When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience

[Scott]

Originally Posted by EthanT

Are you trying to say there are zero conclusions that we can draw from psi tests done to date?

No, I would not say zero conclusions. I would say it is far from being able to say something beyond the mundane exists and even less to give details about how psi might be going on. If you think that brain as a filter is a mechanism then show what is being filtered, manipulate the signal without manipulating the brain. Without something like that all you really have is "these land masses seem to have complimentary coastlines". Just as with Continental Drift it was not the coastline that convinced people, even with the fossil and geological matching, and also the markings from continental glaciers there were still doubts because of the enormous hurdle of pushing whole continents around on a solid shell. It would be interesting to have a historical view of how Continental Drift support varied over time from the '20s to the '60s and overlay that with the publication of the findings of the major evidence.

[Johann]

Originally Posted by Arouet

But it's not a failure of the scientific method. It's a failure of individual scientists. The method worked in the end.

First, stop talking as if I'm criticizing the scientific method; I'm not. I am, however, criticizing the sort of groupthink we call "mainstream opinion", which is more of a failure of human reason - not any particular method. When I refer to "science", I am talking about the living body that is composed of everyone and no one - the entity unto itself which has very human characteristics, and thus human failures as well. My criticisms are constructive in that they could be used to avoid similar problems in the future, if only people are willing to heed the lessons of the past.

As others have pointed out: a relatively short period of time.

That, of course, depends upon the quality of the evidence. In the case of Wegner's theory, it took a long time indeed.

Right. What we have scientists who are proponents of psi, and others who don't accept it. Experiments are continuing to take place. Mechanisms are being sought out. Eventually, some key discoveries may lead to an explosion in scinetific acceptance for psi - just like it did with the plate tectonics. Or, other explantions may come to light which also fit the data, but fit it better and certain psi hypotheses may be dropped.

Arouet, I have always appreciated your civility and frankness in debate, but it seems that what you wrote above really hits at the crux of our disagreements. To me, it is clear that you think having a mechanism is the only way you will be fully convinced of the existence of psi. But I warn you: this does not engender an open mind; it severs only as an excuse which you can repeat to yourself for as long... as there is no mechanism - which may be a long time. And you know what? There may never be a mechanism! Maybe psi is beyond our understanding. Maybe not. Personally, I lean towards the latter, but I am open enough to be content with former for as long as I need to, for I believe I have followed the evidence, and the evidence - despite the absence of a mechanism - can still demonstrate the presence of psi. So drop the mechanism! Theory is secondary to data, anyway.

But it is the great thing about science. Humans are biased. We can complain about it all we want, but we are, and that's not likely to change soon. What we need are techniques to help us overcome those biases - the scientific method is one such technique - and it works relatively well. Not perfectly of course, but pretty well on the whole. And its the best system we currectly have. Certainly we should focus on improving it, and refining our controls on our biases. But again: in the end, the system worked.

is there another system that would produce better results over time? I'd love to hear about it!

I am not complaining about the method; I am pointing out the prejudice. And prejudice there is.

If your point is that we should work even harder to overcome our biases, I'm with you -but we already knew that right?

Think of it this way: If a president makes a poor decision and leads his/her country into rough terrain, he will, rightfully, receive many criticisms. People will point of the failure of his strategy and advise others in the future to watch out against making the same decision. This is right. This is constructive. This is wise.

No one, however, would attempt to excuse his folly by appealing to your line of reasoning. Perhaps if people were calling for his resignation, then your argument would make more sense. Wait a bit. The president has the right heart; he just made a mistake. Etc. But this is not the case. As in my example above, the critic (me) is pointing out a fault in order that future generations will not make the same mistake with a similar, though incomprehensibly greater, social-scientific issue: psi.

Science has always been about the battle over biases- it was designed to overcome those biases. the fact that it doesn't always overcome them I guess is a failure of the system, but its still the best system we have. YES we should continue to look for techniques to further overcome our biases- and that will involve refining the scientific method which of course is a good thing.

So I agree with that. But I don't think that's controvercial and there isn't a scientists alive who would likely disagree with that. So its a trite point.

It is not a trite point. This a moment where "science" failed, and what we can learn from it is enormous - provided we stop defending the indefensible, and turn our heads towards the future. It's not a failure if we acknowledge it and move on, but it may be one if we pretend it didn't happen or isn't important.

Paul put it succintly above how it seems that proponents are using this case study and that's what I've been objecting to.

In the end it always seems to come back to the battle over anecdotes. Yes, this an important case study. In fact, all of history is an important case study. What's not to get?

If psi is accepted by the mainstream scientific community then it will have looked at the evidence and faced up to it, and yes, it will be a victory for sicnece.

