Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Aridas]

There isn't any.

I'm pretty sure that there is, when it comes to Bayesian calculations, much as the nature of Bayesian calculations and what they're actually useful for should likely be kept in mind at all times.

In paleontology, we make no such assumption--if we have no way to determine which hypothesis is more likely, we say "I don't know." Since there is a logical alternative (we can support this conclusion with evidence, typically by pointing to specific data gaps that prevent us from making any conclusions), it is therefore demonstrably NOT logically necessary to assume that all outcomes are equal.

It's useful to do so if you don't want to admit you don't know something, but that hardly makes the conclusion a logical necessity.

As it stands, the principle of indifference noted and Bayesian calculations in general are just one of the easy ways to demonstrate how Fudbucker's original argument doesn't work particularly well. Even just the application of that would have helped him avoid claiming that the probability of advanced alien life must be regarded as equal to the probability of advanced alien life or gods revealing themselves in the next 24 hours, or claiming that the chance that something blue being picked from a pile of unknown composition must be considered equal to the chance that something blue, round, and weighing a particular weight will be picked from that same pile.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm pretty sure that there is, when it comes to Bayesian calculations...

I can agree with that--the math doesn't work if you don't make the assumption. That said, I've been questioning the validity of equations based on a complete lack of data from the start. The whole process of running an equation based on the premise that one has no data upon which to base any conclusions goes against everything I believe about intellectual honesty. The assumption may be required for the equations to work--but since there's no logical necessity to run equestions when we know nothing about the system (it's always permissible to say "I don't know" and leave it at that), one cannot argue that the assumption is a logical necessity.

 

[Aridas]

I can agree with that--the math doesn't work if you don't make the assumption. That said, I've been questioning the validity of equations based on a complete lack of data from the start. The whole process of running an equation based on the premise that one has no data upon which to base any conclusions goes against everything I believe about intellectual honesty. The assumption may be required for the equations to work--but since there's no logical necessity to run equestions when we know nothing about the system (it's always permissible to say "I don't know" and leave it at that), one cannot argue that the assumption is a logical necessity.

It certainly is permissible to say "I don't know" and is entirely appropriate for a number of purposes. As noted, it's not helpful for the probability calculations in question, though. The rest of the sentence from what you quoted, though, frankly, should deal with your position a bit. As long as one keeps in mind that the equal probability (ETA: or perhaps, more technically, the lack of favoring any particular available possibility) is only because of lack of knowledge, that rather does make it effectively saying "I don't know" in more mathematical notation, while allowing room for knowledge to be added to the equation that will shift that balance in whichever direction, when it becomes known.

 

[Dinwar]

As noted, it's not helpful for the probability calculations in question, though.

I find the notion of calculating the probability of something you know nothing about to be an exercise in absurdity, to be blunt. If you want to systematically examine what you know about it, sure, I can see the utility--things like the Drake Equation are very useful for determining data gaps, even if actually running the numbers is useless. But if you truly know nothing about the system, what do you gain by running any calculations at all? All I can see it adding is an apparent level of precision not justified by the data.

That's what the whole discussion of the grues was about: one person didn't know what a grue was (ie, it was given that he had no knowledge of the system). Rather than using the equation to identify data gaps, though, they used the equation to falsely present a level of knowledge unjustified by the (complete and utter lack of) data.

I don't know...I just don't get why anyone would want to present numbers for a system they don't know anything about. The whole concept contradicts the basic maxim of science that all assertions must be supported by evidence.

 

[Aridas]

I find the notion of calculating the probability of something you know nothing about to be an exercise in absurdity, to be blunt.

It can be. The applicability of the concepts involved, though, is not limited to that. Rather, the case you're talking about is more of a side-effect to more applicable uses.

If you want to systematically examine what you know about it, sure, I can see the utility--things like the Drake Equation are very useful for determining data gaps, even if actually running the numbers is useless. But if you truly know nothing about the system, what do you gain by running any calculations at all? All I can see it adding is an apparent level of precision not justified by the data.

