Bashing the skeptics

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Steve Novella interviewed Ray Hyman and asked the question about Radin's work. They published the interview on Skeptics Guide to the Universe, including all their snickering about how crazy Dean Radin is.

I find the level of ridicule and vitriol on most "sceptical" podcasts, including Skeptics Guide to the Universe, shamefull. Subjects like parapsychology deserve much better. Skeptiko is an exception to this, so well done Alex in this respect.

Listening back to that Skeptics Guide interview, there's an amazing comment (about 32 min in) by Hyman where he says he regrets people like Martin Gardner and Randi attacking parapsychology without having read what they are critiquing. It's what most of us suspected all along, but here it is from Hyman of all people. As far as I'm aware, that doesn't happen in any other branch of science. Are sceptics of psi emotionally investing so much in their particular world view that they are afraid of the actual data and will openly criticise the field without looking at it?

[Rudism]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

Listening back to that Skeptics Guide interview, there's an amazing comment (about 32 min in) by Hyman where he says he regrets people like Martin Gardner and Randi attacking parapsychology without having read what they are critiquing. It's what most of us suspected all along, but here it is from Hyman of all people. As far as I'm aware, that doesn't happen in any other branch of science. Are sceptics of psi emotionally investing so much in their particular world view that they are afraid of the actual data and will openly criticise the field without looking at it?

Ridicule of theories does happen in other (probably all) areas of science. Take a look at the history of theoretical physics, quantum physics, and/or cosmology, for example. Theories (even huge paradigm-shifting ones) come up and get shot down all the time, and even sometimes get vindicated by the evidence down the road. Also look at all the various alternative medicine fields, flat-earthers, intelligent design (all more or less comparable to psi research so far as mainstream science is concerned).

When a theory in real science gets ridiculed, it either puts up or shuts up. When the evidence comes in to support it, it becomes the new accepted science. If, on the other hand, the evidence refutes it, it goes away and dies. The difference with pseudoscience (like psi research) is that even when the evidence weighs in against it, it doesn't go away (in a large part due to, in my opinion, people wanting very desperately for it to be true--a desire for evidence of something beyond the physical world to give them hope that it's not all over when they die--the same reason religion persists throughout the ages).

I'm sure some people would say that psi research is just now in the "putting up" stage, and I suppose that remains to be seen. If so, Randi could be in trouble. I personally feel, however, that there has been ample research done, and ample time for the evidence to manifest, and it simply hasn't happened because there's nothing there. This is the same reason why you'll find other people who may be less versed in the area dismissing it without looking deeply into it themselves--they feel the work has already been done for them in droves.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

With the exception of one single interview, the David Lester interview, I think your comments are completely off the mark.

It's true that I reacted after hearing the David Lester interview, who was really really over the top.

It's obvious that Alex don't have any philosophical background, and it didn't let the other guy (who really knows what he's talking about) talks. It was really annoying, and I didn't enjoy this episode at all because of that.

By the way, Alex don't seem to have any statistical background either, because when he talks about parapsychology experiments, he never talks about statistics, which is kind of odd, because statistic interpretation of the data is a very huge part of the debate!

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Rudism

When a theory in real science gets ridiculed, it either puts up or shuts up. When the evidence comes in to support it, it becomes the new accepted science. If, on the other hand, the evidence refutes it, it goes away and dies. The difference with pseudoscience (like psi research) is that even when the evidence weighs in against it, it doesn't go away (in a large part due to, in my opinion, people wanting very desperately for it to be true--a desire for evidence of something beyond the physical world to give them hope that it's not all over when they die--the same reason religion persists throughout the ages).

Well, if we take Rupert Sheldrake or Dean Radin as examples, they always seem to "put up" by discussing in detail any criticisms of their work. Go and look at Rupert's website if you need to confirm that.

As for the whole thing about ψ giving hope when we die, this might motivate some, but honestly, people have all sorts of inner motivations which make them favour one scientific theory or field over another. I got interested in the whole question of consciousness because I had a peripheral involvement in the AI fad of the 1980's - I saw how it was supposed to be going to endow computers with human like thought (but better and faster), and I saw how it basically failed. Consciousness as computation was the only materialist theory of consciousness, and it gave no sign of being right. For me consciousness and ψ are very probably intimately connected.

Honestly, if you were doing a fairly delicate experiment in physics (say, I don't know your field) would you let a magician who was for some reason opposed to your research test and pronounce on your work? Why should this field be saddled with Randi, while others rely on peer-review!

