This is my first test of the idea of having mod+ threads in CD. For an explanation of what this means, see here:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/does-it-matter.1240/page-5#post-33913
Johann and Maaneli (Baptista and Derakhshani) wrote a paper which will be published in the Journal of Parapsychology and was presented at a recent parapsychology conference and is available here.
http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/Meta_Baptista14.pdf
They make the following recommendations in order to necessitate analysis and replication from the mainstream...
Produce replicable experiments.
Increase the power of the ganzfeld experiments by increasing the effect size, rather than sample size.
Reinvest in forced-choice experiments and increase the power by increasing sample size.
Pre-register studies in a venue such as the KPU Registry.
Follow the methodological and statistical guidelines suggested by Utts and Tressoldi (http://www.parapsych.org/blogs/patrizio/entry/49/2013/2/methodological_and_statistical.aspx#comments).
Implementing two of Kennedy's recommendations from http://jeksite.org/psi/misconduct.htm -
'registering a multiple-experimenter protocol with independent copies of study outcomes, so as to prevent tampering; and providing the raw data for analysis by others after a study is completed'.
What strikes me about these recommendations is that they have been made previously, and some are well over ten years old, and I wanted to get a sense of how likely they are to change the field.
Kennedy wrote an article in 2004 called "A proposal and challenge for proponents and skeptics of psi", which Caroline Watt picked up on in her presidential address at the 2005 PA convention.
http://jeksite.org/psi/jp04.htm
http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/Documents/RevisedAddress.pdf
In his article he brings up the idea of performing pivotal experiments which are well-designed and sufficiently powered to draw conclusions without the need for post-hoc meta-analysis. And as Watt points out, he is not the first to do so. Similarly the idea of having studies pre-registered goes back for over 20 years, yet we are just now seeing the creation and use of the KPU registry. And as far as I know, none of the journals have yet tied pre-registration to publication.
So my question to those people who are familiar with the parapsychology community is, given that the suggestions made by Johann and Maaneli have already been made for years, is there hope that the field will make use of these recommendations? Johann, what sort of feedback have you received in this regard?
Linda
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/does-it-matter.1240/page-5#post-33913
Johann and Maaneli (Baptista and Derakhshani) wrote a paper which will be published in the Journal of Parapsychology and was presented at a recent parapsychology conference and is available here.
http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/Meta_Baptista14.pdf
They make the following recommendations in order to necessitate analysis and replication from the mainstream...
Produce replicable experiments.
Increase the power of the ganzfeld experiments by increasing the effect size, rather than sample size.
Reinvest in forced-choice experiments and increase the power by increasing sample size.
Pre-register studies in a venue such as the KPU Registry.
Follow the methodological and statistical guidelines suggested by Utts and Tressoldi (http://www.parapsych.org/blogs/patrizio/entry/49/2013/2/methodological_and_statistical.aspx#comments).
Implementing two of Kennedy's recommendations from http://jeksite.org/psi/misconduct.htm -
'registering a multiple-experimenter protocol with independent copies of study outcomes, so as to prevent tampering; and providing the raw data for analysis by others after a study is completed'.
What strikes me about these recommendations is that they have been made previously, and some are well over ten years old, and I wanted to get a sense of how likely they are to change the field.
Kennedy wrote an article in 2004 called "A proposal and challenge for proponents and skeptics of psi", which Caroline Watt picked up on in her presidential address at the 2005 PA convention.
http://jeksite.org/psi/jp04.htm
http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/Documents/RevisedAddress.pdf
In his article he brings up the idea of performing pivotal experiments which are well-designed and sufficiently powered to draw conclusions without the need for post-hoc meta-analysis. And as Watt points out, he is not the first to do so. Similarly the idea of having studies pre-registered goes back for over 20 years, yet we are just now seeing the creation and use of the KPU registry. And as far as I know, none of the journals have yet tied pre-registration to publication.
So my question to those people who are familiar with the parapsychology community is, given that the suggestions made by Johann and Maaneli have already been made for years, is there hope that the field will make use of these recommendations? Johann, what sort of feedback have you received in this regard?
Linda