No Arouet; instead, it will become like Galileo's telescope, Wegner's theory, cold fusion, and a host of other ideas that were each fiercely resisted and then accepted into the cannon of knowledge - except that it will have taken almost a hundred years for it to happen - one of the longest up-and coming revolutions in the history of science! Then people will look back and see the prejudice, the suppression, the taboo, and the valor of those who stood against them. It will be another lesson for science, and hopefully it will be acknowledged.

Built into the system of science is the assumption that scientifsts will often get it wrong, even using the method. This is why replication is encouraged. Heck we still hear science news stories all the time confirming relativity!

"Getting it wrong" occasionally is different from "resisting an idea to the last, just because one doesn't like it." And without too many amendments, the last phrase is almost what happened.

- Johann

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Johann

Think of it this way: If a president makes a poor decision and leads his/her country into rough terrain, he will, rightfully, receive many criticisms. People will point of the failure of his strategy and advise others in the future to watch out against making the same decision. This is right. This is constructive. This is wise.


- Johann

So, a President wants support to invade a country. Someone provides some support that suggests they might have some WMD's. Others doubt the validity of the evidence. They are called unpatriotic and suppressed. Support is whipped up around this weak evidence of WMD's. We Invade, lots of deaths - no WMD's.
That is an example of getting ahead of the evidence. Jumping to conclusions beyond what the evidence supports. You have to weigh that against holding back action (or at least such a costly action) when they might have had WMD's. The thing is in the case of WMD's and psi you can secure better evidence in directed fashion - it is not an all or nothing dichotomy. It might let you find what was thought to be WMD were just other mundane nasty weapons. Maybe they were trying to pull off a con thinking that if the US thought they had WMD it would stop an invasion. That and in Science it is not like the book is ever closed and finished.

[Johann]

Originally Posted by Scott

So, a President wants support to invade a country. Someone provides some support that suggests they might have some WMD's. Others doubt the validity of the evidence. They are called unpatriotic and suppressed. Support is whipped up around this weak evidence of WMD's. We Invade, lots of deaths - no WMD's.
That is an example of getting ahead of the evidence. Jumping to conclusions beyond what the evidence supports. You have to weigh that against holding back action (or at least such a costly action) when they might have had WMD's.

If I have understood correctly, the case for the existence of WMDs was based on maybe one or two informants of questionable identity, whereas the case for psi has been corroborated by thousands of trials conducted by individual investigators over almost a century. Based on this, I cannot see how your comparison between them is anything more than a red herring. In any case, my argument still stands: a president does something foolish and people criticize him for it, in order that he may improve. Surely, you cannot disagree with this?

The thing is in the case of WMD's and psi you can secure better evidence in directed fashion - it is not an all or nothing dichotomy. It might let you find what was thought to be WMD were just other mundane nasty weapons. Maybe they were trying to pull off a con thinking that if the US thought they had WMD it would stop an invasion. That and in Science it is not like the book is ever closed and finished.

But we are not discussing whether science will "immediately accept the existence of psi"; we are discussing whether it can learn from its past mistakes in, for example, over-ridiculing Wegner's theory, and whether it can improve in its attitude towards psi on this basis. Taking parapsychology off the NSF's list of "pseudoscience" topics would help, as an example - just as refraining from having called continental drift "German pseudoscience" would also have been of benefit. Improving the attitude and removing the prejudice is the first step; then the evidence can speak for itself. (Obviously, I am already of the opinion that it is good enough to warrant serious investigation, media coverage, and funding).

- Johann

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Johann

But we are not discussing whether science will "immediately accept the existence of psi"; we are discussing whether it can learn from its past mistakes in, for example, over-ridiculing Wegner's theory, and whether it can improve in its attitude towards psi on this basis. Taking parapsychology off the NSF's list of "pseudoscience" topics would help, as an example - just as refraining from having called continental drift "German pseudoscience" would also have been of benefit. Improving the attitude and removing the prejudice is the first step; then the evidence can speak for itself. (Obviously, I am already of the opinion that it is good enough to warrant serious investigation, media coverage, and funding).

- Johann

I'm with you on the over-ridiculing. But I think that just saying the "evidence will speak for itself" is grossly oversimplifying. Evidence does not always speak for itself. It often must be interpreted - and often it can be interpreted in different ways.

Also: re: funding its easy: find a way to make money for investors from the proceeds of the research and the dollars will flow in!

[edragone]

A bit rushed and a bit late, so I can't read through the whole thread front to back - if I repeat points made by others, my apologies.

