Princeton Nukes ESP Department

[cj.23]

I know. It wasn't really the right time to consider that God was an unnecessary entity.

Linda

And Hume. (That no testimony is sufficient to establish [an event that cannot be explained by the known laws of nature], unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more [inexplicable] than the fact which it endeavors to establish.)

In your quote the bit in square brackets [xxxx] = "a miracle" in Hume?

I seem to recall Hume was talking about miracles. Now I seem to recall Hume defined a miracle as an exception to natural law, or arbitrary exception thereof -- and supernatural. Now a paranormal (Dawkins: perinormal) phenomena is naturalistic, not super-naturalistic, and therefore within the purview of science.

If a phenomenon is naturalistic, hence within the purview of science, then extraordinary or not, the evidence required to qualify as proof is exactly the same as for any other scientific claim. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof - they require quite ordinary proof. If they are real ordinary proof should be possible to produce in abundance. If you can't prove them, they are clearly reasonable in inverse proportion to how extraordinary they are - just a hypothesis. Extraordinary claims are extraordinarily unlikely. Yet they require the same proof as anything else.

Does that make sense?

cj x

 

[omegablue]

Invoking occam's razor is simply saying that the mundane explanations need to be factored out before going to the paranormal nonsense.

It´s nonsense for a skeptic, and a fact for a mystic. Invoking occam´s razor for this is like invoking the bible in favor of miracles.

Invoking skepticism is saying that it has not been scientifically established that cold reading is behind these claims. Even if it is tempting and compelling to chose over cold reading because your education and training tells you so. At least, for me!

 

[omegablue]

I think omega just does not understand the point that until we can factor out all the natural explanations there's no need to even entertain the paranormal. ensure we can't prove that Altea or Sylvia are fakes, but we don't need to we can assume it until they can actually prove that they're not. in short, the burden of proof is on the psychics not the skeptics.

The burden of proof is carried by the claimant. If a skeptic is the claimant when the certainty of cold reading being the cause of the hit is presented by him, so he´s bearing the load now. And it appear to exist no scientific evidence up till now.

 

[cj.23]

Occam's Razor is as I have pointed out many times a useful tool but by no means reliable unless used as part of a repertoire of investigative methods of enquiry. It is not a principle of the universe. Any accident report tends to invole multiplicatiuon of entities - that is how most catastrophes seem to happen - many unlikely circumstances coming together.

cj x

 

[omegablue]

You can't scientifically say that a psychic it IS doing cold reading. You can say that what they are doing is indistinguishable from cold reading.

Nopes, this certainty (that they are indistinguishable) have to be derived from properly designed experiment results. If the results are almost even, then yes you could say it.

 

[omegablue]

Cold reading isn't necessarily a fraud. A psychic may be doing it subconsciously. I'm not saying we are certain about what Rosemary was doing. I'm saying that her statements cannot be used as plausible evidence for psi, as there are plausible, normal ways that she could have come up with those statements.

As long as there is no certainty and just doubt in this statement, i´m with you Lindy.

Because it's been proven to be eminently useful? Making stuff up unnecessarily gets us into trouble.

Hmmm, yes it has been proven to be useful for developing the materialistic and reductionist framework, but still not worth of being a bible for rationality and scientific exploration. This philosophy can lead to over simplifying things even when they are more complex than they appear to be, just because the simpler explanation is currently making more sense for us. See how it can be misleading.

 

[omegablue]

Just for the sake of my curiosity. What would be the way of facing the quantum measurement problem using Occam´s Razor Linda or anyone?

 

[omegablue]

As a magician who occasionally does mentalism effects, I can tell you that occasionally being wrong, especially under the circumstances in this rosebush case (i.e., a strong hit already obtained but I take a chance on making it stronger) go a long way in selling my "legitimate" abilities.

Or...ruining it in front of Randi, the Inquisitor of the frauds. Smart gamblers would not think that it was a good time for risky bets. I´m almost sure about this, but who knows...

So... cold reading, set-up, psychic powers?? Hmm....

 

[omegablue]

I know. It wasn't really the right time to consider that God was an unnecessary entity.

Linda

And now it is? Why?

 

[Ersby]

Just a quick question to omegablue:

What, exactly, do you mean by scientific evidence?

Do you want a paper written about this specific guess, or ones that demonstrate there's no real difference between a "psychic reading" and guessing? Or something else entirely?

