Dr Steve Novella and The (Pseudo?)Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I have a copy of the paper, so I will read it over the next few days.

~~ Paul

Can you email it to me?

interesting.ian at gmail.com

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Maybe you should ask yourself two questions:

1) Just what kind of evidence would re-awaken your interest?

What kind of evidence? Scientific evidence.

2) Why are you interested to post here at all?

Just doing my humble little part. Because I think you people do a disservice to yourselves and to the credulous world at large by leading people down the proverbial garden path. And that path leads to false hope and intellectual darkness. Which at best is not good, but not infrequently results in grave consequences (death, financial ruin, public humiliation, etc.).

Try taking almost any experimental scientific paper, and apply the sort of rigour that is applied to parapsychology papers, and see if you have anything left!

That's a disingenuous (or **perhaps** merely uninformed) insult. "Almost any experimental scientific paper?" Sure you see how that sort of hyperbole is just another hole in your true believer swiss cheese armor? Either you're willfully ingorning the scientific method, or you're being disingenuous. If there's a third angle, I'm eager to her an explanation.

Can you really believe it if the LHC announces a new particle - after all, with so much money at stake, isn't it possible they will fake it, and what if there is a bug in their analysis programs?

It's possible monkeys might fly out of my ass. And if a I suspected I had a monkey/ass problem, the scientific method would serve me well to help investigate and potentially resolve the problem.

Take, for example, the presentiment experiments, and compare them with some typical psychology experiments that use a similar setup - i.e. traces of skin conductance. Are they done with the same rigour as Dean Radin applies to his experiments?

Gosh, I don't know, why don't you enlighten me? With specific examples. Just don't bore me with the the minorty of crappy scientific experiements representing the tiny exception that proves the rule.

For the 9,000th time: The scientific method is a process, not a political party.

Sigh. This all boils down to a surreal conspiracy-mongering fanatasy feedback loop. At least, that's what it looks like from the outside to those of us who understand that the MASSIVE advances in technology and quality-of-life we've enjoyed are framed and well-servered, by, well, science.

Wishful thinking is an temporay salve. Real science produces tangible results.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Indeed, the behavioral results were at chance, so no psi was occurring. I have emailed one of the authors to see what he has to say about that.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Paul, oh Paul .... I wonder who are you talking about here?

This came up on another forum and one person said the study is flawed because it assumes psi is in the brain. He believes that the brain is merely a receiver for psi events.

Paul, I didn't say the brain is a receiver for psi events, I said the brain evolved to commonly filter out (shut out) elements of psi as interference. Why psi is often like interference is another topic, probably better to discuss in the 'can you prove hallucinations are generated in the brain' topic, than in this one.

I pointed out that even if this is the case, there are brain functions involved in receiving the information that should be different from the functions involved in internal thought

Not necessarily. To use an analogy, that is rather like saying all TV broadcasts will be equally measurable inside a TV set's circuits. But no, the stronger isolated signals emerge that are filtered (i.e. tuned into). The lack of response in the brain, doesn't necessarily mean absence of an external source psi.

But that aside, the study proves little or nothing

[David Bailey]

LOL - Ian - what ever did you do to get banned from JREF?

I must say, I felt the abstract of the paper seemed over-blown, it reminded me of the claims made for electromagnetically induced out of body experiences - work which I understand could not be reproduced.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Paul, I didn't say the brain is a receiver for psi events, I said the brain evolved to commonly filter out (shut out) elements of psi as interference. Why psi is often like interference is another topic, probably better to discuss in the 'can you prove hallucinations are generated in the brain' topic, than in this one.

But it's a receiver for the psi information that doesn't get filtered out, right?

Not necessarily. To use an analogy, that is rather like saying all TV broadcasts will be equally measurable inside a TV set's circuits. But no, the stronger isolated signals emerge that are filtered (i.e. tuned into). The lack of response in the brain, doesn't necessarily mean absence of an external source psi.

So the filtering and processing of psi information wouldn't be observable as specialized sorts of brain function?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

LOL - Ian - what ever did you do to get banned from JREF?

