What Should the Default Skeptical Position on Telepathy Be?

[RoboTimbo]

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,

Why does that change things?

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

How does it change the truth value of my claim?

Seriously, what are you trying to claim?

Am I trying to claim something?

That you don't believe what the vast majority of people tell you? I know that's not true.

I'm simply asking you a question. No need for such defensiveness.

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

 

[Fudbucker]

The question was originally what should be the default position on the question according to rational skepticism. The answer to that is straightforward.

No, I know what the default skeptical position is. What it should be is a different thing that still hasn't been settled, and it hinges on what should be counted as extraordinary claims.

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?

1. Prima facie plausibility in conversations where such observations are reported. In other words, if someone tells me they seemed to read their spouse's mind the other day, I'm going to assume they're not lying. I assume you will concur with this and agree that not everyone who reports these experiences is lying. Which leaves (2)

2. If intermittent telepathy is impossible, then all the people who talk about it are all mistaken. I don't believe we're all mistaken, nor do I beleive we're all liars, I see no good reason to disbelieve in intermittent telepathy, so I have no problem with the existence of 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?

1. I had narrow goalposts in the OP. I specifically talked about

the idea that telepathy might happen occasionally and very rarely at that (call it "intermittent telepathy)

2. In practical terms, you can't determine what's actually producing the observation. That's what makes the lack of laboratory evidence so insignificant- you wouldn't expect there to be any, except maybe at the extreme margins, where it would be lost in statistical noise. The question is: is everyone who reports this kind of thing wrong? Why should I believe they are? Why is the default position that we're all wrong about this?

 

[angrysoba]

What? Your claim for "intermittent telepathy" is that you sometimes know what your wife is thinking?

That's not telepathy. That's being somewhat, maybe baseline, observant.

 

[kellyb]

2. In practical terms, you can't determine what's actually producing the observation. That's what makes the lack of laboratory evidence so insignificant- you wouldn't expect there to be any, except maybe at the extreme margins, where it would be lost in statistical noise. The question is: is everyone who reports this kind of thing wrong? Why should I believe they are? Why is the default position that we're all wrong about this?

That's the part that makes the absence of evidence, evidence of absence here. Nobody's been able to detect a statistical signal in anyone, ever, or in any animal species, etc.

And you know it can be something non-paranormal causing the effect, like coincidence and/or extremely subtle external environmental cues triggering the same thoughts in the same two people who think alike as a result of being together so much they share a mind in a way.

 

[kellyb]

What? Your claim for "intermittent telepathy" is that you sometimes know what your wife is thinking?

That's not telepathy. That's being somewhat, maybe baseline, observant.

I have what seems like "intermittent telepathy" with my oldest kid sometimes, and it's a heck of a lot weirder than that.

I'll have some thought, seemingly out of the blue, like "We should go to Baskins Robins for a banana split again soon" and he'll..."verbally echo" the thought, word for word within a second.

Just because it seems paranormal doesn't mean it is, though.

 

[Fudbucker]

That's the part that makes the absence of evidence, evidence of absence here. Nobody's been able to detect a statistical signal in anyone, ever, or in any animal species, etc.

I know, but if it's something that you would expect to be lost at the margins, the fact that it's not showing up doesn't mean anything. Let's say I'm hypothesizing that every ten days or so someone does a bit of involuntary mind-reading. How on Earth would I test for that? Even if I gave them a Zener-card test 24/7 for a month straight, the few times they're legitimately getting the card right is going to completely be drowned out by all the other times they're guessing. So the fact that nothing shows up isn't disconfirming.

And you know it can be something non-paranormal causing the effect, like coincidence and/or extremely subtle external environmental cues triggering the same thoughts in the same two people who think alike as a result of being together so much they share a mind in a way.

Yes, that's a possibility.

 

[Fudbucker]

I have what seems like "intermittent telepathy" with my oldest kid sometimes, and it's a heck of a lot weirder than that.

I'll have some thought, seemingly out of the blue, like "We should go to Baskins Robins for a banana split again soon" and he'll..."verbally echo" the thought, word for word within a second.

Just because it seems paranormal doesn't mean it is, though.

Yes, that is the experience I'm talking about. That's a good way to put it.

 

[arthwollipot]

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?

What's extraordinary about the claim of telepathy is that there is no known physical or biological mechanism to account for it, and that it has been never demonstrated under controlled conditions.

