Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Scott

Yeah, the difference is that the skeptic or an bad comedian is not attempting to convince you of what they are saying is true.

In my experience, the opposite is true: the "sceptic" is actually attempting to prove the non-existence of a phenomenom which has a huge case history. It all depends on how one defines the null hypothesis, which in this case is based on a subjective notion about reality and what is or is not "extraordinary". If "sceptics" decided that dreams couldn't be real, despite the huge case history, it would be impossible to convince them based on lab experiments.

Originally Posted by Scott

The skeptic does not want you to trust them because they say so - they want the good clear evidence.

Define "good" and "clear" – again, subjectivity dressed up as objectivity. Saying something is so doesn't make it so – read, e.g., Philip Stevens' MSc dissertation on the work of Rupert Sheldrake and tell me how well the evidence is being assessed by so-called experts. What I'm saying is that there is good clear evidence from the realm of sociology of science which shows that your claim is bunk, at least in the case of Sheldrake; but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Frankly, I'm not sure whether you're trying to convince me or convince yourself of how fair-minded "sceptics" are.

Originally Posted by Scott

It does not work for skeptics to be in the research because if the study ends up negative then proponents just blame 'skeptical' energy or some such nonsense. The thing is - if 'skeptical' energy could influence outcomes of studies so easy - then that right there would be an easy experimental design to test.

Well, there is already a good deal of evidence for this effect – see the Schlitz & Wiseman staring experiments, for instance, although they were unable to replicate the effect in the third experiment, concluding that the data allows for two different interpretations about the existence of the psi experimenter effect (yea or nay):

Given that people tend to interpret ambiguous evidence in alignment with their
prior beliefs (see, e.g. Roe, 1999), it is predicted that proponents of psychic ability will
tend to favour the first interpretation of the data outlined above and sceptics the latter.
However, the inconsistent nature of our findings does not allow for a firm acceptance or
rejection of either interpretation and the issue will only be resolved by further research.

Given that further research is required, and that even Wiseman thinks so, I was heartened to hear Daryl Bem say that he is going to be devoting his time to it now. And looking at the broader picture, I don't see how you can ridicule the possibility of such an experimenter effect in psi research, which would appear to be entirely in line with the general "psi hypothesis": indeed, if one were being truly fair-minded one would note that the absence of such an effect would be evidence of the non-existence of psi. However, some "sceptics" seem to feel obliged to ridicule the notion because it messes with the idea they like to cultivate of their special status as objective observers of reality, rather than participants.

Hopefully, in future it will be much more difficult for "sceptics" to influence the results of experiments by (e.g.) doing the staring experiment in a "pretty passive" way:

Originally Posted by Sheldrake

He later said that he found staring ‘an enormously boring experience’ and that in most of the trials he was ‘pretty passive about it’ (Watt et al., 2002).

Anyway, moving on...

Originally Posted by Scott

If the 'real' mediums really cared and thought they could - they would form an organization which could develop open testing procedures and requirements of training/experience to weed out the wheat from the chafe.

What, you mean like the Windbridge Institute? We might differ as to how appropriate their procedures are, but you can't deny their existence.

Originally Posted by Scott

They could then work to become a regulatory body and would be able to create something that could be taken as a serious profession. They won't do that because they need the glitz, glamor, and publicity of the TV psychics.

Clearly not the case in respect of the Windbridge Institute, but in addition I find your remarks indicative of disconfirmation bias: it is patently clear that (a) there is no funding in academia to build such an institution, and (b) the career-trashing effects of working in this field as so devastating as to make it doubly impossible to work in the field... so it's not really surprising that there is no accepted regulatory body, because "sceptics" oppose such a prospect very forcefully. Therefore I find your above statement to be, frankly, perverse.

Originally Posted by Scott

That and I don't think they could differentiate the 'good' from the 'bad' in either ability or methods. Other than this one is better at cold reading, this one has better showmanship, ...

Given that Julie Beischel has precisely been able to differentiate the "good" from the "bad" (based on the rankings in her experiment), and only took a couple of the good ones with her to Windbridge, again I find your remarks rather frustrating.

