seeing the light in skepticism

[Ashles]

Delusion is actually a false 'belief'.
Madness does not enter into it (and isn't a particularly useful psychological term).

Muslims believe in Allah. Christians believe in God. They can't both be right so millions of people are definitely deluded.

And you can't say "Oh really they believe in the same God, it just has different names" because if you ask most Christians or Muslims, they will definitely NOT believe they are worshipping the same God.

So we can logically deduce that millions of people ARE deluded.

In fact their probably isn't one person on the planet who doesn't have some mistaken beliefs.

But delusion as an actual condition is related to how seriously the beliefs are taken and how it impacts someone's life.

We used to have a poster here called Lucianarchy who was convinced he could predict the future and went on many different websites making these ourageous claims. He even started his own forum to talk about it more.
Eventually his behaviour became so antisocial he had to be banned from these forums for personal abuse.

He was a good example of a deluded person.

 

[De'Ville's Advocaat]

Those who base their theories on their experiences may very well be mistaken as to what they have perceived, or think they have perceived. Human perception and memory are very unreliable.

It is extraordinary to suggest that everyone who experiences something which you can't accept as existing must be mistaken. It is not an argument against the experience either, as the same argument is applicable to the argument proponent and holds that they have also sometimes been mistaken in respect of what ever their belief system dictates as being 'true'.

Most people believe in something they have experienced outside of known science, whether that is spiritual or ESP. What they have experienced conflicts with their understanding of known science. This conflict undoubtably forces many more to simply not report their experiences, others will even create false / screen memories. If it were one or two, you could be forgiven for thinking they were deluded or mistaken, but there are countless millions throughout our entire history. To suggest that each and every last one IS mistaken just because we don't currently have a scientific explanation could quite easily be seen as "delusional" behaviour.

 

[Ashles]

What happend before Big Band?

We had to make do with Swing and Be-Bop

 

[Ashles]

It is extraordinary to suggest that everyone who experiences something which you can't accept as existing must be mistaken.

If someone claims to experience something that is outside known scientific theory it is certainly not extraordinary to suggest that they may have been mistaken it what they assumed or perceived the experience to have been.
Look at all the 'orb' ghost photos on the Internet.

Most people believe in something they have experienced outside of known science, whether that is spiritual or ESP. What they have experienced conflicts with their understanding of known science. This conflict undoubtably forces many more to simply not report their experiences, others will even create false / screen memories.

So how, exactly do you know this? If they have not reported these incidences or have no memory of them what makes you think this happens in the first place?
More of your own assumptions?

To suggest that each and every last one IS mistaken just because we don't currently have a scientific explanation could quite easily be seen as "delusional" behaviour.

No it couldn't. Delusion is a demonstrably false belief.
Whereas each and every one being mistaken, or lying, or the facts of the story having been changed fits in with current scientific theory just fine.
They could be correct with their experiences, but assuming they are incorrect and awaiting proof either way is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

 

[dharlow]

We have passed that day a long time ago. What happens is that those who do not want to see, or are not prepared to see the evidence will construct straw barriers or invoke unproven fantasies about fraud. This has happened over and over. Each time we have evidence, the same old tired cliches are repeated, yet none are never proven to exist. Fraud, loopholes etc. Those who are not yet prepared quite naturally construct these straw barriers in order to protect their remains of their belief system. If you consider the denialist theory seriously, you realise that each and every bit of positive evidence should be due to undetected fraud or non-identified flaw. After all these years, no such fraud or flaw has been shown whoich could account for all the evidence and we are left with the simplest explanation. They can't all, each and every last piece of scientific evidence simply be false claims.
I can tell you that should someone even win $1m, there will be a certain remant of skeptics who will construct straw barriers about Randi being in on the deal. For some, the reality never changes, no matter what happens. For those that have seen the new reality, it is very odd seeing people deny something so blatantly obvious. As strange as the arch-skeptic trying to comprehend why a believer believes. The reality paradigm has shifted so far that the arch-skeptic is in in danger of becoming the 'woo-woo'.

One of the few repeatable things I've seen while researching psi is on this very forum. Proponents of psi come on here, post something about "overwhelming" evidence for psi, and when asked for specifics, either evade the question or post a link to Daryl Bem's paper or to Radin's book. What people are looking for (at least those that are curious), however, is not a summary of research, but actual experiments. I have deep suspicions that many proponents have never actually read the experiments themselves but only summaries of them (again, usually from Bem/Radin). This is not how one resolves the psi controversy. If you come to this forum and expect to defend psi, you should be well-armed with all relevant knowledge concerning the experiments in parapsychology. I'm curious as to whether you (or any other proponent for that matter) can point to some specific experiments that convince you psi exists and give reasons why?

