A philosophical challenge for the challenge

[Ginarley]

Before I start I want to make it clear I claim no paranormal powers nor any desire to chase after the challenge, nor any desire to see someone win it and/or not win it - this is purely me thinking aloud about something which fascinates me.

I am curious as to the response to demonstrated paranormality from science. Science essentially is built on explaining observed phenomenom. From that perspective if a person was to clearly demonstrate a supposedly paranormal ability, science would leap all over it, and begin the process of dissection, theory and refutation that would eventually settle on a scientific explanation of that phenomenom. It would then be almost by definition not paranormal because science would have explained it and incorporated it into other theories.

I reiterate that this is not about awarding or not awarding the money in the challenge, it is a bigger issue than that - it is about the actual purpose of the challange. This I see as twofold (here I may be wrong so I'm happy to back down on these). The first is to show up fraudsters and build awareness of such people amongst the general public, and the second is to prove that science is effectively got everything covered (ie there isn't a paranormal reality floating around that science doesn't know about). Maybe those purposes are really the same thing.

Anyway considering these, if science does find an explanation after observing real "paranormal" activity then it ceases to be paranormal per se - it joins all other scientific theory as part of what we take as normal. We are then back where we started - claiming that no paranormal abilities exist despite the fact someone won the challenge therefore retaining our moral high ground. Essentially science will abosrb any paranormality.

This problem strikes me as a difficult one to get around (from a philosophical point of view) for the challenge. People are perfectly able to win the challenge without defeating the challenges philosophical standpoint, and it occurs to me this also dilutes the power of the challenge to attract challengers - they can't really win the philosophical debate even if they win the money.

Thanks for reading.

 

[skoob]

Anyway considering these, if science does find an explanation after observing real "paranormal" activity then it ceases to be paranormal per se - it joins all other scientific theory as part of what we take as normal. We are then back where we started - claiming that no paranormal abilities exist despite the fact someone won the challenge therefore retaining our moral high ground. Essentially science will abosrb any paranormality.

Right, if something considered paranormal today is shown to exist, it will no longer be paranormal. Of course, if one paranormal phenomenon turns out to be real, it doesn't necessarily change the plausibility of other paranormal phenomenon. If someone would capture Bigfoot, it wouldn't make telepathy or dowsing more probable. "Paranormal" is just a blanket term for anything that people believe in that can't be explained with science.

As for how this affects the Challenge, I think the thread Could Scientists grab the million? touches this subject.

 

[Ginarley]

Right, if something considered paranormal today is shown to exist, it will no longer be paranormal. Of course, if one paranormal phenomenon turns out to be real, it doesn't necessarily change the plausibility of other paranormal phenomenon. If someone would capture Bigfoot, it wouldn't make telepathy or dowsing more probable. "Paranormal" is just a blanket term for anything that people believe in that can't be explained with science.

Good point - and I think this adds to what I was saying. As a particular thing becomes proven (say dowsing) skeptiks will now consider that science and continue to attack psychics unabated. In this sense the skeptics can't really lose from someone winning the challenge, and this is potentially a deterrent to applicants.

As for how this affects the Challenge, I think the thread Could Scientists grab the million? touches this subject.

Thanks for posting that thread - it was an interesting read. However it is very much focused on awarding/not awarding the prize based on something's paranormality or not. To me it is very clear that this issue of science absorbing paranormal phenomena is totally irrelevant to winning the prize. It is not however irrelevant to the challenge's purpose nor the attractiveness of applying to it which are the questions I offer here.

As an aside I think the challenge is an awesome idea and I have huge respect for Randi for setting it up

 

[roger]

I don't see any problem here. There are some ideas for which there is no available evidence. Yet people proclaim that they are true, that they know it is true, and that they can do it. So, Randi steps up and says "Prove it!"

Pretty simple. It's not science he's doing, or philosophy, it's just a challenge to back up your words with action. Claim you can remote view despite the utter lack of evidence? Prove it! Claim you can see auras? Prove it! Claim you speak to the dead? Prove it!

No philosophy, just a challenge.

 

[brodski]

Good point - and I think this adds to what I was saying. As a particular thing becomes proven (say dowsing) skeptiks will now consider that science and continue to attack psychics unabated. In this sense the skeptics can't really lose from someone winning the challenge, and this is potentially a deterrent to applicants.

Why is it a deterrent? Are you claiming that, for instance, a successful test of dowsing would demonstrate that homeopathy was effective? A test of dowsing would have nothing whatsoever to say about homeopathy, UFOs or anything but dowsing, who would expect it to? Unless you (or the people who's point you are arguing if you are just playing devils advocate) ague that one experiment can prove or disprove the entire gamut of what is currently considered "paranormal". You say that "the sceptics can never loose", have you also though that this means that the skeptcis can never win? "well ok so that homeopathic remedy isn't eth right one for that patient, but there's still 100's of others, and if that fails well we've always got therapeutic touch, or reki, or nice cup of tea and a chat therapy, etc."

