Pr. Brian Josephson, a woo?

[Jono]

I did read some time ago about Pr. Brian Josephson, from Cambridge University and Nobel winner for his contributions to physics, that brought forth this following question.

Is he regarded by anyone of you to be a "woo"?
Since I read something about how he consideres probability in the progress of some paranormal research?

 

[jmercer]

Please be specific. What part of his work are you presenting to the forum as having to do with paranormal research?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Eh. You'll have to provide some sort of context for this statement WhiteLion. Without some quote of what he said (and preferably in the context in which he said it) your statement that he said something about the possibility of the paranormal means nothing.

But I will say this, unless his statement somehow deals with physics or he has some other qualification you didn't mention then you are likely issuing a fallacious appeal to authority. In short the fact that he is a Nobel Prize winning physicist does not in itself make his opinion on the paranormal any more valid than yours, mine or anyone elses. And we all know what opinions are like and why....

 

[Jono]

This is the link I found regarding this matter as I just swiftly drafted inquiresly through google.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/stamps/today.html

It wasn't the text I read a while back but perhaps it will suffice?

In short the fact that he is a Nobel Prize winning physicist does not in itself make his opinion on the paranormal any more valid than yours, mine or anyone elses. And we all know what opinions are like and why

Yes of course I agree, I included what I knew of his credentials because perhaps it would remind you of who he might be as "oh yeah that guy" or what have you.

 

[drkitten]

Is he regarded by anyone of you to be a "woo"?

It is something of an abuse of language to refer to a person as "a woo." The descriptive adjective "woo-woo" has a long history of referring to the paranormal, and the JREF readership's "charming" habit of abbreviating it to "woo" and of assigning it as a noun to people who believe in the paranormal is understandable, if teeth-gratingly annoying.

However, "wooship," as it were, isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. A fervent believer in mediumship and ESP might still be a top-flight evolutionary biologist and a harsh critic of creationism in all its woo-woo guises.

The real question that you should ask is : does Josephson's belief make any sense? And the real real question you should ask is : is there any evidence to support the existence of the phenomenon that he purports to explain?

He believes that quantum mechanics could explain telepathy. Before we enter that discussion, I'd like to know on what basis he asserts that telepathy requires explanation.

 

[jmercer]

I don't think that anyone would characterize him a woo from that text. He said that he can sort of see a way that quantum physics could possibly support telepathy. He went to great lengths to clearly state that this was highly speculative on his part, and based on someone else's concepts to boot.

Speculation that something might be possible and is worth exploring hardly makes him a woo. If, on the other hand, he claimed that telepathy existed without the ability to provide any proof, mathematical or demonstrable... then he'd be a woo through and through.

There's a big difference between being open-minded and credulous.

 

[Jono]

New drkitten, yes I agree.

I do not know much more about the subject as so.
Hence my inquiry, to bring a discussion and hear what the investigation of people in this forum might reveal and comment on.

It wasn't a claim from my part, just a question which I haven't seen been asked before in this forum, so I asked it.

 

[CFLarsen]

New drkitten, yes I agree.

I do not know much more about the subject as so.
Hence my inquiry, to bring a discussion and hear what the investigation of people in this forum might reveal and comment on.

It wasn't a claim from my part, just a question which I haven't seen been asked before in this forum, so I asked it.

But why would you even ask? You must have based your question on something.

What was that?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Well, I only skimmed it (I will have to wait until i get home to have time to really sit down and read it) but it seems he is trying to explain how telepathy could work, which is an intirely different question than whether it does.

Look at UFO's, for instance. If pressed, I am sure that one could find a physicist or two that could hypothesize a couple of ways that alien spacecraft could get from there to here. But it's just a mental game, so to speak, a game of what if. It doesn't really go an inch toward answering the question of whether alien spacecraft do in fact visit the Earth. Likewise, the professor seems to be playing a similar game of what if, "If telepathy did exist, how might it work?"

I wouldn't take it as much more than that.

 

[amherst]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
But I will say this, unless his statement somehow deals with physics or he has some other qualification you didn't mention then you are likely issuing a fallacious appeal to authority. In short the fact that he is a Nobel Prize winning physicist does not in itself make his opinion on the paranormal any more valid than yours, mine or anyone elses. And we all know what opinions are like and why....

Tell that to CSICOP. The organization has had five Nobel laureates among its members (Crick, Gell-Mann, Lederman, Seaborg, and Weinburg), and none have published any research on the paranormal. In his book The Trickster and the Paranormal George Hansen (an authority on CSICOP) writes:

The Committe honors high-status scientists, invites them to conventions, gives them awards, and writes favorable articles about them. CSICOP's members are typically recruited for their prestige rather than for their research on the paranormal. Their status allows the Committee to speak with a voice of authority, and those who disagree are portrayed as marginal or without scientific standing, and thus can be disregarded. (p. 153, my emphasis)

Well, I only skimmed it (I will have to wait until i get home to have time to really sit down and read it) but it seems he is trying to explain how telepathy could work, which is an intirely different question than whether it does.

Look at UFO's, for instance. If pressed, I am sure that one could find a physicist or two that could hypothesize a couple of ways that alien spacecraft could get from there to here. But it's just a mental game, so to speak, a game of what if. It doesn't really go an inch toward answering the question of whether alien spacecraft do in fact visit the Earth. Likewise, the professor seems to be playing a similar game of what if, "If telepathy did exist, how might it work?"

I wouldn't take it as much more than that.

You should. Commenting on parapsychological experiments, Josephson and statistician Jessica Utts write:

Detailed analysis of the complete collection of experiments on this type of phenomenon shows that what holds, despite changes in equipment, experimenter, subjects, judges, targets and laboratories, is far greater consistency with the 1 in 3 success rate already mentioned than with the 1 in 4 chance expectation rate. Such consistency is the hallmark of a genuine effect, and this, together with the very low probability of the overall success rate observed occurring by chance, argues strongly for the phenomena being real and not artifactual... There have been no explanations forthcoming that allow an honest observer to dismiss the growing collection of consistent results.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/tucson.html

amherst

 

[drkitten]

Tell that to CSICOP. The organization has had five Nobel laureates among its members (Crick, Gell-Mann, Lederman, Seaborg, and Weinburg), and none have published any research on the paranormal. In his book The Trickster and the Paranormal George Hansen (an authority on CSICOP) writes:

... tell me first why I should believe Hansen's account.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Tell that to CSICOP. The organization has had five Nobel laureates among its members (Crick, Gell-Mann, Lederman, Seaborg, and Weinburg), and none have published any research on the paranormal. In his book The Trickster and the Paranormal George Hansen (an authority on CSICOP) writes:

The Committe honors high-status scientists, invites them to conventions, gives them awards, and writes favorable articles about them. CSICOP's members are typically recruited for their prestige rather than for their research on the paranormal. Their status allows the Committee to speak with a voice of authority, and those who disagree are portrayed as marginal or without scientific standing, and thus can be disregarded. (p. 153, my emphasis)

Well, if you are looking for someone to defend CSICOP or their methods, you are talking to the wrong guy. I don't know enough about either to do so. I wouldn't take the fact that some Nobel laureate says so as a reason to NOT believe in the paranormal any more than I would take it as a reason TO believe. Arguments from authority mean bupkis, evidence is what counts. AFAIC, the evidence is on CSICOP's side, and THAT is why I am a skeptic, not because some guy with more education than me says so.


As for the other half of you post, I will have to wait until I have time to read the link in depth before I can meaningfully comment.

 

[amherst]

... tell me first why I should believe Hansen's account.

Because it's easy to verify. Contrary to its name, CSICOP is not concerned with making scientific investigations, but with influencing public opinion. Hansen:

The priorities are particularly striking in its Manuel for Local, Regional and National Groups (1987). Seventeen pages are devoted to "Handling the Media" and "Public Relations"; in contrast only three pages are given to "Scientific Investigation." No scientific references are cited in that section...

It should also be noted that five years after its inception, CSICOP adopted a formal policy against conducting research (Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, p. 9).This occurred the same month former member Dennis Rawlins published an expose of the Committee:

I used to believe it was simply a figment of the NATIONAL ENQUIRER's weekly imagination that the Science Establishment would cover up evidence for the occult. But that was in the era B.C. -- Before the Committee. I refer to the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal" (CSICOP), of which I am a cofounder and on whose ruling Executive Council (generally called the Council) I served for some years.
I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I HAVE changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism. I now believe that if a flying saucer landed in the backyard of a leading anti-UFO spokesman, he MIGHT hide the incident from the public (for the public's own good, of course). He might swiftly convince himself that the landing was a hoax, a delusion or an "unfortunate" interpretation of mundane phenomena that could be explained away with "further research."
The irony of all this particularly distresses me since both in print and before a national television audience I have stated that the conspiratorial mentality of believers in occultism presents a real political danger in a voting democracy. Now I find that the very group I helped found has partially justified this mentality.
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/rawlins-starbaby.txt

Hansen once more:

Though it has a building worth several million dollars, a paid staff, and a good size library, CSICOP has no research program. In fact, for the first 15 years of its existence, none of the scientist-members of its Executive Council ever published a report of a parapsychology experiment in a refereed journal. CSICOP has not established a laboratory in which researchers might attempt to elicit paranormal phenomena; it makes no effort at research similar to that of a scientific organization. However, occasionally a member conducts an ad hoc test of a psychic during an afternoon and writes up a brief report for a popular periodical.

All of the above is easily verified, and all show that CSICOP is an organization concerned more with spreading its own ideology than with real scientific inquiry. Having eminent scientists as figureheads gives the Committee the appearance of scientific credibility which it needs in order to further its agenda.

amherst

 

[CurtC]

Because it's easy to verify. Contrary to its name, CSICOP is not concerned with making scientific investigations, but with influencing public opinion.

Their name isn't the Committee to do Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal, but the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. They advocate looking scientifically at claims of the paranormal, which is what their name describes.

 

[davidsmith73]

Their name isn't the Committee to do Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal, but the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. They advocate looking scientifically at claims of the paranormal, which is what their name describes.

Yes Curt, but "looking scientifically at claims" means doing some science to test those claims.

 

[Brian the Snail]

Brian Josephson is a (quite out-spoken) proponent of various paranormal claims, as can be seen from his website. He has also been mentioned a lot in Randi's commentaries, so doing a search for his name on the JREF homepage will give more information.

Whether this makes him a "woo" depends on what your definition of a "woo" is. Needless to say, the fact that he is a Nobel Prize winner doesn't make him right.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes Curt, but "looking scientifically at claims" means doing some science to test those claims.

Who is waiting to be tested?

 

[kookbreaker]

It should also be noted that five years after its inception, CSICOP adopted a formal policy against conducting research (Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, p. 9).This occurred the same month former member Dennis Rawlins published an expose of the Committee:

Rawlin's hysterics had little to do with CSICOP's decision to not perform formal research.

 

[Open Mind]

The pseudo skeptics prayer ...


Our CSICOP, who art in denial
Hallowed be thy magazine.
Thy campaign come
No formal research needs done
On UFOs and ghosts from heaven.
Give us old Occam, our skeptic bread.
And forgive us our spins
As we oppose those that see physics against us.
And lead us not into long term research,
But believer us with psychologists and magicians instead,
For old science is the kingdom
The dogma and priori
for ever and ever.
......ahem