42. Chris Carter, Parapsychology, Skepticism and Ideology (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Part 2 of Chris Carter, Parapsychology and the Skeptics. Examines how the Skeptical community and magazines like the Skeptical Inquirer deal with scientific evidence for psi, telepathy and ESP:

?? you have to remember, the argument

Click here to read more ...

[mcairo]

Alex,

Yes, you are right that the skeptic world's principal argument is that the evidence for psi doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny, but I have to also say that I agree with Mr. Carter's notion that behind that very argument, there is a prevailing ideology, a mob mindset if you will, that instantly reacts and attacks.

Perhaps the reason you just can't buy into Mr. Carter's argument is because every one of your interviews has been a one-on-one discussion with the skeptics. What you are missing is the dynamic that develops within the group mentality. Try interviewing three skeptics together in the same conversation and discuss Dr. Wiseman's replication of Dr. Sheldrake's dog experiment. I think that only then will you truly witness what Chris Carter was talking about.

Anyway, that said, I still believe that "an open dialog between believers and skeptics" is a doable goal, and I am a big fan of what you are trying to achieve.

God speed... or Quantum speed.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by mcairo

Alex,

Yes, you are right that the skeptic world's principal argument is that the evidence for psi doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny, but I have to also say that I agree with Mr. Carter's notion that behind that very argument, there is a prevailing ideology, a mob mindset if you will, that instantly reacts and attacks.

Perhaps the reason you just can't buy into Mr. Carter's argument is because every one of your interviews has been a one-on-one discussion with the skeptics. What you are missing is the dynamic that develops within the group mentality. Try interviewing three skeptics together in the same conversation and discuss Dr. Wiseman's replication of Dr. Sheldrake's dog experiment. I think that only then will you truly witness what Chris Carter was talking about.

Anyway, that said, I still believe that "an open dialog between believers and skeptics" is a doable goal, and I am a big fan of what you are trying to achieve.

God speed... or Quantum speed.

I see the mob behavior... I talked about in episode 40. It's disgraceful and has seriously harmed the careers of many good sciencetisits... and has stiffled important research.

But, Chris Carter goes a bit too far. When you label the other side to ideologues you run the risk of becoming one yourself. In the case of psi, much is unknown. It's overreaching to say (as Chris does) that this has all been proven long ago. This dismissive attitude is also the biggest failing of Skeptics. They say researchers are "chasing unicorns" and when bluster alone doesn't convince they rush to fill the gaps of knowledge with botched debunkings and sketchy counter-claims. This is equally wrong-headed.

The only way out is good science... following the data.

[David Bailey]

Alex,

I listened to your debate and wobbled back and forth with the debate - eventually concluding that you had less separating you than you seem to think!

Your remarks about how the debunkers have plenty of real bunk to work with, and they just get a bit carried away was fair. However, you also seemed to be making Chris' point when you described how skeptiks will raise an issue and never back down if they are proved wrong - just slide over to another point, and another, and another. I think a fair-minded skeptic would pull up short at some point and recognise that they simply were not treating the subject honestly - which doesn't seem to happen often!

Having said that, I am sure the debate has to go on, and I expect a tipping point will arrive sooner or later.

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Alex,

I listened to your debate and wobbled back and forth with the debate - eventually concluding that you had less separating you than you seem to think!

Your remarks about how the debunkers have plenty of real bunk to work with, and they just get a bit carried away was fair. However, you also seemed to be making Chris' point when you described how skeptiks will raise an issue and never back down if they are proved wrong - just slide over to another point, and another, and another. I think a fair-minded skeptic would pull up short at some point and recognise that they simply were not treating the subject honestly - which doesn't seem to happen often!

Having said that, I am sure the debate has to go on, and I expect a tipping point will arrive sooner or later.

David

I hear ya... of course everyone thinks they are seeing more clearly than the next guy.

I just don't like to slip into (although I sometimes do) thinking Skeptics are somehow different/illogical/conspiratorial. They're not... they're just wrong.

[jacob]

Somehow there's never a concensus, perhaps even between proponents, as to what is the best evidence for psi.
A skeptic will always ask to "show the scientific proof" and I'm not sure what I could show that will make a strong point.

What would you select to be "the evidence" for psi?

