What I've Learned From Skeptics Michael Shermer, Steven Novella, James Alcock and Jam

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by ktb973

30 episodes is the same thing as doing 30 years of research, as many skeptics have done.

Now wait a minute here. Are you saying that many skeptics have done 30 years of active, experimental research? My read is that while skeptics often criticize parapsychological work, they seldom - if ever - do any of their own. Take for instance the fact that in Ray Hyman's The Elusive Quarry, which includes most of his papers on parapsychology up until 1989, there is only one report of original research on Hyman's part. Furthermore, that study was done in cooperation with a parapsychologist, in the parapsychologist's own lab.
Or, take the fact that in A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology, a 700+ pages tome on skepticism and the paranormal where various leading skeptics contribute, there is - again - only one article on original research, and that is Susan Blackmore's. And she hasn't done 30 years of research.
Now tell me, where are the skeptics that have done all this research you are talking about? And I hope you're talking experimental science and not debunking, because that's not research (unless there has been some kind of experimental protocol involved). Furthermore, the research should have been published the way scientific research is being published, that is in peer-reviewed journals. Does James Randi or his colleagues report their tests in any such journal? Now should we take tests that aren't being published, that aren't being criticized and looked over by peers, seriously? How can we, in these cases, be sure everything has been done correctly?

[DysonSphere]

Originally Posted by Venom

This episode was really full of crap. I mean, really a lot.

In the thread "bashing the skeptics" I already talked about the stupid claim that skeptics don't read the litterature:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/1832-post45.html

So let's move on something else.

Skeptics don't do research. It was hillarous that this episode came out the same week that the "Psychic Fair" episode in the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe

How is that research? Do you know what the scientific method is? Really? How is goofing on people honest inquiry? A skeptic is critical of believers and non-believers. If any believer used such an anecdote as evidence he/she would be shot down in a second.

I also don't see how that thread you linked is supposed to illustrate that skeptics do the research. I don't mean just reading a little and washing it down with an issue the skeptical inquirer, I mean THE research.

Originally Posted by Venom

And of course, you just have to pick any book by Joe Nickell for example of many "skeptical" investigations on the field. Really Alexis can't be more wrong that what is saying in this episode. Is choosing one anocdotal example (the psychic detective) and simply make an abusive generalisation, hoping that nobody will notice.

What scientific journal was Joe Nickel's work published in? Was it peer reviewed?

Venom, you should keep in mind that any study with human beings is usually difficult to repeat. In the case of mind to mind communication the ganzfeild experiments, if done right, has been shown to measure a genuine psi effect. The "if done right" part is very tricky.

Originally Posted by Venom

About James Randi, Alexis show one more time that he doesn't understand anything, by claiming that if he does a replication of the Sheldrake's experiment, Randi will give him a million naked. Of course, this is also completely stupid. It's obvious that what Randi met is that you need to apply to the Million Dollar Challenge in order to do so. So Alexis, about your claims with dogs, please aply to the Million Dollar Challenge or shut up.

Why should anyone take Randi's challenge seriously? If Randi won't take the existing data in parapsychology seriously what reason do I have to believe Randi challenge is genuine. We all know its not scientific.

PS Please debate intelligently venom. That is: no personal attacks.

[WMW]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Hi Ersby, nice to see you back here. I certainly wouldn't put you in the category of the pseudo-skeptics at the psychic fair, you have read much of parapsychology and psychical research literature, you know the real debate is over weak effects and if these are real.

Reading the literature doesn't by itself make a skeptic undeserving of the "pseudo" emendation. Although it is usually reserved for individuals who spout off without having read the research, a skeptic who has done the reading but who is also dumb and conceited will be able to pervert what he comments on to a far greater degree than any unread critic could.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by DysonSphere

Why should anyone take Randi's challenge seriously? If Randi won't take the existing data in parapsychology seriously what reason do I have to believe Randi challenge is genuine. We all know its not scientific.