 

[Dr Adequate]

It would be easy to point out that your opinion is delusional, but I think that you are entitled to believe what ever you want. I do think it is a shame that you should choose to be so mean-sprited towards another person for expressing their thoughts on a forum though.

What a marvellous way to have your cake and eat it.

It would be easy to point out that you are a halfwit drivelling on about things you don't understand, and then whining like a pathetic crybaby when people don't agree with you, but I think that you are entitled to believe what ever you want. I do think it is a shame that you should choose to be so mean-sprited towards another person for expressing their thoughts on a forum though.

You notice how high-minded I am? It would have been so easy to say that you are a halfwit drivelling on about things you don't understand, and then whining like a pathetic crybaby when people don't agree with you --- but I didn't. Unlike you, I understand the decencies of debate, y'see.

 

[Dr Adequate]

One of the few repeatable things I've seen while researching psi is on this very forum. Proponents of psi come on here, post something about "overwhelming" evidence for psi, and when asked for specifics, either evade the question or post a link to Daryl Bem's paper or to Radin's book. What people are looking for (at least those that are curious), however, is not a summary of research, but actual experiments. I have deep suspicions that many proponents have never actually read the experiments themselves but only summaries of them (again, usually from Bem/Radin). This is not how one resolves the psi controversy. If you come to this forum and expect to defend psi, you should be well-armed with all relevant knowledge concerning the experiments in parapsychology. I'm curious as to whether you (or any other proponent for that matter) can point to some specific experiments that convince you psi exists and give reasons why?

But this is the very thing he's trying to avoid with this spam. It is easier to indulge in half-baked fantasies about the psychology of sceptics than to make a good case for psi. The first only involves lying. The second would involve finding evidence for the paranormal. Lying is easier.

 

[gnome]

It is extraordinary to suggest that everyone who experiences something which you can't accept as existing must be mistaken.

It is not extraordinary to conclude that a supernatural explanation is more likely to be mistaken than one that is not. I start by wondering if there was something perfectly natural I wasn't aware of that explained it, instead of starting by assuming the laws of physics as I know them have gone all wonky.

 

[De'Ville's Advocaat]

Dissecting experiments one by one is not what this thread is about, Harlow. at this stage, it is fruitless and circular. What I am talking about is a body of experiments which when photographed individualy show part of an 'Unidentified Psi Object' which to arch-skeptics are perhaps slightly out of focus and therefore not acceptable evidence. This allows them to claim there is nothing reliable about the sighting and despite seeing something resembling something anomalous they wait for the next photo to come through. When the whole set is laid out en masse we see a dramatic larger overall picture come into focus. Yet most arch-skeptics will not get to that stage due to their non-acceptance of what they regard as evidence. And still there are a few skeptics who will say "I see no ships!" This is because they have been taught to think in dogmatic unprogressive terms which focus on destructing things back to what their belief system dictates. Each picture has been discarded on the basis of unrealstic expectations to the extend that it becomes impossible to accept what the overall picture is showing unless their is an admittance that it was unrealistic to adhere to the previous standard of acceptance.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dissecting experiments one by one is not what this thread is about, Harlow. at this stage, it is fruitless and circular.

Translation: "I cannot point to a single piece of hard evidence for psi."

What I am talking about is a body of experiments which when photographed individualy show part of an 'Unidentified Psi Object' which to arch-skeptics are perhaps slightly out of focus and therefore not acceptable evidence. This allows them to claim there is nothing reliable about the sighting and despite seeing something resembling something anomalous they wait for the next photo to come through. When the whole set is laid out en masse we see a dramatic larger overall picture come into focus.

Translation: "We have over a hundred years years of hundreds of people trying to prove psi. They've all failed. But if you put all those failures together, close your eyes, and wish, it looks like a huge success. Just like space aliens, fairies, the yeti, and all the other non-things that woowoos gibble about."

Yet most arch-skeptics will not get to that stage due to their non-acceptance of what they regard as evidence. And still there are a few skeptics who will say "I see no ships!" This is because they have been taught to think in dogmatic unprogressive terms which focus on destructing things back to what their belief system dictates. Each picture has been discarded on the basis of unrealstic expectations to the extend that it becomes impossible to accept what the overall picture is showing unless their is an admittance that it was unrealistic to adhere to the previous standard of acceptance.

Translation: "Unable to produce any evidence to support my fantasy world, I'll spam out some more pathetic lies about sceptics and pretend that this increases the credibilty of my argument rather than making me look like a halfwitted liar."

 

[De'Ville's Advocaat]

You notice how high-minded I am? It would have been so easy to say that you are a halfwit drivelling on about things you don't understand, and then whining like a pathetic crybaby when people don't agree with you --- but I didn't. Unlike you, I understand the decencies of debate, y'see.

I understand that you see things differently to me, which makes my point in this thread very well. You see me politely asking someone to not break the forum rules by spamming or asking another person to try to behave with respect towards those who have different beliefs, as "whining like a pathetic crybaby". When obviously, to any rational person who undertands perspective and the English language, that is not the case at all. Y'see?

 

[Anders]

Dissecting experiments one by one is not what this thread is about, Harlow. at this stage, it is fruitless and circular. What I am talking about is a body of experiments which when photographed individualy show part of an 'Unidentified Psi Object' which to arch-skeptics are perhaps slightly out of focus and therefore not acceptable evidence. This allows them to claim there is nothing reliable about the sighting and despite seeing something resembling something anomalous they wait for the next photo to come through. When the whole set is laid out en masse we see a dramatic larger overall picture come into focus. Yet most arch-skeptics will not get to that stage due to their non-acceptance of what they regard as evidence. And still there are a few skeptics who will say "I see no ships!" This is because they have been taught to think in dogmatic unprogressive terms which focus on destructing things back to what their belief system dictates. Each picture has been discarded on the basis of unrealstic expectations to the extend that it becomes impossible to accept what the overall picture is showing unless their is an admittance that it was unrealistic to adhere to the previous standard of acceptance.

And for short meta-analysis. Still, the meta-analysis done so far using just the good quality and stringently made studies show no PSI/ESP effect. If you have access to other meta-analysis, please share, and send them to Nature and Science, and let the peers look at it. If they accept the articles, well, good!

 

[Ashles]

I understand that you see things differently to me, which makes my point in this thread very well. You see me politely asking someone to not break the forum rules by spamming or asking another person to try to behave with respect towards those who have different beliefs

Thanks for the advice but I have been here some time and Adequate has well over a thousand posts to his name so I think we know how to debate without breaking forum rules. Thanks anyway.
The only person I have ever seen banned around here is that Lucianarchy person I told you about earlier.

What I am talking about is a body of experiments which when photographed individualy show part of an 'Unidentified Psi Object' which to arch-skeptics are perhaps slightly out of focus and therefore not acceptable evidence.

So you agree that all these people who claim clear psychokinetic ability, mind reading skills, mediumship, dowsing skills etc. etc. etc. are all lying or mistaken then? That they cannot really display these skills in clear tests and experiments?
Well we agree on something then.

 

[De'Ville's Advocaat]

And for short meta-analysis. Still, the meta-analysis done so far using just the good quality and stringently made studies show no PSI/ESP effect. If you have access to other meta-analysis, please share, and send them to Nature and Science, and let the peers look at it. If they accept the articles, well, good!

You are making the mistake of appeal to authority. Nature and Science can make mistakes or be subject to bias for a number of reasons, which is why the macro peer process is the more stringent and scientificaly sound. The references given further back relate to articles published in peer reviewed journals. Psi effects have been recorded and measure time over, they are not all bogus, they have not by any stretch of the imagination all been debunked. Far from it. These papers have been peer reviewed by many scientists and it is a fallacy to construct straw barriers about who is or isn't qualified to review. The arch-skeptics are in a minority, but here see themselves as a majority due to the concentration of such, yet the reality is that many of these psi experiements stand as positive evidence to most people who have reviewed them. Psi is becoming part of a serious and growing study in science, but it is far too revolutionary to become part of the establishment yet. That does not mean to say that these effects don't exist, it means that the scientific establishment cannot give its 'blessing' until it has understood how it works. To do that, there first must come a lot of acceptance by a lot of people that they have been wrong and it is understandable that many of those people are reluctant to shed one model of thought for a new one.

 

[Anders]

You are making the mistake of appeal to authority. Nature and Science can make mistakes or be subject to bias for a number of reasons, which is why the macro peer process is the more stringent and scientificaly sound. The references given further back relate to articles published in peer reviewed journals. Psi effects have been recorded and measure time over, they are not all bogus, they have not by any stretch of the imagination all been debunked. Far from it. These papers have been peer reviewed by many scientists and it is a fallacy to construct straw barriers about who is or isn't qualified to review. The arch-skeptics are in a minority, but here see themselves as a majority due to the concentration of such, yet the reality is that many of these psi experiements stand as positive evidence to most people who have reviewed them. Psi is becoming part of a serious and growing study in science, but it is far too revolutionary to become part of the establishment yet. That does not mean to say that these effects don't exist, it means that the scientific establishment cannot give its 'blessing' until it has understood how it works. To do that, there first must come a lot of acceptance by a lot of people that they have been wrong and it is understandable that many of those people are reluctant to shed one model of thought for a new one.

Fair enough, Nature or Science are not always right, but damn near always. Let us see those studies! And about that science always has to understand how something work. That is not correct! You are wrong there! Science don't have to know how something works to accept is as true. We accept that electrons forms according to the Schroerdinger equation, but we have no idea why or how.

Anyways, refercences to the positive studies please, prefferbly on pubmed.org.

[edited for spelling]

 

[Anders]

Psi is becoming part of a serious and growing study in science, but it is far too revolutionary to become part of the establishment yet.

Yeah, sure, the same reason why the US gouvernment hide the bodies of 3, no 5, no 7, no 8 dead aliens from the Roswell crash.

I can accept that parapsycology is a semi-accepted science. But they haven't found any effect so far, there is nothing there!

 

[Dr Adequate]

I understand that you see things differently to me, which makes my point in this thread very well. You see me politely asking someone to not break the forum rules by spamming or asking another person to try to behave with respect towards those who have different beliefs, as "whining like a pathetic crybaby". When obviously, to any rational person who undertands perspective and the English language, that is not the case at all. Y'see?

No, you halfwitted liar, I saw you behaving like a liar, a hypocrite, and a fool, being offensive while boasting that you weren't, and pointed it out. The readers of this thread are literate. They can read your posts and mine, and see that you are lying. How many times do I have to explain this to woowoos --- there is no point in lying about what you or I have posted on this site. It just makes you look pathetic.

However, you are right about one thing. I do see the world differently from you. I don't mistake a pathetic lie for a good argument.

 

[Ashles]

To do that, there first must come a lot of acceptance by a lot of people that they have been wrong and it is understandable that many of those people are reluctant to shed one model of thought for a new one.

Oh you mean exactly like has happened over and over agin in the history of science?

The difference was thery had evidence to back them up in those historic instances. Psi doesn't.

which is why the macro peer process is the more stringent and scientificaly sound

And psi has not passed this.

These papers have been peer reviewed by many scientists

Who? Actually we haven't had references for these papers you are talking about in the first place, so to start talking about the peer reviewers is a little presumptuous.

That does not mean to say that these effects don't exist, it means that the scientific establishment cannot give its 'blessing' until it has understood how it works.

I am sorry you don't understand anything about science or the scientific process.
It's a bit hard to explain how it works when you have already invented an entirely different version of 'science' in your head involving the hiding of research, the refusal to accept new results, conspiracies, global mind changes etc.
It sounds like an exciting and thrilling action-packed version of 'Science', but, sadly it doesn't bear much relation to reality.

 

[Interesting Ian]

One of the few repeatable things I've seen while researching psi is on this very forum. Proponents of psi come on here, post something about "overwhelming" evidence for psi, and when asked for specifics, either evade the question or post a link to Daryl Bem's paper or to Radin's book. What people are looking for (at least those that are curious), however, is not a summary of research, but actual experiments. I have deep suspicions that many proponents have never actually read the experiments themselves but only summaries of them (again, usually from Bem/Radin). This is not how one resolves the psi controversy. If you come to this forum and expect to defend psi, you should be well-armed with all relevant knowledge concerning the experiments in parapsychology. I'm curious as to whether you (or any other proponent for that matter) can point to some specific experiments that convince you psi exists and give reasons why?

I can't. I don't know enough about these experiments, and the possible artefacts suggested which might skew the results, to discuss it at length. As I've always said, I believe in (certain) paranormal phenomena due to personal experience, anecdotes, and metaphysical convictions regarding the nature of reality.

 

[Interesting Ian]

If you come to this forum and expect to defend psi, you should be well-armed with all relevant knowledge concerning the experiments in parapsychology. [/B]

Just to mention here that (as people probably expect) I disagree with this. No single psi experiment is going to convince a Skeptic, and indeed nor should it. Any number of reasons might conceivably account for a statistically significant result, even if one is stumped to actually think of one. They argue that positive results should be repeatable. I take it that this means that for a good majority of experiments one should get equally statistically significant results regardless of who the experimenter is. In particular skeptics carrying out experiments should get equally significant results as believers.

But, as I understand it, parapsychology cannot live up to skeptic demands here. So we have meta-analysis. But then people complain about meta-analysis too. So the argument just goes round in a circle.

No, what I prefer to do is question peoples assumptions about the nature of the world. For example we often hear skeptics say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So that raises the interesting question of why all paranormal phenomena should be considered to be "extraordinary". Is it because we do not encounter paranormal phenomena often? Is it because it conflicts with something science tells us? Is it because it conflicts with our metaphysical presuppositions about reality? Addressing such a question is crucial in understanding the psychological factors involved whereby a certain amount of scientific evidence for paranormal phenomena will convince some, where as it will be instantly rejected by others.

Then we have personal testimony (including ones own experiences). If a putative phenomenon has been universally reported (i.e not restricted to a particular time and place), then this suggests very strongly that at least people do genuinely have a common particular characteristic experience, whatever the origin of that experience.

So you see there's a lot more to discuss than purely concentrating on the experimental data. This is not to deny that discussion of these experiments is not important, but we must also explore the underlying factors which influence belief and disbelief.