To try and bring this back on topic (probably a hopeless task) I will point out to you that, in my view, your above statements are fairly typical of the genre of "sceptical" writing of the kind promoted by people such as Ms. Gerbic. It takes years to perform and write up experiments like those of Schlitz & Wiseman, but apparently it is ludicrously easy to dismiss the psi experimenter effect as "nonsense", or (with respect to Dr. Beischel) to make an entirely unfounded claim about "cold reading" when there is serious-minded research which completely circumvents the very possibility of that happening.

Is it really "all about the data" for you, or do you think it helpful to do as you have done in your post: begin by talking up the "sceptics" as "honest brokers" in an evidence-free way and end by contemptuously dismissing without a shred of evidence those people who claim to do what you believe to be impossible? Do you agree that this is a good example of "guerrilla scepticism"? Do you support this kind of approach? Help me out, I'm struggling to find a purpose to this discussion, and I'm beginning to think it might be to wear the interlocutor down

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by Ian

In my experience, the opposite is true: the "sceptic" is actually attempting to prove the non-existence of a phenomenom which has a huge case history. It all depends on how one defines the null hypothesis, which in this case is based on a subjective notion about reality and what is or is not "extraordinary". If "sceptics" decided that dreams couldn't be real, despite the huge case history, it would be impossible to convince them based on lab experiments.



Define "good" and "clear" – again, subjectivity dressed up as objectivity. Saying something is so doesn't make it so – read, e.g., Philip Stevens' MSc dissertation on the work of Rupert Sheldrake and tell me how well the evidence is being assessed by so-called experts. What I'm saying is that there is good clear evidence from the realm of sociology of science which shows that your claim is bunk, at least in the case of Sheldrake; but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Frankly, I'm not sure whether you're trying to convince me or convince yourself of how fair-minded "sceptics" are.



Well, there is already a good deal of evidence for this effect – see the Schlitz & Wiseman staring experiments, for instance, although they were unable to replicate the effect in the third experiment, concluding that the data allows for two different interpretations about the existence of the psi experimenter effect (yea or nay):



Given that further research is required, and that even Wiseman thinks so, I was heartened to hear Daryl Bem say that he is going to be devoting his time to it now. And looking at the broader picture, I don't see how you can ridicule the possibility of such an experimenter effect in psi research, which would appear to be entirely in line with the general "psi hypothesis": indeed, if one were being truly fair-minded one would note that the absence of such an effect would be evidence of the non-existence of psi. However, some "sceptics" seem to feel obliged to ridicule the notion because it messes with the idea they like to cultivate of their special status as objective observers of reality, rather than participants.

Hopefully, in future it will be much more difficult for "sceptics" to influence the results of experiments by (e.g.) doing the staring experiment in a "pretty passive" way:




Anyway, moving on...

What, you mean like the Windbridge Institute? We might differ as to how appropriate their procedures are, but you can't deny their existence.



Clearly not the case in respect of the Windbridge Institute, but in addition I find your remarks indicative of disconfirmation bias: it is patently clear that (a) there is no funding in academia to build such an institution, and (b) the career-trashing effects of working in this field as so devastating as to make it doubly impossible to work in the field... so it's not really surprising that there is no accepted regulatory body, because "sceptics" oppose such a prospect very forcefully. Therefore I find your above statement to be, frankly, perverse.



Given that Julie Beischel has precisely been able to differentiate the "good" from the "bad" (based on the rankings in her experiment), and only took a couple of the good ones with her to Windbridge, again I find your remarks rather frustrating.

To try and bring this back on topic (probably a hopeless task) I will point out to you that, in my view, your above statements are fairly typical of the genre of "sceptical" writing of the kind promoted by people such as Ms. Gerbic. It takes years to perform and write up experiments like those of Schlitz & Wiseman, but apparently it is ludicrously easy to dismiss the psi experimenter effect as "nonsense", or (with respect to Dr. Beischel) to make an entirely unfounded claim about "cold reading" when there is serious-minded research which completely circumvents the very possibility of that happening.

Is it really "all about the data" for you, or do you think it helpful to do as you have done in your post: begin by talking up the "sceptics" as "honest brokers" in an evidence-free way and end by contemptuously dismissing without a shred of evidence those people who claim to do what you believe to be impossible? Do you agree that this is a good example of "guerrilla scepticism"? Do you support this kind of approach? Help me out, I'm struggling to find a purpose to this discussion, and I'm beginning to think it might be to wear the interlocutor down

Checkmate...