Going to China doesn't break the known laws of physics. Telepathy does. That's what makes it extraordinary.

And no, you do not "know" what your wife is thinking. You know her well enough that you can predict her reactions sometimes, but you are not literally reading her mind when you do that. That's not what telepathy is.

 

[kellyb]

I know, but if it's something that you would expect to be lost at the margins, the fact that it's not showing up doesn't mean anything. Let's say I'm hypothesizing that every ten days or so someone does a bit of involuntary mind-reading. How on Earth would I test for that? Even if I gave them a Zener-card test 24/7 for a month straight, the few times they're legitimately getting the card right is going to completely be drowned out by all the other times they're guessing. So the fact that nothing shows up isn't disconfirming.

You would expect "outlier" people who it happened more for, tho. Or for the many animal experiments to have picked something up.

Something. Anything.

The fact that nobody has been able to find anything in anyone makes me think it's almost definitely some non-paranormal phenomenon.

 

[EHocking]

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?

This is not telepathy though.

You are merely Hans and you’re wife is Wilhelm von Osten.

 

[JayUtah]

No, I know what the default skeptical position is. What it should be is a different thing that still hasn't been settled, and it hinges on what should be counted as extraordinary claims.

No, you're conflating what the position should be with how to behave from one situation to another in response to that position. You're assiduously avoiding commenting on situations that differ from your straw man of the casual, inconsequential encounter.

if someone tells me they seemed to read their spouse's mind...

Not the same question as whether they're actually reading the other person's mind. "Telepathy is real" is not the same proposition as "There are observations which could be attributed to telepathy."

If intermittent telepathy is impossible, then all the people who talk about it are all mistaken. I don't believe we're all mistaken, nor do I beleive we're all liars...

I have no problem believing that all the people who believe something without proof might be mistaken. The notion that they're all liars, however, is another straw man.

I see no good reason to disbelieve in intermittent telepathy, so I have no problem with the existence of it.

That's because you have no skin in the game. Let's say your spouse dies and in his/her will there is clause that says you get nothing if you are unfaithful. Let's say there is an affidavit saying he/she was "telepathically aware" that you cheated. How should the probate court proceed in your case?

In practical terms, you can't determine what's actually producing the observation...

Why not?

That's what makes the lack of laboratory evidence so insignificant...

The laboratory experience is what makes it practical to determine precise causes. If we can control for as many possible causes as possible, that lets us conclude things about the ones we allow to vary.

...you wouldn't expect there to be any, except maybe at the extreme margins, where it would be lost in statistical noise.

Nonsense. If there is an actual effect, I would expect it to show up under a variety of circumstances. It's special pleading to claim there's something magical about "laboratory conditions" that defeats attempts to test a causation you've proposed.

The question is: is everyone who reports this kind of thing wrong? Why should I believe they are? Why is the default position that we're all wrong about this?

No, you're consistently trying to conflate social behavior with how knowledge is determined.

 

[kellyb]

And no, you do not "know" what your wife is thinking. You know her well enough that you can predict her reactions sometimes,

He's not talking about predicting reactions to noticeable environmental stimuli. He's talking about "out of the blue" mental synchronicity, on par with when you pick up the phone to call a friend you haven't talked to in weeks, and before you hit one button, your phone rings and it's them. But even weirder than that.

I still think it's nothing paranormal, but rather a series of subtle, undetected environmental cues causing the same "thought cascade" in two people wired to think similarly as a result of being together a lot (and in the case of me and my oldest kid, sharing a genetically very similar brain, as well.)

 

[arthwollipot]

He's not talking about predicting reactions to noticeable environmental stimuli. He's talking about "out of the blue" mental synchronicity, on par with when you pick up the phone to call a friend you haven't talked to in weeks, and before you hit one button, your phone rings and it's them. But even weirder than that.

I still think it's nothing paranormal, but rather a series of subtle, undetected environmental cues causing the same "thought cascade" in two people wired to think similarly as a result of being together a lot (and in the case of me and my oldest kid, sharing a genetically very similar brain, as well.)

He's talking about telepathy. Literal transmission of thoughts from one person's brain to a different person's brain. None of what you or he has described is telepathy. You're right that there's nothing paranormal or supernatural about occasionally thinking the same thing as another person, regardless of how surprisingly coincidental it appears to be. That's not telepathy. Fudbucker is taking very ordinary circumstances and claiming that it is evidence of literal transmission of thoughts from one person's brain to another.

