tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352450344824585503.post9090949629586539647..comments2023-10-20T02:20:45.487-05:00Comments on Patrick S. Forscher: Unraveling the "obviousness" bias in psychologyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352450344824585503.post-50420633678414263182011-08-04T19:32:40.172-05:002011-08-04T19:32:40.172-05:00Hi Arpeakay, thanks for your thoughtful comments! ...Hi Arpeakay, thanks for your thoughtful comments! I'm not sure if you meant to respond to this post:<br /><br />http://persistentastonishment.blogspot.com/2011/01/evidence-for-precognition-hurts.html<br /><br />While I agree that science is about rigorous method, not content, scientific evidence must be interpreted in light of all the other evidence that has been previously established. With respect to Bem's work, for example, if precognition does exist, why does it not affect people's behavior outside the laboratory (e.g., at the slot machine?).<br /><br />Even if we accept Bem's evidence at face value, one of the weaknesses of his "theory" of precognition is that does not postulate a plausible mechanism through which precognition could occur. The reason that this is problematic is that the current understanding of biology, neurochemistry, chemistry, and physics does not provide any reasonable ways for people to precognitively experience emotional reactions to an event that has not occurred. This means that any evidence for precognition must be truly extraordinary -- hence my skeptical reaction to the extremely small effects obtained in the Bem experiments. If the evidence is not extraordinary, the most likely interpretation of the Bem effects is that they are due to data mining (which you can see in part in the search for interactions and other effects in the Bem paper).<br /><br />Finally, there actually are some technical problems with the Bem paper. I will not review all of them here, but I will direct your attention to this critique:<br /><br />http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~jec7/pcd%20pubs/wagenmakersetal.pdfPatrick S. Forscherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05573437614920221191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352450344824585503.post-74626957327927289842011-07-23T09:41:39.143-05:002011-07-23T09:41:39.143-05:00If science is not about encouraging paranormal cla...If science is not about encouraging paranormal claims, it is also not about repressing scientific evidence about previously unknown psychological phenomena in order to reinforce institutional beliefs and status quo, especially when the methodologies used to produce this evidence are consistent with mainstream processes in the field. <br /><br />The peer-review process is one that is *supposed* to encourage challenges to existing theory in order to prove them and allow for changes in viewpoints and knowledge. Unfortunately, many journal editors and academics feel that journals and research should go on reproducing the prior views (and career paths) of the institutions and educators that produced them. This is a cancer on science, and has turned searching for the truth into dogma in the same way that religion has consistently turned simple teachings into iron-clad commandments. <br /><br />If one can't see the inherent value of a controversial paper like this one that challenges dominant beliefs-- and which, incidentally, has followed the formulas and methodologies of the 'respectable' papers published alongside it-- and the biggest concern that it makes your field 'look bad', then you have essentially become part of the institution. You now are interested mostly in preserving the views and science that produced your views (a simultaneous example of confirmation bias and social reproduction). Yet, this is not how science is produced. Science is produced at the margins. Risks are sometimes necessary. For something like ESP, there is no 'safe' way to conduct this type of research. No matter what you do, it *will* be controversial, it will make some people immediately and automatically dismissive. But that doesn't make it junk science. Junk science is about methodology, not about subject matter.Arpeakayhttp://www.itsasecret.comnoreply@blogger.com