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

article

Jan Walleczek¹  Nikolaus von Stillfried¹ 

[1] Phenoscience Laboratories

关键词: metascience reform movement;    advanced meta-experimental protocol;    confirmatory analysis;    HARKing;    Radin double-slit experiment;   

DOI  :  10.3389/fpsyg.2020.596125

学科分类：社会科学、人文和艺术（综合）

来源: Frontiers

【 摘 要 】

To better prevent false discoveries in science, the metascience reform movement seeks to improvethe reliability of the scientific process at multiple levels (e.g., www.metascience.com and www.metascience2019.org). In this context, an advanced meta-experimental protocol (AMP) wasdeveloped by Walleczek at Phenoscience Laboratories (www.phenoscience.com) and implementedin an experimental study that was reported by Walleczek and von Stillfried (2019) in this journal.A recent commentary by Radin et al. (2020), as well as an earlier critique (Radin et al., 2019),heavily misrepresented the methodology and statistical interpretation of this experiment that wascommissioned by the funder (www.fetzer-franklin-fund.org) to be performed blindly by Radin.Importantly, data encryption was used in this replication experiment to prevent p-hacking andHARKing, i.e., undisclosed hypothesizing after the results are known (Kerr, 1998). HARKing occurswhen a researcher gives the (false) impression that the used form of statistical analysis had been preregistered, or planned, before unblinding and examining the data, when—in truth—the analysiswas developed post-hoc. HARKing increases greatly the risk of mistaking a false discovery for a truediscovery or vice versa.

【 授权许可】

CC BY