Endless back and forth things

[David R]

Those back and forth things. Those things that are like tennis balls, those big doubts about it all, that fear that if psi existed your complete reality would come tumbling down, that arrogant fear there.

How continuously questioning the results of an experiement going BACK and FORTH and BACK and FORth, and so on. This is supposed to refute the experiment. Even though all of them are PEER REVIEWED.

And so on.

It can go on forever. I see no end to it. And i want to know why others don't see no end to it.

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by David R

Those back and forth things. Those things that are like tennis balls, those big doubts about it all, that fear that if psi existed your complete reality would come tumbling down, that arrogant fear there.

How continuously questioning the results of an experiement going BACK and FORTH and BACK and FORth, and so on. This is supposed to refute the experiment. Even though all of them are PEER REVIEWED.

And so on.

It can go on forever. I see no end to it. And i want to know why others don't see no end to it.

Everyone but the skeptics notice this.

[Johann]

Originally Posted by David R

Those back and forth things. Those things that are like tennis balls, those big doubts about it all, that fear that if psi existed your complete reality would come tumbling down, that arrogant fear there.

How continuously questioning the results of an experiement going BACK and FORTH and BACK and FORth, and so on. This is supposed to refute the experiment. Even though all of them are PEER REVIEWED.

And so on.

It can go on forever. I see no end to it. And i want to know why others don't see no end to it.

Often a new person will come on the forums and ask what the point of it all is, and I will reply with the following:

What else do you suggest we do on a forum about parapsychology and the paranormal, whose chief purpose is to promote dialogue between skeptics and proponents? What other dialogue could we have? Proponents think the data shows overwhelming evidence of psychic phenomena. Skeptics do not. It is natural that a discussion about that data should then ensue.

- Johann

[David R]

Originally Posted by Johann

Often a new person will come on the forums and ask what the point of it all is, and I will reply with the following:

What else do you suggest we do on a forum about parapsychology and the paranormal, whose chief purpose is to promote dialogue between skeptics and proponents? What other dialogue could we have? Proponents think the data shows overwhelming evidence of psychic phenomena. Skeptics do not. It is natural that a discussion about that data should then ensue.

- Johann

Absolutely, i agree. However, don't you at least think that it should be possible to come to some kind of agreement about something? If it is just an endless debate between opposing views there is no point of completion. It's not the kind of thing i want to waste my time and life pursuing. Kudos to those that feel it is a worthwhile way to spend the time. It's just not my thing.

I am talking specifically about these peer reviewed papers. If they are peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community, where do these people coming to this website forum get the idea from that there must be something wrong with the data in the experiements? That is the bit i don't understand.

The problem, if it isn't the peer review, seems to me to be more like a problem with a particular worldview. So i can assume that more fundamentally the problem is with science itself. I won't hear a skeptic admit that the problem isn't science because their particular point of view uses science to bolster itself. It almost seems like a big crime to say that science itself might be problematic or to even suggest such a thing, especially when proponents are also using science. I see a kind of fear involved from the skeptic camp here, lest we suggest that science isn't all it is cracked up to be.

Almost on a daily basis i come across many different people who define science and the scientific method in order to disprove somebody else's claim and boost their confidence. And more often than not the definitions given are completely different. To me, this means nothing more than people identifying with a world view and claiming it is the only right view. What is the point in that? It is like school kids trying to get the better of each other by saying their daddy is bigger. In other words, adults are behaving like children except it is supposed to be a more mature level of behaviour. But fundamentally it is entirely non-different.

What i really want to know is why skeptics are against the idea of psychic phenomena being real. It doesn't seem at all to be the case that there is no evidence of these phenomena. There is tons of evidence. Trying to pick holes in the experiments that were undertaken to prove the existence of these phenomena may have some value if it eliminates errors or supposed errors in the experimental protocal but beyond this it is factually baseless and i submit that there must be something deeply insecure within such persons that feel the need to continuously do this. The whole point of verifying the existence of any psychic event by giving the results and protocals to the wider community to scrutinise is not the problem here; the problem is that certain skeptical persons are simply just unwilling to accept the data that passes this peer review. So they invent reasons for why it is wrong. Note this: they INVENT reasons for why it is wrong instead of PROVING how it is wrong. If they could prove it is wrong no such paper would even pass the peer review process. And yet here we are, sitting at our computers and posting this back and forth useless debate that leads nowhere.

