Misnomer

[mcromer]

Opcnup,

Skeptiko is about conversations with a variety of controversial researchers and critics, not about digging into the nitty-gritty of research. The critics all have their opportunity to raise specific criticisms of any psi research they want -- and for the most part they have simply chosen to make vague, general accusations.

Anyone who wants to dig into specific criticisms of specific research is welcome to do so here, or on my blog, as some smart and well-informed critics like Andrew Endersby have done (who are actually familiar with the research).

[GaSS PaNiCC]

so in other words your suggesting the only way to be a skeptic is to totally debunk an idea, when it hasn't even been scientifically established yet? I'm sorry if i am misinterpreting what you're saying, but it just seems to be the case. Alex is interviewing both sides of the equation when it comes to controversial science, it is not his job to form conclusions or try to debunk anyone, as he is not qualified to. He is here to help those who are interested in learning about new and exciting ideas and concepts being presented in the scientific community. Why don't we review Radin's own personal opinion on skepticism, and then we can draw conclusions.


Open-minded skepticism is the foundation on which science rests. But just as there are pseudoscientists who profess ideas as though they are grounded in empiricism (but aren't), there are also pseudoskeptics who present critiques as though they are grounded in knowledge (and aren't).

After 25 years of investigating psychic phenomena, much of it in university and industrial research settings, I've heard every criticism imaginable leveled at this topic, from rants about how telepathy supposedly violates unspecified "laws of physics," to scientists claiming that this is the work of the devil (I'm not kidding).

Some critiques are valid, and as such they've been extremely valuable in helping to advance the research. But the majority of so-called skepticism is more accurately regarded as pseudoskepticism. Such critiques are outdated, illegitmate double-standards, distortions of actual research, or flat out wrong. Pseudoskepticism is easy to sustain because it's based on opinion and hearsay. By contrast, true skepticism requires doing one's homework, and it's not easy. No wonder there's so little of it.

A few books I've found useful on the sociological challenges faced in pre-theoretical science include: Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, Fatal Attractions: The Troubles With Science , Science Or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, And Other Heterodoxies, all by Henry Bauer, former Dean of Arts and Sciences at Virginia Tech.

One society I belong to that provides a forum in which scientists can openly discuss anomalies is the Society for Scientific Exploration. I'm also President (in 2006) of the Parapsychological Association, an international scientific society interested in psychic phenomena, with the distinction that it is also an elected affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

[Opcnup]

A discussion may be what he wants, but it isn't skeptricism, so skeptiko is still a misnomer, and my point is still valid. My argument isn't that discussion is inherently bad or that he should change what he does (although I do think the world would run more smoothely if everyone were more critical) but that he needs to title himself correctly, if you aren't being highly critical or peoples methods you aren't being a skeptic; Period.

[Opcnup]

Gass, you don't have to debunk everything, just everything that is bunk. How science becomes science is by tossing something that is not well established into the fierce criticism that is the peer review system, criticism of faulty methodology does not take away the data, so it will not hinder researchers from glaning information from it, it just takes credibility awway from areas that do not deserve it.

I would disagree 100% with your clasification of the maority of skepticism, most of skepticism is debunking frauds who steal from families in crisis and pretend to faith heal and do widely known magic tricks pretending that the are psychic phenomenon, or fighting to keep creationism out of our schools, all things that I thiunk even you can agree are very important things. Also, most of the psychic research done has major flaws in it and skeptics are the ones pointing them out, the only way to do good research is to eliminate the bad research.

The scientific method really works well, its litterally the only way of rapidly advancing out knowledge of the working world around us, and it should be followed closely, and those who do not and claim to should be strung from the highest tree.

[alextsakiris]

1. I like the name Skeptiko… I hope it will help re-focus the scientific community on the origins and purpose of skepticism… there’s a nice exchange in the Raymond Moody episode about it.

2. The “evidence” is all there. Go back and listen to the Dean Radin interview, and then the Steve Novella interview. Radin crushes the arguments against him… and you know what… I’ve never heard from a single skeptic who’s gone back and actually read the research referenced. So, here’s an unchallenged study that’s been replicated 9 times by 3 different labs.

3. Oh yea… there’s also the Sheldrake thing with the dogs… no one has offered any reason to dismiss this work.

4. Skeptics work best when they debunk con artists and fraudulent scientists, they are much less effective with real research.

[GaSS PaNiCC]

Like i said before and i'll say it again, if you can find a valid reference which suggests parapsychology is definite woo woo, then by all means do so. But please do not provide with any references from anyone such, as james randi who's skepticism of commercializing psychic's is completely valid but is not in the laboratory where the real work is being conducted.

[Opcnup]

1) You aren't changing the minds of the scientific comunity, if you are changing the minds of anyone its the lay comunity. But you aren't being skeptical in the sense that skeptics claim, or the sense that critics of skeptics claim that skeptics follow. Also, Creation science picked up its name because they want to redirect public oppinon, that doesn't make what they do any more attractive to scientists or any less of a misnomer, you are from what I hear an honest guy, don't play by their playbook, its beneath you.

2) I will listen to the raiden interview, but based on what he said in the clips he has zero credibility, he admited to doing something that is a huge scientific no-no.

3) I've heard some criticism of sheldrake, but I haven't really followed the issue. Just because other skeptics have not criticised him much doesn't mean that you shouldn't be more critical.

4) I disagree, its just that real research holds up to skepticism, just because you feel that it is real research doesn't mean you can give it a free ride and still claim that you are being skeptical of it.

GP It doesn't have to be bunk, however if you want to claim to be a skeptic you have to put research that has not been put to the test to the test. There are major components of psi research that are absolutely bunk and you would be lyeing if you disagreed with me on that issue, in science, real science, the burden of proof is on the unestablished notions, parapsychoilogy is unestablished to the default oppinion has to be that it is false for science to take place, then it needs to be proven that it is true, and you cannot prove anything without testing the studies, since they don't go to other scientists and instead go straight to the public skeptics have got to step in to stop them from running wild and keep them doing science, Alex isn't stoping them and grilling them, ergo he isn't being a skeptic, ergo Skeptiko is a misnomer; QED.

[GaSS PaNiCC]

Originally Posted by Opcnup

1) You aren't changing the minds of the scientific comunity, if you are changing the minds of anyone its the lay comunity. But you aren't being skeptical in the sense that skeptics claim, or the sense that critics of skeptics claim that skeptics follow. Also, Creation science picked up its name because they want to redirect public oppinon, that doesn't make what they do any more attractive to scientists or any less of a misnomer, you are from what I hear an honest guy, don't play by their playbook, its beneath you.

2) I will listen to the raiden interview, but based on what he said in the clips he has zero credibility, he admited to doing something that is a huge scientific no-no.

3) I've heard some criticism of sheldrake, but I haven't really followed the issue. Just because other skeptics have not criticised him much doesn't mean that you shouldn't be more critical.

4) I disagree, its just that real research holds up to skepticism, just because you feel that it is real research doesn't mean you can give it a free ride and still claim that you are being skeptical of it.

GP It doesn't have to be bunk, however if you want to claim to be a skeptic you have to put research that has not been put to the test to the test. There are major components of psi research that are absolutely bunk and you would be lyeing if you disagreed with me on that issue, in science, real science, the burden of proof is on the unestablished notions, parapsychoilogy is unestablished to the default oppinion has to be that it is false for science to take place, then it needs to be proven that it is true, and you cannot prove anything without testing the studies, since they don't go to other scientists and instead go straight to the public skeptics have got to step in to stop them from running wild and keep them doing science, Alex isn't stoping them and grilling them, ergo he isn't being a skeptic, ergo Skeptiko is a misnomer; QED.

lol firstly alex is putting research into it he is interviewing the people directly for frig sakes lol. So is he supposed to find flaws in the controversial work without even consulting the scientists studying it? I think that is what your implying, the kind of skepticism your referring to is good to debunk people like John Edwards or Peter Popoff, but it DOES NOT work in the laboratory i'm sorry. That is where you need to do your homework before making conclusions, and not make them based on deluded assumptions. This is why you see so much tension with psi, people misinterpret what is being studied and clearly are not going to be taken seriously. I think you need to redefine your definition of skepticism in relation to science. I know where you're coming from, but the definition you provide does not relate in the context of science which is what this program is all about.

[GaSS PaNiCC]

And here is Dean Radin's own opinion on skeptiko to. I have to thank him for learning about this site.

Skeptiko

How can someone who is not deeply immersed in all facets of a scientific controversy begin to understand it? For most such controversies, the knowledge required just to understand the nature of the debate may take years of specialized training and practice. I'm not just referring to psi, but rather to the much larger number of intense controversies that are constantly being debated within the pages of all scientific (and scholarly) journals. This intellectual fomenting is what scholarship is all about, and one of the primary strengths of science is the freedom to violently disagree on technical issues or matters of interpretation, but then go out and have a friendly chat over a beer. By contrast, strong disagreements within religion or politics often have more serious consequences.

A new website called Skeptiko is now devoted to addressing how the scientific debate proceeds among more controversial topics like psi, where the friendly nature of disagreements sometimes break down. The Skeptiko site aims to provide a "balanced discussion of new scientific discoveries and the methods for validating them." I was recently interviewed by the owner of this site. You can reach the site and the mp3 interview by clicking here.

Entangled Minds: Skeptiko

[mcromer]

1) You aren't changing the minds of the scientific comunity, if you are changing the minds of anyone its the lay comunity.

Some scientists change their minds, and some already accept psi phenomena (many from personal experiences). However some people are dogmatically convinced that psi phenomena cannot be real because of their prior committment to materialism.

2) I will listen to the raiden interview, but based on what he said in the clips he has zero credibility, he admited to doing something that is a huge scientific no-no.

Can you point out what he said that makes him have "zero credibility", and where the clips are in which he said them?

There are major components of psi research that are absolutely bunk and you would be lyeing if you disagreed with me on that issue,

What did you have in mind by this?