Is it worth noting that math can be regarded as being like a language, to some extent? The lack of favoring any available possibility is really just saying "I don't know" in that language. If people try to conflate that with that actually being a reasonable number to base much off of by itself, rather than simply a placeholder number, that's unfortunate, but still inherently fallacious and able to be dealt with as such.

That's what the whole discussion of the grues was about: one person didn't know what a grue was (ie, it was given that he had no knowledge of the system).

More specifically, grue was defined as a term unknown to the relevant person. It's a slight difference from what you're saying, but enough that the posts about other definitions of "grue" were irrelevant, for example, and should have been dealt with as such.

Rather than using the equation to identify data gaps, though, they used the equation to falsely present a level of knowledge unjustified by the (complete and utter lack of) data.

I don't remember the post in sufficient detail to properly agree or disagree here, and I don't feel like searching for it right now.

 

[Dinwar]

Rather, the case you're talking about is more of a side-effect to more applicable uses.

Agreed, and I can see the utility in those other uses. I'm not questioning Bayesian statistics as such, just this particular application.

Is it worth noting that math can be regarded as being like a language, to some extent?

It definitely is. My issue, though, is that the 0.5 presents at least one significant figure, which over-states the data. It pretty much ensures confusion.

It's a slight difference from what you're saying, but enough that the posts about other definitions of "grue" were irrelevant, for example, and should have been dealt with as such.

I don't think it's irrelevant--it was a specific data gap that needed to be addressed before anything else could be said about the system. From my perspective it's the most important part of the scenario. My stance has always been that if you don't know something you don't say anything about it until you learn about it--so if you don't know what a grue is, you don't say anything about the probability of one being in your home, you find out what a grue is.

It also pointed to the fact that at least in that instance the equation was only describing one person's understanding of the system, NOT the system itself--meaning it was essentially meaningless when trying to determine anything about the system. It was a statement of personal knowledge, and there's no reason why anyone else's knowledge or certainty should be limited to or by that person's ignorance (as some have argued should be the case).

 

[Aridas]

I don't think it's irrelevant--it was a specific data gap that needed to be addressed before anything else could be said about the system.

Irrelevant for the purpose of the example. Yes, though, what the "grue" in question actually referred to is quite necessary information for anything of value other than "I don't know" or an equivalent to be said on that matter.

It also pointed to the fact that at least in that instance the equation was only describing one person's understanding of the system, NOT the system itself--meaning it was essentially meaningless when trying to determine anything about the system. It was a statement of personal knowledge, and there's no reason why anyone else's knowledge or certainty should be limited to or by that person's ignorance (as some have argued should be the case).

Indeed, there's no reason why anyone else's knowledge or certainty should be limited... if they actually do have the relevant information. In this case, given the way the term was defined and the point of the example, there's really no way to tell what the unknown thing was and no particularly valid reason to limit it to other uses of "grue" that are actually in use. The hypothetical person who would be bringing up the term would be the only one who could really say much of value there.

As a general note, "grue" was a terrible choice of word for the example, given that it actually does have real world definitions.


ETA:

It definitely is. My issue, though, is that the 0.5 presents at least one significant figure, which over-states the data. It pretty much ensures confusion.

I had addressed this a bit already. Either way, again, it's unfortunate that it's easily conflatable, but languages frequently have terms that are only distinguishable from each other by context and/or knowing which language is being used. I don't see good reason to take special issue with this example of such.

ETA2: Plenty of reason to take issue with misuse, of course, but when it comes to fallacies, that's generally the case.

 

[Nonpareil]

There are 175 failed attempts to determine the existence of paranormal phenomena listed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=43

And that's a drop in the ocean of attempts that have been made.

Ganzfeld is an even smaller drop in that ocean, and its results are both questionable and insufficient to account for the anecdotal evidence.

