What Should the Default Skeptical Position on Telepathy Be?

[Fudbucker]

"How it works" in the way you're referring to here is more a matter of what standard of proof should apply situationally. Anecdotally, there's usually no need for the claim to be believed as a matter of knowledge, and no desire on the part of the listener to challenge it. If it's a casual anecdote casually reported and casually received, then a low standard of proof applies. The default position is still the null hypothesis, but the null may be easily overcome, or the question simply set aside in favor of other concerns such as avoiding unnecessary arguments.



Yes, that is the null position. If someone claims to have gone to China in the context of a cocktail party, the null hypothesis is still the same, but the other intervening circumstances make contention ill-advised. Wheaton's Law seems to be a good yardstick here. The claim is prima facie plausible (travel to China is reasonably common) and the consequences of either belief or disbelief are negligible. Hence under those circumstances a skeptic could be persuaded to accept a lower standard of proof.

If on the other hand someone claims to have gone to China as an alibi against the accusation of a crime, then there indeed arises a much higher standard of proof. It becomes more important to establish that visit as a matter of objective fact, hence we apply a higher standard of proof. Skeptics tend toward the latter approach in all cases of propositional knowledge, but it seems like you're trying to conflate the propriety of a skeptical approach in all cases with the philosophical justification for rational skepticism. those are applies and oranges.

None of this erases the condition that the null hypothesis was the same in each case, applied in each case, and was required to be overcome in each case. Don't confuse the propriety of skepticism with the practice of skepticism.



The null hypothesis is not doubt per se. It simply arises naturally from any affirmative claim. When you say "default position," this to me says the position that is most rationally presumed before we turn to the question of evidence. That said, prima facie plausibility enters the picture. A claim that is implausible on its face tends to suggest a higher standard of proof. "I went to China" is not at all implausible on its face. "I can read minds" is. The question doesn't exist in a vacuum.

It doesn't because most people are honest. The default position is to assume a statement from a person is honest unless proven otherwise.

If you think not, I would really like to follow you around for a day, and watch you interact with people.

 

[JayUtah]

It doesn't because most people are honest. The default position is to assume a statement from a person is honest unless proven otherwise.

It would have been nice if you had paid attention to what I said in the post you quoted. The default behavior in most social circumstances is not to question assertions made casually. That has nothing to do with what the skeptics' philosophical position would be on a question intended to be taken as generally rational knowledge.

When you state the proposition as "Telepathy is real," that's not the same as some guy on the subway saying, "Hey, by the way I'm telepathic." I wouldn't question the latter as a matter of social impropriety. But at the same time, I wouldn't believe him. I don't need to believe him because his claim is inconsequential.

But if you want "Telepathy is real" to be considered rational knowledge on the same level as, say, "Space travel is real" then you must achieve the same standard of proof as is available for other propositions of the same degree of credibility. You're trying to claim that because lower standards of proof exist under more casual circumstances, the same low standard of proof should apply in your case, and that this is qualitatively equivalent to ignoring the null hypothesis.

If you think not, I would really like to follow you around for a day, and watch you interact with people.

You should really follow me around for a day and watch how I do my job in contrast to how I interact with people socially. You'd see the distinction I argued in my post, which you're assiduously trying to conflate. I know the difference between standards of proof and when to apply each.

 

[smartcooky]

That's not how it works when people report anecdotal accounts. If someone claims to have gone to China, is the null position, "No you didn't"? You don't go around doubting everything everyone says.

But "I have just been to China" is not an extraordinary claim, its just an ordinary claim. Millions of people visit China every year; its nothing new or unusual.

"I am telepathic" is an extraordinary claim. If I were to make such a claim, I would need to back it up with extraordinary evidence. Despite the fact that many people have claimed they are telepathic, not a single claim of telepathy has ever been scientifically proved.

 

[angrysoba]

Reminds me of this scene from Peep Show:

 

[RoboTimbo]

It doesn't because most people are honest. The default position is to assume a statement from a person is honest unless proven otherwise.

