New PSI forum

[UndercoverElephant]

I know this was addressed to Ratman, but you are starting out with a major presupposition here: that skeptics have a firm "belief" system that they refuse to give up despite evidence. Like, say, fundie religions.

Well, in the vast majority of cases they do. They often don't like to admit it is a "belief system", but I think that this is precisely what it is - it is simply a naturalistic, atheistic belief system. Perhaps comparing it to fundamentalist religious belief systems is wrong, because those belief systems often have very powerful psychological penalties attached for people who question them. But from the point of view of the skeptic, it is still a belief system, and it still plays the same role.

The correction is that skeptics have a firm belief in a method of discovering and examination, that has proven itself worthy many times over. This being the "scientific method" - of itself it holds and perpetuates no "beliefs" at all.

Science is not a belief system, I agree. It only becomes a belief system when it is elevated to the point of "sole arbiter of the truth" i.e. when a person will only believe things which are proven by science. For example, people who would reject all metaphysics as irrelevant nonsense (because it cannot be experimentally confirmed) have crossed the line and become victims of dogma. For these people, science has begun to turn into a religion.

Nor is it always incompatible with other belief systems - many skeptics here hold religious beliefs to some extent, for example. The scientific method says nothing at all about such supernatural beliefs one way or the other.

Agreed.

What you seem to be confusing is the belief in a "system" versus adherence to a proven "method" of proof.

I don't think I have confused these things. There is nothing wrong with having faith in the scientific method for doing what the scientific method was desgined to do, which is to investigate the repeatable behaviour and the observable history of the physical world. As you say, things such as paranormal or supernatural phenomena (if they exist at all) may well lie outside of the area where the scientific method can be applied, and "evidence" for such things may either (a) not exist, (b) exist, but be untouchable by science, or (c) only exist in the personal reality of certain individuals. Many skeptics would attempt to dismiss (c) as absurd or as an attempt to dodge tough questions, though it is neither. If (c) is true, then science can never hope to prove or disprove supernaturalism - it is destined to remain a personal thing forever. What I am saying is that simply because there is no scientific evidence for something does not mean that there is no non-scientific evidence for it, available only to the individual. That is why I mentioned the example of "180 proof" admitting he still would not believe in supernatural phenomena even if he witnessed such phenomena first hand. He simply said "It would not matter what I see, I will always attempt to find the most rational naturalistic answer for it." Someone cleverly replied "Ah, then 180 would be a mystic, because it would be very mysterious why he would no longer believe in God."



My point is that most skeptics could never accept paranormal/supernatural phenomena as real without completely re-assessing their whole conception of reality, and that simply does not happen overnight, regardless of "evidence".

 

[Stitch]

....and would not believe it if he saw it.

It's true, no?

Most of the people here calling themselves "skeptics" would not actually believe their own eyes if they saw paranormal phenomena. They "know" it doesn't exist ***Snip***

I think you are referring to cynics here not skeptics -

Skeptic: One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. - Source Dictionary.com

 

[Zep]

Good URL Zep. If you actually read the full article, you will see that PEAR are extremely positive about the results. Their conclusion is that you can't catch a butterfly in a bear-trap.

Of COURSE they're saying that they're very positive about their own outcomes, even though they state that they got precisely chance results; it is for one very good reason totally unrelated to the subject.

But let's review:

1. PEAR is accepted by paranormalists to be one of the premier paranormal research groups in the world. They are respected.

2. They did extensive statistical analysis on 25 years of their own data on remote viewing.

3. They admit, in 2003, that they found nothing beyond chance from this 25 years of data, and then went on to offer no constructive (or even believable) reasons why this was so.

4. Other reviewers have noted issues with the PEAR statistical data sets and analysis methods. However, as you have pointed out, PEAR have dismissed those criticisms - they are sticking by their data, statistical analyses and results. (Personally, I have few issues with their statistical analyses, but their data sets leave heaps to be desired, like consistency for a start, but however...)