My problem with always falling back on the scientific method as a near-foolproof safety net is that methods can and have been abused - or in this instance, ignored - in order to support bias, not fight it. I don't have a problem with the fact that the scientific community took so long to accept continental drift as a reality. My problem is that it took them so long to accept such a concept as something worthy of exploration. Wegner's early evidence may have been limited, and some of his proposals off, but what he had was compelling enough to inspire further thought, at the very least. Instead, "establishment" scientists laughed it off and didn't do the research. Disregarding evidence (limited though it may be) for new ideas and failing to apply your own methods can do much more damage to your reputation than an institutional flaw in said methods or an honest mistake.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by edragone

A bit rushed and a bit late, so I can't read through the whole thread front to back - if I repeat points made by others, my apologies.

My problem with always falling back on the scientific method as a near-foolproof safety net is that methods can and have been abused - or in this instance, ignored - in order to support bias, not fight it. I don't have a problem with the fact that the scientific community took so long to accept continental drift as a reality. My problem is that it took them so long to accept such a concept as something worthy of exploration. Wegner's early evidence may have been limited, and some of his proposals off, but what he had was compelling enough to inspire further thought, at the very least. Instead, "establishment" scientists laughed it off and didn't do the research. Disregarding evidence (limited though it may be) for new ideas and failing to apply your own methods can do much more damage to your reputation than an institutional flaw in said methods or an honest mistake.

I agree, at least as it is presented now, to us that makes it hard to think of the idea the continents move - It is clear it was worthy of further exploration. For the time this was out there. The fact that Wegner seemed willing to grasp at any explanation to justify his idea would not have helped his argument be convincing. It would be interesting to look at Wegner's presentations of the idea and find what the general consensus in the fields was as time passed, not just a handful of vocal critics. When Wegner died the concept didn't seemed to have any supporters - or there were no new ideas to get a different line of support to change the nature of the discussion.
I still can't imagine what it would have been like to convince individuals that we revolve around the Sun. I look around me and the idea that I am moving at 700 MPH East right now still seems ridiculous (for rotation) - the 66k MPH is for going around the Sun must just be a joke. These concepts still shock people and bring up total disbelief, and this is in a culture where the idea of the Earth rotating and revolving is ingrained. It takes not only being correct, but being able to make the argument convincing and understood.
Mendel couldn't make biologists understand the mathematics behind his work. Is this a fault of the biologists or Mendel. Maybe he should have found an eloquent mathematician to work with.
Maybe Wegner just turned people off of the idea or couldn't make the sales pitch inviting.

[metaphysics101]

I think the point of the article is that just because something is considered pseudoscience, DON'T ignore it , because just like continental drift had ben eventually proven to be valid in spite of the tons of skepticism, evidence can be SLOWLY gathered over time....and new ways can be developed to test it.....

[Nightspace]

Originally Posted by Johann

Wegner's theory is an example of the power of human prejudice and preconditioning; even in the face of clear-cut facts, we still find reasons to support prior, clearly outmoded worldviews. Modern skepticism is a symptom of this. Regarding any other topic, the evidence we have would have changed minds - but it hasn't.

- Johann

In 2005, Josephson said that "parapsychology should now have become a conventional field of research, and yet parapsychology's claims are still not generally accepted". He compared this situation to that of Alfred Wegener's hypothesis of continental drift, where he believed there was initially great resistance to acceptance despite the strength of the evidence.[15] Only after Wegener's death did further evidence lead to a gradual change of opinion and ultimate acceptance of his ideas.[15] Josephson said that many scientists are not yet swayed by the evidence for parapsychology and the paranormal. Josephson contends that some scientists feel uncomfortable about ideas such as telepathy and that their emotions sometimes get in the way.[15]

Brian David Josephson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--------------------------------------------------------

Who's biased now?

06 June 2012 by Brian Josephson, Cambridge, UK
From issue 2868 of New Scientist magazine, page 32.


Your article on human rationality (26 May, p 32) asks: "Have you ever, against your better judgement, nurtured a belief in the paranormal?"

It continues: "If you buy into any of these beliefs, you are probably suffering from confirmation bias - the mind's tendency to pick and choose information to support our preconceptions, while ignoring...evidence to the contrary."

Have the journalists at New Scientist ever considered the possibility that their own beliefs in this regard might be the product of confirmation bias? Thus, when you hear other people say paranormal phenomena are delusional, you register this information, but when experimental evidence is reported that supports belief in the paranormal you ignore it, telling yourself without consideration of the details that the experiments must be flawed.

In the case of the belief that rock stars are most likely to die aged 27, you may well be right to dismiss this, but other cases may not be so certain.

1973 Nobel prizewinner in physics

[metaphysics101]

I just hope that if PSI is proven from a mainstream scientific standpoint that science gives credit where credit is due. For example, I would like to hear them something like, "Metaphysicians were right!! Science finally agrees that PSI is a real occurance, which is what Metaphysicians have been preaching for decades"..... But of course, Science will probably want to take all the credit, as if they were the ones that discovered it first...