Beyond the BICS Essays: Envisioning a More Rigorous Preregistered Survival Study

Although the preceding exchange in this special subsection of the Journal (Augustine, 2022a, 2022b; Braude et al., 2022) has highlighted the differences between skeptics and proponents of discarnate personal survival, there is much more in common between us that often goes unsaid, such as a common...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Etienne LeBel, Keith Augustine, Adam Rock
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SSE 2022-08-01
Series:Journal of Scientific Exploration
Online Access:http://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/2691
_version_ 1818000130670854144
author Etienne LeBel
Keith Augustine
Adam Rock
author_facet Etienne LeBel
Keith Augustine
Adam Rock
author_sort Etienne LeBel
collection DOAJ
description Although the preceding exchange in this special subsection of the Journal (Augustine, 2022a, 2022b; Braude et al., 2022) has highlighted the differences between skeptics and proponents of discarnate personal survival, there is much more in common between us that often goes unsaid, such as a common respect for sound reasoning and for investigating matters empirically whenever possible. We also agree that this topic warrants further empirical investigation, and of a quality superior to that found in the extant survival literature. While we could further delineate our similarities and differences, a much more fruitful avenue for research is to collaborate on a design for an ‘ideal’ prospective test of potential survival that, if successful and replicable, would complement and corroborate previous attempts at rigorous experimental survival research. Working with Braude et al.’s (2022) team of survival proponents would have been optimal, but given time and logistical constraints, we have alternatively joined forces with the last author who has published several methodological papers in this domain from an agnostic perspective (e.g., Jamieson & Rock, 2014; Rock & Storm, 2015). By developing some of the proponents’ own published proposals, we have agreed on an experimental design that would provide substantiating evidence consistent with an anomalous effect by shielding any attainable replicable positive results, as much as feasible, from normal or conventional explanations. Such explanations run the gamut from simple cueing to researcher degrees of freedom or p-hacking, i.e., researchers inadvertently or deliberately collecting or selecting data or analyses until nonsignificant results are rendered statistically significant (Head et al., 2015).
first_indexed 2024-04-14T03:18:54Z
format Article
id doaj.art-4432508049a449f691493152e9f53e7e
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 0892-3310
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-14T03:18:54Z
publishDate 2022-08-01
publisher SSE
record_format Article
series Journal of Scientific Exploration
spelling doaj.art-4432508049a449f691493152e9f53e7e2022-12-22T02:15:23ZengSSEJournal of Scientific Exploration0892-33102022-08-0136210.31275/20222691Beyond the BICS Essays: Envisioning a More Rigorous Preregistered Survival Study Etienne LeBelKeith AugustineAdam Rock Although the preceding exchange in this special subsection of the Journal (Augustine, 2022a, 2022b; Braude et al., 2022) has highlighted the differences between skeptics and proponents of discarnate personal survival, there is much more in common between us that often goes unsaid, such as a common respect for sound reasoning and for investigating matters empirically whenever possible. We also agree that this topic warrants further empirical investigation, and of a quality superior to that found in the extant survival literature. While we could further delineate our similarities and differences, a much more fruitful avenue for research is to collaborate on a design for an ‘ideal’ prospective test of potential survival that, if successful and replicable, would complement and corroborate previous attempts at rigorous experimental survival research. Working with Braude et al.’s (2022) team of survival proponents would have been optimal, but given time and logistical constraints, we have alternatively joined forces with the last author who has published several methodological papers in this domain from an agnostic perspective (e.g., Jamieson & Rock, 2014; Rock & Storm, 2015). By developing some of the proponents’ own published proposals, we have agreed on an experimental design that would provide substantiating evidence consistent with an anomalous effect by shielding any attainable replicable positive results, as much as feasible, from normal or conventional explanations. Such explanations run the gamut from simple cueing to researcher degrees of freedom or p-hacking, i.e., researchers inadvertently or deliberately collecting or selecting data or analyses until nonsignificant results are rendered statistically significant (Head et al., 2015). http://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/2691
spellingShingle Etienne LeBel
Keith Augustine
Adam Rock
Beyond the BICS Essays: Envisioning a More Rigorous Preregistered Survival Study
Journal of Scientific Exploration
title Beyond the BICS Essays: Envisioning a More Rigorous Preregistered Survival Study
title_full Beyond the BICS Essays: Envisioning a More Rigorous Preregistered Survival Study
title_fullStr Beyond the BICS Essays: Envisioning a More Rigorous Preregistered Survival Study
title_full_unstemmed Beyond the BICS Essays: Envisioning a More Rigorous Preregistered Survival Study
title_short Beyond the BICS Essays: Envisioning a More Rigorous Preregistered Survival Study
title_sort beyond the bics essays envisioning a more rigorous preregistered survival study
url http://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/2691
work_keys_str_mv AT etiennelebel beyondthebicsessaysenvisioningamorerigorouspreregisteredsurvivalstudy
AT keithaugustine beyondthebicsessaysenvisioningamorerigorouspreregisteredsurvivalstudy
AT adamrock beyondthebicsessaysenvisioningamorerigorouspreregisteredsurvivalstudy