Saying things like "Jesus Christ you are all so incredibly unbelievably stupid!!"

Well I found it so frustrating talking to most of the people on there.

I've calmed down now though. I've finally realized that that approach is nonproductive. If I go back on in the guise of a sock puppet they'd never realize it was me

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

[Scientific skepticism] can't be an epistemological position.

Oh Lord.

At least not if you're using the word skepticism in the sense of an a priori conviction that no phenomena challenging contemporary metaphysical positions on the nature of reality could exist.

Go re-read the posts and then re-think this nonsense response, please. And in keeping with the generosity of the season, I'll post the definition of epistemological, for your convenience:

e·pis·te·mol·o·gy (ĭ-pĭs'tə-mŏl'ə-jē)
n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

Rather it would be a metaphysical position.

See above.

And of course scientific skepticism would then be an oxymoron.

Clearly you haven't read the several re-posts of the definition of scientific skepticism I've posted on this thread. Good show.

First of all I am certainly not aware that all the good studies show no positive effects and all the bad studies do. So I would ask you to justify your assertion here.

Justify this assertion? lol Show me one methodoligically sound clinical study that shows ANY positive psi effect that rises above the threshold of statistical noise. Just one.

Certain characteristic paranormal phenomena currently described as ESP has been experienced throughout history and across all cultures with the reported experiences bearing striking similarities. This gives a very good prima facie case that it actually exists.

"Experienced?" There's another word for this "experience" which you describe: Anecdotal evidence. Or case studies. Which are springboards for further explorations; not evidece. And amount to squat when doing rigorous science. Surely you understand this?

Then we also have the parapsychological research. Some of it is statistically significant, some isn't.

Statistically significant? Oh please, do share.

As far as I am aware the experimental protocol is typically as tight and often tighter than in any other area of science (Of course this is to be expected given the controversial nature of the phenomena).

You're awareness is apparently quite limited. Please give examples.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please produce this evidence.

So given this it is peculiar in the extreme to assert that we should accept there is nothing there.

Given the utter lack of evidence, it is peculiar "in the extreme" to persist in demanding resources to study these phenomena that have CONSISTENLY eluded rigourous study for, what?, nearly a century now?

How on earth can it be rational to conclude there's nothing there when so much evidence suggests otherwise. Is this not utterly insane??

WHAT EVIDENCE?!

To assert that ESP hasn't scientifically been shown to exist is one assertion. But even if we were to agree with that, that doesn't mean to say we shouldn't personally be convinced by all the evidence.

WHAT EVIDENCE?

And to say that we should conclude that it doesn't exist is quite frankly utterly absurd.

And I have to bemusedly suggest that your unsupported claims of supporting evidence are a little...odd. I'd expect at least one unimpeachable experiment. At least SOMETHING that shows a positive effect. But alas....

I think we have to dig a bit to understand the psyche of the skeptic.

There is no monolithic "psyche of the skeptic" at play here. For scietific skeptics, it's about the quest for truth and the abhorrence of destructive nonsense, perpetrated by charlatans and those desperate to ascribe meaning to their lives; the latter perhaps deserving a little compassion; the former relentless pursuit, in the courts if possible.

It's all a question about our underlying beliefs regarding the nature of the world. If we are pretty convinced that there is a material reality existing independently of us, and that all change in this material reality is brought about by causes of a mechanistic nature, and that at best consciousness must be merely an epiphenomenon, then of course we are very very likely to regard with deep suspicion any evidence which contradicts those beliefs.

Again back to the accusations religious zealotry. It's simply about the facts. As I've said, at the root of the scientific method and scientific skepticism is provisionalism.

Indeed when someone says there's absolutely no evidence for any paranormal phenomena, I just assume that they subscribe to some materialist based metaphysic.

Where. Is. The. Evidence?

And I have never been wrong in this assumption! What does that tell us? It very strongly suggests that our judgment on the quality of the evidence is very highly influenced by our prior beliefs about how the world must be.

It's not a prior beliefe. It's an observation. Do you not get the distinction?

