74. Dr. Dean Radin And Dr. Roger Nelson Respond to Global Consciousness Project Criti

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by fabkebab

You dont need a theory to record and register significant scientific data - you only need a theory when you start to try to explain it.

Or when you start claiming you know what it is. This is why careful parapsychologists call it anomalous cognition rather than, say, telepathy. All you have when you record a huge pile of data is a huge pile of data. You don't necessarily have people talking to dead souls.

~~ Paul

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Icculus

This was quite an eye-opening podcast. It seems that when the Fundamentalist Skeptics are confronted with something that they can't dispense with using their normal checklist of generic skeptical arguments, they run and hide.
By the way, I'm not knocking the "generic skeptical arguments". They do a lot of good in our society as a whole....and probably can legitimately explain away 95% of "paranormal" claims (if not more).
But, in the case of the troublesome "other 5%", when the other side pushes back with a cogent & data-supported argument, they'd rather fold up like broken lawn chair than concede one inch of ground. Because even one iota of a concession would endanger their belief-system.
It reminds me of a Creationist being confronted with proof of evolution or of the age of the earth.

yea... kinda funny isn't it

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Icculus

It reminds me of a Creationist being confronted with proof of evolution or of the age of the earth.

It would remind me of that, too, if I thought the evidence for psi was on par with that for evolution or the age of the Earth.

~~ Paul

[Dogmatic]

I definitely did not care for Brian's final comments.

If he did not want to discuss the material because he was out of his element than he should have said so directly. But to label something as fringe and therefore not worthy of discussion is ridiculous. Context has nothing to do with it, the data has everything to do with it and the implications of said data. The comment about promoting critical thinking is ironic when he's doing the exact opposite by minimizing it with the fringe label and ending discussion.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

If he did not want to discuss the material because he was out of his element than he should have said so directly. But to label something as fringe and therefore not worthy of discussion is ridiculous.

What he said was:

Originally Posted by Brian

It’s a fringe claim that is outside all of established science and has not convinced anyone of its validity. It’s not earned the right to be reported. Reporting it as science and presenting discussions on its claims as if it’s science is bad science journalism.

I believe it is clear that he means that it should not be reported as accepted science. I very much doubt he is advocating the abolition of freedom of the press.

~~ Paul

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What he said was:

I believe it is clear that he means that it should not be reported as accepted science. I very much doubt he is advocating the abolition of freedom of the press.

~~ Paul

No, that is not clear.

He called it a fringe topic and because of that "It has not earned the right to be reported." But he opened conversation on it, was responded to, and then took a completely different approach.

Do you see the problem (for science) with not reporting nor discussing something that is 'outside mainstream science'?

I'm not sure how one advances by sticking strictly to topics that we are familiar with.

[fabkebab]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Or when you start claiming you know what it is. This is why careful parapsychologists call it anomalous cognition rather than, say, telepathy. All you have when you record a huge pile of data is a huge pile of data. You don't necessarily have people talking to dead souls.

~~ Paul

I am in total agreement

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

No, that is not clear.

He called it a fringe topic and because of that "It has not earned the right to be reported." But he opened conversation on it, was responded to, and then took a completely different approach.

I believe he meant "to be reported as accepted science," which is how he clarified it in his next sentence. Also, it's possible that he thinks it's pseudoscience.

Do you see the problem (for science) with not reporting nor discussing something that is 'outside mainstream science'?

Yes, but I do not think that is what he is suggesting.

I'm not sure how one advances by sticking strictly to topics that we are familiar with.

Nor am I.

~~ Paul

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I believe he meant "to be reported as accepted science," which is how he clarified it in his next sentence. Also, it's possible that he thinks it's pseudoscience.


Yes, but I do not think that is what he is suggesting.


Nor am I.

~~ Paul

Here is the quote you provided earlier: "It’s a fringe claim that is outside all of established science and has not convinced anyone of its validity. It’s not earned the right to be reported. Reporting it as science and presenting discussions on its claims as if it’s science is bad science journalism."

Where did he qualify that with 'accepted' science? He didn't. He said it wasn't worth reporting as science and cited its being fringe as the primary reason that it should not be reported as such.

It is science. His criticisms were responded to. When that happened, he should be called out for dodging the following up with such a weak excuse. As I said before, he should directly state that he doesn't know or that its out of his element, not provide a weak retort indicating that what is happening is not science without citing a sufficient reason for it being so.

[BobSaget]

"It’s a fringe claim that is outside all of established science and has not convinced anyone of its validity. It’s not earned the right to be reported. Reporting it as science and presenting discussions on its claims as if it’s science is bad science journalism."

I really don't understand how he could say that after being on a podcast for it, where he was certainly discussing it as if it's science, or at least applying the scientific method to it.