5. The publicly published result ultimately remains: PEAR have nothing of substance to show for 25 years work on the subject of remote viewing.

Do you agree this is the situation represented by this report, Lucianarchy?


And why did PEAR put the positive spin at the end of this particular report? Have a think about it, Lucianarchy. What would have happened to PEAR's highly lucrative sponsorships and their positions-for-life if they had reported 25 years of failure instead? Hmmmm?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I think you are referring to cynics here not skeptics -

Skeptic: One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. - Source Dictionary.com

Yes. "True" skeptics are as you have defined them. Experience (much of it in various incarnations at this site) tells me that these "true skeptics" are few and far between, but that is just an opinion.

 

[Stitch]

Do you have a link to the full report and supporting evidence for this??

"Statistical and Methodological Problems of the PEAR Remote Viewing Experiments"

York H. Dobyns, Brenda J. Dunne, Robert G. Jahn, and Roger D. Nelson

Most of the issues raised by Hansen, Utts, and Markwick, including shared descriptor preferences, environmental or temporal cues, and agent encoding, have long been acknowledged, adequately addressed in our experimental designs and analytical techniques, and fully documented in our literature.

Can anbody provide links to the writers rebutalls of the critisms?

The remainder of their concerns, including randomization of targets and reference score distributions, trial-by-trial feedback, stacking, and cheating are either misapplied, fundamentally incorrect, or have trivial impact.

Cheating has a trivial impact?? Cool, so why do schools and Universities get so upset when people cheat in exams if it has litte impact??

Or are they suggesting that everybody they have tested is so honorable that they would never cheat and so it can be discounted??

Why not just devise a test where they cannot cheat and then there is no debate is there??

 

[Zep]

My point is that most skeptics could never accept paranormal/supernatural phenomena as real without completely re-assessing their whole conception of reality, and that simply does not happen overnight, regardless of "evidence".

If some phenomenon is "real" then it is worthy of scientific examination, but it therefore cannot be "supernatural". Something cannot be both "natural" and "supernatural" at the same time - they are mutually exclusive.

Just because something exists in someone's imagination doesn't make it so. Therefore there is no reason to adjust the natural world accordingly. Once this imagination is realised, that's when we can examine things. Einstein's theories remained up for debate for some years, until physical proof was actually provided.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Aussie Thinker

It sure bugs a lot of sceptics that the paranormal woo woos have managed to get this ridiculous “fantasy” idea about how sceptics are intractable into the minds of reasonable sounding fellows like yourself.

For starters, nobody does my thinking for me, my opinions are my own. The reason I think many skeptics are intractable on this issue is that I used to be a class-A intractable skeptic (moderator of www.infidels.org science and skepticism forum) myself, and I have spent a very long time talking to people on both sides of this debate (>5000 posts at this site alone). If you come from a science-heavy background it is very easy to end up being an "intractable skeptic". There are very good reasons for this, and I am not really criticising people for holding this position. Also, it is probably true that many of the "woo-woos" find it easier to point fingers at skeptics failing to see things the way the paranormalists do rather than trying to understand why the skeptics refuse to believe in things they have never seen any evidence for. There are two sides to these stories.

I personally would LOVE to have something paranormal proved.. I don’t want to die, I want to have a God, I want amazing powers.. however I am realistic enough to ask for some modicum of proof.

That is fair enough. But can I ask you whether you would find it easy to integrate proof such as this into your existing conception of reality? Wouldn't you agree that accepting such evidence would force a complete re-evaluation of your current beliefs about Reality? Isn't it true that deep down you are very confident that such proof will never be presented?

And would you still LOVE it if it happened to you, but you couldn't prove it?. Say, aliens come and visit you, have a very interesting conversation and then disappear leaving no trace of their visit. You would KNOW it was true, but you could prove nothing. It would have to remain your own private revelation.

Over time I have developed a default position which I think most sceptics have…

As everything EVER proven has had a natural (mundane) explanation it is fair to assume that everything that is unexplained will have a natural (mundane) explanation.