David

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Rudism

Ridicule of theories does happen in other (probably all) areas of science. Take a look at the history of theoretical physics, quantum physics, and/or cosmology, for example. Theories (even huge paradigm-shifting ones) come up and get shot down all the time, and even sometimes get vindicated by the evidence down the road.

Ridiculed in the same manner that psi receives? Can you give us an example? Also, I doubt that a theoretical physicist would not even read the literature he is criticising. Again, if you have an example...

Also look at all the various alternative medicine fields, flat-earthers, intelligent design (all more or less comparable to psi research so far as mainstream science is concerned).

True, I suppose there are sceptics who criticise these areas without looking into them. But these categories are somtimes lumped together with parapsychology as far as some sceptics are concerned. If criticism of these areas occurs without looking at the material, then I would say the same psychological defense mechanisms may be at work

When a theory in real science gets ridiculed, it either puts up or shuts up. When the evidence comes in to support it, it becomes the new accepted science. If, on the other hand, the evidence refutes it, it goes away and dies. The difference with pseudoscience (like psi research) is that even when the evidence weighs in against it, it doesn't go away (in a large part due to, in my opinion, people wanting very desperately for it to be true--a desire for evidence of something beyond the physical world to give them hope that it's not all over when they die--the same reason religion persists throughout the ages).

I'm sure there are people who desperately want psi to be true and who invest in that particular world view. But we must all try to put those biases aside and look objectively at the evidence. When we do that, we do not see what you say above. "Psi" doesn't remain by being obstinate to the evidence against it (I would like to know where you think the counter evidence comes from - parapsychology experiments or mainstream experiments?). It remains because after all the research that has been done, there are effects all over the place. They are small and they are unreliable though.

[Rudism]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Well, if we take Rupert Sheldrake or Dean Radin as examples, they always seem to "put up" by discussing in detail any criticisms of their work. Go and look at Rupert's website if you need to confirm that.

If by discussing in detail you mean coming up with explanations for why all criticism of their work is invalid, then you should also accept the work of moon hoax conspiracy theorists (they consistently discuss criticisms of their claims in great detail), young earth creationists (answersingenesis.org), and timecube.com.

Vehemently rejecting all criticism as invalid is not a hallmark of good science (especially when the criticism could be ruled out by performing further experiments with modified design). It's a hallmark of denialism and crankery, and that's how it gets perceived by the scientific/skeptical community.

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

Ridiculed in the same manner that psi receives? Can you give us an example? Also, I doubt that a theoretical physicist would not even read the literature he is criticising. Again, if you have an example...

It's harder to point to examples in theoretical physics, because it's a complicated field that laypeople like me will probably never be able to comprehend, but just off the top of my head, I would point out the static versus finite universe models. When the idea of a finite universe (Big Bang) first became a serious theory, there was all kinds of opposition against it both from within and outside the field. It flew in the face of years of accepted preconceptions. That one, however, ended up being supported by the evidence. If someone today tried to publish a paper discussing a static model of the universe and the aether, he would get laughed out of school so fast it would put Shaldrake and Radin to shame.

In a broader sense, alternative medicine--homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, energy healing, intercessory prayer... Just like with psi research, there are a small number of unreliable studies that show each of these to be efficacious in treating a wide variety of conditions, but the body of work as a whole indicates that none of them actually work beyond a placebo effect. Any new positive study that comes out is generally dismissed by scientists/skeptics before even looking at the specifics, because in the past, every positive study has either had serious methodological flaws or been a deliberate hoax.

Further raising the bar for psi research is the fact that we really should have seen better results by now. How many decades have those little symbol cards been around? Has anybody ever been able to consistently guess better than chance under controlled conditions? And why don't casinos hemorrhage money out when they construct their games to only give a small statistical advantage to the house (small enough to easily be cancelled out or overcome by even the tiniest hint of psi in casino-goers on average in the long run)?

All of the evidence and common sense points to psi not existing, and all well-documented experiments that contradict this show at best a barely noticeable effect which can generally be explained by artifacts introduced by problems with the experimental design. And then, to top it off, instead of acknowledging the problems and designing new experiments, the response is instead to generally dismiss the criticism and apply all kinds of apologetics in defense of the original flawed studies.

Nobody ever said science was quick and easy. Psi research is going to have to make substantial leaps and bounds before it will ever be taken seriously by science (leaps and bounds that will be unattainable if, as the majority of evidence currently suggests, psi doesn't exist).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Rudism

The difference with pseudoscience (like psi research) is that even when the evidence weighs in against it, it doesn't go away . . .