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Craig Weiler

All I can tell you is that you don't appear to have the necessary experience in dealing with people. Dealing with excruciating amounts of mental pain, enormous stress and either bringing other people (or yourself) all the way through and out the other side changes a person. I don't think that you've done that because I'm not seeing the openness and flexibility that accompanies that change. You seem to me to be coming from the head, not the heart. You can't really know people if you do that in my opinion.

I'm well aware of your attitude towards psychics and mediums. You're welcome to draw conclusions from your itty bitty data set, that's your choice.

Well I prefer to think with my head. I will leave my heart for pumping blood. And you know nothing about the level or experience dealing with people, dealing with pain or stress. Everything we experience changes us, which means we are different on each day - some, much more than others. I will still go with the fact that I have stated psi may exist. Can you be open enough to admit you may be wrong and psi not existing?

[Kamarling]

Originally Posted by Scott

Can you be open enough to admit you may be wrong and psi not existing?

That may be a fair question for me - as someone who has not experienced psi first-hand or, at least, repeatedly (and, by the way, I can't say that I am fully convinced -- I just think the evidence you reject is more credible than you think it is). But how can you ask that of someone who does experience it first-hand and regularly? Tantamount to saying he is not only lying to you but also to himself.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Ian

In my experience, the opposite is true: the "sceptic" is actually attempting to prove the non-existence of a phenomenom which has a huge case history. It all depends on how one defines the null hypothesis, which in this case is based on a subjective notion about reality and what is or is not "extraordinary". If "sceptics" decided that dreams couldn't be real, despite the huge case history, it would be impossible to convince them based on lab experiments.

Can't prove a negative. Null hypothesis is well defined - there is no difference between groups.
I assume that by dreams being real, you mean do they occur vs. being a representation of a reality. If so, then it has no bearing on any of the issues. It is not like anyone is saying the individual is not experiencing something, it is when, and weather it is related to any reality that is the question. If you are saying dreams are 'real' then I would want to see data that links the dream to reality.

Originally Posted by Ian

Define "good" and "clear" – again, subjectivity dressed up as objectivity. Saying something is so doesn't make it so – read, e.g., Philip Stevens' MSc dissertation on the work of Rupert Sheldrake and tell me how well the evidence is being assessed by so-called experts. What I'm saying is that there is good clear evidence from the realm of sociology of science which shows that your claim is bunk, at least in the case of Sheldrake; but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Frankly, I'm not sure whether you're trying to convince me or convince yourself of how fair-minded "sceptics" are.

Well, you can only generalize any data as far as the design allows.
First, what work of Sheldrake's are you referring to? And which of my claims is bunk?

Originally Posted by Ian

Well, there is already a good deal of evidence for this effect – see the Schlitz & Wiseman staring experiments, for instance, although they were unable to replicate the effect in the third experiment, concluding that the data allows for two different interpretations about the existence of the psi experimenter effect (yea or nay):

If skeptical energy can disrupt psi so easy then it would be easy to get really solid and clean data to such an effect. As you stated - the data can be interpeted in BOTH yea or nay - I disagree. Either the results allow you to reject the null hypothesis or you fail to reject the null hypothesis. If things are set up as they should be - it is objective in the determination of that.
The design of the study determines if and how much you can extend the conclusions of the data outside of the particular sample and situation - this is much more subjective.

Originally Posted by Ian

Given that further research is required, and that even Wiseman thinks so, I was heartened to hear Daryl Bem say that he is going to be devoting his time to it now. And looking at the broader picture, I don't see how you can ridicule the possibility of such an experimenter effect in psi research, which would appear to be entirely in line with the general "psi hypothesis": indeed, if one were being truly fair-minded one would note that the absence of such an effect would be evidence of the non-existence of psi. However, some "sceptics" seem to feel obliged to ridicule the notion because it messes with the idea they like to cultivate of their special status as objective observers of reality, rather than participants.

Hopefully, in future it will be much more difficult for "sceptics" to influence the results of experiments by (e.g.) doing the staring experiment in a "pretty passive" way:

I don't think I ridicule the experimenter effect - I don't see any evidence it exists. I don't see how you can say it is in line with the 'psi hypothesis' since there really is no mechanism or theory of psi. I don't have a problem of doing research to show an effect exists. But show it exists in a study that clearly isolates what you are investigating.
I would think it would be better if skeptics could influence the results more - that would make it clear there is some kind of psi going on.