Yes, this is the way the skeptic thinks. But you have to examine what is meant by "proof", and whether or not the standard of proof itself may exclude certain types of phenomena. As already mentioned, it excludes any type of phenomena which are personal oir belief-dependent. The position you have outlined involves an assumption that the behaviour of "reality" is observer-independent and belief-independent. These assumptions are required in order for science to operate, but they are not required in order for reality to operate. For the skeptic, science is the final arbiter. For the paranormalist, science is not the final arbiter. Any "woo-woo" who thinks he can provide scientific evidence for his beliefs is probably just an idiot. As you say, if such evidence was likely to arrive, it would already have arrived.

Therefore if I saw some amazing thing I could not explain I would “assume” it had a natural explanation. I would look for a Natural explanation.. if I did not find one I would continue to assume a natural occurrence that I (or others) could not explain… if a supernatural occurrence could be proven then I WOULD accept it.

Given the previous statement what is wrong with that ! [/B]

Nothing neccesarily "wrong" with it. I am not here to tell one bunch of people they are "wrong" to believe what they believe. I like living in a diverse world with many different competing viewpoints. If everyone believed the same things and thought the same things, it would be awful.

 

[Stitch]

Originally posted by JustGeoff If you come from a science-heavy background it is very easy to end up being an "intractable skeptic". There are very good reasons for this, and I am not really criticising people for holding this position.

First can I ask that if you don't mean Skeptic (see definition below) then please use another term, cynic seems to fit what you are describing better. If you can find another term then fine, but a "skeptic" is not what you are describing.

I don't see why a science background should lead to a "cynical" position, or one where you are not prepared to accept new ideas or evidence. In my personal experience (anecdotal - I know) this has not been the case. I tend to start from a position of "innocence" listen to the claims, ask for supporting evidence (and with many things paranormal, it stops here as the evidence is not forthcoming), then look for the counter arguments, critiques and so forth and weigh up the evidence. I am not one for saying something is "impossible" rather "based on the current evidence (or lack of it) something is highly unlikely to be true, however I will change my view should new evidence be made available".

There needs to be some clarification perhaps of "evidence", I picked up somebody else earlier who seemed to be of the opinion that any evidence was valid regardless of the quality. Sadly I don't agree, I don't consider Sun Flowers being yellow as good evidence for Homeopathy being effective. Extreme example I know, but hopefully it makes my point.

I am more than happy to accept evidence that takes the form:

1) A claim is made
2) A hypothesis is developed (Dictionary.com: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.)
3) A test is developed to investigate the hypothesis further.
4) The test protocol is reviewed by peers and other interested parties.
5) Flaws in the protocol are addressed and any changes are made.
6) The tests are performed and the results are recorded.
7) The tests are repeated by the same people a number of times to confirm the results.
8) The tests are independently corroborated by a different group of people using the same test protocol.
9) The results and protocols are reviewed and conclusions drawn.
10) These conclusions are then subject to peer review.
11) If the results support the hypothesis and the peer review is happy with the protocols, analysis and conclusions, we can then say, with a degree of certainty that the claim has some validity.
12) We can then carry out further tests etc and over a number of years we either become more confident in the hypothesis and it becomes scientific "fact" (but not an absolute certainty), it is shown to no longer hold true, in which case we come to discount it.

We now have validated evidence that has stood the test of time.

Sadly with many of the "paranormal" phenomena, it is hard to even get a hypothesis that is testable, never mind proceeding much further than that. With the experiments that I have seen documentation for, many of the above steps have been omitted, resulting in the “evidence” being questionable at best. If there is no evidence to support the claim, then I keep an open mind, but do not accept that the claim is currently valid.

That is fair enough. But can I ask you whether you would find it easy to integrate proof such as this into your existing conception of reality? Wouldn't you agree that accepting such evidence would force a complete re-evaluation of your current beliefs about Reality? Isn't it true that deep down you are very confident that such proof will never be presented?