Fallible perceptions/memories and cognitive biases are, however, entirely sufficient to account for the anecdotal evidence.

Precisely. And, again, the ganzfeld experiments included no means by which they could be said to be evidence of anything, let alone psychic phenomena. There was no mechanism in place to actively detect ESP. Those conducting the experiment simply assumed that any greater-than-chance result indicated telepathic signals being sent, rather than any other explanation. That they had a man in the other room straining and turning purple as he tried to beam out mental signals means nothing unless they can actually show that mental signals are being sent.

Until such time as they find a way to actually detect such things, the absolute best that the ganzfeld experiments can be for the proponents of ESP is "huh, that's interesting". Just interesting. Not "huh, that's an indication of psychic phenomena".

It's an extension from your Neural Brain Scanner Thingy from Future Fantasy Land.
How was that relevant?

If you want to provide evidence for your brain =/= mind opinion, start a separate thread. But let's be honest, you will only demonstrate that you are incapable of showing any meaningful evidence for your opinion.

Once again, on this point annnnoid is actually correct. The brain and the mind are separate entities. The brain is the hardware. The mind is the program being run.

The mind does not exist without or outside the brain, but they are still distinct entities.

 

[Aepervius]

I don't see how you can argue with the stats part. The thing with the grue boils down to "As long as I avoid actually learning anything about the system, I can pretend all outcomes are equally likely". It's been admitted numerous times--every time someone says "I don't know what a grue is", they are admitting to refusing to learn (we're online; Google exists).

As an aside, it tooks me years to understand what a grue is. it was not in the english oxford dictionary I had, and in french a grue is a bird (and a mechanized tool - both are "crane").

http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/data/vignettes/1312072-Grue_cendrée.jpg

So yes for some time all the "it is dark and a grue will eat you" were lost on me

 

[Dinwar]

As an aside, it tooks me years to understand what a grue is. it was not in the english oxford dictionary I had, and in french a grue is a bird.

Really? When my dad got his first CD-ROM it came with three games--Jurassic Park, Wing Commander 2, and Return to Zork. You learn quick not to turn the lights out in that last game, unless you LIKE being eaten by a grue. Though to be honest, I'm not sure if the thing that shows up when you turn your flashlight on is an actual grue or not.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Once again, on this point annnnoid is actually correct. The brain and the mind are separate entities. The brain is the hardware. The mind is the program being run.

The mind does not exist without or outside the brain, but they are still distinct entities.

I've already made such a distinction in this post:

... the physical brain and it's physical activity ...

Much like thoughts or ideas, separate entities from the brain but not separable from the brain, like you said about mind/brain.
These could clearly be called two separate entities although they are not separable.
But generally, the ESP crowd sees ESP as happening in a mind which can be separated from the brain, which is is never demonstrated to be possible.

Which led me to the question:

...
Do you think that the physical brain and it's physical activity which such a machine would scan, means that mind and brain are not separate entities?

Perhaps I should have used the term "separable" in stead of "separate ".

 

[Dinwar]

I had addressed this a bit already. Either way, again, it's unfortunate that it's easily conflatable, but languages frequently have terms that are only distinguishable from each other by context and/or knowing which language is being used. I don't see good reason to take special issue with this example of such.

I guess my issue is that I don't understand what this adds to the conversation, other than the danger of over-stating one's case. What benefit is there to presenting a complete lack of data in this format?

 

[annnnoid]

There are 175 failed attempts to determine the existence of paranormal phenomena listed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=43

A skeptics forum??? You are actually going to claim that a skeptics forum is a reasonably impartial entity wherein to find objective evaluations of such a controversial issue?

…you’ve got to be kidding me.

Show me the mainstream academic studies. This is a phenomena that is reported, if the statistics are accurate, by BILLIONS of people. And you honestly are going to insist that 175 studies listed on a rabidly biased website are sufficient to dismiss them all.

Obviously some skeptics are less skeptical than others.