If you think not, I would really like to follow you around for a day, and watch you interact with people.

Does telepathy belong in the 99% camp or the 1% camp?

 

[bruto]

That's not how it works when people report anecdotal accounts. If someone claims to have gone to China, is the null position, "No you didn't"? You don't go around doubting everything everyone says.

I think that's a poor example, though it's a common sort. There is abundant evidence that it is possible to go to China, and abundant evidence of how it is done. Not only is there no real evidence for telepathy, there is no good explanation of how it would occur if it did.

Just because you can use the word "anecdote" for two stories does not mean they must be treated the same.

 

[fromdownunder]

It doesn't because most people are honest. The default position is to assume a statement from a person is honest unless proven otherwise.

If somebody told me they had been to China, I would not doubt their honesty, and the claim is of no importance.



If they said they had been to China and walked the full length of the Great Wall, I would be highly dubious of the claim, even though it is, in the bigger scheme of things, of no importance so I would not really bother to try to confirm.


If somebody claimed that they flapped their arms and flew next to the Great Wall for its entire length, then I would demand pretty overwhelming evidence, or simply not believe them.


Three different claims, three different levels of evidence required.


Norm

 

[JayUtah]

That would disconfirm the claim that telepathy that can be performed in controlled settings most likely doesn't exist.

There is nothing magical or cabalistic about "controlled circumstances." That is simply the common sense procedure of determining whether the purported causation exists to the degree that it can be considered propositionally true. Given that throughout history we have seen many attempts to fool people into thinking telepathy is real, it is prudent to attempt to detect subsequent such attempts. If you believe telepathy is real then such frauds work against your interest; you would be motivated to support attempts to weed out the charlatans that undermine your credibility.

If you meet someone at a party who says he can transmute aluminum into gold, you probably wouldn't question him at the time. If someone asked you to pay him $100,000 to transmute aluminum into gold for you, would you ask to see a demonstration before handing over the money? Would you take steps to ensure you weren't being fooled?

See, your attitude changes when you have skin in the game. Your skepticism may not be any different, but your willingness to act on it increases when you have something to lose by being wrong. Skepticism is about having skin in the game for the benefit of all. You can think of skeptics as the consumer advocates in the marketplace of ideas. An idea proposed as generally true will need to provide evidence and pass tests that might not be proper under other circumstances. Most of the situations you're proposing as equivalent -- i.e., "follow you around for a day and see how you interact with people" -- are not equivalent because they aren't about propositions intended for general acceptance. How skeptics respond to propositions of general knowledge has nothing to do with how skeptics interact with people on a daily basis. Being a skeptic doesn't require being a jerk.

 

[arthwollipot]

Thousands of people have said that they've been to China. But here's the thing. None of them have visa stamps for China in their passports. None of them have any Chinese memorabilia or souvenirs in their possession. And some of them were spotted in a diner in downtown Denver on a day that they claimed to have been in China. Some of them have named cities in China that they said they've been to, but those cities don't even exist!

And now you expect me to believe that you've been to China? Come on. Oh, now you're saying that you've been to China only intermittently? That you're sometimes in China, and that you can't predict when you may or may not be there, and if I happen to ask to see your passport, you probably won't be able to provide it for me. And you expect be to believe that that means that you're more likely to have been to China.

Pull the other one. It's got bells on.

 

[Fudbucker]

But "I have just been to China" is not an extraordinary claim, its just an ordinary claim. Millions of people visit China every year; its nothing new or unusual.

"I am telepathic" is an extraordinary claim. If I were to make such a claim, I would need to back it up with extraordinary evidence. Despite the fact that many people have claimed they are telepathic, not a single claim of telepathy has ever been scientifically proved.

Right, the question is whether it's an extraordinary claim or not. I have heard accounts from credible people so many times (including experiencing it myself) that I would be surprised if occasional telepathy didn't happen. And the claim that infrequent sporadic low-grade telepathy occurs among people who have lived together a long time is not that extraordinary a claim. There's nothing that contradicts it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Right, the question is whether it's an extraordinary claim or not. I have heard accounts from credible people so many times (including experiencing it myself) that I would be surprised if occasional telepathy didn't happen.