 

[kellyb]

He's talking about telepathy. Literal transmission of thoughts from one person's brain to a different person's brain. None of what you or he has described is telepathy. You're right that there's nothing paranormal or supernatural about occasionally thinking the same thing as another person, regardless of how surprisingly coincidental it appears to be. That's not telepathy. Fudbucker is taking very ordinary circumstances and claiming that it is evidence of literal transmission of thoughts from one person's brain to another.

Agreed. I'm just saying that it's not just a "You know her well enough that you can predict her reactions sometimes" thing. It's more of a "freaky coincidences are freaky" thing.

 

[Fudbucker]

He's not talking about predicting reactions to noticeable environmental stimuli. He's talking about "out of the blue" mental synchronicity, on par with when you pick up the phone to call a friend you haven't talked to in weeks, and before you hit one button, your phone rings and it's them. But even weirder than that.

I still think it's nothing paranormal, but rather a series of subtle, undetected environmental cues causing the same "thought cascade" in two people wired to think similarly as a result of being together a lot (and in the case of me and my oldest kid, sharing a genetically very similar brain, as well.)

Yes, the bolded.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, the bolded.

Which is not telepathy, and not evidence of telepathy, any more than "You know her well enough that you can predict her reactions sometimes" is.

 

[Fudbucker]

He's talking about telepathy. Literal transmission of thoughts from one person's brain to a different person's brain. None of what you or he has described is telepathy. You're right that there's nothing paranormal or supernatural about occasionally thinking the same thing as another person, regardless of how surprisingly coincidental it appears to be. That's not telepathy. Fudbucker is taking very ordinary circumstances and claiming that it is evidence of literal transmission of thoughts from one person's brain to another.

I'm taking the reports of such activity (and my own experiences) as being honest and not all mistaken. The fact that there's no apparent biological explanation doesn't make me think otherwise. There's no apparent biological explanation for abiogenesis. We're even farther away from figuring out how consciousness arises from matter. That doesn't make abiogensis and consciousness paranormal. There are a lot of things that happen that we can't explain. That's what science is all about: explaining things.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm taking the reports of such activity (and my own experiences) as being honest and not all mistaken. The fact that there's no apparent biological explanation doesn't make me think otherwise. There's no apparent biological explanation for abiogenesis. That doesn't make it paranormal. There are a lot of things that happen that we can't explain. That's what science is all about: explaining things.

Right, and science has explained what you are describing. Coincidence, confirmation bias, and plasticity of memory can completely explain what you are describing. There is no need for the telepathy hypothesis because there is nothing more to explain.

 

[angrysoba]

I have what seems like "intermittent telepathy" with my oldest kid sometimes, and it's a heck of a lot weirder than that.

I'll have some thought, seemingly out of the blue, like "We should go to Baskins Robins for a banana split again soon" and he'll..."verbally echo" the thought, word for word within a second.

Just because it seems paranormal doesn't mean it is, though.

Yeah, and there are so many reasons why you might both have the same thought at the same time.

The fact you have already been before makes it much less surprising as you may have been on a day very similar to the one on which you both had the same idea.

Perhaps the jingle for the ice cream shop was just on TV or on the radio and you both heard it, but maybe only subconsciously.

Or maybe you both saw a banana, or even heard the word "split".

Or maybe, because you had both eaten at the same time you felt like dessert and you both remembered the dessert you had eaten not long ago etc...

Either way, shared experiences are more than likely to result in similar thoughts.

 

[Fudbucker]

Which is not telepathy, and not evidence of telepathy, any more than "You know her well enough that you can predict her reactions sometimes" is.

That's a possible explanation. You'll have to argue further to establish it should be the default explanation.

Kellyb has said we should have found something by now. Possibly. It's disconfirming a little that we haven't. But outside of a few groups like PEAR, which shut down awhile ago, this stuff doesn't really get studied much. If a low-grade ability like I described exists, I can see it getting lost in the noise, or an anamolous result getting dismissed because it's so hard to replicate. And there are people who have claimed to have gotten some results on the margins (again, the PEAR group), but you have to wade through tons of stats to evaluate their claims, and there are other experts who claim they're wrong.