So when you say "when the good studies consistently show no effect, and the poor studies consistently show positive effects", I would be prepared to make a very large bet indeed that you subscribe to some materialist based metaphysic. I would also make a slightly smaller bet that this statement is simply untrue.

You'd lose that bet.

Other skeptics have said they would never accept that ESP exists no matter how compelling the evidence.

Yes...typically vauge and irrelevant true believer tactic. "Other skeptics." Hmm. Indeed.

Skeptics display an unbridled passion towards this whole subject.

What you apparently perceive as "unbridled passion," most of us see as atempts to keep more nonsense from draining vital resources, creating false hopes, and killing people.

It seems to me they think nothing of continually misleading people and even deliberately providing false information and lying about this whole subject matter.

Wow. That's a bold assertion. Name one single case of the SGU (or me) "providing false information and lying about this whole subject matter." That's a serious accusation.

Are all of those who refer to themselves as "skeptics" perfect? Of course not; and that (once again) completely unsupported assertion just serves to further undermine your credbility. At the very least I expect such polemics to actually be supported with at least a few anecdotes.

Why? Why is it so important to skeptics that this phenomena not exist?

Sigh. It's not. Why can't you people get it through your patchouli-clouded brains that we DON'T CARE if it "exists"? Frankly, all we "care" about is calling bullshit when we see it. Because of the aforementioned negative impacts on society.

Is it because it will challenge the materialist metaphysic?

Yeah, that's it.

Or is the prospect of something like telepathy deeply upsetting to skeptics? I genuinely would like to know the reason why.

Alreay explained. In more detail than you deserve.

I've read extensively what skeptics have said. I have made about 15000 posts on the jref most of which are concerned with either the mind/body problem or paranormal phenomena. I can assure you that a fair few of them are indeed comparable to religious zealots.

More anecdotal nonsense.

Many of them do, but many skeptics do too. For one thing there really isn't such a thing as the "scientific method".

What?! Oh brother.

Everything you have said regarding the nature and progress of science in this post displays a naivety.

Really? LMAO

Anyone who appeals to Russell's teapot is showing a deep misunderstanding of the underlying issues. But his teapot is an attempt to show that the existence of a "God" is prima facie unreasonable. So I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here.

Then you are...how can I be kind...a little obtuse?

The point of Russel's Teapot is to demonstrate that absurd claims are not made any less absurd by anecdotes and tradition. There is no evidence (besides, "I said so!) to believe in Russel's Teapot, just as there is no evidence to believe in psi.

I don't have much patience for dumbing-down thought experiments for those who are out of their leauge intellectually, so please read my posts carefully. That is, you're interested in actually engaging in productive discourse. If not, please just fade away.

Look: If actual evidence for psi emerges, the scientific skeptic community could be your biggest ally. Because we have credibility. Unlike the psi field.

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I think there is a lot of truth in that. Several of the skeptics here baffle me. They seem so convinced that they are right, that I can't see what they get out of this forum. Who wants to post on a forum that they consider pointless?

Translation: Please go away and stop challenging our critical thinking skills so we can continue to foment our unholy alliances with the destructive effects and pecuniary motives of Sylvia Browne et al and their pseudo-scientific paranormal "investigator" acolytles in the field of psi "research".

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by orca007

Hi Paul,

I guess I should clarify. It isn't that I don't know what I'm doing when I work with clients. I do know what I am doing. But it will not make sense to you in a way that fits with your model of science.

You know, I sometimes think it's like parallel universes or something. I have a model. You (science) has a model. Both models are true at the same time. But neither fit will with the other. But logically, somehow they must. And I do not know how to fit psi into your model.

I'll give you an example of what I do everyday that happened just this week. And perhaps you can see why what I see with psi just doesn't fit in your model. You can look at the various factors involved and you will why my work is difficult to quantify or duplicate. And I think it's really throwing the baby out with the bathwater to dismiss this stuff as invalid. I simply don't agree that everything that is not proven is somehow invalid. To me, it just means not scientifically proven.

