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

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

If you are referring to [CSI, etc.], pleased give links to their scientific research rather than political challenge stunts, so we can see the quality of their work.

If you do not mean those organizations, please link to their scientific research, so we can see the quality of their work.

I've already posted the definition of scientific skepticism twice, since it was obvious that you were previously unfamiliar with the term. I'll try once again, but this time please note that the very first sentence of the definition I posted (see link above) says in no uncertain terms that scientific skepticism is an epistemological position. If you still don't get it, I don't know what to tell you.

If however you are referring to trained scientists doing parapsychology research under the strictest of controls, no need I probably already have much of that information.

By all means, cite some Adrian Parker again. LMAO

Look dude it is an analogy, a metaphor,

False analogies aren't fair game? If I had completely misrepresented a scientific phenomenon in an attempt to support my position, you wouldn't have called me on it? Uh-huh. Riiiiiiight.

you can twist it into different meaningif you wish

"Twist it into a different meaning?" I simply conveyed the facts. Your understanding of the solar neutrino problem was just flat wrong. I certainly didn't twist anything. I challenge you to quote the lines in which I "twist" your analogy into a different meaning.

A hallmark of true believers is their propensity to extrapolate nonsense from a superficial and often incorrect understanding of a particular scientific phenomenon. Sciency words don't mean jack unless you know what you're talking about. Clearly you didn't.

but my intended meaning that we should not dismiss any weak effect or erratic effect/measurement as false, as these do exist.

Statistical noise does not constitute a weak effect.

There is no law in science saying an effect/measurement cannot be weak and erratic.

Of course not.

In that context, there is nothing wrong with the analogy.

Good grief. As I already explained, the "weak effect" of solar neutrinos is patently different from the noise found by meta-analyses of psi phenomenon. We didn't detect the faint presence of solar neutrinos and subsequently say, "Ah ha! Solar neutrinos exist!" In fact, we already had a model of the sun that predicted more neutrinos than what we were seeing, so we set out to find those missing neutrinos, or prove the solar model wrong. Do you not see how those are COMPLETELY different processes?

What you're trying to say (with your bogus analogy) is, "See?! These neutrinos are actually sooooo tiny that we might have written them off as nonexistent but for the perserverance of a few diehard astrophysicists!" At best that assertion is just wrong.

But whatever. Sure, there are definitely undiscovered tiny things and ephemeral phenomena that we haven't noticed yet. So what? Whenever the scientific method yields new information, science adjusts its paradigms accordingly. Ever heard of...quantum mechanics? Maybe you've heard of the Theory of Relativity? What about...the solar neutrino problem? The resolution of that prompted a significant change in the standard physical model. Those durnn close-minded scientists.

Yes and 80 years of incompatibility between micro scale and macro scale physics too. So what is your point?

So it's just taking a really long time to even detect these phenomena? Tell me: At what point do you finally fold up the tents and accept the fact that there's just nothing there? How much non-evidence is required to determine a claim is unsupported? When the good studies consistently show no effect, and the poor studies consistently show positive effects, how long before you finally decide that this subject is just not worth anymore resources?

Sometimes science is stumped for long periods of time, in the case of neutrinos from the sun, around 40 years to solve it.

The keyword there is science.

The trouble with pseudoskeptics is that they are far too sure to be real skeptics. It is almost like they are making a psychic claim to know before researching it.

Every single scientific skeptic I know would absolutely LOVE for psi phenomena to prove real. This persistent claim that skeptics are religious zealots is utterly and completely without foundation and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method, as well as an apparently deep-rooted bias against scientific skeptics. The foundation of science is provisionalism. Paradigm shifts are part and parcel to science.

Not applicable to this discussion..

Uh...what? This discussion is exactly the sort of thing that Russell's Teapot is intended to elucidate. For what are you suggesting if not that we commit resources to the exploration of a teapot that exists only as a string of anecdotes?

Many historical reasons, read the history. The back setting is one of a war between materialistic science versus religion both sides have traditionally opposed psi research findings because it doesn't support the paradigm or dogma of either.

Do you not see the dominant paranoid conspiracy component of this assertion? And please, do tell: What exactly is "the paradigm" of science? Materialism? That's what the evidence suggests. If the evidence suggests otherwise, somebody will win a Nobel Prize, and science will adjust accordingly. To suggest otherwise is to completely misrepresent science and the scientific method.

Nor has the subject been helped by New Age movement, who by exaggerating psychic like abilities, tagging on fanciful elements of past religious concepts have alienated many towards the other extreme of disbelief.

Yeah, there are LOADS of rabid unbelievers out there, religously zealous in their commitment to stamp out the use of healing crystals! The smell of patchouli must be eradicated from the earth! Give me a break.

Between those extremes of belief and disbelief is an area they both feel very uneasy within because it weakens both established viewpoints.

Science is provisional. Science is a methodology. Scientists are people who practice science.