My views and beliefs on how things “work” are constantly changing, in some cases it is just that I have discovered more, rather than conflicting, evidence which actually changes my perspective a little, I think back to how my understanding of chemical reactions changed when I got to the 6th form and started to discover more details about the workings of atoms.

And would you still LOVE it if it happened to you, but you couldn't prove it?. Say, aliens come and visit you, have a very interesting conversation and then disappear leaving no trace of their visit. You would KNOW it was true, but you could prove nothing. It would have to remain your own private revelation.

Assuming I could find no evidence to support the “belief” that aliens had visited me, I would have to:
1) Consider it was a dream
2) Consider I was delusional and seek psychiatric assistance
I certainly wouldn’t KNOW it was true, I have no proof to suggest that it is.

Yes, this is the way the skeptic thinks. But you have to examine what is meant by "proof", and whether or not the standard of proof itself may exclude certain types of phenomena.

Nope – but the believers do love to use that one as a cop out for having to provide any evidence.

As already mentioned, it excludes any type of phenomena which are personal oir belief-dependent.

Note really – propose a hypothesis, test it, job’s a good ‘un.

If you can’t even formulate a hypothesis then why on Earth should anybody believe it?? “I believe in flugalbinders, they control everything”, I can’t prove this of course, and you can’t disprove it either, but I believe it, therefore you should too. Nah – I don’t think so, do you??? But put the label “God” on it and suddenly it now gains credence?

For the paranormalist, science is not the final arbiter.

Very true, as time and time again the claims just fail to hold any water, so they try to claim that “science can’t measure it” or “it is beyond science” to wriggle out of it.

Any "woo-woo" who thinks he can provide scientific evidence for his beliefs is probably just an idiot.

“Any “woo-woo” who thinks he can provide scientific evidence for his beliefs is to be commended” please step forward and present it.
“Any "woo-woo" who knows his beliefs to be true and will not question them despite not being able to provide scientific evidence for them is probably just an idiot.”

Nothing neccesarily "wrong" with it.

I think quite a few people may disagree with you on that point

I am not here to tell one bunch of people they are "wrong" to believe what they believe.

Neither are sceptics, we are just asking for the evidence to support your claim that your belief is correct.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If some phenomenon is "real" then it is worthy of scientific examination, but it therefore cannot be "supernatural". Something cannot be both "natural" and "supernatural" at the same time - they are mutually exclusive.

Just because something exists in someone's imagination doesn't make it so. Therefore there is no reason to adjust the natural world accordingly.

What if it manifests in their reality, and not yours. What if reality doesn't behave the same for everybody at all times? It is not logically inevitable that all phenomena are capable of being scientifically examined.

Also, there is a standoff when it comes to scientific investigation of the paranormal anyway - because many people who have been at the cutting edge of this research claim that there is an "observer effect", i.e. that different people get different results dependent on their different expectations - something which if true places these phenomena into a slightly different category than normal physical phenomena. Skeptics tend to dismiss the argument as just another way of avoiding confronting the facts, but my own opinion is that there is enough data available now to make it rather difficult to dismiss the argument out of hand. There have been far too many "borderline positive" results from paranormal believers and far too many "borderline negatives" from the skeptics. In fact somebody came up with some hard data which showed that skeptics would accept borderline positives in drug trials but reject statistically better results in PSI experiments, on the grounds that PSI is so unlikeley to be real that borderline positives must be rejected. Basically, the standard of evidence required by the skeptics is raised when they have trouble believing the result is possible - and this not mere conjecture - it has been statistically demonstrated and published in New Scientist. But the skeptics beliefs are then dependent on their own metaphysical preferences, NOT merely the data. There is no scientific way of resolving that standoff that the skeptics are likely to accept as valid. New Scientist dedicated a whole issue to this area last year. It is not quite a straightforward as some people might like it to be.

 

[drkitten]

What if it manifests in their reality, and not yours.

There is only one reality, and it belongs to everyone. This question is invalid and borders on the meaningless.