There's something even worse than this going on though: lots of so-called skeptics are people that have actually experienced anomalous events. This means that they are actively suppressing their own experiences in favour of a psuedo-rational mindset which has an extremely bleak and depressing outlook on the nature of reality. And these very people have the gall to claim that even if it is depressing it is nevertheless true and that is really what is important. No, it is not true - that is just your warped opinion only. This is cognitive dissociation at its most acute level.

By the way, who ever claimed that emotional reactions are somehow unscientific and irrational? In healthy human beings emotions are a key part of their life experience which in no way fall into the category of abnormal and irrational. They are only irrational if the thought processes behind them are faulty. When "scientists" attempt to characterise emotions such as love as non-scientific they are quite literally speaking out of their bums. This kind of excessive rationality is a mental illness in my opinion.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David R

I am talking specifically about these peer reviewed papers. If they are peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community, where do these people coming to this website forum get the idea from that there must be something wrong with the data in the experiements? That is the bit i don't understand.

Peer review doesn't guarantee that there were no mistakes, no misinterpretations, no pertinent information left out, no fraud, no file drawer, etc. If that were the case, then every peer reviewed paper would be a breakthrough and contradictory results would be impossible.

Most scientific papers are probably wrong - science-in-society - 30 August 2005 - New Scientist

~~ Paul

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Peer review doesn't guarantee that there were no mistakes, no misinterpretations, no pertinent information left out, no fraud, no file drawer, etc. If that were the case, then every peer reviewed paper would be a breakthrough and contradictory results would be impossible.

Most scientific papers are probably wrong - science-in-society - 30 August 2005 - New Scientist

~~ Paul

More relevant:
BPS Research Digest: Questionable research practices are rife in psychology, survey suggests

It's about a survey exploring how prevalent certain questionable research practices are in social psychology. This is relevant because the latest psi claim to reach the mainstream did so in a social psychology journal and was made by a social psychologist.

[Kamarling]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Peer review doesn't guarantee that there were no mistakes, no misinterpretations, no pertinent information left out, no fraud, no file drawer, etc.

~~ Paul

And all the skeptic needs to do is show that one of those factors might have been possible. Not that it was, not that it was even probably so. That's why we get these interminable ping-pong debates here and elsewhere: to make sure the seed of doubt is well and truly planted.

I understand the OP's frustration at these tactics.

[Hjortron]

Originally Posted by David R

However, don't you at least think that it should be possible to come to some kind of agreement about something?

Yes, it happens all the time. The skeptics become proponents. Rarely, if ever, does the opposite happen. I was once a skeptic, as was probably every proponent here. It's pretty much the default if you grow up in the modern world.

Some individuals won't ever bulge, and that's fine. To focus on them is to miss the point; they won't take the story of proponents and how they were once skeptical like them as valid or relevant anyway.

People who are skeptical of the paranormal come around remarkably often once they are exposed to the actual evidence and have some time to figure things out, unless, in my experience, they've already gone through an emotional evolution in their life of breaking free from religion. I'm guessing it has to do with some emotional grudge against it on some level, but I'm far from certain.

This evolution roughly looks like this:

Religious -> Atheistic/materialistic/'skeptic' -> Can see the evidence of the paranormal for what it is

I've never seen a person take both steps, but people taking one of those steps happen all the time, and it's usually a life-changing and defining event for a person.

Let's all sing a song to celebrate this fact!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Kamarling

And all the skeptic needs to do is show that one of those factors might have been possible. Not that it was, not that it was even probably so. That's why we get these interminable ping-pong debates here and elsewhere: to make sure the seed of doubt is well and truly planted.

All they need to do for what? Obviously the skepticism doesn't convince anyone here. Why should it have any affect elsewhere?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Hjortron

Yes, it happens all the time. The skeptics become proponents. Rarely, if ever, does the opposite happen.

I think your sampling is skewed. Dozens of stories of proponents becoming skeptics on the JREF forum. That includes me.

~~ Paul