Unlucky Fuss

Over my traditional Christmas and New Year break, I made a few small changes to this class blog. One of those is the addition of the new section "Room for Debate | New York Times" on the right, which is an RSS feed from a regular section of The New York Times where guest writers, usually academics or other experts, are invited to give their opinion on a topical issue. The hot topic at the moment, number one on the list as I write, is the controversy surrounding an academic paper on paranormal phenomena. In fact, I wrote about the paper here in November last year after reading about it in New Scientist (Peter, 2011).

The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, one of the most respected peer reviewed academic journals in psychology, is about to publish a paper by Cornell University professor of psychology Daryl J. Bem, in which the author presents evidence that appears to show that people can somehow detect or be influenced by future events (Carey, 2011). As Benedict Carey, writing for The New York Times, notes, the journal editors' decision to publish this paper has upset a lot of other academics who think that the whole idea is perfect nonsense and tarnishes the reputation of the journal and of psychology. The editors of The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology explain that they decided to publish because Bem is a respected academic at a very good university, but primarily because his work was independently peer reviewed and passed all of the journal's conditions for acceptance. This, in turn, has caused some academics to wonder if there are problems in the peer review process when such a seemingly silly paper could so easily pass.

The New York Times' introductory comments to the debate include some questions that I would also have asked: "How does the peer review process ensure good quality research? Are there factors that the standard process cannot take account of? Or is ESP simply a claim that should not be entertained as a subject of scientific inquiry?" ("When Science Goes Psychic", 2011).

In his contribution to the debate, Douglas Hofstadter takes the side of those who oppose publication on the grounds that Bem's claim to have provided strong evidence for the reality of psychic phenomena is so extremely unlikely to be true that it's a waste of time and space to publish it; worse, Hofstadter argues that such claims which contradict almost all of the rest of science should not even be taken seriously (2011).

I have not changed my mind since November, so I disagree with Hofstadter. My reasons are similar to those given by a couple of the other contributors: the evidence and ideas should be allowed publication so that they can be proved wrong, as I am certain they will be. Fortune telling, astrology, tarot card reading and all such things are complete rubbish with no truth , and certainly no solid evidence whatsoever to support them. I do like Bem's experiments. The way he set out to test his ideas was very clever, and in principle, it's a good method, but I'm also confident that he has made a serious mistake somewhere, and publication of his ideas will allow other scientists to find and expose those flaws, and that is exactly how science progresses: people have ideas, test them, theorize and make further predictions, and along the way, a lot of ideas that seem right at first are later proved completely wrong. I think it's good for Bem's ideas to have the chance to be proved wrong as quickly and thoroughly as possible. The worst thing we can do is to hide or pretend that opinions we do not like or that disagree with our ideas do not exist. That is not only dishonest, it's dangerous and leads only to guaranteed ignorance, on any topic. This is why, although I agree with most of his reasons, I think that Hofstadter is wrong to think that Bem's paper should not be published.

Lift display panel in
my condo. building

 The reason I actually decided to write this was that in his response to the questions posed by The New York Times, Hofstadter gives an excellent example to explain his point using the "unlucky" number 13. His comments about hotels in the US omitting the 13th floor prompted me to go and check the display panel for the lifts in my condo. building. As you can see from the photograph I've just taken, we have a 13th floor, but we appear to be missing a 4th floor. Perhaps in Thailand the number 4 is even more unlucky than the number 13, although I'm pretty sure that the actual evidence for both superstitions is exactly equal, but if anyone has any solid evidence that the number 4 is actually even more unlucky than the number 13, now is your chance to present it. When I thought about it, it does seem a bit weird to me that people would take a superstition so seriously as to tell lies about the numbers of the floors in a building. And now I'm wondering just how many people do take these sort of superstitions seriously. Are these ideas about lucky and unlucky numbers and other paranormal or psychic matters really important enough to enough people that architects or lift installers actually try to pretend that there is no 4th or 13th floor present? I also wonder about the astrology columns in daily papers like The Nation - I assume everyone just treats them as a bit of silly fun, not seriously, but then I browse through book-stores and come across whole sections devoted to books that clearly bring in a good profit for writers and publishers from people who really do believe in those things. I imagine that some of those believers will be thrilled with Bem's findings and that they are being published in a respectable journal. They might not be so thrilled with Hofstadter's and the other New York Times contributors' comments on those results and their publication, nor are they likely to be thrilled when Bem's results are proved wrong.

And looking again, I've just spotted that we apparently don't want to admit to having a 2nd floor in the building either. I'm sure that we do have a 2nd floor, probably just above the 1st floor. I have no idea why the lift display panel does not include a button for the 2nd floor.

Please feel welcome to comment, either on the three questions posed by The New York Times:

• How does the peer review process ensure good quality research? 
• Are there factors that the standard process cannot take account of? 
• Or is ESP simply a claim that should not be entertained as a subject of scientific inquiry?

Or anything else that interested you as you read my response above or the original articles by the contributors to The New York Times.

__________

References

Carey, B. (2011, January 5). Journal’s Paper on ESP Expected to Prompt Outrage. The New York Times. Retrieved January 8, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html 

Hofstadter, D. (2011, January 7). A Cutoff for Craziness. The New York Times. Retrieved January 8, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/06/the-esp-study-when-science-goes-psychic/a-cutoff-for-craziness

Peter. (2010, November 12). Carrying the Fire. Class Blog - AEP at AUA. Retrieved January 8, 2011 from http://peteraep.blogspot.com/2010/11/carrying-fire.html 

When Science Goes Psychic. (2011, January 7). The New York Times. Retrieved January 8, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/06/the-esp-study-when-science-goes-psychic