 

[BillHoyt]

What if it manifests in their reality, and not yours. What if reality doesn't behave the same for everybody at all times? It is not logically inevitable that all phenomena are capable of being scientifically examined.

Oh, come on, UCE, are we back at this again? Also, your last sentence contradicts your overall theme.

Also, there is a standoff when it comes to scientific investigation of the paranormal anyway - because many people who have been at the cutting edge of this research claim that there is an "observer effect", i.e. that different people get different results dependent on their different expectations - something which if true places these phenomena into a slightly different category than normal physical phenomena.

This claim is a diversion to explain the inherent non-repeatability of their experiments. It is, frankly, laughable and utterly unscientific.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Stitch

The first part of your post is a description of the scientific method. I suspect we don't have much to disagree about on that - my arguments are about the fuzzy grey area at the borders of science, psychology and metaphysics - places where maybe the scientific method alone cannot neccesarily provide us with an answer to the question.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And would you still LOVE it if it happened to you, but you couldn't prove it?. Say, aliens come and visit you, have a very interesting conversation and then disappear leaving no trace of their visit. You would KNOW it was true, but you could prove nothing. It would have to remain your own private revelation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assuming I could find no evidence to support the “belief” that aliens had visited me, I would have to:
1) Consider it was a dream
2) Consider I was delusional and seek psychiatric assistance
I certainly wouldn’t KNOW it was true, I have no proof to suggest that it is.

I think this illustrates my point quite nicely. In this example the aliens came to visit your house, had a cup of tea, discussed inter-stellar issues in English, and left again. Rather than accepting the evidence of your own eyes and ears, you are telling me you would use "reason" to convince yourself you had been dreaming or you were going mad. That isn't skepticism. That is a refusal to believe your own eyes and ears, just as "180 proof" said he would refuse to believe is own eyes had he witnessed Moses receiving the stone tablets. What is happening here is that you find it easier to dismiss what your own eyes and ears were telling you than go through the process of completely re-evaluating your belief system in order to accomodate what you had witnessed yourself.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, this is the way the skeptic thinks. But you have to examine what is meant by "proof", and whether or not the standard of proof itself may exclude certain types of phenomena.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope – but the believers do love to use that one as a cop out for having to provide any evidence.

Maybe so - which makes things even more complicated. But perhaps some are genuine and yet it is impossible for them to ever provide evidence that will satisfy.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As already mentioned, it excludes any type of phenomena which are personal oir belief-dependent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note really – propose a hypothesis, test it, job’s a good ‘un.

Well, for arguments sake, this is my hypothesis. My hypothesis is that certain PSI phenomena only manifest when the experimenter and the subject are genuinely open to believing in their existence, rather than attempting to prove they do not exist because they do not believe it is possible. This has been tested, and produced a positive result which the skeptics in question refused to accept. The same set of experiments have been repeatedly carried out by believers and skeptics, and the believers consistently got better results than the skeptics. Rather than accepting this result (that there is an experimenter effect), the skeptics accused the believers of fraud and/or incompetence, which led to an unfortunate stand-off once more.

If you can’t even formulate a hypothesis then why on Earth should anybody believe it?? “I believe in flugalbinders, they control everything”, I can’t prove this of course, and you can’t disprove it either, but I believe it, therefore you should too. Nah – I don’t think so, do you??? But put the label “God” on it and suddenly it now gains credence?

Personally, I'd rather keep "God" out of this. Far too emotionally charged on both sides, and usually it turns out that the people discussing the subject have different definitions of "God" anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any "woo-woo" who thinks he can provide scientific evidence for his beliefs is probably just an idiot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“Any “woo-woo” who thinks he can provide scientific evidence for his beliefs is to be commended” please step forward and present it.
“Any "woo-woo" who knows his beliefs to be true and will not question them despite not being able to provide scientific evidence for them is probably just an idiot.”

