What should forum policy be on defamatory posts?

I don't think this is an easy question at all. It would make discussions very difficult if someone is not allowed to say, for example, "I think Uri Geller faked those results", without being able to prove it.

I had those thoughts as well. But I assume there is at least some evidence one could present in Geller's case. But for Radin, I doubt those kinds of claims could be substantiated. I may be wrong.

I had those thoughts as well. But I assume there is at least some evidence one could present in Geller's case. But for Radin, I doubt those kinds of claims could be substantiated. I may be wrong.

I think it's very difficult. On the one hand, I don't like to see unsubstantiated suggestions that particular people have faked results. On the other, I think the possibility of experimenter fraud tends to be the "elephant in the room" that no one talks about. Obviously it has happened in the past, and human nature being what it is, it will happen again. 

I was reading today in the new number of the SPR Journal about two paranormal wartime incidents related by Evan "Wilbur" Wright, the author of a highly regarded (at least by Colin Wilson) book on the paranormal. Robert Charman checked them out in the records and concluded that they were largely invention, despite the author apparently having a spotless reputation.

I can't see any objection to people saying that results are faked provided it's in the context of the thread and they're prepared to explain why they believe it's the case.

If their view is based on someone else's words, it depends on why that other person formed their view as far as I can see. Before simply repeating another person's opinion, I'd try to give some thought to why I believe their view to be more reliable than the person I am suggesting has behaved fraudulently.

Saying one thinks such-and-such, and explaining why they think that's the case, is a legitimate way of testing our opinion. A wise person would approach it a little obliquely if they think it is likely to cause offence or if there is potentially some doubt about it.

Stating something as a fact without being able to provide sufficient grounds for saying that is at best unwise and at worst simply defamatory. Simply parroting someone else's opinion without expanding on it sounds lame to me. It doesn't require any thought to say it but requires anyone responding to it to formulate a response, which takes effort and time. After a bit some may get a bit tired of that.

i think if you are going to engage with researcher X and talk personally about your concerns that their results may have been less than honest, and you have permission to relay that conversation then that is OK. Or if there are already published materials that raise a specific concern and you are going to cite that source, then that would also be OK. I'm not really thinking blogs or other internet "published" materials would stand in this regard. But that is another really gray area as some people, even those who may be recognized as "experts" may publish some materials only on the internet.

I guess maybe if you had a personal blog that you published on the internet under your own legal name and you were willing to make the same statements in a blog post, then that might make a difference. Then you could back up the forum post with the blog as a reference, provided you published under your legal name.

I think what needs to be avoided is attacking someone under the cover of anonymity. If you have a beef, then be willing to put your legal name on it. Researcher X does so.

We know 'p-hacking' happens. And we know that certain types of studies are more susceptible than others. It is impossible to fully assess a researcher's 'degrees of freedom' by reading the paper alone, or even in conversation with said researcher.

We also know that, while outright fraud may occur, many (most?) cases of p-hacking are probably not deliberate. We take our human biases and blind spots into the lab, along with a motivation for meaningful results.

In short, Max needn't have appealed to outright fraud to question the results, and shouldn't have done without good evidence. There's probably a more interesting conversation there too.

I'd add that, historically, some proponents have had 'open season' on certain high profile skeptics. Decorum on all sides would be desirable.

I'd add that, historically, some proponents have had 'open season' on certain high profile skeptics. Decorum on all sides would be desirable.

While I agree that some decorum would be desirable, I must say that the playing field is hardly even. Psi research and evidence has to contend with automatic accusations of deception and/or delusion. The media and internet are dominated by sceptics. This forum is not a microcosm of the world at large - for some it is a refuge where both sides can be discussed. Some of those high profile sceptics (yes, I do mean Randi in particular) have been lauded in the media without question so you shouldn't be surprised to see some attempt at redressing the balance. 

People like Dawkins and Krauss are scientists and should represent free and open enquiry but they don't. They have the stage because of their scientific status but choose to promote a philosophically dogmatic agenda, proclaiming in absolute terms that psi, along with God and any kind of spiritual belief should be eliminated from consideration. That is not an honest use of the scientific platform they have been afforded.

While I agree that some decorum would be desirable, I must say that the playing field is hardly even. Psi research and evidence has to contend with automatic accusations of deception and/or delusion. The media and internet are dominated by sceptics. This forum is not a microcosm of the world at large - for some it is a refuge where both sides can be discussed. Some of those high profile sceptics (yes, I do mean Randi in particular) have been lauded in the media without question so you shouldn't be surprised to see some attempt at redressing the balance. 

People like Dawkins and Krauss are scientists and should represent free and open enquiry but they don't. They have the stage because of their scientific status but choose to promote a philosophically dogmatic agenda, proclaiming in absolute terms that psi, along with God and any kind of spiritual belief should be eliminated from consideration. That is not an honest use of the scientific platform they have been afforded.

Are you saying that this place shouldn't practice balance? Surely as far as Psiencequest is concerned 'defamation' is 'defamation', irrespective of the target?

If you enact such a rule, that will be the slippery slope for this forum I'm afraid... honestly, you don't want that...

You've done an Alex I'm afraid... removed the offending posts without allowing people to see them, and discuss them. I'm perfectly happy with what I wrote, it was a clear statement that Radins papers are fine he's not falsified anything, but  I didn't know whether Radin was, or was not aware of the 'sound issue', (or the 'battery-issue' in another study), and he does appear to have an undeniable potential conflict of interest due to his relationship with ION's, that fact is rarely mentioned.

Many papers I read have clear conflict of interest statements at the end... they have to... because it is absolute common sense that authors are biased, and readers need to be able to judge the potential for a conflict of interest to affect an authors research for themselves... 

This is a good document to read and think about... 

http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/...oundation/

I think you've not understood the difference between raising the potential for a conflict of interest (what I did) which is definitely not a problem. Where as you seemed to judge it an insinuation, but no, it was pointing out common sense facts.

It would be nice if there a way to flag a post as "under review", instead of removing content. Then a full discussion could be had surrounding the post.