1
00:00:04,579 --> 00:00:02,480
I sent to you a clip of part of the

2
00:00:07,220 --> 00:00:04,589
interview that I had with dr. French and

3
00:00:09,500 --> 00:00:07,230
I just wanted to get a brief response on

4
00:00:12,680 --> 00:00:09,510
a couple of points I personally have

5
00:00:15,259 --> 00:00:12,690
never had any success in replicating the

6
00:00:19,070 --> 00:00:15,269
effect that Rupert is designed not only

7
00:00:20,990 --> 00:00:19,080
that my project students who are not as

8
00:00:23,779 --> 00:00:21,000
skeptical as I am in fact they usually

9
00:00:26,750 --> 00:00:23,789
big fans of Rupert's they've also failed

10
00:00:28,910 --> 00:00:26,760
to replicate the fact that Rupert got in

11
00:00:31,220 --> 00:00:28,920
the past I've had project students

12
00:00:33,380 --> 00:00:31,230
looking at the detection of staring kind

13
00:00:35,750 --> 00:00:33,390
of paradigms again we didn't get over to

14
00:00:37,790 --> 00:00:35,760
significant results let's talk a little

15
00:00:40,850 --> 00:00:37,800
bit to begin with about some of the

16
00:00:43,250 --> 00:00:40,860
replications that dr. French's group has

17
00:00:45,319 --> 00:00:43,260
done of your experiments now he was

18
00:00:47,750 --> 00:00:45,329
pretty direct and saying that he has

19
00:00:50,229 --> 00:00:47,760
never nor have any of his students ever

20
00:00:53,330 --> 00:00:50,239
been able to replicate any of your

21
00:00:55,939 --> 00:00:53,340
experiments despite many attempts would

22
00:00:59,119 --> 00:00:55,949
you have anything to comment on on that

23
00:01:01,010 --> 00:00:59,129
statement but yes I mean it sounds as if

24
00:01:02,630 --> 00:01:01,020
he's tried really hard over a long

25
00:01:05,960 --> 00:01:02,640
period of time and nothing I do ever

26
00:01:08,149 --> 00:01:05,970
works when they do it it's not quite

27
00:01:10,700 --> 00:01:08,159
like that and custom all there haven't

28
00:01:12,649 --> 00:01:10,710
been that many attempts he did a staring

29
00:01:14,870 --> 00:01:12,659
experiment I think was the first thing

30
00:01:17,330 --> 00:01:14,880
that he did that was related to my own

31
00:01:20,570 --> 00:01:17,340
work he used different methods from one

32
00:01:22,910 --> 00:01:20,580
side used and his student came up with

33
00:01:25,670 --> 00:01:22,920
the result that was statistically

34
00:01:28,490 --> 00:01:25,680
significant by one test and not

35
00:01:30,380 --> 00:01:28,500
significant by another probably the one

36
00:01:31,910 --> 00:01:30,390
that they used was the most appropriate

37
00:01:34,340 --> 00:01:31,920
but it was on the borderline of

38
00:01:37,399 --> 00:01:34,350
significance so I asked for the data to

39
00:01:39,800 --> 00:01:37,409
analyze it using different statistical

40
00:01:43,880 --> 00:01:39,810
procedures they had used a t-test and

41
00:01:45,679 --> 00:01:43,890
and there were other ways of doing at

42
00:01:47,929 --> 00:01:45,689
the analysis and I just wanted to see

43
00:01:49,069 --> 00:01:47,939
how that would work and he said oh well

44
00:01:52,280 --> 00:01:49,079
I couldn't do that because they

45
00:01:54,469 --> 00:01:52,290
discarded the data so i wouldn't say

46
00:01:56,840 --> 00:01:54,479
that was an unambiguous failure i think

47
00:01:59,209 --> 00:01:56,850
that there was an interesting result and

48
00:02:01,459 --> 00:01:59,219
it was on the borderline of significance

49
00:02:04,330 --> 00:02:01,469
and it all depends on which tests you

50
00:02:06,590 --> 00:02:04,340
did but the heads i win tails you lose

51
00:02:09,109 --> 00:02:06,600
Chris French says that psychic

52
00:02:12,440 --> 00:02:09,119
researchers do this and actually I think

53
00:02:13,220 --> 00:02:12,450
skeptics do it more if they get a result

54
00:02:14,809 --> 00:02:13,230
that shows

55
00:02:16,910 --> 00:02:14,819
in effect then they say oh well it

56
00:02:19,640 --> 00:02:16,920