Is it idiotic to believe your own eyes and ears instead of rationalising phenomena away on the grounds that you yourself are deluded? I'm not so sure. If the aliens visited me, then I'd sooner believe in aliens than believe I had gone mad. Although this is a bit of a silly example, and I don't believe in aliens. I think we are very probably alone in this Universe, personally.

 

[Wally]

What if it manifests in their reality, and not yours.

That is the definition of mental illness. (either yours or there’s)

 

[UndercoverElephant]

There is only one reality, and it belongs to everyone. This question is invalid and borders on the meaningless.

How do you know? Philosophers have been arguing about this for centuries, and have not been able to provide any reliable answers. The question may be scientifically meaningless, but philosophically it is far from meaningless. Who can say for sure that reality behaves the same for everybody? How could anyone possibly prove such a thing? I am not saying that reality does behave differently for different people. I am saying that if we are really thinking critically, then we have to admit that we do not know.

I'll throw your own standards back at you. Where is your evidence that reality remains consistent for all people at all times?

 

[CFLarsen]

What if it manifests in their reality, and not yours. What if reality doesn't behave the same for everybody at all times? It is not logically inevitable that all phenomena are capable of being scientifically examined.

Then what? How are you going to determine whether a phenomenon is real or not? You can't.

Your suggestion is based on the non-existent evidence of paranormal phenomena, so you choose an explanation that is, as it was said, meaningless.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh, come on, UCE, are we back at this again? Also, your last
sentence contradicts your overall theme.

Hello Bill, always good to talk.

The sentence you refer to was :

"It is not logically inevitable that all phenomena are capable of being scientifically examined."

Why does this contradict my "overall theme"?

This claim is a diversion to explain the inherent non-repeatability of their experiments. It is, frankly, laughable and utterly unscientific.

Well, since we are discussing the grey borderlines at the edges of science, it isn't surprising that some people may find the claim "unscientific". Whether it is "laughable" is a matter of personal opinion. I don't mind people laughing at me. Laughter is good. Better than bitterness, anyhow.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Then what? How are you going to determine whether a phenomenon is real or not? You can't.

Not unless said phenomena crawl up your trouserleg and bite you on the b*ll*cks, no.

If the hypothesis is correct, the only people who can determine whether the phenomena is real are those individuals to whom the phenomena manifests. Such phenomena, if they exist, will therefore be argued about forever, without either side ever "winning" the argument. Which is a good thing, IMO. It means there will always be some mystery left in the world. How dull would life be without mystery?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That is the definition of mental illness. (either yours or there’s)

Is it?

I've always had a bit of problem with the definition of "mental illness". Who gets to decide what is crazy? I think the modern world we live in is almost completely insane. Does that make me mad?

 

[CFLarsen]

If the hypothesis is correct, the only people who can determine whether the phenomena is real are those individuals to whom the phenomena manifests. Such phenomena, if they exist, will therefore be argued about forever, without either side ever "winning" the argument. Which is a good thing, IMO. It means there will always be some mystery left in the world. How dull would life be without mystery?

But how would those people be able to tell the difference between a phenomenon and a hallucination? You wouldn't even get as far as determining that.

And...if they can't tell the difference, who says there is a difference?

 

[Jeff Corey]

...Well, for arguments sake, this is my hypothesis. My hypothesis is that certain PSI phenomena only manifest when the experimenter and the subject are genuinely open to believing in their existence, rather than attempting to prove they do not exist because they do not believe it is possible. This has been tested, and produced a positive result which the skeptics in question refused to accept. The same set of experiments have been repeatedly carried out by believers and skeptics, and the believers consistently got better results than the skeptics. Rather than accepting this result (that there is an experimenter effect), the skeptics accused the believers of fraud and/or incompetence, which led to an unfortunate stand-off once more...

Your hypothesis makes the whole question unfalsifiable. Any failure to replicate PSI could be rationalized by "The experimenter or the subject really didn't believe, or had some momentary doubts."
And I'd like to see some references to any experiments that tested whether believers got consistently better results than skeptics.