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


(8,170 posts)
23. Blindfolding has little effect
Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:02 PM
Dec 2012

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

If you get any more than random noise from such a set-up I would be willing to reconsider my position.
Or as one of my colleagues puts it: Turbineguy Dec 2012 #1
Both wise and perceptive, and a viewpoint that needs to be taken to heart. nt humblebum Dec 2012 #2
Ahh, that Rupert sheldrake Confusious Dec 2012 #3
I'm not that familiar with his scientific work, but I think his take here cbayer Dec 2012 #5
His recent resume is very much something to sneeze at LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #7
I think you make very valid points. cbayer Dec 2012 #9
Actually he's very good experimentalist tama Dec 2012 #13
When I was in grad school in the 70's Speck Tater Dec 2012 #26
"Observer bias" and "degree of plausibility" combined tama Dec 2012 #30
If one were to judge his argument by his resume, that would just be argument from authority.... xocet Dec 2012 #29
Couple points tama Dec 2012 #31
Actually, I first read this without any idea of who he was, and I found it interesting. cbayer Dec 2012 #36
Liberal materialism has become the dominant mode burnsei sensei Dec 2012 #4
Maybe - but one of the best-known practitioners of bad science is Rupert Sheldrake himself LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #6
I wasn't aware of this when I read the article, but have now done some further cbayer Dec 2012 #8
He's unorthodox, for sure tama Dec 2012 #14
He is not unorthodox - he is a purveyor of Woo intaglio Dec 2012 #17
Well then tama Dec 2012 #18
Blindfolding has little effect intaglio Dec 2012 #23
Actually tama Dec 2012 #24
Thanks, tama. I found his writing intriguing, and looking into cbayer Dec 2012 #22
While some of Sheldrake's stuff is way outside the box, Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #10
And so were/are a lot of crackpots and cultists. LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #11
The why don't you tama Dec 2012 #15
That's an idiotic comparison... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #28
Here's a free logic lesson from Carl Sagan: trotsky Dec 2012 #35
thats pretty rich coming from rupert sheldrake Phillip McCleod Dec 2012 #12
Phillip McCleod is a crackpot tama Dec 2012 #16
Which particular site? The Huffington Post? cbayer Dec 2012 #21
They are also home to a lot of crackpot woo. trotsky Dec 2012 #34
Dishonest and self-serving skepticscott Dec 2012 #19
"Bad science gets better. Bad religion stays bad." cleanhippie Dec 2012 #20
Sheldrake is a crank who probably has Schizotypal Personality Disorder. Odin2005 Dec 2012 #25
Well, this man definitely represents bad science, and I can't see a difference... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #27
Here's my take on Sheldrake Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2012 #32
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #37
Bad science can be countered (and conquered) by good science. trotsky Dec 2012 #33
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Why Bad Science Is Like B...»Reply #23