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

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by skidoo

Do you disagree that the existence of precognitive dogs is an extraordinary claim?

Absolutely I do! I defy you to demonstrate that it's an extraordinary claim.

If so, then you're too far gone. Beyond hope, as it were.

Speaking personally yes I'm beyond hope of ever turning into a skeptic It frustrated the hell out of the people on the jref. Probably why they banned me.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by skidoo

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.

This is an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence.

Which at best is not good, but not infrequently results in grave consequences (death, financial ruin, public humiliation, etc.).

Show me the evidence that paranormal beliefs increases any of these more than paranormal disbelief.

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

The opinion of CSICOP, JREF, etc. are clearly political, they don't fund or do proper scientific research. Skidoo, you are only reading armchair revisions by CSICOP, JREF, skeptic dictionaries, etc. groups opposed to paranormal belief. The parapsychologists are doing the scientific research, the debunkers are doing political stunt challenges.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by skidoo

Sigh. This all boils down to a surreal conspiracy-mongering fanatasy feedback loop.

Every debunker who imagines a method of fraud and presents it like a fact, without evidence, is a conspiracy theorist. They are making extraordinary claims of fraud without any extraordinary evidence.

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.

You seem to be confusing the success of areas of science to discover the commonly useful with scientific attempts to discover an underlying reality or phenomenon that may not be commonly useful. Methodologies which rely upon endless repeatability obviously lead to discovering something commonly useful such as practical, useful inventions. But there is nothing in nature saying reality must be useful, stable or eternally unchanging. The laws/mathematical constants changed during the first second of the big bang theory, this implies the laws evolved rather than are necessarily eternally stable as once believed in classical physics or classical causality.

We should not assume the great success of the 'scientific method' to discover the commonly useful means less common effects are untrue (e.g. A medicine that works on a small percentage of people may not be considered useful in conventional medicine but it doesn't mean it doesn't work, in fact may work better on some individuals than others).

Science will discover the easiest to discover first (stable, endlessly repeatable effects which are labelled 'laws') and the hardest to discover last (unstable and erratic effects) which are labelled anomalies.. The discrimination against psi for falling more into the latter category amounts to little more than prejudice IMHO.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

I never said trees don't exist. If you lived in the Matrix would you say trees don't exist?

You said:

In other words the physical only has meaning in the context of a conscious perception of it. It is meaningless talking about the reality of unobserved trees.

If it is meaningless to talk about the reality of unobserved trees, why does a forest remain coherent between the times I wander through it?

It's certainly not useless. We have a feel of what "God" means -- especially when we undergo mystical experiences such as NDEs.

And yet:

It's not possible to define "God". It is beyond our understanding.

Either it's beyond our understanding or it ain't.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Topher

First off, "telepathy" refers to anomalous information transfer apparently between two minds or brains.

Ah, okay, between two minds/brains. Then I repeat that you can't know from the results of a psi experiment whether it was between minds or between senses.

I'm quite willing to take it as a given that anomalous information transfer has taken place -- depending on what you take that phrase to mean. Most Skeptics in my experience, however, are not willing to concede that at all. They deny stoutly that there is anything the least bit anomalous going on: it is all due to fluke, selective reporting, poor analysis and flawed experimental design or implementation.

A fluke is an anomaly! The word anomaly does not imply mind/mind communication. That's why we have the word psi.

Perhaps the hangup is with the word "paranormal". The Skeptical community uses it as a synonym for "supernatural" and that has passed into common usage. But they are quite distinct. "Supernatural" means "beyond nature" and therefore, by implication, basically beyond scientific study. "Paranormal," however, means outside of current scientific knowledge -- but not generally beyond scientific study or eventual incorporation into mainstream study. By strict definition (though obviously not by usage) the precession of the orbit of mercury, the finiteness of black-body radiation, the photo-electric effect and the stability of the hydrogen atom were once all "paranormal" phenomena.