In one sense you are right, weak psi under a small degree of personal command isn't that interesting an effect to study

Weak? Try nonexistent.

– but the effects regularly pop out in meta-analysis under the strictest of protocols.

"Regularly?" And LOL @ "the strictest of protocols."

Look, here's the bottom line. In fact, I'll just quote another SGU forum member:

Originally Posted by tiny monster

Parapsychology enjoyed a time in the academic sun. It was funded and experiments were carried out; some were even published in peer-reviewed journals. Unfortunately, there were no good results, except in studies with poor controls. That is why parapsychology is a fringe 'science'. The whole point of peer review is to weed out poor science; since positive results in parapsychology are generated by poor science, these studies do not get published in peer-reviewed journals.

End. Of. Story.
(Unless someone comes up with some actual evidence.)

[EDIT: Typo correction.]

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by skidoo

End. Of. Story.
(Unless someone comes up with some actual evidence.)

Maybe you should ask yourself two questions:

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

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

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!

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?

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?

David

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I'm sure if someone faked a medical condition (e.g. produced artificial damage to skin surface) , gave false information and went along to tape record Dr Steven Novella, he would grossly misdiagnose or get 'zippo' right. Following his own logic, is he implying such experiments would make him unqualified to be in medicine or a fraudulent practitioner?

I think you're completely missing the point here.

If medium can read minds, see the futur, talk to the dead or talk to spirit, they should be able to know that the photo is fake. If there is a spirit on a photo, and you talk to a medium who say he's capable to talk to spirit, he should know right away that it's a fake photo. No question about that.

A medical doctor doesn't pretend to be able to read minds, see the futur, talk to the dead or talk to spirit. So of course he would probably fall for the fake. But that's not the point here.

Well, I think your argument is completely irrelevant... I don't even understand how you can make such an absurd comparison. My bet is that you just want to say something bad about Steven Novella, so you just go for it, even if it's not even close to be right.

At the end of the day, what they did was a very good first-hand experience, on the field, about how medium deceives people.

And Alexis position is quite pseudo-scientific: of course those at the fair where not good psychics, but there are some good psychics. I hear that from ufologists all the time ("ok you explained 99% of the cases, but there is 1% of the cases that are difficult to explain"). I mean, applying Occam Razor, it's obvious that with all the work that has been done on psychics in the past, the good explanations is that they are all fakes, that there is NO real psychics anywhere, that they are all using cold and hot reading, but just some of them are better at it than others..

Before it was "skeptics don't do research", no you're shifting to "skeptics don't do good research", because the fair episode showed how false Alexis claim was... Oh yeah, I forgot, Alexis claim was in fact that skeptics don't support researchs. LOL.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by skidoo

I've already posted the definition of scientific skepticism twice, since it was obvious that you were previously unfamiliar with the term. I'll try once again, but this time please note that the very first sentence of the definition I posted (see link above) says in no uncertain terms that scientific skepticism is an epistemological position. If you still don't get it, I don't know what to tell you.

It can't be an epistemological position. 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. Rather it would be a metaphysical position. And of course scientific skepticism would then be an oxymoron.

So it's just taking a really long time to even detect these phenomena? Tell me: At what point do you finally fold up the tents and accept the fact that there's just nothing there? How much non-evidence is required to determine a claim is unsupported? When the good studies consistently show no effect, and the poor studies consistently show positive effects, how long before you finally decide that this subject is just not worth anymore resources?

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.

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.

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

So given this it is peculiar in the extreme to assert that we should accept there is nothing there. How on earth can it be rational to conclude there's nothing there when so much evidence suggests otherwise. Is this not utterly insane?? 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. And to say that we should conclude that it doesn't exist is quite frankly utterly absurd.

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

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

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.

Every single scientific skeptic I know would absolutely LOVE for psi phenomena to prove real.

I don't know what a scientific skeptic is -- as I mentioned it seems to me to be an oxymoron. Is Dennett a "scientific skeptic"? Apparently he said he would commit suicide if it transpired that any paranormal phenomena exists. Other skeptics have said they would never accept that ESP exists no matter how compelling the evidence.

Indeed it is quite clear that the diametric opposite of what you say pertains. Their vehemence towards any suggestion that this phenomena may be for real is bewildering in its intensity. What explains it? Why would Dennett commit suicide? (and incidentally, if he's not conscious anyway then why bother committing suicide?). Skeptics display an unbridled passion towards this whole subject. It seems to me they think nothing of continually misleading people and even deliberately providing false information and lying about this whole subject matter. Why? Why is it so important to skeptics that this phenomena not exist? Is it because it will challenge the materialist metaphysic? Or is the prospect of something like telepathy deeply upsetting to skeptics? I genuinely would like to know the reason why.

This persistent claim that skeptics are religious zealots is utterly and completely without foundation

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.

and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method,

Many of them do, but many skeptics do too. For one thing there really isn't such a thing as the "scientific method". Everything you have said regarding the nature and progress of science in this post displays a naivety.

