Droppings of a Crank; The Sheldrake Research Pt. 2

[ Read the first part ]

The Design and Reported Results

In September 2006, Swedish tabloid Expressen published an article titled "Scientist proves tricky telephone classic" (2006). Reuters news agency reported that Rupert Sheldrake claimed he had evidence of telepathic ability in conjunction with e-mails and phone calls. In tests with both e-mail and telephone, test participants had scored 40%, which is far better than the 25% which is to be expected by chance. The odds that the results were caused by chance was 1 in 1 000 billion, reported Reuters. That the research had been received with some suspicion was due to the fact that only 63 people had participated in the telephone study and 50 in the e-mail study.

The background of these news is several studies on telepathy that Sheldrake conducted between 1999 and 2004. His interest in telepathy derives from the belief that this phenomena confirms the theory of morphic resonance and its application in morphogenetic fields to which members of a social group are connected. These fields cannot be measured as such, but only by the effects they have and one effect is telepathy, suggests Sheldrake (2006). Another effect is the sense of being stared at, which Sheldrake claims is due to vision not being a one-way process. The image that is created by consciousness during visual perception also radiates from the eyes and can be sensed by the person being stared at (Blackmore, 2005).

The following review, however, deals with one of the studies on telepathy which, according to Sheldrake, constitutes evidence of the existence of telepathy: Experimental Tests For Telephone Telepathy (Sheldrake & Smart, 2003a). The review only covers experimental design and tests - Sheldrake's statistical analysis is not commented on.

Sheldrake's basic experimental design consisted of one person (the receiver) being called by one person (caller) randomly chosen from a group of four persons. In some of the trials, all the callers in a group were known and nominated by the receiver, in others at least two were known and the rest unknown and chosen by the experimenter. If Sheldrake's hypothesis was correct, people from the same social group would have telepathic contact, but people who were not members of the same social group would not. If the receiver was able to name the right caller to a greater extent than what was expected by chance, 25%, telepathy was considered to be the cause. In these tests, Sheldrake reported results that were slightly above 40% concerning callers known by the receiver and 25% concerning callers not known by the receiver, i.e. an obvious support for Sheldrake's hypothesis.

Sheldrake used a convenience sample for the study. Participants were recruited through newspaper advertisments which read: “Do you know who is ringing before you pick up the phone? Good pay for fun and simple experiments as part of psychic research project.” Additional recruiting was done through a recruitment website. Those who responded (receivers) was sent a more detailed description of how the experiment was to be conducted, and was also asked to nominate four people in their circle of acquaintances who also were willing to participate (callers). Thus, callers were recruited through snowball sampling.

Faithful to Sheldrake's approach, the experiments were done in the homes of the participants. The receiver sat in his or her home, the callers in their respective homes, and experimenters Sheldrake and Smart at yet another location. The experiments consisted of a preliminary experiment and two real experimental series, in which the following methods were used:

Method 1
Two callers from the group of four known callers were chosen randomly by throw of a die where the numbers five and six were thrown again. If the same number came up twice, that caller got to call twice. The time for the call was also selected randomly but kept within the stipulated 60 minute test period, which in turn was divided in six segments. An experimenter called the caller one or two hours before the chosen calling time and notified the caller when to make his or her call. The caller was also asked to think about the receiver a minute before making the call. The callers who weren't chosen were also notified that they were not selected for the current trial. A couple of minutes after the test call, the experimenter called the receiver and asked what he or she had guessed. Sometimes, the caller was asked as well. The experimenter then made notes of the result, date, time, receiver, caller, and guess. This method was used in a preliminary experiment and with the first 17 receivers in the first real experimental series, in total 198 trials.

Method 2
The random choice of time for the call was changed to a fixed schedule, for instance 10.15 and 10.45. Otherwise, it was exactly like method 1 and used for the remaining five receivers in the first experimental series and the first three in the second experimental series, in total 87 trials.

Method 3a
Only one call was made during the test. The experimenter chose a caller less than 15 minutes before the chosen time and the caller was notified, at latest, 10 minutes before the call. This method was used for 37 of the receivers in the second experimental series.

Method 3b
This method was similar to 3a but the callers who were not chosen were not automatically notified. Instead, they were told that if they hadn't been notified at least five minutes before the calling time, they had not been chosen. This enabled more tests during a shorter time period, in general with a 15 minute interval. This method was used for the remaining 34 receivers in the second experimental series, in total 268 trials.

Analysis
Sheldrake's & Smart's null hypothesis was that the receivers would make a right guess in 25% of the calls, which is to be expected by chance. The alternative hypothesis was that the receivers would guess right in more than 25% of the cases, which would then be explained by telepathic ability. For hypothesis testing, an exact binomial test was employed. To combine the results of different test trials, Stouffer was used. For comparison between results from known and unknown callers and first and second trials, Fisher's Exact Test, an alternative to Chi2, was used. A 95% confidence limit was calculated when analyzing the probability of right guesses.

In a preliminary experiment reported by Sheldrake & Smart, Smart was the receiver and two sisters, her mom, and Sheldrake were callers. Sheldrake also acted as experimenter. Smart's result was 43%, i.e. significantly above 25%. Smart's best result (67%) was achieved when Sheldrake was calling.

In the first real experiment series, 9 receivers carried the stipulated number of trials (10) through and all but one guessed right in 40% of the calls. This series had a mortality - people who dropped out during the test - of 12 receivers. The most common mortality cause was said to be an inability to get all four callers to participate at the same time.

During the second and last experiment series, yet another hypothesis was introduced: phone calls from callers known by the receiver could be sensed but in calls from unknown callers, the result was what would be expected by chance. 16 receivers carried the stipulated number of trials (10) through. They guessed right in 54% of the calls from known callers and in 24% of the calls from unknown callers, results that lends support for the new hypothesis. This series had a mortality of 21 receivers.

All in all, Sheldrake's & Smart's experiments supported both the original alternative hypothesis and the one introduced in the second series; it seems confirmed that you can sense, telepathically, who is calling and that this ability is dependent on the caller being someone you know.

Are Sheldrake's & Smart's results to be trusted? Are the experiments well designed and conducted, or do they have weaknesses that threats the conclusion? This will be discussed in my next post. Stay tuned.

[ Read the third part ]


References

Blackmore, S., (2005). Confusion Worse Confounded. Commentary on Sheldrake. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12, (6), 64–66. URL http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/jcs2005.htm.

Forskare bevisar lurig telefonklassiker. (2006, 7 September). Expressen, URL http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=676876.

Sheldrake, R., (2006). In Conversation on Abc Radio National – Rupert Sheldrake [www document]. URL http://www.abc.net.au/rn/inconversation ... 754367.htm.

Sheldrake, R., & Smart, P., (2003a). Experimental Tests For Telephone Telepathy. Journal of the Society for Psychological Research, 67, 184–199. URL http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Paper ... _tests.pdf

Droppings of a Crank; The Sheldrake Research Pt. 1

Introduction

A researcher who turns his back on traditional science is British biologist and parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake. As a young and esteemed scientist at Cambridge, he caused some commotion in 1981 when he published A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Causative Formation. The book, and a New Science article published before it, got a strong but mixed reception (Freeman, 2005).

Sheldrake champions the morphic resonance thesis, which suggests that the phenomena of existence becomes more probable the more times they occur and that biologic evolution and behavior therefore are adapted to patterns defined by previous organisms. He is of the opinion that the laws of nature, for instance, should be regarded as changeable habits evolved since the birth of the planet (Wikipedia, 2006) – subsequently, existence and nature has no conformity to law.

The discussion was settled when Nature published an editorial in September 1981, attacking Sheldrake's theories and condemning them for being unscientific. It was suggested that Sheldrake was trying to bring magic into science and his book was nominated as suitable for book burning. The Nature article wrecked Sheldrake's academic career and since then, he is more or less excommunicated from the world of science (Freeman, 2005).

Sheldrake's response has been to go his own way, in several respects. He publishes his theories and research in popular science books aimed at layman audiences (Wikipedia), he runs his research from home (Sheldrake, 2006), he does field studies on phenomena others would try to isolate in the laboratory and urges the public to conduct private research (Sheldrake, 1994) with the help of ready-to-use experiment designs which can be downloaded from his website (http://www.sheldrake.org).

To fit Sheldrake into any traditional science can therefore not be done. He is trained in natural science but is strongly influenced by everything from Goethe to Eastern mysticism. Sheldrake's activities can be viewed as an attempt to change paradigm, from a science springing from a physical reality to research more open to a non-physical dimension (Freeman). He himself describes his world view as "holistic" and is of the opinion that the current direction of science lends support to the view that everything is connected. In addition, he defines his field of research as "everyday mysteries," which are best studied in their own contexts, i.e. in everyday life and not isolated in a laboratory (Sheldrake, 2006).

At the same time, Sheldrake shows many signs usually associated with pseudoscience and "cranks," signs described by Goode (2000) among others. He condemns his critics as being dogmaticly prejudiced, as opposed to "sound" skeptics who are willing to accept his theories at large but express views about details. In his opinion, most scientists suffer from "tunnel vision" but he himself has a broader outlook on things and the phenomena he studies are real for other scientists too but the dominating scientific culture forces them to deny them (Sheldrake, 2006). So Sheldrake displays an ill-concealed conviction of his own excellence and the notion of a widespread scientific "conspiracy" preventing the real truth from being disclosed.

So is it reasonable to examine the work of Sheldrake according to traditional scientific criteria? Yes, for several reasons. First, Sheldrake is making traditional scientific claims of truth; even if his research methods may be considered as unorthodox, Sheldrake claims his hypothesises kan be tested and confirmed by the real world. He further claims that his experiments can be replicated by anyone anywhere, with similar results. It is therefore justified to put Sheldrake's methods and the results he has achieved under scrutiny. This can be done according to prevalent criteria since Sheldrake claims his research satisfies these (Sheldrake, 2006).

Secondly, a considerable part of Sheldrake's undeniable popularity is the fact that he has a researcher's authority, i.e. he is presumed to have reached his conclusion by scientific method. He is also expected, as a researcher, to be motivated by a strong desire to find out what reality is, rather than prefering it to be a certain way. Thus, Sheldrake is presumed to differ from other researchers philosophically, but not methodologically.

Finally, Sheldrake has gained some popularity among other parapsychologists. In the news bulletin of the Swedish Society for Parapsychological Research, it is stated that Sheldrake is "viewed by many, inlcuding many here in Sweden, as one of the more exciting and promising researchers in parapsychology" (SPF, 2005), that he is "very good at conducting experiments on quite ordinary phenomena" (SPF, 2003), and the American parapsychologist Daryl Bem (2006) claims that, since 1986, Sheldrake has "constantly improved his experiments to eliminate sensory leakage." Thus, there is a general as well as methodological appreciation of Sheldrake as scientist. Scrutinizing Sheldrake's research may therefore also indicate a level of methodological awareness in other parapsychologists.

In the following blog posts, I will look into Sheldrake's experiments on telepathy - the 2003 study Experimental Tests For Telephone Telepathy in particular. Stay tuned.

[ Read the second part ]

Note: This text was first published in Swedish in 2007 on the Swedish Skeptics forum. It is still available here.


References

Bem, D., (2006). Sheldrake och hans kritiker: Känslan av att vara iakttagen. Notiser och Nyheter, 33. Sällskapet för Parapsykologisk Forskning.

Freeman, A., (2005). The Sense of Being Glared At. What is It Like to be a Heretic? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12, (6), 4–9.

Goode, E., (2000). Paranormal Beliefs. A Sociological Introduction. Prospect Heights: Waveland.

Sheldrake, R., (1994). Seven Experiments That Could Change the World. London: Fourth Estate.

Sheldrake, R., (2006). In Conversation on Abc Radio National – Rupert Sheldrake [www document]. URL http://www.abc.net.au/rn/inconversation ... 754367.htm.

SPF, Sällskapet för Parapsykologisk Forskning, (2003). Notiser och Nyheter, 19. URL http://parapsykologi.se/nyheter/2003/2003-09.html.

SPF, Sällskapet för Parapsykologisk Forskning, (2005). Notiser och Nyheter, 29. URL http://parapsykologi.se/nyheter/2005/2005-09.pdf.

Wikipedia, (2006). Rupert Sheldrake [www document]. URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake.

Who Can You Trust?

Adrian Parker and Göran Brusewitz have outdone themselves again. In a letter to the Dagens Nyheter editor (Brusewitz and Parker, 2009), the two representatives of the Swedish Society for Parapsychological Research comment on a recently broadcast TV show on paranormal phenomena. The show featured two hosts, one alleged skeptic and one believer, who "investigated" different paranormal phenomena and, every now and then, comments from more renowned people of both sides were cut in. This apparently opened a window of opportunity for Parker and Brusewitz, who writes (my translation):

An important factor in deciding whom to trust, skeptic or proponent, is the question of who appears more reliable. Was it the rather calm proponent Jan Fjellander or the considerably more determined and cocksure skeptic, humanist Christer Sturmark? Who appears more science oriented?

Apart from the fact that Fjellander is a fellow board member of the SSPR, Parker and Brusewitz make no room for doubt that he is the more trustworthy.
　
Is the board of Gothenburg University aware that one of its psychology professors, Parker, is publicly promoting appearance as a hallmark of scientific legitimacy? Not scientific method, but social appearance - who is the nicer guy? However revolting this notion might be - held by a man who is allowed to teach students in an higher educational setting - it explains why Parker has refused to answer any questions about the paper he and Brusewitz published in 2003, A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi. Instead of addressing specific inquiries, he has suggested that we all should get along and turn our attention elsewhere, away from his paper. In an act of benevolence, he refered me to, not published research, but a TV show. He added some name dropping and ended up proclaiming insolence since his alleged authority didn't rid him of questions about his claims.

But my inclination was all wrong! Asking Parker specific questions about his paper was not in line with scientific reasoning, him trying to be a nice guy was (although I think he failed miserably at that too). Scientific fact does not rest on research and empirical evidence, it is a matter of what people you have socialized with, of how willing you are to neglect research and just be nice. What does it matter that a paper is seriously flawed, as long as we pretend and act as if it isn't? A giftwrapped box of dung is still a gift, isn't it?

In Adrian Parkers world of academic make-believe, deceit is perfectly in order - as I have clearly demonstrated, Parker does not hesitate to fabricate and distort the positions held by fellow researchers. Nor does he feel obligated to explain obvious flaws in his own writings (Garvarn, 2007). In every aspect, he resembles the typical crank. The only paranormal phenomena in this context is the fact that Gothenburg University allows him to waste research funds and teach.

My previous discussions with Parker suggests that he is the last person to ask for advice on whom to trust, especially regarding science. I would even go as far as stating that the term "science" has no meaning to Parker - he makes it up as he goes along. And if it has some particular meaning, Parker does not have to submit to it.
　
Garvarn. (2007). Web document: Adrian Parker's Fabrication of Reality.Part I: The Delmore Tests. URL: http://garvarn.blogspot.com/2007/01/adrian-parkers-fabrication-of-reality.html

Parker, A., & Brusewitz, G., (2003). A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi. European Journal of Parapsychology, 18, p. 33-51.

Parker, A., & Brusewitz, G., (2009, September, 12). Paranormala fenomen långt ifrån tillräckligt utforskade. Dagens Nyheter.