Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yes...
Originally posted by Pragmatist
Maybe there is some misunderstanding of the points that have been made. Mercutio's post sums it up pretty well. ANYBODY can be fooled. NOBODY is immune. Whilst you honestly believe that your precautions are sufficient, it helps to be aware just HOW frauds in this area can be perpetrated. For example, *I* wouldn't consider myself immune.
You may think everyone is unreasonably focussing on the fraud aspect. But there's a reason for that, it's because in practice these things have been investigated many times in the past and they have ALWAYS proved to be frauds - or so badly done that no reasonable conclusion could be made either way.
I do not think it's unreasonable at all. Which is why I'm trying to be "as sure as I can be" that I'm not deluding myself. Indeed, one can do no better than this. But at some point (that is, some level of control), it becomes foolish to NOT believe something. If I can achieve that through such a party, I'll have made a first step.
So then, tell me. Suppose I have some stainless steel spoons that I've been trying hard to bend physically for some time. Suppose I give them to my friends to bend, without telling them why I'm asking. Suppose none of us can bend them. Now suppose that at the party, nobody else is allowed to touch them, and suppose I somehow do bend them on that day, and take pictures of it. Am I to assume that I must have deluded myself? Suppose I can repeat this experiment at will. Am I still necessarily delusional? At some point, "self-delusion" will become no more than a scapegoat, a way for me to preserve my world view. And that is a liability.
Now nobody may have tested Houck in particular. But it's still instructive to look at the bigger picture. This is what we have so far:
Houck makes a series of claims. Those claims do not simply challenge preconceived ideas about one aspect of scientific knowledge, they challenge ALL of science and ALL the previous experience of skeptical investigators. Nobody can simply dismiss that, particularly as the evidence of the latter far exceeds the evidence of the former.
Houck introduces a whole HOST of "strange" claims. As I mentioned before he brings in "remote viewing", pendulums, dowsing rods, clairvoyance, telepathy, psychokinesis - in fact, the whole spectrum of "woo woo" for want of a better word. So far that follows the usual pattern of people who like to falsely claim that they are impartial investigators. No impartial investigator buys into the whole package without CONCLUSIVELY demonstrating one aspect of it first. And then each subsequent addition needs to go through the same process. Anecdotal information from parties doesn't count as conclusive proof.
Then he introduces the "usual suspects". People who have zero credibility in the skeptical community because of things they have done in the past that PROVE they are not reliable. Look at the pseudoscience of Eldon Byrd. Or the claims of Russell Targ. Or Uri Geller. As soon as these kinds of names start cropping up, alarm bells start ringing. You dismissed Laura Lee. So do you understand why I reject, Byrd, Targ, Geller and Houck himself?
Of course I understand why you reject Byrd, Targ, and Geller. I never mentioned one of them (except for Geller, who I brought up only to dismiss). And rather than simply believing Houck, his is the one case I can test and easily assess for myself.
We also have Crichton and Radin. Who may well be perfectly reliable people. But again, ANYBODY can be fooled. I don't know it for a fact, but I would bet that even Randi would accept that HE could possibly be fooled - and he knows most of the tricks inside out. And the circumstances under which Crichton at least had the experience are nowhere near controlled. So that only leaves Radin and the information we have about his experiments is way insufficient to draw any conclusion.
I think we can take it one step further. There is no experiment that Randi could see, or indeed do himself, that would convince him of psi. If some effect were so powerful that nothing but self-delusion could explain it, then he'd leave it at that. He'd consider himself senile before accepting what he saw. And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I might very well do the same myself. In the end, we're only trying to make our world make sense to us.
So in essence, we don't really have a lot to go on. We have the usual kind of claim, under the usual kind of circumstances, by the usual suspects, in the usual manner that has been shown to be some kind of fraud/self-deception in the past. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to assume (until proved to the contrary) that it is just the same as usual, i.e. fraud/self-deception. For the benefit of anyone who questions WHY that is reasonable, it is worth going over what has been observed from past events. This has nothing to do with whether you do the experiment yourself.
Again, close, but not quite. In addition to the usual suspects, we have a few (at least 3) new ones whose credibility has so far not been assailed, even though there has been plenty of opportunity to do so. Without that, I'd agree with you. But on the strength of their experiences, I'm willing to hear them out. That is all.
You said before you expect everyone to congratulate you if you don't get a result and to attack you if you do. That's not likely. If you get a negative result, the reaction will probably be more along the lines of "I told you so". And if you get a positive result the reaction will be, "O.K. another anecdote, so what?" And I don't think, taking past events into account that either reaction is unreasonable or unjustified. If you think it IS then perhaps you should look first at the existing evidence.
A valid question to ask is, why are you doing this? I don't mean performing the experiment, I mean, what do you hope to ACHIEVE by doing the experiment, and why are you discussing it here? Please don't assume that implies that you shouldn't do either. What I mean is an examination of what you hope to achieve would be valuable. If you hope to convince yourself either way and just that, fair enough. But if you want to convince anyone ELSE then what do you intend to do to make that possible? And of course, if that is the case, WHY would you want to convince anyone else? And be prepared for the fact that unless you can offer hard evidence to back up each and every claim, some will simply not believe you.
The danger in these situations always comes when someone believes that they know the truth and then goes out of their way to convince others. The sad fact is that human nature all too often leads to selective memory, extrapolation beyond the facts, and "infilling" of gaps to make the inconsistent, consistent! 
True research into this kind of area requires an exceptional level of integrity.
And also, at the end of the day, why should anybody believe anybody on here? You're just an anonymous poster. So am I. I have no special reason to trust your integrity over anyone else (and vice versa). So if you come back tomorrow announce that you performed the experiment and that it was a complete success, why should I (or anyone else) believe you? That's not any personal comment, I'm making a more general point. You could be anybody. You could be Jack Houck. Or you could be his best friend. If he is a fraud, you could be making a fortune out of deceiving people into believing this stuff, you might be a partner in the fraud - for all I know. All I'm saying is, bear in mind the facts of the situation before drawing any conclusions.
Of course I'm not trying to come here to convince anyone with my anecdotes. That's a bit like walking into Vatican City preaching Hinduism.
My whole life, I've been a very rational and down to earth person. I can supply you with my impeccable academic credentials, if you wish (they involve skipped grades and award-winning research in computer science, for starters). I feel that if there is anything to be found, I would like to find it. I've seen things that I cannot explain (yes, that sounds goofy, I know), and so now I'm trying to see if there might be a way to explain them.
I'm also not so busy that it would be a waste of time to conduct such an investigation every now and then. It doesn't take much of my time, I'm not afraid of being ridiculued, and a positive result might make life a bit more interesting. In general, I'd like to use my intelligence for something more interesting than developing software or designing the next microprocessor.
So, since there's no reason to dissuade me from giving it a try, I think I've learned what I need from this conversation. If I see a favorable result, perhaps others may be bold enough to hold a party of their own