Not to mention…have you even looked at a lot of those so-called studies. Suffice it to say, any university level academic wouldn’t even find them laughable they are so useless. They do nothing, they say nothing, and they go nowhere.

But not a single skeptic even bothered to look at or challenge any of them. Pixel says "Look at all the evidence that trashes ESP" and every skeptic within spitting range lines up to lap at the bowl. I guess for the average skeptic this is what qualifies as scientifically credible evidence. How impressive.

And that's a drop in the ocean of attempts that have been made.

Well….that’s an extraordinary claim by anyone’s standards. But I guess since we’re at a skeptics forum it is perfectly acceptable to not only NOT provide extraordinary evidence, but to provide absolutely no evidence at all!

Ganzfeld is an even smaller drop in that ocean, and its results are both questionable and insufficient to account for the anecdotal evidence.

Evidence that the results are questionable? How about this guy: Joachim Krueger – card carrying skeptic - "My personal view is that this is ridiculous and can't be true. Going after the methodology and the experimental design is the first line of attack. But frankly, I didn't see anything. Everything seemed to be in good order."

Funny isn’t it…every claim I make, no matter how small or tangential to the discussion is dragged to the floor and evidence demanded.

…but when it comes to skeptics…it’s a free pass all the way

Or how about evidence that any of the ganzfield experiments anywhere anyhow anytime ever claimed to comprehensively account for the anecdotal evidence…like you just implied they failed to do.

Evidence…at a skeptics science forum…you’ve got to be kidding me!

Fallible perceptions/memories and cognitive biases are, however, entirely sufficient to account for the anecdotal evidence.

Where is the data, the studies, the evidence – that establishes an explicit, definitive, and direct link between these events and what all of you consistently insist comprehensively explains them. All of them. Individually and collectively.

…but again…this is a skeptics forum and this is a science thread…so why should we actually expect something so basic as actual evidence to support scientific claims. When you’re a skeptic who is obviously towing the party line you can say whatever you want and evidence can go to the dogs.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Where is the data, the studies, the evidence – that establishes an explicit, definitive, and direct link between these events and what all of you consistently insist comprehensively explains them. All of them. Individually and collectively.
...

Where is the phenomenon, any actual paranormal phenomenon?

 

[Daylightstar]

... This is a phenomena that is reported, ...

But not demonstrated to actually exist.

 

[Dinwar]

Where is the data, the studies, the evidence – that establishes an explicit, definitive, and direct link between these events and what all of you consistently insist comprehensively explains them. All of them. Individually and collectively.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2003/00000010/f0020006/art00012

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699090252M

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1966-35006-000

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712699161378/abstract;jsessionid=921461F5679387DB2B6A17A2DA051B99.f01t02

Happy reading.

 

[Dinwar]

…but again…this is a skeptics forum and this is a science thread…so why should we actually expect something so basic as actual evidence to support scientific claims. When you’re a skeptic who is obviously towing the party line you can say whatever you want and evidence can go to the dogs.

That's not how it works. It is ENTIRELY sufficient for us to demonstrate that there is insufficient data to support your conclusion--once we do that, our job is 100% completed. YOU are making the claim--one which would require a fundamental alteration of our entire understanding of the universe--so YOU get to defend it. Thus far, you've failed. You've admitted that the evidence is anecdotal (meaning that it's not rigorous and does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence), and your continued refusal to demonstrate the validity of the data in your pet blog post demonstrates that you can't do so. Even if your posting style wasn't specifically designed to drive away all potential allies, there's nothing substantive, from a scientific perspective, in your posts. We CANNOT agree with you, not if we value honesty and integrity (two of the cardinal virtues in science). It's your job to provide enough evidence that we can. Again, you've failed.

 

[Nonpareil]

A skeptics forum??? You are actually going to claim that a skeptics forum is a reasonably impartial entity wherein to find objective evaluations of such a controversial issue?

…you’ve got to be kidding me.

You do realize that these experiments were conducted, not by this forum's members, but by the James Randi Educational Foundation, don't you?