I personally feel, however, that there has been ample research done, and ample time for the evidence to manifest, and it simply hasn't happened because there's nothing there.

In parapsychology there are many positive results, but also many negative results. Assuming you agree with this I imagine your position is that if some phenomenon actually exists, then it should be able to be elicited more or less on demand. More specifically differing researchers, differing experimental protocols etc, ought not to play any role in whether psi is manifested or not?

But what if someone does not agree with your supposition here? You are saying that if psi exists it ought to be able to be elicited on demand. But many people -- including myself -- feel your position is absolutely absurd. The manifestation of psi could depend upon a huge number of potential factors. Maybe something as highly obscure as whether there is a full moon or not, to more obvious factors such as the subject's psychological and emotional state. If -- as seems extremely likely to me -- a certain psychological and emotional state triggers psi, then the results from parapsychological research are entirely in accordance with what one would expect.

You could of course argue that from the scientific perspective parapsychology has not been proved. But the fact that some research is negative gives evidence against it? Not unless we agree with you that if psi exists it ought to be easily elicited on demand. How many non-sKepics would agree with this? I'm betting not many.

Throughout history and across all cultures people have experienced phenomena similar to that which parapsychologists investigate. The similarity of the phenomena coupled with the fact that it is universal gives a very good prima facie case that it actually exists. Parapsychologists are the true sceptics in not just accepting the existence of this phenomena, but investigating it to see whether it is true. Given all the evidence, both in the form of personal testimony, and scientific evidence in the form of psi research and parapsychological research, it seems highly implausible to me to maintain that none of this phenomena exists, least of all that it's been shown not to exist!

[Rudism]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Assuming you agree with this I imagine your position is that if some phenomenon actually exists, then it should be able to be elicited more or less on demand. More specifically differing researchers, differing experimental protocols etc, ought not to play any role in whether psi is manifested or not?

But what if someone does not agree with your supposition here? You are saying that if psi exists it ought to be able to be elicited on demand. But many people -- including myself -- feel your position is absolutely absurd.

You can use this excuse to support anything in the absence of convincing evidence. It's another classic hallmark of crankery. "The only reason so many experiments fail is because mystery condition X has to be met, first, but we don't yet know what X is. It's just by chance that condition X happened to be met in the few experiments that gave positive results."

Sure, you can make that claim. It may even be true. But if it is, then parapsychological research needs to shift its focus to figuring out what condition X is if they want to start getting more compelling and consistent results that will actually be taken seriously. Postulating the existence of mystery condition X without actually identifying it achieves exactly the opposite result. It comes off as a desperate excuse.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Rudism

Sure, you can make that claim. It may even be true. But if it is, then parapsychological research needs to shift its focus to figuring out what condition X is if they want to start getting more compelling and consistent results that will actually be taken seriously. Postulating the existence of mystery condition X without actually identifying it achieves exactly the opposite result. It comes off as a desperate excuse.

Except that this happens all the time in ordinary science. How many times have you heard someone say his experiment isn't working? Writing up the negative result is the very last option - first you look for any number of complicating factors.

Many years ago, when I did experiments, I had an experiment that failed sometimes on a very random basis. It turned out that it went wrong when someone turned on some welding gear in another room - the electrical interference messed up the data recording!

If a chemical fails to crystallise, chemists sometimes attribute this to the lack of a suitable piece of dust, or try to scratch the side of the vessel to encourage crystals to form!

In the early days of transistor research - when fabrication methods were barely up to the job - does anyone believe that every experiment worked!

I do wish sceptics would get real about the nature of normal scientific research! In at least some cases, the problem is that they have never done any!

David

[Rudism]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Except that this happens all the time in ordinary science. How many times have you heard someone say his experiment isn't working? Writing up the negative result is the very last option - first you look for any number of complicating factors.

Many years ago, when I did experiments, I had an experiment that failed sometimes on a very random basis. It turned out that it went wrong when someone turned on some welding gear in another room - the electrical interference messed up the data recording!

If a chemical fails to crystallise, chemists sometimes attribute this to the lack of a suitable piece of dust, or try to scratch the side of the vessel to encourage crystals to form!

I do wish sceptics would get real about the nature of normal scientific research! In at least some cases, the problem is that they have never done any!

David

Well, as soon as parapsychologists can identify the source of the metaphorical electrical interference or bad piece of dust that is causing the overwhelming lack of consistent and compelling results (assuming that such a thing actually exists), then they'll have something interesting to talk about. Until then, it's still going to look like all the other myriads of unscientific ideas that persist today despite a lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary.