Paranormalia blog on skepticism

[anonymous]

The Paranormalia blog has had a series of posts on skepticism that may of interests to readers here. The latest post "Unengaged, implausible, illogical"

(http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranor...illogical.html)

gives examples of skeptics:

1) refusing to engage with parapsychological investigations on any level as being of no interest, undoubtedly fraudulent, obviously nonsense, etc.
...
2) engaging with [psychical investigations], but explaining them away with all kinds of implausible scenarios which in any other context no one would entertain for a moment
...
3) carrying out experiments in order to prove that, when properly conducted, the effect will not appear, getting an effect, and then explaining it away on the grounds of 'experimental flaws'
....
4) carrying out experiments with psychics on television with a very precisely determined pre-agreed protocol, getting highly significant results, and then refusing to accept the results as valid

The first post in the series is here.

SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic
http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranor...e-sceptic.html

This is the talk the author of the blog, Robert McLuhan, gave at the SPR Study Day on Skeptics (which is also where Rupert Sheldrake gave his talk "How Skeptics Work")

David Leiter is a member of the Society for Scientific Exploration who for several years was involved with a local Skeptics' organization in Pennsylvania. This was the "Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking", better known by its acronym "PhACT". As he became closely acquainted with individual members he found that all those who discussed their early years had either had religion stuffed down their throats, or had voluntarily embraced it, and then become convinced of their folly, and thrown it off with a vengeance.
...
They have been wounded at a deeper level, to the extent that what was purported to be a valid philosophy of life, and in which they were heavily involved, turns out to be empty and useless, even damaging, in their eyes. Thus, they gravitate to what appears to them to be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy, Science.

The second post in the series is here:
Reply to Skeptics
http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranor...-skeptics.html
It is a reply to skeptic's comments on the Study Day talk.

In the end, it shouldn't be about hurt feelings but about the evidence. I spent several years getting to grips with psychical literature, and the investigations and arguments eventually convinced me that psychism is a genuine phenomenon. I'd like to be able to discuss my reasons with skeptics, but it's difficult when they're so certain it's all nonsense, refuse to listen, and use all kinds of colourful language to make that point. That's what motivates me to understand how they think.

related threads:

Sheldrake talking about skeptics

Spotlight on Skeptics -- study day review

[David Bailey]

Yes - this is the untold story - I wish some investigative television producer could take this on board - they would have a field day and it would make wonderful viewing! Maybe Alex knows someone.....

To the above list, one might add:

A review in Nature of Dean Radin's "The Conscious Universe" by I.J. Good. Much of the criticism in the review was based on a statistical error by the reviewer. When this was pointed out, it still took ages for a grudging retraction to be printed.

Giving a psi experiment to students who know that the 'right' answer is negative, and then using the result as evidence.

I have not had a paranormal experience personally (unlike many here), and one of the main things that drew me to this subject was the realisation that skeptics were not playing fair.

David