istanbul evden eve nakliyat eşya depolama uluslararası nakliyat uluslararası evden eve nakliyat evden eve nakliyat istanbul ev taşıma istanbul nakliye firması ev eşyası depolama istanbul depo kiralama gebze nakliyat eşya depolama

Dishonest Debunking of Daryl Bem's Experiments Alleged

Details
Category: Jack Sarfatti Blog
  1.    
       
       

  5. On Mar 15, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Dean Radin wrote:

    I thought you were way too polite in your comment. Their failure to include the successful experiments in their report was an egregious violation of Wiseman's written promise to meta-analyze all of the registered studies. What's the point of registering a study in advance if you end up ignoring those you don't like?

    best wishes,
    Dean


    On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Daryl J. Bem <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:
    I haven't responded to this particular piece, but I notice that some of the comments following French's column quote from or link to my comment on the PLoS ONE website itself in response to the Ritchie, Wiseman, French article.

    You can download my comment directly from my dropbox:  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8290411/Comment%20on%20Failing%20the%20Future.pdf

    I decided to be polite in my comment, but theirfailure to even mention the 2 successful replications pre-registered on Wiseman's own replication registry borders on dishonesty.  When people talk about the Filedrawer problem, they never focus on how some skeptics suppress or ignore successful studies that go against their biases.  The first task in writing an  empirical article is a literature review of previous similar experiments. 

    Daryl



    On Mar 15, 2012, at 5:22 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

    "As can be seen from our published report in PLoS ONE, none of us produced results that supported the effect reported by Bem (neither did Eric Robinson in a paper published in July 2011 in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research). Our failure to replicate Bem's results will, no doubt, not come as a surprise to many readers as they will have assumed from the outset that the alleged paranormal effect was not real. Indeed, many commentators strongly criticised the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology for publishing Bem's paper in the first place, though it had been put through the same peer review process as other submissions."
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/15/precognition-studies-curse-failed-replications?newsfeed=true

    Dear Daryl have you responded to this yet. :-)