You should know than in science the Appeal to authority is not a valid agument. So I doesn't care if someone have ou doesn't have scientific training. I'm assessing the validity of the work beeing done. And what Randi does is much more convincing than what parapsychologists do.

Scientist don't take seriously why parapsychologists do because the evidence are not convincing. It's not a question of having a PhD or not... I know a lot of people with a PhD writing pretty stupid stuff...

PS Please debate intelligently venom. That is: no personal attacks.

Well, has this podcast is all about bashing the skeptics in general, I can agree on bashing the psi-belivers in general too. In that way, they won't be personnal attacks

Hey, but Alex do personal attacks all the time: "Steven Novela is a denier", "Richard Wiseman is debunker", and so on. So why should I be more clever than he is...

After all, I'm a "dum" "close-minded" skeptic...

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Venom

Scientist don't take seriously why parapsychologists do because the evidence are not convincing.

I'm copying my reply from the "Bashing the skeptics" thread:

The "scientific community", however you wish to define that, has not got a consensus when it comes to psi. Most surveys actually seem to show that about 30-50% of scientists (depending on their particular field of study) think that psi exists or is a likely possibility. (See, for instance, the surveys being cited in Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer's Extraordinary Knowing.)

But why does it even matter what orthodox scientists have to say about psi? It isn't like all of them have done PhD dissertations on the experimental quality of parapsychological research, or something else that would qualify them as reliable commentators in these matters. Most of them probably aren't even aware of the research that's actually being done. I mean, take for instance the fact that most textbooks in introductory psychology that even mention parapsychology seem to discuss only research with ESP cards! (I think it was in The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin I read about that.)

As for skeptics not reading the research reports, I agree that's an unfair and generalizing claim. Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore have surely read a great deal of reports through the years. It is true of some skeptics, though, that they don't bother to read about the actual research. But then again, that's true of many believers in the paranormal as well.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

I'm copying my reply from the "Bashing the skeptics" thread:

The "scientific community", however you wish to define that, has not got a consensus when it comes to psi. Most surveys actually seem to show that about 30-50% of scientists (depending on their particular field of study) think that psi exists or is a likely possibility. (See, for instance, the surveys being cited in Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer's Extraordinary Knowing.)

But why does it even matter what orthodox scientists have to say about psi? It isn't like all of them have done PhD dissertations on the experimental quality of parapsychological research, or something else that would qualify them as reliable commentators in these matters. Most of them probably aren't even aware of the research that's actually being done. I mean, take for instance the fact that most textbooks in introductory psychology that even mention parapsychology seem to discuss only research with ESP cards! (I think it was in The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin I read about that.)

As for skeptics not reading the research reports, I agree that's an unfair and generalizing claim. Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore have surely read a great deal of reports through the years. It is true of some skeptics, though, that they don't bother to read about the actual research. But then again, that's true of many believers in the paranormal as well.

Good points. It's certainly true that many scientists are open to psi, but equally true that most are very private about it.

Of course, it's not a question of whether Skeptics "read" research, but whether they really read research

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Are you impressed by this? Do you seriously call this 'research'? They fake a photograph and to see how stupid they can make a fortune teller look? How on earth did their trial measure for weak effects? This *is* evidence that Steven Novella and 'Skeptic's Guide to the Universe' have not read the parapsychology/psychical research

This is an excellent point. I've always been dismayed that when pseudosceptics are proactive about testing psi (rather than just sitting on your backside and waiting for "claimants" like Randi does) they usually go and test people who are likely to fail, for example going to a psychic fair.

There was a TV program made by Richard Dawkins not long ago where he was doing the usual debunkery stuff and one section of the show involved the whole "paranormal" thing. He set up an experiment to test a bunch of unknown dowsers who predictably failed. To be fair, his program was more about how people fail to apply reasoning but I got the feeling that he was generalising this failed demonstration to whole of the "paranormal" field. I would bet that the belief system of certain pseudosceptical viewers was reinforced by this.

I wonder why people like Novella, or Dawkins, who do occasionally perform "tests", don't go and test people who already have been scientifically tested with success like Joseph McMoneagle?