I claim I've been to China.

Have I, in fact, been to China?

 

[kellyb]

And the claim that infrequent sporadic low-grade telepathy occurs among people who have lived together a long time is not that extraordinary a claim. There's nothing that contradicts it.

Yes, it is. Telepathy is a very extraordinary claim regardless of how frequently people claim it, on par with alien abductions and deities working medical miracles.

 

[Fudbucker]

I claim I've been to China.

Have I, in fact, been to China?

This is a message board, not a normal conversation. If you want me to modify my claim to we accept what normal people say in normal conversations at face value, fine. That's still 99% of what goes in a given day. The occasional one-off interactions with homeless people talking to invisible companions or message board posters trying to score points doesn't change the fact that we interact with people with the assumption they're on the level, esp. people we know fairly well. Is the claim that people who report occasional mind-reading are all lying? That would be extraordinary. So if they're not all lying, then they would have to all be mistaken. That's possible of course, but that, to me, also seems extraordinary.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes, it is. Telepathy is a very extraordinary claim regardless of how frequently people claim it, on par with alien abductions and deities working medical miracles.

Why? What makes it extraordinary? I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility I occasionally "know" what my wife is thinking and vice-versa. I assume this happens with most people. What's extraordinary about that?

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is a message board, not a normal conversation.

How does that change the dynamic?

If you want me to modify my claim to we accept what normal people say in normal conversations at face value, fine. That's still 99% of what goes in a given day. The occasional one-off interactions with homeless people talking to invisible companions or message board posters trying to score points doesn't change the fact that we interact with people with the assumption they're on the level.

Where were you trying to score points?

 

[Rougarou]

To echo the gist of some of the above comments, I don't subscribe to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence. I may or may not ask for evidence depending on the situation.

 

[JayUtah]

Just because you can use the word "anecdote" for two stories does not mean they must be treated the same.

It's a bait-and-switch. "What's the skeptic philosophy?" is not the same question as "How do you behave on a daily basis?" No, I'm not one-dimensional. My belief in the rational skeptic approach doesn't govern my every interaction with every person I meet. It does, however, govern my evaluation of statements proposed as generally true.

 

[Fudbucker]

How does that change the dynamic?

Other than us typing at each other and being total strangers and complete lack of body language and people moderating the conversation and other people lurking in the background listening to what we say and the conversation having strict parameters about being on topic,

It's totally the same thing as an ordindary conversation.

Seriously, what are you trying to claim? That you don't believe what the vast majority of people tell you? I know that's not true. The discussion has moved on. It's about whether claims of occasional telepathy are extraordinary. Someone will soon give a reason why such claims should be considered extraordinary.

 

[JayUtah]

Right, the question is whether it's an extraordinary claim or not.

The question was originally what should be the default position on the question according to rational skepticism. The answer to that is straightforward. Now we've moved on to the question of what degree of proof is required to overcome that default. You tried to make the telepathy claim, for that purpose, roughly equivalent to a different claim with reasonable prima facie plausibility. In your opinion, what role should prima facie plausibility play in determining the appropriate standard of proof? What factors do you think should contribute to prima facie plausibility in the case of telepathy?

And the claim that infrequent sporadic low-grade telepathy occurs among people who have lived together a long time is not that extraordinary a claim. There's nothing that contradicts it.

"Sporadic low-grade" sounds like widening the goalposts. Two people who live together would be expected to predict each other's behavior with greater proficiency that two strangers. How would you go about determining what actually produced that observation?

 

[kellyb]

Why? What makes it extraordinary? I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility I occasionally "know" what my wife is thinking and vice-versa. I assume this happens with most people. What's extraordinary about that?

You do know what she's thinking sometimes, but that doesn't make it telepathy.

Claims of a supernatural power are extraordinary.