Interview With Steven Novella of Skeptics Guide

[alextsakiris]

The Skeptics Guide folks have published the interview we did last week:
The Skeptics Guide - Skepticast #125: 12/12/2007

[GaSS PaNiCC]

What i would like to know, is what the skeptic's would consider convincing evidence? If one does receive significant statistics, like what alex pointed out with the dogs that know, well according to the skeptics that either means there was something wrong in the methodology or there must be some simpler explanation for the data. Which is a fair critique, but when all obvious restraints have been taken into consideration and you end up with significant positive results, what does that actually mean? I think this is what troubles skeptics, there is no natural observable explanation for the data, but does it mean the dog's are actually psychic? To even consider that possibility is a huge leap for skeptics, one that i feel none will ever take. It's just so hard for them to conceive a phenomena which is outside the observable realm of science. I understand where they are coming from, but that doesn't mean they have to berate the phenomena like from the interview, i believe one skeptic said "Alex your talking about dog's being ******* psychic", of course everyone knows that is not a valid argument whatsoever. This obviously does trouble them, but are psychic phenomena or non observable really in the realm of science? Should we just accumulate as much data as possible to suggest there is something interesting going on? I mean how would we even begin to understand how such a phenomena might work? Or should we just grant that this phenomena might exist, and perhaps it violates the reductionist world view of modern science. And course we all know what kind of hell that produce. So is it better just to consider the evidence for your own self preference? Because we know how hard it is for some people to give up their beliefs.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by GaSS PaNiCC

What i would like to know, is what the skeptic's would consider convincing evidence?

I would feel better if there was a standard repeatable experiment derived from a theory of psi. I would feel better if there was technology derived from psi; technology is an indication of good theory and understanding.

I mean how would we even begin to understand how such a phenomena might work?

Why not? Is it purely magical? Supernatural?

Or should we just grant that this phenomena might exist, and perhaps it violates the reductionist world view of modern science.

What does it mean for something to violate reductionism? Does it mean that the macro phenomenon (e.g., viewing a remote location) just occurs magically, in toto, out of whole cloth, without any grounding in physics and biology?

So is it better just to consider the evidence for your own self preference? Because we know how hard it is for some people to give up their beliefs.

Sure, go ahead. But why would you be confident that you weren't fooling yourself?

~~ Paul

[DysonSphere]

I'd to mention a point made by Steven Novella that the effect size in studies like the ganzfeild and other ESP experiments I believe, declines as more studies are done. He implied that as the methodology improved the positive results get closer to chance. He mentions that Dean Radin notes this as a problem.

Radin's answer to that is that, researchers (at least in the case of the ganzfeild) started implementing more complex designs in order to understand the process of psi information instead of simply demonstrating it with the simpler designs of the beginning studies. Radin also notes that these decline are also not unique to psi research at all. So, that criticism isn't the strongest it seems. I just wanted to mention it because that sort of research is my cup of tea.

Another thing I'd like to mention brought up on the podcast is the notion that ESP (particularly in dogs) doesn't seem very likely in the first place. I think that is true for a lot of people but for others who have ESP type experiences it is the opposite. I know Skeptics like to think that people who have these type of experiences are prone to making certain errors in judgment but its simply not true.

I have had episodes of intuition and I've heard from people like myself recount there own experiences and I find it hard to believe we are all being irrational or making an error in judgment. Some people actually develop their intuition and have experiences with on a regular basis. I believe that is the reason most people get interested in psi research in the first place.

I find all the studies and meta-analysis in parapsychology interesting and I don't feel all of that research can be tossed aside easily as a whole. However, at the end of the day what really matters to me is a down to earth demonstration of it.

When I look at the cases documented by Stephan Schwartz, the readings of certain mediums documented by Gary Schwartz and the children who seem to remember past lives, along with the ESP experiments done in parapsychology, I can start taking it seriously. Then in the context of profound mystical experiences and NDEs it all fits together. I just can't help but feel something is going on here...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by DysonSphere

I have had episodes of intuition and I've heard from people like myself recount there own experiences and I find it hard to believe we are all being irrational or making an error in judgment. Some people actually develop their intuition and have experiences with on a regular basis. I believe that is the reason most people get interested in psi research in the first place.

Just don't forget to control for the fact that the more guesses a person makes, the more correct guesses there will be. Confirmation bias does the rest.

~~ Paul

[GaSS PaNiCC]

Well paul how exactly would we be able to develop a theory for a supernatural phenomena that would be relevant to modern science? I mean like dysonphere said i think there is enough data to mention something is going on, but obviously that isn't convincing to most people, and it really comes down to self preference, and i don't think any scientific theory will be able to explain these phenomena but of course i could be wrong. If you ever had such a spiritual experience, or psi would you consider yourself deluded, or would consider it a possibility? How can these phenomena be scientifically pinned down? How can one prove they exist? I mean most of these people are clearly not lying, so how can we produce a theory to explain them, when we have no idea what exactly is going on in the experience? We can observe the brain activity associated with these phenomena or some other natural cause, but does that really disprove them? You can't consider most of these people delusional, or just say it doesn't exist just because no one has scientifically verified them. There are just some things that are unexplainable.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well paul how exactly would we be able to develop a theory for a supernatural phenomena that would be relevant to modern science? I mean like dysonphere said i think there is enough data to mention something is going on, but obviously that isn't convincing to most people, and it really comes down to self preference, and i don't think any scientific theory will be able to explain these phenomena but of course i could be wrong. If you ever had such a spiritual experience, or psi would you consider yourself deluded, or would consider it a possibility?

I've had spiritual experiences, especially while I was being trained as a teach of Transcendental Meditation and meditating long hours each day. I see no reason to take such experiences as anything more than nice feelings I had while meditating too much. I can't say how I'd react to a psi experience since I've never had one. Perhaps my reaction to improbable events is different from some other people's reactions.

There are just some things that are unexplainable.

I don't see why this has to be the case.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Alex, you did a great job on that interview. Good coherent responses. Make no mistake you were entering the lion's den .... and left without a scratch.

Good to hear the programme ended on a degree of common ground too.

When listening I was having a look at the SGU forum responses .. much as I would expect from fans of the programme but one response amused me .....
'...Man, I finally got my daughter to subscribe to the [SGU] podcast today, and immediately had to email her and warn her not to start her listening in this episode, as it is not the typical show, and quite frankly is not what i was describing when i encouraged her to subscribe...

Haha, I hope she listened

[ktb973]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Alex, you did a great job on that interview. Good coherent responses. Make no mistake you were entering the lion's den .... and left without a scratch.

Good to hear the programme ended on a degree of common ground too.

When listening I was having a look at the SGU forum responses .. much as I would expect from fans of the programme but one response amused me .....
'...Man, I finally got my daughter to subscribe to the [SGU] podcast today, and immediately had to email her and warn her not to start her listening in this episode, as it is not the typical show, and quite frankly is not what i was describing when i encouraged her to subscribe...

Haha, I hope she listened

I have been following the threads of that episode fairly closely. Which one did that comment come from?

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by ktb973

I have been following the threads of that episode fairly closely. Which one did that comment come from?

'Wallet 55'

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe Forum :: View topic - Episode #125