Uh...what? This discussion is exactly the sort of thing that Russell's Teapot is intended to elucidate. For what are you suggesting if not that we commit resources to the exploration of a teapot that exists only as a string of anecdotes?

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.

Do you not see the dominant paranoid conspiracy component of this assertion? And please, do tell: What exactly is "the paradigm" of science? Materialism? That's what the evidence suggests.

So exactly what does this evidence suggest? Eliminitivism? Non-reductive materialism? What is this evidence exactly?

I'm afraid there is no evidence whatsoever for materialism. Indeed there isn't even any evidence for the existence of a consciousness independent reality. If you think otherwise provide the arguments. Or provide the evidence. Or preferably both.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

It can't be an epistemological position. 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. Rather it would be a metaphysical position. And of course scientific skepticism would then be an oxymoron.

I have no idea what the contemporary metaphysical positions on the nature of reality are, but is anyone assuming a priori that certain phenomena don't exist? You are talking about phenomena, right, not metaphysical claims?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I have no idea what the contemporary metaphysical positions on the nature of reality are, but is anyone assuming a priori that certain phenomena don't exist? You are talking about phenomena, right, not metaphysical claims?

~~ Paul

Yes, skeptics (in the way the word is used now) feel that the existence of paranormal phenomena is so unlikely that they can safely assume that it does not exist. They hold this position regardless of all the evidence for paranormal phenomena.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

Yes, skeptics (in the way the word is used now) feel that the existence of paranormal phenomena is so unlikely that they can safely assume that it does not exist. They hold this position regardless of all the evidence for paranormal phenomena.

I pretty much think that, too, but that is a far cry from an a priori assumption. The assumption is based on what I perceive as lack of evidence. Its an a posteriori conclusion drawn from lack of observed facts. And I most certainly agree that I might be wrong.

It's difficult for a skeptic to convince a believer that he really is willing to change his mind in the face of more evidence, just as it is difficult for a believer to convince a skeptic that he did not have an a priori belief in the "paranormal."

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Paul,

I think if you review some of the things that other skeptics have written here, you can see what Ian means. Indeed, I constantly wonder why they bother to post here at all - rather as I don't post at the Flat Earth Society website!

David

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I pretty much think that, too, but that is a far cry from an a priori assumption. The assumption is based on what I perceive as lack of evidence. Its an a posteriori conclusion drawn from lack of observed facts. And I most certainly agree that I might be wrong.

Lack of evidence? People have experienced certain characteristic phenomena we label the paranormal throughout history and across all cultures. Parapsychological research backs up these experiences. So their certainly isn't due to a lack of evidence for there is a huge abundance of it.

But what skeptics state to me is that personal testimony -- which they label anecdotes -- plays no role whatsoever in their personal beliefs regarding the existence of this phenomena. So it is not that "anecdotes" constitute poor evidence and so only sways their disbelief in this phenomena by only a moderately small amount. That I could at least understand and appreciate. Rather they are wholly unmoved by such evidence. Their disbelief is not dented one iota.

And as for the scientific research they assume as a given that any positive results must be able to be explained by normal means. It doesn't matter how convoluted a normal explanation might be for they feel that any normal explanation will always be somewhat more likely than a paranormal one.

In short all the evidence leaves them completely unmoved. Indeed it seems their conviction that none of this phenomena exists is as confident as if no one ever in the history of the world had ever reported such phenomena.

In other words their belief is not derived from lack of evidence, but rather a certain metaphysical conviction about how the world must be.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Lack of evidence? People have experienced certain characteristic phenomena we label the paranormal throughout history and across all cultures. Parapsychological research backs up these experiences. So their certainly isn't due to a lack of evidence for there is a huge abundance of it.

I've always had the impression that some of the folks at JREF feel that they are part of a great movement to educate mankind that science has shown that the paranormal is impossible and/or that any seeming evidence for paranormal experiences can and should be explained in ways that don't posit any genuine anomalous cognitive abilities or the existence of anything other than matter. But as Ian has pointed out, a significant number of persons of various cultures and throughout history have believed they've had what we would call paranormal experiences. As long as people keep believing they've had such experiences, the work of JREFers is likely never to be done. Unless mankind as a whole can become convinced that these experiences are not what they seem to be on the surface. For example, suppose one hundred years from now a woman's husband dies and the widow knows he wrote up a list of his wishes concerning the distribution of certain personal belongings. But she doesn't know where he put the list and can't find it. Then one night as she is falling asleep she sees an apparition of her husband and seems to hear him say in her mind that he has returned to tell her where the list is and points to its location. She then finds the list where the apparition indicated it would be. If the JREF has succeeded in its mission, the woman. although glad she found the list, would immediately realize that since science has shown life after death to be impossible, the apparition was a hallucination of her brain perhaps brought on by grief, and that she probably on some level knew all along where the list was but had forgotten. But will the time come when most everyone will have become well-educated enough in modern science to automatically think this way?