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

[alextsakiris]

Skeptiko Host Alex Tsakiris looks back at over thirty episodes of Skeptiko and examines what he?s learned from his interviews with skeptics: Michael Shermer, Steven Novella, James Alcock and James Randi. Tsakiris explains how his opinion of the

Click here to read more ...

[David Bailey]

Alex,

I do hope that this is not an end of the series - I am sure there are more people to interview, and maybe a few could be persuaded to return and expand of some of their views in the light of various discussions here.

OK - I have heard your talk, and I liked it - I think you should mail it to the various skeptics that you mention, and try to provoke them into a better response. (I know they can just download it, but maybe a physical package on their desks would be harder to ignore!)

I think it would be a shame if you moved on into a pure research phase. As you have obviously realised, there is a lot of research already there, and I think your big contribution has been to challenge the skeptics in a sustained public way.

I started a thread about the concept that a lot of us are ψ-shy. Perhaps that contributes to the fact the skeptics don't do much research, and why, in particular, the offer to test the psychic detective was not followed through - I mean, just going and asking the police force for cooperation in such a project might be embarrassing! Perhaps you could intervene here and try to get things started - but not doing the research yourself. Goading some of the skeptics into doing some research might be really interesting.

Another idea might be to take the psychic detective and pay for her to work not on murder cases as such, but on one or two missing persons cases (unfortunately, there are always plenty of these). If the case had been dropped by the police, she could presumably work on these cases without treading on anyone's toes. Solving just a few of those would be spectacular (and useful) and would gain a lot of publicity, forcing the skeptics on the defensive.

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Alex,

I do hope that this is not an end of the series - I am sure there are more people to interview, and maybe a few could be persuaded to return and expand of some of their views in the light of various discussions here.

OK - I have heard your talk, and I liked it - I think you should mail it to the various skeptics that you mention, and try to provoke them into a better response. (I know they can just download it, but maybe a physical package on their desks would be harder to ignore!)

I think it would be a shame if you moved on into a pure research phase. As you have obviously realised, there is a lot of research already there, and I think your big contribution has been to challenge the skeptics in a sustained public way.

I started a thread about the concept that a lot of us are ψ-shy. Perhaps that contributes to the fact the skeptics don't do much research, and why, in particular, the offer to test the psychic detective was not followed through - I mean, just going and asking the police force for cooperation in such a project might be embarrassing! Perhaps you could intervene here and try to get things started - but not doing the research yourself. Goading some of the skeptics into doing some research might be really interesting.

Another idea might be to take the psychic detective and pay for her to work not on murder cases as such, but on one or two missing persons cases (unfortunately, there are always plenty of these). If the case had been dropped by the police, she could presumably work on these cases without treading on anyone's toes. Solving just a few of those would be spectacular (and useful) and would gain a lot of publicity, forcing the skeptics on the defensive.

David

These are all interesting ideas. As far as psychic detective research, the ball is really in the Skeptics court as there is a very successful television show on CourtTV that chronicles real cases and interviews skeptical detectives that have become believers.

As for me, I really think pounding hard on the research is the way to go.

[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

Alexis claims that skeptics don't meet psychics in ordre to test if they can have precognitive capabilities, and the same week the episode on the SGU is about the skeptic group going to a psychic fair and doing just that.

So this stupid claim by Alexis is falsified right on the spot.

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.

Well, bad luck, we noticed...

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.

ps: by the way, I did myself several interviews of UFO witness, + I went to several corp circles, and one psychic told me one day that I would become a believer really quicly (so that's a huge miss ).

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Venom

This episode was really full of crap.

Do we need to reduce this debate to this level?

David

[joki]

"So this stupid claim by Alexis is falsified right on the spot."

Some closed-mind sceptics here do not understand that their own knowledge is also dependend on belief. For those, I recommend to perform medical studies in order to learn that a lot stuff is no easy to replicate, even in peer-reviewed analysis. To deny your enemy s view does not mean to be sceptic.

[NinjaKitty7]

Honestly, the tone of Venom's response does nothing but reinforces Alex's claim s in my eyes. I guess I am turned off by "Crap" and "Shut up" so maybe that has nothing to do with the argument itself. And the million dollar challenge is not the ultimate leveler of truth. It's a carnival attraction.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Venom

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

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

Alex in his program said look for the best 'medium' one can find. They go to a fotune teller at a psychic fair. No, I am not supporting 'psychics' out to make money at psychic fairs, frankly I would support making it against the law for psychics or mediums to charge money other than travel expenses or receive donations (just to try take the temptation to cheat for a living out of it). But those pseudo-skeptics on this program are doing pseudo-science – truly!.

Good protocols for testing mediums have long existed. In the 1950s Pratt (a colleague of Rhine) tested 15 mediums, using 15 sitters unaware which message was for them, all scoring how well a message fitted them personally, the end result supportive of the claim mediums give information that fits the target better. This result was replicated in a much larger experiment by Professor Roy/Robertson around 2002 in a 'triple blind', long term research which tested numerous mediums over a period of months - same result the information fitted the targets better, well above chance. In those experiments cold reading is impossible. So the common skeptic explanation that the information would fit anyone equally well is seriously under doubt, Gary Schwartz research again suggests the same.

There have been failed trials too. Not long after the above more comprehensive trials had published positive results were getting a trickle of media attention. Richard Wiseman, tested 5 anonymous spiritualist mediums with 5 male recipients from university - the more sceptical sex. (Note: one known way to theoretically foul up this type of experiment is to use hard skeptics or disinterested recipients because any bias may not make them rate how well statements fit honestly, whereas a believer or open minded person can't bias it in favour, even if they tried). In this short trial, Wiseman found no evidence, gaining a surprising amount of media attention for such a short trial.

So this stupid claim by Alexis is falsified right on the spot.

And of course, you just have to pick any book by Joe Nickell for example of many "skeptical" investigations on the field.

I don't have any books on Joe Nickell, an oversight perhaps, do these publish his own research, protocol and statistical outcomes? Or is it more just revision of others claims or like the pseudo-skeptics at the psychic fair?

[Zannek]

Alex, you're dead wrong. It's not that Skeptics are too uncomfortable with looking at data, it's that the people they investigate seem woo-woo, and therefore, automatically are. They don't take them seriously to begin with, and it degrades from there.

Or, I'm completely wrong and they DO investigate thoroughly and competently and the researchers are simply idiot believers trying to peddle their views to the rest of the scientific community.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Note: one known way to theoretically foul up this type of experiment is to use hard skeptics or disinterested recipients because any bias may not make them rate how well statements fit honestly, whereas a believer or open minded person can't bias it in favour, even if they tried.

If the scoring system is blind, I can't see how anyone could bias their ratings in favour of the genuine reading over the control ones.