Originally Posted by Ian

Anyway, moving on...

What, you mean like the Windbridge Institute? We might differ as to how appropriate their procedures are, but you can't deny their existence.

I was not impressed with what I saw with Windbridge. I don't deny it exists. I don't think it comes even close to what I was suggesting though.

Originally Posted by Ian

Clearly not the case in respect of the Windbridge Institute, but in addition I find your remarks indicative of disconfirmation bias: it is patently clear that (a) there is no funding in academia to build such an institution, and (b) the career-trashing effects of working in this field as so devastating as to make it doubly impossible to work in the field... so it's not really surprising that there is no accepted regulatory body, because "sceptics" oppose such a prospect very forcefully. Therefore I find your above statement to be, frankly, perverse.

A) The funding for a regulatory group would not come from academia.
B) If you can't work in the field then you can't work in the field.
I think skeptics would be fine with a regulatory board, I think it is the proponents that would have difficultly with having to show evidence of ability that could stand up.

Originally Posted by Ian

Given that Julie Beischel has precisely been able to differentiate the "good" from the "bad" (based on the rankings in her experiment), and only took a couple of the good ones with her to Windbridge, again I find your remarks rather frustrating.

If it is that easy to differentiate between the 'good' and the 'bad' then it would be easy to show and demonstrate the ability clearly. Period. And would be very worthwhile for the proponent community to do so. Period.
Go public with the testing protocol and demonstrate it.

Originally Posted by Ian

To try and bring this back on topic (probably a hopeless task) I will point out to you that, in my view, your above statements are fairly typical of the genre of "sceptical" writing of the kind promoted by people such as Ms. Gerbic. It takes years to perform and write up experiments like those of Schlitz & Wiseman, but apparently it is ludicrously easy to dismiss the psi experimenter effect as "nonsense", or (with respect to Dr. Beischel) to make an entirely unfounded claim about "cold reading" when there is serious-minded research which completely circumvents the very possibility of that happening.

Is it really "all about the data" for you, or do you think it helpful to do as you have done in your post: begin by talking up the "sceptics" as "honest brokers" in an evidence-free way and end by contemptuously dismissing without a shred of evidence those people who claim to do what you believe to be impossible? Do you agree that this is a good example of "guerrilla scepticism"? Do you support this kind of approach? Help me out, I'm struggling to find a purpose to this discussion, and I'm beginning to think it might be to wear the interlocutor down

Well yes, I want the data and evidence to back up the claims. To date, I see at best iffy data/evidence that are used to make conclusions beyond what the data suggest. I do feel pointing this out is worthwhile. If for not other reason than to direct what is needed if you want to be convincing. If someone claims to be able to teleport to Mars and back - Yes, I would want convincing evidence. Say have picture taken by one of the Rovers, samples, help a rover out of a ditch, ... I would not place the burden of proof on me to show they can't do the impossible claim.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Kamarling

That may be a fair question for me - as someone who has not experienced psi first-hand or, at least, repeatedly (and, by the way, I can't say that I am fully convinced -- I just think the evidence you reject is more credible than you think it is). But how can you ask that of someone who does experience it first-hand and regularly? Tantamount to saying he is not only lying to you but also to himself.

No, I could see what I thought was a dinosaur and still be wrong no matter how sure I was or even how much evidence I had. Granted, the more lines of evidence and more people I can show this creature to who agree it is a living dinosaur brings the likely hood that I am wrong down - it is never 0%.

It amazes me that no matter how many times us skeptics state that fraud and lying is NOT the only way that explains how psi could 'not exist' - even going as far to say it is likely not even the most common element - it keeps getting brought up as if that is what we are saying.

[Kamarling]

Originally Posted by Scott

No, I could see what I thought was a dinosaur and still be wrong no matter how sure I was or even how much evidence I had. Granted, the more lines of evidence and more people I can show this creature to who agree it is a living dinosaur brings the likely hood that I am wrong down - it is never 0%.

It amazes me that no matter how many times us skeptics state that fraud and lying is NOT the only way that explains how psi could 'not exist' - even going as far to say it is likely not even the most common element - it keeps getting brought up as if that is what we are saying.

I'm not sure your analogy is relevant but I'll leave it to Craig if he wishes to answer that for himself.

As for the lying part, I meant it in the sense of denying his experience is real - not deliberately making up those experiences to decieve others. My choice of wording could have been better.