Example:
I'm in an ICU unit with a cancer patient in a coma, on dialysis, breathing machine, etc. I immediately see a distortion in the aura on the left kidney. It looks grey and mottled, above the body about 2 in. The field above the heart is very prickly and unsettled, like a little tornado. I also discern, without touching the patient, that the entire governing vessel meridian is a complete mess. The whole body is torqued like an S. I feel an burning lower back pain in my body so I know this patient has it also.

I notice see an ethereal presence on the left side of the hospital bed. It is a woman. She is telling me also that this patient does not have much longer. to live. I am sad. But she is clearly stating this is not how it is supposed to end, in an ICU. She is telling me to work the kidney aura of the remaining kidney. So I do. Then she is telling me to work the torque in the spine and clear out the cloudiness around the heart. So I do. I never touch the patient.

The room around me gets very hot. The patient's brother is in the room, watching all of this. He's an engineer who knows zilch of this stuff. I can tell he thinks its nuts but at this point, they need all the help that an be mustered. He is watching all of the heart and BP monitors, and says that while I am working, the patient's BP has gone down markedly. It's a very good thing.

The patient suddenly wakes up from his coma, and waves at me and then goes out again. It startles me. The nurse is surprised, since he's heavily sedated. Very unusual.

I hear 4 days later the patient is removed off dialysis. Kidney function in that one kidney came back up to a healthy level. The doctors areexcited, as this stuff just "doesn't happen". But it did. And they discovered a very bad abscess infected on his lower back, from bed sores...

And, of course, instead of wondering what might have happened from the energy work to support this, they shrugged it off as "one of those things."

The patient went on to go home with his family. He had a precious 15 days of additional life and awakeness he was able to spend with his family. And he passed peacefully at home. The spirit that talked to me at the hospital was aboslutely right. It wasn't supposed to end in an ICU, and that is why I was there. To get him well enough to get him out of there...

How does this situation fit in with your scientific model? I could tell you my model, the way I see energy. But it simply won't make sense to you. You will find it rubbish. I could tell you how I unwound the central nervous system and supported the kidney field. I could tell you how I saw the energetic fields of the body blocked, where they were blocked, that it looked like funny curly ques to me, and what I did to open them up. I knew exactly what I was doing. From my perspective and my model.

But it doesn't fit your model. After all, you simply have no way to measure the aura of a kidney. Or why I would see it as grey vs. yellow vs. red. I can only state what I see. And if science can't measure it, well, what can i do? I can only state what happens, based on what I see.

I mean, there is still enough "measurable" stuff in this simple example that someone could look at, if they wanted to. BP dropped several points while I was working. Kidney came back in a most unusual way. Patient woke up from a deep coma, etc. Witnesses were there. Unusual stuff, given the gravity of this man's condition. But I guess science will shrug that it's just one of those things...

And if I was in another situation just like that, I know I would not get the same info. This stuff is not repeatable. That's why it's hard to measure. I can't control for most of the variables going on with the patient. And I can't control for what I see aurically either. It certainly won't be the same direction from the other side. Who knew why this lady showed up in the room and/or why? And sometimes I may not see much at all.

That is the whole problem. I see what cannot be measured. I don't know why I see what I do, and sometimes I don't see anything and sometimes what I see makes no sense or I see absolutely zilch. I use this information in my work to the best I can, in working with patients. And sometimes things happen. Not because I'm so miraculously special, but that I am open to using this psi info when it comes in. I am actively using it, instead of discarding it as random noise.

To another energy medicine person who sees energy also, it makes complete sense....there are power centers in the body that can be psychically seen in the aura, there are colors in the field, there are flows of energy in the body that can be tweaked, knowledge from strange sources does sometimes show up, etc etc. Except where I see grey, that person may see yellow, etc. It's different for each reader.

So it's not that I don't know what I'm doing. It's just not acceptable per the rules of your scientific discovery. So it gets discarded as rubbish.

Unfortunately, I can't give you a scientific theory. I wish I could. As I stated, I am not a scientist..I'm just suggesting that what we have so far is not adequate. Something is missing. Else, there would not be things like my example happening, which is what I work with every day. Maybe minds more brilliant than mine can come up with an equation or theory of some kind of how and in what way psi shows up. I think that is exciting.


My .02.

Orca

How much did the family pay you for your services?