I think most skeptics understand the distinction. However, I do recommend that you repeat it when you start a conversation with anyone, skeptics or believers. As you say, they are often conflated.

Attempts to explain the results of parapsychological experiments strictly within present day understanding have been grossly inadequate -- we have something truly rather than just apparently anomalous.

Assumption noted.

It means we have a great big and profound hole in our understanding -- information transfer where conventional theory very clearly predicts there should be none.

What theory? No theory predicts that information can't be transfered during psi experiments.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Every debunker who imagines a method of fraud and presents it like a fact, without evidence, is a conspiracy theorist. They are making extraordinary claims of fraud without any extraordinary evidence.

I think it's just a question of differing probability calculations. I think fraud is more likely than telepathic dogs. I think innocent mistakes are more likely. And I think bad statistical analyses are more likely. And I sure as hell think those are all more likely than telepathic plants. Perhaps you don't.

If plants are telepathic, then presumably they are conscious. Yet---hardy, har!---isn't it amusing when skeptics suggest that thermostats are conscious?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You said:

If it is meaningless to talk about the reality of unobserved trees, why does a forest remain coherent between the times I wander through it?

Why does the world have the order that it does anyway? Due to "physical laws", yes? But what is the status of these "laws"? What makes the world operate according to such laws? I don't think advocating a consciousness independent reality helps. I suggest that physical laws might simply be the ongoing activity of the infinite Spirit.

So the infinite spirit directly causes the patterns in our qualia.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

Why does the world have the order that it does anyway? Due to "physical laws", yes? But what is the status of these "laws"? What makes the world operate according to such laws? I don't think advocating a consciousness independent reality helps. I suggest that physical laws might simply be the ongoing activity of the infinite Spirit.

So the infinite spirit directly causes the patterns in our qualia.

That's absolutely fine. The laws of the infinite spirit stand in correspondence to the laws of the physical. But then please don't say:

It is meaningless talking about the reality of unobserved trees.

It's certainly meaningful. They are maintained by the infinite spirit. Individual consciousness is not sufficient.

~~ Paul

[DysonSphere]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You said:

If it is meaningless to talk about the reality of unobserved trees, why does a forest remain coherent between the times I wander through it?


And yet:

Either it's beyond our understanding or it ain't.

~~ Paul

I can answer that. In fact the answer is really quite simple. First, we must leave materialist assumptions behind because those theories about consciousness claim it to be an illusion of sorts.

First, we accept that consciousness supervenes naturally upon the world given the right kind of structure and dynamics ie the brain.

Assuming Interesting Ian's view is correct then the right organization of complex molecules that allows consciousness to supervene naturally on the world was an inevitability.

At the moment the first conscious experience of the physical world took place it "collapsed" roughly 13 billion years of cosmic evolution. The laws of physics must have a specific value (fine tuning) in order for this event to have taken place and those laws dictate that 13 billion years worth of events leading up to that moment must have taken place.

In other words all time and space must be consistent with your current awareness, perceived through a physical body.

I don't believe this is just abstract philosophizing. When we talk about an object it is in terms of the irreducible sensations of sight and touch. We cannot speak of an object without reference to the subjective.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I think it's just a question of differing probability calculations. I think fraud is more likely than telepathic dogs.

Wiseman's data matches Sheldrakes, what is more likely .... telepathic dog, a fraudulent dog or a fraudulent interpretation by Wiseman?

I think innocent mistakes are more likely. And I think bad statistical analyses are more likely.

Well some think Wiseman made mistakes with the Ganzfeld analysis. Perhaps he innocently preferred a statistical method that underestimated the overall effect below statisical significance.

And I sure as hell think those are all more likely than telepathic plants. Perhaps you don't. If plants are telepathic, then presumably they are conscious. Yet---hardy, har!---isn't it amusing when skeptics suggest that thermostats are conscious?
~~ Paul

I don't know. Plants don't speak to me as far as I know and I don't like gardening without a deckchair and tall glass I've not looked into the research by Cleeve Backster (spelling?) who has made such claims.