 

[Leopard Messiah]

Anyway considering these, if science does find an explanation after observing real "paranormal" activity then it ceases to be paranormal per se - it joins all other scientific theory as part of what we take as normal.

Actually, that wouldn't be the case. Any activity, like dowsing or telepathy, currently considered paranormal would cease to be labeled that way the instant it was demonstrated to really work. The sticking point isn't that scientists are bothered by being unable to explain a given phenomenon, the problem is that those phenomenon can't actually be shown to be real.

You're hypothesising an attitude that simply doesn't exist among scientists. Science doesn't know everything and scientists don't believe that it does. Afterall, if science were finished, why pay scientists? If any psychic phenomenon were shown to actually exist, most scientists would be thrilled. It would open up a whole new field to study (and add a lot of new grant opportunities.)

As for us sceptics, we know that at least 99% of those who claim paranormal ability are frauds or self-deluded. I suppose you could say that a second goal of the challenge is to provide a mechanism that would allow someone who actually does have paranormal abilities to separate themselves from the chaff. Afterall, given the predominance of frauds, it isn't so much scepticism to expect people to prove their claims; it's common sense.

 

[Ginarley]

Why is it a deterrent? Are you claiming that, for instance, a successful test of dowsing would demonstrate that homeopathy was effective? A test of dowsing would have nothing whatsoever to say about homeopathy, UFOs or anything but dowsing, who would expect it to? Unless you (or the people who's point you are arguing if you are just playing devils advocate) ague that one experiment can prove or disprove the entire gamut of what is currently considered "paranormal". You say that "the sceptics can never loose", have you also though that this means that the skeptcis can never win? "well ok so that homeopathic remedy isn't eth right one for that patient, but there's still 100's of others, and if that fails well we've always got therapeutic touch, or reki, or nice cup of tea and a chat therapy, etc."

Actually I am suggesting quite the opposite - that a successful test for dowsing would have no impact whatsoever on the rest of the paranormal woos because dowsing would become fact instead of fiction - ie part of "our side" rather than theirs. I am perhaps taking a more black and white view of two sides than really exists although I suspect I'm not too far off.

That point about skeptics not being able to win actually takes this to a whole new level - if you combine my argument with that idea we may be close to understanding why there will never be any resolution or "sanity" in these debates lol.

Not that it really matters for this thread, but so my stance is clear - I don't believe even slightly in psychic abilities, dowsing or anything like that so I am firmly in the skeptics camp with respect to those things. I don't really consider myself a skeptic though - I just interpret the world the way I see it and make my own opinions. I actually really wish psychic powers and telekinesis were real - it'd be amazing to see!

In terms of this issue I am really just exploring the idea rather than saying "here is a problem - I am right" - I think the concept is interesting though

 

[Ginarley]

Actually, that wouldn't be the case. Any activity, like dowsing or telepathy, currently considered paranormal would cease to be labeled that way the instant it was demonstrated to really work. The sticking point isn't that scientists are bothered by being unable to explain a given phenomenon, the problem is that those phenomenon can't actually be shown to be real.

You are probably right on the semantics of the timing although i suspect explanation and occurance would not be far separated. I suspect scientific explanation is often not correct early in the piece but generally starts to appear rather quickly upon the discovery of a new thing and gets refined over time. The end result is the same though. My point was that the minute something is demonstrated, science starts to absorb it by explaining it - and of course an important element of trying to explain something is accepting it exists in the first place.

You're hypothesising an attitude that simply doesn't exist among scientists. Science doesn't know everything and scientists don't believe that it does. Afterall, if science were finished, why pay scientists? If any psychic phenomenon were shown to actually exist, most scientists would be thrilled. It would open up a whole new field to study (and add a lot of new grant opportunities.)

You are of course compeltely right although I say that with tongue in cheek since our points of view don't differ at all I wasn't intending to imply we had the right explanation, just an explanation of some sort. I suspect science has some kind of explanation for every phenomenon we have ever observed - that doesn't mean they are all right by any means.

As for us sceptics, we know that at least 99% of those who claim paranormal ability are frauds or self-deluded. I suppose you could say that a second goal of the challenge is to provide a mechanism that would allow someone who actually does have paranormal abilities to separate themselves from the chaff. Afterall, given the predominance of frauds, it isn't so much scepticism to expect people to prove their claims; it's common sense.