[Ian]

Scott,

I really hoped you'd be able to do better. It would have been nice to have a discussion about the evidence, but it seems that you are only interested in setting out your beliefs whilst waving away hard data with generalizations and unsubstantiated opinions. I sincerely hope you will read over what I have said once again, then look at your last two responses, and consider my question about whether you think this is a useful way of discussing this subject.

I'm just going to highlight a few of the points you've made in your most recent post with minimal commentary in the hope that my point will become clear to you.

Originally Posted by Scott

First, what work of Sheldrake's are you referring to? And which of my claims is bunk?

Read what I said, then read the paper. It should have been obvious to you that the "bunk" I was referring to was your claim that "sceptics" only really want "good clear evidence" – the paper is evidence against that.

Originally Posted by Scott

If skeptical energy can disrupt psi so easy then it would be easy to get really solid and clean data to such an effect. As you stated - the data can be interpeted in BOTH yea or nay - I disagree.

Well jolly good for you that you disagree, but frankly, why should I care when your only means of engaging is by simply stating that you "disagree"? Does that amount to a coherent argument?

Originally Posted by Scott

I don't think I ridicule the experimenter effect - I don't see any evidence it exists.

You ridiculed it by calling it "nonsense". And of course you say that you don't see any evidence – in the same way that Admiral Nelson said "I see no ships".

Originally Posted by Scott

I was not impressed with what I saw with Windbridge. I don't deny it exists. I don't think it comes even close to what I was suggesting though.

You weren't impressed? Really? In what way? Feel free to add some substance to that opinion.

Originally Posted by Scott

I think skeptics would be fine with a regulatory board, I think it is the proponents that would have difficultly with having to show evidence of ability that could stand up.

That's what you reckon, is it? Do you feel the need to support your opinion with, you know, evidence?

Originally Posted by Scott

Go public with the testing protocol and demonstrate it.

Seriously? Are you not aware that Dr. Beischel has done precisely that, both in terms of demonstrating mediumistic ability and developing a certification procedure? Of course you disapprove in some unspecified way with her experiments, but I'm beginning to suspect that, in fact, you are not familiar with her work.

Originally Posted by Scott

Well yes, I want the data and evidence to back up the claims.

This utterly fails to convince, especially since you seem so willing to dismiss hard data with such high-handed disdain. If you want to convince me that you've looked at all the research and made a careful, unbiased judgment to the effect that none of the evidence is sufficient, then you will actually have to demonstrate some knowledge of the various studies and be willing to engage with rational arguments constructed around the data – without a lot of arm-waving and dismissal. Unless and until you are willing to do that, I don't think there's any point us continuing this discussion, since (as the tone of this post probably shows) my patience is exhausted.

[Arouet]

Ian, the regulatory boards that Scott is referring to are the self-regulating boards such as exist in the professions such as law, medicine, etc. The funding tends to come primarily from the members. These will usually involve ethical standards, review boards, disciplinary committees, etc.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Ian, the regulatory boards that Scott is referring to are the self-regulating boards such as exist in the professions such as law, medicine, etc. The funding tends to come primarily from the members. These will usually involve ethical standards, review boards, disciplinary committees, etc.

The case I made was tripartite:

a) before any professional regulatory body can be established, serious lab experiments have to be done to establish exactly what makes a good medium, otherwise nobody will agree on the criteria
b) this work is being held back by "sceptics", who make it very difficult to do lab experiments by holding back funding and blacklisting parapsychologists
c) despite these difficulties, the Windbridge Institute is a serious proto professional body, albeit too small and inchoate to make much impact at this stage

Scott's point was that there is no professional body essentially because "they need the glitz, glamor, and publicity of the TV psychics", which in my experience (having, quite coincidentally, known one TV psychic and one radio psychic in my time) is a complete misrepresentation of the motives of most mediums. The TV psychic I knew ran a group to help teach psychics, which I know for a fact made him zero money (he only ever wanted to break even by charging just enough for the hire of the room), and was in fact doing on a very small scale and in a very amateurish way the kind of work that Dr. Beischel is doing, and in the process trying to develop the field in a conscientious way. The radio psychic taught a course at a school for psychism in London, I think this one, which again is an example of psychics settings up standards and trying to teach the subject seriously but which Scott doesn't know about. Not that it has any bearing upon the scientific study of psi effects.