptiko and because of that don't yet know the provenance of Sci's position.

I've described it above (see point 2). I've also included two links that go into depth what it entails.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5842730
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...-sheldrake
As a career scientist she's asking her colleagues to recognize the (apparent to her ) failures. What she's not asking for is a complete revamping to included immaterial ideas. Why would she it's her career she'd put into jeopardy. Therefore I don't take issue.

Brian

Maybe you are looking at yourself Steve, the only difference being that you have the opposite sympathy.  Actually it's not science we have gripes about, it's the abuse of science and the way many scientists and also ill informed anti-psi evangelists like yourself, jump quickly to the conclusions they prefer and ignore all other possibilities.  Science is dying because of people with your attitude; psi proponents would like to see science grow and expand because it can only be in our favour!

If I were an evangelist of any sort I'd have a wider presence on the web. I'd have a blog like Michael Prescott or PZ Meyers but I get it, anyone that proselytizes against skeptics is doing "God's" work and not evangelizing. Conversely anyone not is Hell Spawn, therefore evangelizing.
I didn't know science was dying. I do thank you for the update.


One last general thought. In the past when a skeptic has brought up the failure of psi to demonstrate something after some 120 plus years of research conclusively and not doing so, I hear all sorts of reasons why it should be given more time. And yet physics is having a dry spell and some appear to be champing at the bit to replace present physics for a physic that satisfies their ideology as quickly as possible.