[DysonSphere]

Originally Posted by Venom

You should know than in science the Appeal to authority is not a valid agument. So I doesn't care if someone have ou doesn't have scientific training. I'm assessing the validity of the work beeing done. And what Randi does is much more convincing than what parapsychologists do.

I'm not appealing to authority. Randi doesn't have to be a professional scientist to use the scientific method.

Randi's challenge is not scientific. Its a superficial publicity stunt. And what do you mean he is convincing? Randi doesn't do anything but hold his challenge over parapsychologists heads. I have no reason to believe that the contest is not merely a convenient out for debunkers. I just have a hard time believing he is genuinely interested in scientific inquiry at all.

Originally Posted by Venom

Scientist don't take seriously why parapsychologists do because the evidence are not convincing.

Which scientists? The more prominent skeptics don't seem to read any real research in the area despite your vehement insistence that they do so. Based on their public statement their incredulity seems to be based on nothing but prejudice.

Originally Posted by Venom

Hey, but Alex do personal attacks all the time: "Steven Novela is a denier", "Richard Wiseman is debunker", and so on. So why should I be more clever than he is...

They are deniers...why would they object to that label? They do deny the existence of psi, thats a factual statement. On the other hand: "your stupid" is just mean spirited and childish.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Ersby

Okay, but let's simplify things. Just two readings. One of which is full of platitudes which is pretty much applicable to everyone, while the other is full of inaccurate but specific guesses, amongst which is one very good hit. Are you saying the cynic would choose the second while the believer would chose the first? If so, I'd say that the cynic has chosen the one that is probably from the psychic, while the believer has chosen the cold-reader.

I do see your intriguing point Ersby, the recipient/judges might have a bias towards detailed information even if wrong and another might have a bias towards correct information even if terribly vague

however ... ....that was not the protocol here, it was all mediums, not a medium vs cold reader .. there was no cold reading, no sensory clues. ... just a test to see if the recipients chose the the messages intended for them better.

Let me define the extremes of bias as ......

Biased Believer - someone who remembers the hits and forgets (or makes fit) the misses. This type of person will subconsciously help medium, if possible

Biased Disbeliever – someone who remembers the misses and forgets (or rationalizes) the hits. This person type of person will subconsciously prevent the medium being successful, if possible.

The key thing is a that the medium can only be successful in this type of experiment by the ability of the recipient to match hits, 'lucky hits' which will of course occur but will still not be above chance in a long enough trial run. The extremely biased believer can't help the medium due to the protocol, no sensory clues or cold reading is possible. However the biased disbeliever who wants the medium to fail will subconsciously avoid choosing best matches in my opinion.

Therefore in this design protocol Wiseman was rather quirky to choose only all male message recipients from the university (males are the more sceptical sex and academia or young male students are generally regarded as far more sceptical than the general public). It is of course unfair to say those judges were subconsciously wanting the mediums to fail, the length of the Wiseman trial was far too short to ever be meaningful anyway unless the mediums were producing strong effects.

Personally, I think Wiseman is subconsciously loading experimental designs and analysis in favour of a null hypothesis. But hey I could be wrong We are all biased at times, the important thing is that the protocol prevents or minimizes it.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by DysonSphere

I'm not appealing to authority. Randi doesn't have to be a professional scientist to use the scientific method.

Randi's challenge is not scientific. Its a superficial publicity stunt. And what do you mean he is convincing? Randi doesn't do anything but hold his challenge over parapsychologists heads. I have no reason to believe that the contest is not merely a convenient out for debunkers. I just have a hard time believing he is genuinely interested in scientific inquiry at all.



Which scientists? The more prominent skeptics don't seem to read any real research in the area despite your vehement insistence that they do so. Based on their public statement their incredulity seems to be based on nothing but prejudice.



They are deniers...why would they object to that label? They do deny the existence of psi, thats a factual statement. On the other hand: "your stupid" is just mean spirited and childish.

Yea, but then again I never called Steve Novella, "a denier", and never called Wiseman, "a debunker". But we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good rant.