Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Why Bad Science Is Like Bad Religion [View all]intaglio
(8,170 posts)23. Blindfolding has little effect
because humans attempt to respond by looking whether or not they have vision. There are numerous other inputs that inform us of the presence of others
Essentially Sheldrake evaluates his own work and others pull down his dubious analysis.
I propose the following protocol.
Take subject (the primary) to be observed, connect them to electro-encephalograph and an electro-myograph. Wheel them, blindfolded and earplugged, into a room with a low level of white noise and a video camera that can only observe the primary subject.
Sometimes that room is otherwise empty, sometimes there are 3 or 4 people (the secondaries). These people are placed in chairs facing away from the location of the subject and which have motors to rotate them. In some experimental runs none of the other 4 persons are rotated. In others rotation occurs randomly and the secondaries are to stare at the subject until the chair rotates away.
After a set period of time, identical in all cases, the primary is taken to a room to be interviewed by someone unaware of the experimental set up for that run. In all cases the video, interview, encephalographic and myographic data are analysed by a third party unaware of the state of the secondaries. The evaluation of the data should look for evidence of voluntary or involuntary movement from the primary and any "feelings" the primary may express about a particular test run.
This analysis is then compared to the data on the presence or absence of staring.
This test has to be carried out on a minimum of 5 times on each of 20 primary subjects with secondaries drawn at random from a pool of at least 100.
Precautions; due to the sensitivity of the human body to floor born vibrations the floor under the Primary should be independent from the floor beneath the secondaries. It might also be advisable to control for body heat and osmic (smell) effects
Sometimes that room is otherwise empty, sometimes there are 3 or 4 people (the secondaries). These people are placed in chairs facing away from the location of the subject and which have motors to rotate them. In some experimental runs none of the other 4 persons are rotated. In others rotation occurs randomly and the secondaries are to stare at the subject until the chair rotates away.
After a set period of time, identical in all cases, the primary is taken to a room to be interviewed by someone unaware of the experimental set up for that run. In all cases the video, interview, encephalographic and myographic data are analysed by a third party unaware of the state of the secondaries. The evaluation of the data should look for evidence of voluntary or involuntary movement from the primary and any "feelings" the primary may express about a particular test run.
This analysis is then compared to the data on the presence or absence of staring.
This test has to be carried out on a minimum of 5 times on each of 20 primary subjects with secondaries drawn at random from a pool of at least 100.
Precautions; due to the sensitivity of the human body to floor born vibrations the floor under the Primary should be independent from the floor beneath the secondaries. It might also be advisable to control for body heat and osmic (smell) effects
If you get any more than random noise from such a set-up I would be willing to reconsider my position.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

If one were to judge his argument by his resume, that would just be argument from authority....
xocet
Dec 2012
#29
Actually, I first read this without any idea of who he was, and I found it interesting.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#36
Maybe - but one of the best-known practitioners of bad science is Rupert Sheldrake himself
LeftishBrit
Dec 2012
#6
Well, this man definitely represents bad science, and I can't see a difference...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#27