That is a very good point - I wonder if the issue of getting absorbed into scientific analysis is daunting or off putting to someone who might have genuine abilities? You know the second someone demonstrates psychic abilities for example they will be subjected to no end of tests in the interest of science - being exposed is perhaps a real deterrent. One could imagine a genuinely psychic person deliberately cold reading from time to time to stay hidden - it is not such a far fetched idea actually?

 

[Ginarley]

I don't see any problem here. There are some ideas for which there is no available evidence. Yet people proclaim that they are true, that they know it is true, and that they can do it. So, Randi steps up and says "Prove it!"

Pretty simple. It's not science he's doing, or philosophy, it's just a challenge to back up your words with action. Claim you can remote view despite the utter lack of evidence? Prove it! Claim you can see auras? Prove it! Claim you speak to the dead? Prove it!

No philosophy, just a challenge.

The challenge itself is straightforward and easy to understand - I have no problems with the internal mechanisms of the challenge whatsoever. There are however philosophical implications of the challenge that go well beyond arguing over $1million though, and that is what I am discussing in this thread.

 

[Jimbo07]

The Challenge and science are two different things. The connection is based loosely on the question, "Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?" However, it is seldom phrased that way in scientific circles, the techniques for presentation of evidence are different, etc.

Science measures the measurable.

I can imagine woos are not attracted to this. If there's a chance that their favourite theory is not measurable, they're going to say, "Science doesn't know everything." This reflects a lack of clarity about scientific approaches at best, and gross wishful thinking at worst.

I had this debate with my dad the other night:

He: Science doesn't know everything.
Me: No it doesn't.
He: How do you find something in science?
Me: With a test.
He: What if you test for A, but get B?
Me: Then B is more likely than A... given repeated tests, peer review of the test procedure, lack of support in theory...
He: But that doesn't mean A doesn't exist.
Me: Of course not, you're just more confident in B than A.
He: What if they devise a better test for A in the future and find A?
Me: Then A.
He: Aha! So scientists can be wrong now!
Me: A scientist can be very wrong, science, however, is self-correcting
He: That's not the public perception

...

etc.

Scientists could very well be wrong about telekinesis. Should someone ever show it to be true, it will be studied scientifically. That is, if it can be measured, it will be measured. However, most are no longer willing to spend precious resources on it... and why should they? Why, when resources are tight, should funds be spent researching old claims that have not been well demonstrated, and in fact practitioners have repeatedly been shown to be frauds or delusional?

That's why Randi isn't using that $1 mil as scientific grants. It is the money out there for someone to show that any of this works as they claim!

 

[Thomas]

Why is it a deterrent? Are you claiming that, for instance, a successful test of dowsing would demonstrate that homeopathy was effective? A test of dowsing would have nothing whatsoever to say about homeopathy, UFOs or anything but dowsing, who would expect it to? Unless you (or the people who's point you are arguing if you are just playing devils advocate) ague that one experiment can prove or disprove the entire gamut of what is currently considered "paranormal". You say that "the sceptics can never loose", have you also though that this means that the skeptcis can never win? "well ok so that homeopathic remedy isn't eth right one for that patient, but there's still 100's of others, and if that fails well we've always got therapeutic touch, or reki, or nice cup of tea and a chat therapy, etc."

I agree, but I could also imagine what would happen if something as groundbreaking as life-after-death was discovered and fully justified. The various woo crowds (from Hare Krishna to ghost hunters) would go nuts throwing rocks at skeptics who have advocated the opposite and had a few laughs at them.
I think the effect of a paranormal claim proven to be true, will depend largely on what claim that is - i.e. how many scientific outcast areas it touches.

Roger,

Perhaps Randi isn't a scientist, but for typical or absurd claims he will demand three affidavits from the challenge applicant and prefer them from people more or less educated in the scientific methods. Hereafter the JREF use a worldwide network of skeptics to test the applicants locally, who also use scientific methods - like chance-calculations and double-blind testing - for the preliminary test. Randi's force is spotting trickery and putting his money where his mouth is, but he still advocate status quo science and the scientific methods, like I guess most skeptics do.


Edit: Cleaned up some grammar.

 

[roger]

Thomas, if my post implied otherwise, it was unintented on my part.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, if my post implied otherwise, it was unintented on my part.

Weeell, it was just because you said: "It's not science he's [Randi] doing". That caught my eye.. on the wrong foot! Because I consider his results so far quite scientific, as they are based on typical scientific methods.

It looks like we agree, anyway.

 

[Leopard Messiah]

My point was that the minute something is demonstrated, science starts to absorb it by explaining it - and of course an important element of trying to explain something is accepting it exists in the first place.