That aside, these experiments were arguably biased in favor of the claimants, as they were allowed to define their own capabilities as rigorously as they wanted and were even allowed to help set the parameters of the test.

2.1 Protocols must be “mutually agreed upon.” What does that mean?

Neither the Foundation nor the claimant can force a testing procedure without the approval of the other party. In fact, applicants are encouraged to formulate their own protocol. However, if the protocol you submitted with your application does not qualify as a sufficient test of the claimed ability, the JREF will develop alternate testing protocol that you may agree to. The testing procedure is a negotiation. If at any time it a deadlock is reached, the application process will be terminated, and neither side will be blamed or considered at fault. On occasion, an applicant may agree to a protocol previously designed by the JREF for testing various paranormal claims. Most of the time, however, new test protocols are developed jointly between the applicant/claimant and the JREF so that each party agrees to the terms of the test.

Show me the mainstream academic studies.

Or, here's a thought, you could show those in favor of it.

The burden of proof, after all, is on you.

Evidence that the results are questionable? How about this guy: Joachim Krueger – card carrying skeptic - "My personal view is that this is ridiculous and can't be true. Going after the methodology and the experimental design is the first line of attack. But frankly, I didn't see anything. Everything seemed to be in good order."

And yet many others could - and did - spot many flaws in the methodology.

Where is the data, the studies, the evidence – that establishes an explicit, definitive, and direct link between these events and what all of you consistently insist comprehensively explains them. All of them. Individually and collectively.

And we're back to applying unreasonable standards of evidence when talking about disproving your pet theories, while attempting to allow even word of mouth as evidence for it.

We know people are wrong, lie, are confused, hallucinate, or any number of other things on a regular basis. We know that they have done so, repeatedly and provably, about such topics as ESP and its related phenomena. If you want to sit there and screech about it "not being proven", that's not on us - that's on you. This sort of thing is so widely known and so conclusively proven that the only way to deny it is to willfully shut it out, and we don't feel like wasting our time showing you from the ground up that people can be wrong.

That is a conclusive link. People are demonstrably wrong or lie on a regular basis, for any number of reasons. People have demonstrably done so about ESP and other psychic phenomena. No acceptable evidence in support of ESP or other psychic phenomena being anything more than lies or misunderstandings has ever been put forth. At best, any given result - such as the ganzfeld experiments - is inconclusive, and most of the time it's not even that.

The burden of proof is on you here. Running around in circles and shrieking "but you can't prove it doesn't" is just silly and will convince no one.

 

[Pixel42]

A skeptics forum??? You are actually going to claim that a skeptics forum is a reasonably impartial entity wherein to find objective evaluations of such a controversial issue?

As has been pointed out, these are records of applications for the JREF million dollar challenge. They are only stored on a forum.

Show me the mainstream academic studies. This is a phenomena that is reported, if the statistics are accurate, by BILLIONS of people. And you honestly are going to insist that 175 studies listed on a rabidly biased website are sufficient to dismiss them all.

These 175 applicants were convinced they had paranormal powers based on the type of anecdotal evidence you set such store by. What happened when they were properly tested is therefore exactly the kind of experiment results you should be looking at if you want to know how reliable such anecdotal evidence is.

There are many other such challenges; none of them have been won either.

Evidence that the results are questionable?

Here's a good summary: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1865/whats-the-story-on-ganzfeld-experiments

Where is the data, the studies, the evidence – that establishes an explicit, definitive, and direct link between these events and what all of you consistently insist comprehensively explains them. All of them. Individually and collectively.

The evidence is the fact that when the effect of fallible perceptions/memories and cognitive biases are carefully and methodically excluded, as they were in each of the 175 MDC applications listed which got as far as being tested by JREF, the claimed paranormal phenomena for which there is so much anecdotal evidence simply disappear.

