Latent Psychic Ability in the Religious, and Athiest

You’re right, I didn’t read the web article, I read the published articles of the experimenters.

The whole opensourcescience page is published articles of experimenters.

I think that’s kind of the point with that website…? So I’m not sure what your point is. Explain to us why you don’t need to read the other published experiments please.

Umm, the page you linked was a synopsis, and for all I know it was written by you.

I read the articles it referenced.

You clearly didn’t read all of them.

Anyways you’re right. The page on opensourcescience.com could have been written by me. That’s smart to be wary of that possibility.

Actually I did, not my fault that you didn’t. If you had you would have seen that the last article with Jaytee was the most uncontrolled out of the lot. The scientists were not even present, the environment was wide open, and the owner and her parents did everything.

Seeing as how wiseman’s criticism of RS’s methodology went unanswered in RS’s response(as per my first post), and the RS’s next papers were based on the same trash methodology(this time conducted by a layman), only someone that is either a fool or hasn’t bothered to read any of the actual articles would conclude a positive correlation between departure time and Jaytee.

Same people, same methodology, same problems.

Dude, this isn’t that hard. If you want a valid experiment have the fucking dog and owner live in a soundproof windowless room until the dog starts going to the door, or whatever, when it is anticipating the return of the owner. Then run the experiments.

Use your brain for once instead of posting a trash articles and trolling everyone because you’re too complacent to think critically about things that affirm your POV.

In all the studies presented there has been OVERWHELMING statistical evidence to support the thesis which, after the first round, were conducted in randomized, completely blind trails. So if you have a qualm with the methodology why don’t you state specifically where you see the flaw in the experimentation.

Oh, there it is:

That’s retarded. The experiments attempt to mimic the natural conditions the dog/owners exist in. You cannot run an experiment involving animals in the manner you’re suggesting. It would be pointless. It would likely panic and behave completely differently.

That aside, it wouldn’t make it valid; it would make it more valid (in the mistaken way you are suggesting.) There is no threshold point where a study becomes ‘valid.’

Anyways, we’re going to get to the windowless rooms and all that stuff when I move on to the other studies. This is one of many.

You know I’m right, you know that “statistical evidence” means shit for invalid experiments, and you know that when one of the subjects of the experiment runs the equipment it is not blind.

Do blather on, though, please.

Alright, so moving on.

Even such arrangements wouldn’t work.
You cannot strongly change the normal environment of an event, especially concerning living entities, and expect them to not be affected. That is one of the very many errors that psychologists and scientists do wrong. Just as the Hiesenburg principles clearly display, any attempt at measure can destroy the effort to measure.

In such a case as a dog and an owner, if cameras are to be used, they must be present and active before the experiment is to begin long enough for the dog and owner to get accustom to them being there. After that point, it must still be evident that the behavior is still in effect. Any altered behavior for sake of the experiment must become or be seen as “normal”, not intentionally formed for the sake of measure. That means that the owner must have a reason for randomly preparing to go home that is not based in the experiment.

The end effect, if you really want a good experiment for such things, is that you must already be recording and discover an event that meets the minimum standard for significance else you cannot form a truly “Scientific experiment” and draw confident conclusions.

The original observation of the owner was the only thing that even came close to that stipulation and thus only the owner’s testimony can be accepted as relevant data even though it is quite possibly biased for any number of reasons. The problem is that if a science minded individual were to try to note the same behavior in his own pet, he is likely to cause the entire effort to fail merely because he is attending to it with critical eyes and presumptions in judgment. Those are his tools, thus he cannot even do the experiment.

It must be observed after the fact so that critical analysis of the undisturbed recorded data can be assessed with scrutiny. But if a camera is viewing everything people are doing, do you really think people will behave “normally”? Not a chance. If people even think they are being watched, they respond differently and often in the opposite direction of their incentives. But thinking that one can secretly observe people without affecting them is a presumption… and a false one. Thus again, the experiment as a valid experiment cannot be done.

This is one of the many things which Science cannot examine or determine other than merely presume and declare “Truth” (as they so often do).

Yep, validity isn’t an absolute thing. Kudos, really, this is quite a zing. I mean, you figured out that science has fallibility built in. How can we go on? Oh yeah, validity as used in science is aware of its own limitations.

Wut. The owner isn’t observing the dog.

Man, I really wish people would just read the studies before talking.

Oh yeah, you proposed a retarded experiment condition. Kudos, you figured out you were wrong.

What’s wrong with this? You move the dog and person into the control room and have them live there until it becomes their home psychologically. Cameras and all. Then you have, as part of their normal lives, the owner run errands that the scientist randomly decides the time of. Or maybe a computer program “randomly” outputs the errands. You do not tell the person when those errands stop being part of habituation to this type of life, and when they become part of the tests.

Here’s the best part, you don’t let the person know the cameras are there, and lead them to believe that they will be given the camera when the experiment is beginning. Thus the experiment will be completed before the participants think it has begun.

Funding.

I have a short memory. Who said that the behavior existed? Whoever that was, is the only testimony that could even possibly be considered. But that testimony wouldn’t be very credible on its own.

The scientists watching the dog’s actions on a camera.

Why? The dog is alone in a house like it normally is, and they are watching how many times it spends at the door/window waiting.

Seems pretty straightforward.

What is wrong is simple.
You have very strongly changed their environment and possibly cathartically. If the event doesn’t happen, you haven’t proven anything other than to say that you can destroy such behavior by putting people in controlled environments where they are being watched.

It is ridiculous to think that a human or dog is not effected by such drastic changes, especially when trying to measure something that is very dependent on their mental and emotional state.

Again, you are not reading or you are ignoring. I already covered that scenario.

Sure sure. However, people move all the time and they habituate to their new circumstances and so do their animals. They find a new normal, and I have no reason to think that this new normal wouldn’t include the very basic behavior of a dog anticipating the return of the owner. You’re right, we couldn’t absolutely conclude anything based off the experiment precisely because people moved. However, to my mind, “absolutely conclude” is an oxymoron when it comes to experiments.

Hmm, your point was based on the subjects having knowledge of the observation.