Talk:OpenSourceScience Experiments
From OpenSourceScience
Contents |
Typo
There is a typo on the article page. It is protected or else I would fix it.
The typo is:
OpenSourceSciece
Mcromer 12:21, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
- Got, it! Thanks. I'll address your other comments later this evening. --Annalisa Ventola 13:14, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
Suggestion
I have a suggestion for research projects conducted under the auspices of OSS.
It is that all research data and materials are available online for interested parties to examine. One of the more frustrating things about traditional academic research, particularly on controversial topics, is that you are generally not able to access the raw experimental data to perform additional analyses.
For an activity that purports to deliver a kind of truth (scientific knowledge), I feel it is imperative that the process be fully open.
For the purposes of a replication of the JayTee and Kane return-anticipating dogs experiment, I would expect to see the original spreadsheets or scanned copies of any paper records, as well as digital video files for any filmed trials.
These are the kinds of detailed information that people can point to when pointing out the high quality of the research that OSS will conduct.
Mcromer 12:29, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
- I agree with you 100%. Some of the previous studies have published the raw data, and if I had the time, I would put that data into either a CSV or SPSS file (or both) to make it more accessible. If you or anybody you know would like to volunteer to do this, I'm sure we could find a way to provide the space. I'm sure that Sheldrake would cooperate, if asked. It would be nice to have a fresh look at the data.
- Getting the original videos and transfering them to digital files would be a huge undertaking, and I'm not sure what it would accomplish. When looking at the old data, we'll just have to trust that the independent judges did a proper job at their task. Future studies, however, can have all the videos and data accessible at OSS, and that's just what we plan to do. I would like to see these experiments done with webcams and judged live by OSS visitors, but we'll have to see where we end up in this process of collaboration. It's going to be an interesting ride. --Annalisa Ventola 20:56, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
- I'd be happy to type the old data in data into electronic format. I agree that digitizing the old videos is probably not the best use of time, I was referring more to any new data that is generated which will probably consist of digital video files. Mcromer 09:19, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
- I agree as well... while it might be interesting to look at the old data in this way I think we should look forward.
_______________________________________
james here::
I don't think anyone would be happy after seeing "scientific research in the raw." From what I've seen published - scientists need a better education. By example look at this article about the Equivalence Principle published by NASA.
Since when was "mass" or an object's material, ever in the equation that is used to determine free fall velocity (in a vacuum)? Equation is v^2 = 2as, where v = velocity, a = acceleration, and s = height.
Equivalence Principle article here:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/18may_equivalenceprinciple.htm
James 14:00, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
- Very true James that scientists are human beings like everyone else and a fancy diploma is no immunity from mistakes. That's one reason I am so excited by this notion of open source science. In my professional field of software development, there is a saying about open source software: "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". The same principle applies to collaborative efforts like Wikipedia, and I think bringing the same principle to the practice of science will deliver amazing progress to a field that is currently organized in an almost medieval fashion.Mcromer 14:27, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
My reading of "The Equivalence Principle" article is that it goes beyond classical mechanics, from which the equation James refers to derives, into the realms of String Theory where classical mechanics does not apply.
As a Chartered Engineer (Professional Engineer) with a fair knowledge of physics as well as an interest in and involvement with matters beyond the physical, I can see no real problem with the general thrust of the article.
Richard King http://www.rlkassocites.co.uk
Another Suggestion
Another suggestion -- the OSS principals contact some of the parapsychologists you know and see if they will be willing to integrate OSS into at least one of their personal research projects.
This would give OSS the opportunity to see the raw data from the research, and allow the researcher the opportunity to hear direct feedback from the OSS community. Mcromer 12:48, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
- This is an interesting suggestion. I've invited all of the parapsychologists that I know here, and OSS has funding available for researchers who would like to replicate the studies that we examine, so it's just a matter of them stepping forward. --Annalisa Ventola 21:00, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
Suggestion- psychology
There are some parapsychological or paranormal phenomena where illusion is not a viable option as a skeptical explanation. The only real options are fraud or psi. I would like to hear from psychologists as to whether fraud (lifelong lying about the occurrence of the event) is a viable alternative. I would submit as an example where illusion is unlikely Dean Radin's spoon bending experience. Maybe there is a skeptical explanation for how he could have been fooled or fooled himself, but such explanations are not believable for all such events, even if they are for one or two. Is Radin lying? Perhaps this is a better suggestion for Skeptiko than for actual research though. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