hasn't worked there's no phenomenon here

57
00:02:21,949 --> 00:02:19,650
if there's a positive result as there

58
00:02:23,780 --> 00:02:21,959
are many of my own experiments then they

59
00:02:27,619 --> 00:02:23,790
say all the experiments must be flawed

60
00:02:29,869 --> 00:02:27,629
in some way so I think this way of

61
00:02:32,420 --> 00:02:29,879
arguing works absolutely both ways

62
00:02:34,039 --> 00:02:32,430
naturally crisp when she admits that but

63
00:02:36,759 --> 00:02:34,049
when we come to one of the most

64
00:02:40,100 --> 00:02:36,769
important replications he's tried to do

65
00:02:41,809 --> 00:02:40,110
my work telephone telepathy experiments

66
00:02:44,960 --> 00:02:41,819
these have been done under very tightly

67
00:02:47,809 --> 00:02:44,970
controlled conditions and Chris French

68
00:02:49,850 --> 00:02:47,819
tried to replicate this he got a couple

69
00:02:51,770 --> 00:02:49,860
of students on the case they only

70
00:02:53,569 --> 00:02:51,780
managed to recruit 10 subjects and

71
00:02:55,220 --> 00:02:53,579
actually I recruited nine of them for

72
00:02:58,490 --> 00:02:55,230
them because I wanted to help them out

73
00:03:00,830 --> 00:02:58,500
and Chris insisted on a procedure

74
00:03:02,210 --> 00:03:00,840
whereby all the people who were calling

75
00:03:04,280 --> 00:03:02,220
them had to be in a particular place

76
00:03:07,330 --> 00:03:04,290
particular time they all had to be

77
00:03:10,220 --> 00:03:07,340
filmed the subjects had to be filmed and

78
00:03:13,610 --> 00:03:10,230
the in these experiments the results

79
00:03:15,650 --> 00:03:13,620
were pretty declared chance he would say

80
00:03:18,319 --> 00:03:15,660
this is because when you do it really

81
00:03:20,990 --> 00:03:18,329
rigorously the effect goes away I would

82
00:03:23,390 --> 00:03:21,000
say that if you get people doing

83
00:03:25,819 --> 00:03:23,400
something very sensitive like telepathy

84
00:03:28,250 --> 00:03:25,829
which worked unconsciously you get

85
00:03:30,080 --> 00:03:28,260
everyone on edge you get getting really

86
00:03:32,750 --> 00:03:30,090
nervous feeling they're being treated

87
00:03:35,030 --> 00:03:32,760
with their cheating everyone involved is

88
00:03:37,069 --> 00:03:35,040
treated as a ver cheat then you create

89
00:03:38,809 --> 00:03:37,079
conditions of nervousness that interfere

90
00:03:41,720 --> 00:03:38,819
with the phenomenon I think that

91
00:03:44,059 --> 00:03:41,730
skeptics doing the experiments in a way

92
00:03:46,309 --> 00:03:44,069
that implies extreme distrust of

93
00:03:48,589 --> 00:03:46,319
everyone involved is likely to be

94
00:03:50,120 --> 00:03:48,599
inhibitory of the phenomenon now when

95
00:03:53,270 --> 00:03:50,130
Chris French and I discussed this

96
00:03:54,620 --> 00:03:53,280
experiment before they did it we said to

97
00:03:56,089 --> 00:03:54,630
each other what we'd probably say I'm a

98
00:03:58,580 --> 00:03:56,099
today k Chris well if it gives

99
00:04:01,129 --> 00:03:58,590
non-significant results I'm probably

100
00:04:04,580 --> 00:04:01,139
going to say that you know these this

101
00:04:06,710 --> 00:04:04,590
extreme skeptical leaning on everybody

102
00:04:08,900 --> 00:04:06,720
involved in a way that treats them as if

103
00:04:11,059 --> 00:04:08,910
they're under suspicion of cheating all

104
00:04:13,069 --> 00:04:11,069
the time is going to inhibit the effect

105
00:04:15,710 --> 00:04:13,079
and I said what are you gain safe as a

106
00:04:17,479 --> 00:04:15,720
positive effect and he said I'm going to

107
00:04:19,039 --> 00:04:17,489
say that the controls weren't rigorous

108
00:04:21,529 --> 00:04:19,049
enough and we have to do it with even

109
00:04:24,110 --> 00:04:21,539
more rigorous control Chris and I both

110
00:04:26,060 --> 00:04:24,120
of us in advance realized that whatever

111
00:04:26,900 --> 00:04:26,070
the result neither of us are going to