[Open Mind]

Enjoyable discussion... I don't imagine Venom complaining about this one with Alex defending sceptics from Chris Carter's desire to get across how die-hard skeptics historically have reacted to evidence for psi ..... and that made this discussion interesting

Personally I think there are degrees of scepticism from open minded doubt to 'pathological disbelief' (as Nobel Laureate physicist Brian Josephson termed it).... whereas Alex has no chance of converting the die-hard skeptic unwilling to even take part in an experiment I think Alex has a decent chance of influencing the opinions of hard core sceptics willing to take part in the experiments..... and that is arguably the best way forward and might achieve more than parapsychologists locked away in labs trying to make sense of the anomalous results

Parpasychology has tended to think the data will speak for itself and win over die-hard skeptics .... it hasn't happened, it didn't happen when Nobel Laureate Charles Richet found evidence for telepathy around 1890s using the first statistical methods... or since.

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

I just don't like to slip into (although I sometimes do) thinking Skeptics are somehow different/illogical/conspiratorial.

I don't think that is what Carter is implying. My understanding of his argument is that we're simply stuck in a materialistic paradigm, which is basically the same view that you're taking (as I understand it, anyway). Maybe his way to put it is a bit harsh at times, but I don't think he's trying to say that there's a big conspiracy going on or something, as you seem to imply in your remark above.

As for me, I think theory is what's going to be needed for the paradigm to shift. You can produce as much evidence as you like, but as long as you have no way of explaining what's behind it, skeptics are likely to explain it away. It was the same with continental drift; the evidence was there, but scientists wouldn't allow for continental drift to happen until there was a theory to explain how it happened.

[pacificwhim]

I tend to agree with Larry Boy. There really are two intersecting "magesteria" (to use Steven Jay Gould's term) of thinking in the materialistic paradigm: the individual's bias and the societal/institutional bias. Each influences the other, but I don't think it's too much to say that the larger societal bias against psi and the paranormal influences the individual much more.

The whole ecosystem is very self-reinforcing, and the Internet doesn't help. If you are of a skeptical bent and you start to profess belief that experimental psi or survival work has produced evidence that supports the reality of the phenomena, the larger societal bias—whether it's in academia, skeptical groups or what have you—is going to slam you in no uncertain terms with scorn, derision, loss of stature, questions about your sanity, etc. Plus, if you look online you can quickly find information and like-minded people to support whatever view you wish to hold. It's the Great Echo Chamber. It's not surprising that this powerful force shapes our biases and makes it hard for us to let go of them.

I tend to split between both camps for two reasons. First, humans are complex. We're all a stew of conflicting motivations and biases, some contradicting each other, some confirming each other. For myself, I tend to ping-pong between my belief that psi has been strongly confirmed and a strong passion not to be fooled or allow myself to self-delude, and I think those two qualities make me a true open-minded skeptic. Others have different dualities. Some dogmatic skeptics I've talked with are clearly intelligent and open minded people, but they are overly influenced by the Echo Chamber. Others have built their self-esteem on being tireless hunters of "woo-woo." Therefore I think it's tough or impossible to tease out any single description of most individual's motivations.

Second, there are many types of people in the skeptical movement. There are plenty of dogmatic psi-bashers who don't give a whit about the evidence and would rather beat people over the head with Occam's Razor without even being able to spell or explain it. They're worthless. Then there are those who have actually looked at the evidence and, based on their perception of reality, believe it to be invalid. Remember, the villain never thinks he's the villain. We're all right in our own minds. That's why this may be a fool's game.

I suspect many prominent, well-educated skeptics are also major hypocrites. They have seen the data and in their private thoughts, know that it is valid. But they have built careers, reputations and livelihoods around denial, scorn and debunking and they don't dare let those lives go. So they're stuck denying what they know in their secret minds to be valid. Maybe that's why so many pseudoskeptics are so angry.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

I don't think that is what Carter is implying. My understanding of his argument is that we're simply stuck in a materialistic paradigm, which is basically the same view that you're taking (as I understand it, anyway). Maybe his way to put it is a bit harsh at times, but I don't think he's trying to say that there's a big conspiracy going on or something, as you seem to imply in your remark above.

As for me, I think theory is what's going to be needed for the paradigm to shift. You can produce as much evidence as you like, but as long as you have no way of explaining what's behind it, skeptics are likely to explain it away. It was the same with continental drift; the evidence was there, but scientists wouldn't allow for continental drift to happen until there was a theory to explain how it happened.

Will more evidence make a difference? Of course! Does science work? I say yes. However imperfect/political/biased scientific evidence is still pretty good at inching us a little closer to the truth.

20 years ago mind/body medicine was fringie pseudoscience. Now it's mainstream, and hold-outs are marginalized. The same will happen with Psi.