Paranormalia Parable: Moving the Goal Post

[Kamarling]

Paranormalia: Moving the Goal Post: A Parable of Psi, by Robert Perry

[Hjortron]

Nailed it.

[Ian]

A very amusing article, albeit based on the assumption that the heretical team would even be allowed to play in the first place, which is absurd since of course in the pre-season they have only been observed practising pseudofootball

[Johann]

Originally Posted by Miguel

I'm sure it's a great community building exercise to come together and come up with reasons why psi evidence is not accepted.

Of course, making fun of the other side is fun, and that is likely the major reason people do it - but satire always has a bit of truth to it, if you look.

But if one were interested in actually gaining acceptance for psi, wouldn't it be better to make an effort to understand the true reasons?

Are you kidding me? You could use almost the same dialogue, replacing the situations, and you would have the canned argument a la CSICOP.

- Johann

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Johann

Are you kidding me? You could use almost the same dialogue, replacing the situations, and you would have the canned argument a la CSICOP.

That's not how I perceive it. I think that exploring this might be fruitful.

[eveshi]

Originally Posted by Miguel

I'm sure it's a great community building exercise to come together and come up with reasons why psi evidence is not accepted. And joint whining is a lot of fun, I know.
But if one were interested in actually gaining acceptance for psi, wouldn't it be better to make an effort to understand the true reasons?

What are the true reasons, in your opinion?

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by eveshi

What are the true reasons, in your opinion?

That depends somewhat on the precise topic. The reasons why the Bem effect has a hard stand are rather different from the reasons why mediumship has.
That such disparate topics are thrown together under the label "psychic" is a reason in itself, though.

Let's try with a parable:
An astronaut crash-lands on an alien planet, the planet of the blind. The locals know nothing of light or electromagnetism. The people there get by with their other senses sharpened and also a bit of psi.
The astronaut gets it into his head to tell them about his amazing power of vision. He demonstrates how he can perceive distant happenings far sooner than sound would allow and far more reliable than psi would allow.
The locals are duly impressed.
But instead of simply accepting the evidence for vision they conclude that he has merely found a new way of using psi.
How does the astronaut convince them that he is really using vision?

ETA:
It's not a good parable. It's just supposed to bring one specific point across.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Kamarling

Paranormalia: Moving the Goal Post: A Parable of Psi, by Robert Perry

LOL Very amusing Mr Perry

[Johann]

Originally Posted by Miguel

That's not how I perceive it. I think that exploring this might be fruitful.

I agree. Leaving exaggeration and satire behind, I think the main point that the article makes is that the concept of an "extraordinary claim" can be used to argue against any evidence, because it is very subjective. From the point of view of the Plantation High referee, being beaten by a black team is extraordinary, too extraordinary to warrant believing based on poor, eyewitness evidence. In a similar way, CSICOP affiliates may find the idea of being "out-evidenced" by paranormalists too extraordinary to accept based on (in their view) poorly controlled fringe work by parapsychologists that never sees the light of day in conventional circles - Bem, and some others being the notable exception.

"Extraordianry claims require extraordinary evidence" sounds like a scientific statement, but it is not; it is a skeptical statment - and there is an important difference. In order to be skeptical about something, you must have a pre-formed position (i.e. telepathy is almost impossible according to current science), otherwise you have no base from which to be skeptical. Ideally, on the other hand, science does not have a base; it is just a method. A scientific statement may run more along the lines of "Unverified claims require verified evidence."

- Johann

[Kamarling]

I revisited the blog to read the comments section. One provided a link to an article in Psychology Today which, in some ways, highlights the complaints that proponents have when it comes to skeptics and the mainstream. Just skipping to the end of the PT article there is what I'm sure was intended to be a benign and sympathetic conclusion but is actually patronising and insulting (my emphasis):

What defines people who believe in anomalous experiences?

Believers are not all alike, but several factors have been correlated with paranormal beliefs and experiences in general. One is the trait of absorption: Those who get lost in fiction and their own fantasies may treat their imaginations as especially real. Another trait is low behavioral inhibition: If you're impulsive, you're less prone to check your initial interpretations of events against reality. And susceptibility to false memories allows you to twist experiences to fit a paranormal narrative.

Childhood trauma and a history of negative life events can also increase belief in the paranormal. The psychologist Harvey Irwin has suggested that early experiences with diminished control lead to the need for a sense of mastery; paranormal belief becomes a way to make sense of anomalous events. Indeed, the desire for control is a strong predictor of pattern-finding. Jennifer Whitson and Adam Galinsky showed that when healthy subjects feel a lack of control, they're more likely to see images in snowy visual noise, to rely on superstitious rituals, and to explain coincidences as conspiracies.

Believers are not necessarily less intelligent than skeptics. Only weak or nonexistent correlations with education and overall reasoning ability have been shown.

On the other hand, "there is a weak but consistent correlation between paranormal beliefs and various measures of psychological maladjustment, whether you're looking at a tendency toward depression or mania or schizotypy," says Chris French, the head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths, University of London. While some conclude that if you believe in ESP or ghosts you're crazy, "that's far too naive and simplistic," French says. "There are situations where having these beliefs can be psychologically advantageous"—as a form of coping, for example. "It's a very complex picture."

Paranormal believers also exhibit many traits one might consider positive (within reason): They're more intuitive, open to experience, and sensation-seeking. English psychologist Susan Blackmore, who went from believer to skeptic, has seen both sides of the spectrum. She says she's the only person ever to have been on the executive council of both the Society for Psychical Research and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. "I can tell you," she quips, "that the believers' conferences have much better parties."

Recently we have had threads here from skeptics complaining that the proponents are too hard on the skeptics. Arouet has taken a break because of this. Linda and Miguel have taken to defending Wiseman against those who suggest he is not entirely honest. While I don't make excuses for unfair character attacks, I think it pertinent to point out that, as the above article shows, the skeptics are succeeding in promoting the view that believers are "not quite right in the head". The whole assumpton of that article was that these anomalies - psi, paranormal, synchronicity, or whatever - are unquestionably not real and that people with healthy minds (read: skeptics) are not subject to being deceived by them.