Response: Commentary: False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined With the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol
β‘ Contested βπ Appears in:
Plain English Summary
This paper is a pointed rebuttal after Radin and colleagues tried to defend their double-slit consciousness experiment. The authors lay out a damning case: when they ran a carefully controlled replication with encrypted data, they found a significant false alarm in the equipment but nothing where the "real" consciousness effect was supposed to show up. They also catch Radin's team engaging in HARKing β that's "Hypothesizing After Results are Known," basically changing your predictions after peeking at the answers, which is a big no-no in science. Two specific instances are documented: a statistical test falsely labeled as pre-planned and a last-minute switch to a different analysis strategy after unblinding. Perhaps most tellingly, three independent research groups all reached the same conclusion: this experiment is prone to producing false discoveries, especially when researchers go fishing through data after the fact.
Research Notes
Key skeptical contribution to Controversy #4 (double-slit/quantum PK). Documents specific methodological problems β HARKing, false positives, and inadequate controls β in the Radin DS-experiment paradigm. One of several critical papers challenging the reliability of the most-cited mind-matter interaction experiment in this library.
Response to Radin et al.'s (2020) commentary defending the Radin double-slit experiment on observer consciousness. A funder-commissioned replication using an advanced meta-experimental protocol (AMP) with data encryption found a significant false-positive effect (p = 0.021, Ο = β2.02, N = 1,250 trials) but no significant effects where Radin had predicted true positives. Documents two instances of HARKing by Radin et al.: (1) a chi-square test falsely claimed as pre-specified was actually post-hoc, and (2) a call for multiple-testing correction that abandoned the planned predictive single-testing strategy after unblinding. Three independent sources (Guerrer 2019, Tremblay 2019, Walleczek & von Stillfried 2019) converge on the conclusion that the Radin DS-experiment is prone to false discoveries, particularly with post-hoc analyses.
Links
Related Papers
Critiques
Companion
- On the Double-Slit Experiment of Dean Radin β PitkΓ€nen, Matti (2017)
- Independent re-analysis of alleged mind-matter interaction in double-slit experimental data β Tremblay, Nicolas (2019)
- Commentary: False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined With the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol β Radin, Dean (2020)
Same Research Program
Also by these authors
More in Psychokinesis
Observer Influence on Quantum Interference: Testing the von Neumann-Wigner Consciousness-Collapse Theory
New Year's Eve as a Case Study in Experimental Metaphysics: Exploring Global Consciousness in Random Physical Systems
Anomalous Entropic Effects in Physical Systems Associated with Collective Consciousness
Psychophysical Interactions with Electrical Plasma: Three Exploratory Experiments
Psychophysical Effects on an Interference Pattern in a Double-Slit Optical System: An Exploratory Analysis of Variance
π Cite this paper
Walleczek, Jan, von Stillfried, Nikolaus (2020). Response: Commentary: False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined With the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.596125
@article{walleczek_2020_false_positive_radin,
title = {Response: Commentary: False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined With the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol},
author = {Walleczek, Jan and von Stillfried, Nikolaus},
year = {2020},
journal = {Frontiers in Psychology},
doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2020.596125},
}