It might seem like simply a semantic distinction, but it really isn't. Science doesn't absorb things by explaining them. Things like telepathy and telekinises will be considered scientific fact iff they can be reliably demonstrated to exist. Obviously being able to explain a phenomenon aids enormously in proving it exists, but it isn't the key to the process.

I suspect science has some kind of explanation for every phenomenon we have ever observed - that doesn't mean they are all right by any means.

Science doesn't have a generally accepted explantion for something as simple as how glue works. (This week's Straight Dope Staff Report) One of the things that separates science from woo is that when a scientist runs into a brick wall trying to explain something he can't just invent an explanation; he actually has to admit he doesn't know. It's the woos who focus on conclusions and explanations; science focuses on evidence and testing.

I realise I'm probably dragging this off-topic from where you wanted to go, but it really is an important point. Explaining paranormal abilities is far beyond the scope of the JREF. But, it really isn't science's first concern either.

 

[Ginarley]

It might seem like simply a semantic distinction, but it really isn't. Science doesn't absorb things by explaining them. Things like telepathy and telekinises will be considered scientific fact iff they can be reliably demonstrated to exist. Obviously being able to explain a phenomenon aids enormously in proving it exists, but it isn't the key to the process.

Science doesn't have a generally accepted explantion for something as simple as how glue works. (This week's Straight Dope Staff Report) One of the things that separates science from woo is that when a scientist runs into a brick wall trying to explain something he can't just invent an explanation; he actually has to admit he doesn't know. It's the woos who focus on conclusions and explanations; science focuses on evidence and testing.

I realise I'm probably dragging this off-topic from where you wanted to go, but it really is an important point. Explaining paranormal abilities is far beyond the scope of the JREF. But, it really isn't science's first concern either.

I'm not sure the points you make have a great bearing on my original ideas but they are interesting nonetheless so I'll carry on the discussion

I tend to think of science as a quest for explanation of observed things via theories (possible explanations) and evidence - the two working for and against each other to build greater understanding of what we see around us. Accepting something exists is in a way the first piece of evidence. I am convinced there are no observed phenomena in the real world that science has not tried to explain (even if they have failed) which is why the distinction to me is not very important.

I do accept however that in the interests of absolute clarity, replacing explanation with confirmation of existence is probably ideal. However it is the explanatory process rather than the acceptance process that dismisses fake paranormal activity and the issue of explaining demonstrated paranormal activity is one of interest so I'll stick with it

 

[Darat]

As admin

If you want to discuss science, philosophy, the philosophy of science or the science of philosophy please take your discussion to the appropriate section of the forum. This section is for discussing issues directly related to the Million Dollar Challenge.

 

[Thomas]

As admin

If you want to discuss science, philosophy, the philosophy of science or the science of philosophy please take your discussion to the appropriate section of the forum. This section is for discussing issues directly related to the Million Dollar Challenge.

Ok guys, you heard the man, no more discussions related to falsification criterias, experiment controls, covariation of events, prediction accuracy etc. etc. In fact, no more discussions in here related to the validity of the challenge at all!





Alright, I know that's.. most likely.. not what you meant Darat, but.. I.. could.. not.. resist...

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Anyway considering these, if science does find an explanation after observing real "paranormal" activity then it ceases to be paranormal per se - it joins all other scientific theory as part of what we take as normal. We are then back where we started - claiming that no paranormal abilities exist despite the fact someone won the challenge therefore retaining our moral high ground. Essentially science will abosrb any paranormality.

This problem strikes me as a difficult one to get around (from a philosophical point of view) for the challenge. People are perfectly able to win the challenge without defeating the challenges philosophical standpoint, and it occurs to me this also dilutes the power of the challenge to attract challengers - they can't really win the philosophical debate even if they win the money.

Thanks for reading.

One successful dowsing claim will mean just that: One successful dowsing claim. A Challenge Winner will of course have to do two - one each in the Prelim and Final Test.

The next steps will most likely try to again replicate the results, add criteria, vary targets, the whole shebangabang.

Ginarley, I do not see the "philosophical standpoint" of the Challenge:
Do what you claim to be able to do.

As Chandler Bing would say: "Could this BE any simpler?"

 

[Ginarley]

The point of this thread is (was?) not to discuss whether people can win the challenge (which I agree IS simple), but to discuss the implications of winning the challenge, how this may be a deterrent to applying for the challenge, and how one of the purposes of the challenge may in fact not be accomplished even if someone does win.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

The point of this thread is (was?) not to discuss whether people can win the challenge (which I agree IS simple), but to discuss the implications of winning the challenge, how this may be a deterrent to applying for the challenge, and how one of the purposes of the challenge may in fact not be accomplished even if someone does win.

Which "one of the purposes of the challenge may in fact not be accomplished even if someone does win"?