Throw Out Your Caller ID
by Scott Hardie on September 6, 2006
I'm all for scientific research into the paranormal, since it will benefit humankind whether the results are affirmative or negative – but apparently it's awfully hard to keep such research scientific. For instance, I never fail to be amused by ghost hunters who claim to have proven a haunting because electromagnetic readings are higher in the area, a phenomenon that has no demonstrated correlation with hauntings. And let's not even get into the ones who claim to have proven a haunting because a "psychic" said they sensed ghosts nearby.
Today's latest example of more scientific than that, but still laughably unreliable. Rupert Sheldrake, a somewhat respected figure in the field (bio), has claimed to have proven that "telephone telepathy" exists. news) That's the phenomenon where you think about someone and then they call you. See the news article for details about his research. There are several big problems with this conclusion:
1) There's no natural spontaneity. The test subjects were made to think of their family & friends and then their family & friends were made to call them. Even if the rest of the research was sound, this would merely mean that it can happen under artificial circumstances.
2) Assuming the family & friends weren't sequestered in a laboratory for days, they were going on about their normal lives. I don't know about you, but I'm close enough to my mother and good friends that I generally know whether they're home or out at a particular time of day. If I had to name four of them and then be told that one would call me, I could pretty easy guess who it is from the time of day. Surely not everyone is like this, but it has to be pretty common.
3) Did Sheldrake have a control group? The article said it was a "controlled" experiment without elaborating. Did he have a second group of test subjects of equal size and have their family & friends call them without telling them to expect a call? I'd bet his results would turn out the same for the control group, but we'll never know I guess.
4) My calculator can't compute the factorials high enough to determine whether his "1,000 billion to 1" claim is correct – anybody else want to take a shot and tell me what you find? – but let's just say I have grave doubts that out of 63 people, 28 choosing the right option out of 4 possible options would amount to probability that extreme. Is it hyperbole?
5) 63 subjects is an awfully small group. Say that psychic powers are real but only a few people have them. What if a disproportionately high number of those people wound up in his study of 63 subjects? Oh, wait, he'd probably claim that the odds of that are 1,000 billion to 1.
6) Let's see a second group produce the same results independently of the first before go making claims of proof, shall we?
What is it about the paranormal as a subject that allows its researchers to get away with such lousy work? If Sheldrake were making such wild claims about a serious subject, he'd be laughed out of his associations. Is the paranormal research community so desperate for credibility that they take claims like his seriously? And if so, what does that say about the validity of any of their work?
Three Replies to Throw Out Your Caller ID
Lori Lancaster | September 6, 2006
[hidden by author request]
Kris Weberg | September 6, 2006
The paranormal gets a pass because people badly want to believe in magic. It's simply the name we give magic in the present world where even a modicum of scientific knowledge puts paid to the idea that velleity affects reality.
Logical Operator
The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »
Game Over
On paper, Game Over doesn't look promising: A vulgar, video-game-themed cartoon series on UPN that only lasted five episodes. But I rented it anyway, and somehow it managed to be entertaining and smarter than it needed to be, but maybe that was just the low expectations kicking in. I think the key to the show is that it actually respected its characters and cared for them as a family unit, instead of using them as empty vessels for punchlines (latter-year The SImpsons) or treating them with unmistakable contempt (Family Guy). Go »PIMP
Many thanks to Miah Poisson and Ines Sarante for throwing a great 30th birthday party for Miah this weekend. I don't play much Guitar Hero, but apparently I play enough to win a tournament against Miah's GH-obsessed coworkers, or maybe it's just because the game is ridiculously handicapped against experts. I'm just happy because I won a pimp stein: We ate lots of great food, had fun with karaoke, and talked until the hour was late. Go »Is That a George Lucas Character?
Matthew Preston: "If making up words for directions is wrong, I don't want to be fludoo." Go »Hello Stupid
I don't know why car companies insist on calling their products "vehicles" now. Apparently "cars" became a dirty word and I missed it. But if you're going to change the term, consider your marketing messages carefully: As a matter of fact, yes, I have heard about radar, sonar, and infared technology in vehicles, such as submarines, aircraft carriers, and helicopters. Go »Milwaukee's Best
Today I learned a valuable lesson: Don't quote that line from Wayne's World about "mill-you-wock-AY" to a native of that city. It's like asking them to bring you a cheese wheel when they visit: You deserve a kick in the balls for it. I learned this while planning my visit to the city this weekend for beer, brats, Packers, and oh yeah, Matthew Preston. Go »
Anna Gregoline | September 6, 2006
Scott, this bothers me as well, as I have a extremely curious mind towards the paranormal, but I agree - the research and methods are so shoddy! I don't know why this is, and it's hard to wade through all the bullshit to find what might be promising research.
Personally, I believe in a sort of energy field around the earth and through all living things (think of "The Force" if it's helpful), and that when we die, our "life" energy goes back into this field. So I do believe in ghosts in the sense of seeing apparitions, or feeling emotions tied to locations because an energy of what was a person is localized there - but I'm very skeptical of anyone interacting with a ghost (like having a conversation).