 

[Slowvehicle]

A skeptics forum??? You are actually going to claim that a skeptics forum is a reasonably impartial entity wherein to find objective evaluations of such a controversial issue?

Where better?

For support, just go back and read this thread. Identify the posters asking for evidence. Identify the posters claiming that anecdotes are just as good as evidence.

Not to mention, it was not the forum that ran the tests, nor was it the JREFoundation that designed the tests. The claimants were allowed to massage the test designs until they were content with them...and still failed to demonstrate any of the things they claimed they could.

…you’ve got to be kidding me.

Show me the mainstream academic studies. This is a phenomena that is reported, if the statistics are accurate, by BILLIONS of people. And you honestly are going to insist that 175 studies listed on a rabidly biased website are sufficient to dismiss them all.

You first.

I continue to ask you for your citations; you continue to be evasive and insulting.

Please demonstrate that "billions of people" "report" ESP phenomena.

Oh, yeah, to be "fair", your citations should not include "rabidly" woo!-perstitious sources...

Obviously some skeptics are less skeptical than others.

...assumes facts not in evidence...

Not to mention…have you even looked at a lot of those so-called studies. Suffice it to say, any university level academic wouldn’t even find them laughable they are so useless. They do nothing, they say nothing, and they go nowhere.

I see. You did not, then, bother to read any of them. Once again, you must understand that it was the claimants, themselves, who designed the test. It was the claimants, themselves, that maintained that the could demonstrate their "abilities" under the conditions of the test they, themselves, designed. It was the claimants, themselves, who failed to demonstrate a single paranormal phenomenon in any case, under any controlled circumstances.

But not a single skeptic even bothered to look at or challenge any of them. Pixel says "Look at all the evidence that trashes ESP" and every skeptic within spitting range lines up to lap at the bowl. I guess for the average skeptic this is what qualifies as scientifically credible evidence. How impressive.

Prolly ought to go read the demonstrations, and the conditions under which they were conducted,before you continue to make silly and demonstrably untrue claims.

Well….that’s an extraordinary claim by anyone’s standards. But I guess since we’re at a skeptics forum it is perfectly acceptable to not only NOT provide extraordinary evidence, but to provide absolutely no evidence at all!

I keep asking you, politely, to provide your evidence. So far, you have declined to do so.

One wonders why.

Evidence that the results are questionable? How about this guy: Joachim Krueger – card carrying skeptic - "My personal view is that this is ridiculous and can't be true. Going after the methodology and the experimental design is the first line of attack. But frankly, I didn't see anything. Everything seemed to be in good order."

Funny isn’t it…every claim I make, no matter how small or tangential to the discussion is dragged to the floor and evidence demanded.

...which polite requests you have evaded. Continuously...

…but when it comes to skeptics…it’s a free pass all the way

...as long as you ignore, for instance, the fact that not one of the MDC claimants demonstrated any paranormal "abilities", even by their own claims.

Or how about evidence that any of the ganzfield experiments anywhere anyhow anytime ever claimed to comprehensively account for the anecdotal evidence…like you just implied they failed to do.

Odd that, when corrected for (for instance) noise leakage, the oh-so-minute gonzofield effect...disappears...

Evidence…at a skeptics science forum…you’ve got to be kidding me!

No, that's why I keep asking for your evidence.

Whatcha got (other than anecdotes)?

Where is the data, the studies, the evidence – that establishes an explicit, definitive, and direct link between these events and what all of you consistently insist comprehensively explains them. All of them. Individually and collectively.

Um...you have yet to establish "expilicit, definitive, and direct" evidence that your claimed "effects" happen at all. What plans have you to do so?

Any?

…but again…this is a skeptics forum and this is a science thread…so why should we actually expect something so basic as actual evidence to support scientific claims. When you’re a skeptic who is obviously towing the party line you can say whatever you want and evidence can go to the dogs.

First, it's "toe-ing the party line".

Second, it is, in fact, you who continue to try to get by without any evidence at all.

Do at least consider actually reading the thread.