 

[omegablue]

I highly recommend Darren Brown's Messiah and the first episode of Penn & Teller: Bulls hit. These two programs do close to what you are asking for.

AAAah would you record it and ship it to me?

 

[Kage]

Nopes, this certainty (that they are indistinguishable) have to be derived from properly designed experiment results. If the results are almost even, then yes you could say it.

As much as I agree that a test would be great, getting a psychic to sit down to one would be really difficult, if not impossible. Watching derren brown do a better reading than I have seen from a psychic is good enough for me. P&T also have a guy who used to make money off of this scam talk about what he does.

 

[omegablue]

Just a quick question to omegablue:

What, exactly, do you mean by scientific evidence?

Do you want a paper written about this specific guess, or ones that demonstrate there's no real difference between a "psychic reading" and guessing? Or something else entirely?

This claim is too strong and too disseminated by the skeptics: "Cold reading is behind psychic claims of readings." It´s simple, like I said above, a series of replicated studies could be made to reach this conclusion. So if indeed the results were even, i.e. cold readers guessed 45% right and self-proclaimed-psychics 46% then they would be right, there is no way of distinguish , and therefore this claim "Cold reading is behind psychic claims of readings." would have much more weight, you could even argue that is scientifically demonstrated.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The burden of proof is carried by the claimant.

Not necessarily. If the claimant is saying something that's already been established as fact, the burden would be on those who oppose.

If a skeptic is the claimant when the certainty of cold reading being the cause of the hit is presented by him, so he´s bearing the load now.

Not really, it is actually up to others to prove that she's using methods that are not cold-reading, especially since what she's doing looks exactly like cold reading and can be demonstrated as such.

What you are doing is this:

A psychic claims that spirits told her 2*3*3 = 18.

Now, we can say, "no she used math."

It's not up to the "she used math" people to prove that she used math. This analogy is an accurate representation of what you're trying to tell people to prove. You're telling people to prove that Altea is using math to determine that the product of 2*3*3=18 and not receiving the information from spirits.

 

[omegablue]

As much as I agree that a test would be great, getting a psychic to sit down to one would be really difficult, if not impossible. Watching derren brown do a better reading than I have seen from a psychic is good enough for me. P&T also have a guy who used to make money off of this scam talk about what he does.

Let me advocate against it a little and see if I make sense. Darren and P&T are confirmed skeptics on the paranormal and not first time investigators. A human being (remember PEAR staff being accused?) can be greatly dishonest, biased and even unconsciously biased about what he/she is trying to prove. So these characters you mentioned might well have been suffering from these prejudices while trying to show the public that they were right. So if you are happy with this kind of evidence, i´ll have to place you as an opposite of the believer in paranormal believing that a Geller demonstration on spoonbending was sufficient for making his mind about the existence of such a phenomenon.

Watching outside I can pretty much put you two in the same sack labeled "believers". One taking for granted the skeptic´s approach and the other the mystic´s approach, both without needing scientific testing and replicability (misspelled, which is the right word!?!).

Unless these demonstrations you mentioned were successfully tested in lab and also replicated.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's interesting that Omega ignores the fact that PEAR was not forthcoming with their data and they wouldn't allow outside scientists to replicate the experiments with their equipment. That's ok, Omega, you are a believer and we understand you'll keep on spinning.

 

[omegablue]

Not necessarily. If the claimant is saying something that's already been established as fact, the burden would be on those who oppose.

Not really, it is actually up to others to prove that she's using methods that are not cold-reading, especially since what she's doing looks exactly like cold reading and can be demonstrated as such.

The problem is , boxer ken, it has not yet been established as fact, at least not scientifically as it ought to be in order to be used as a fair debunking tool. Currently it makes more sense to X but not to Y, according to X and Y´s beliefs and education. It looks like i´m being stubborn all the way, but i´m just pinpointing that you are not following the classical skeptic adage that any claim ought to be a target for scientific scrutiny. If a skeptic has something as being a fact, then necessarily it has been scientifically demonstrated, or not?

What you are doing is this:

A psychic claims that spirits told her 2*3*3 = 18.

Now, we can say, "no she used math."

It's not up to the "she used math" people to prove that she used math. This analogy is an accurate representation of what you're trying to tell people to prove. You're telling people to prove that Altea is using math to determine that the product of 2*3*3=18 and not receiving the information from spirits.

This example , i´m afraid it´s not suitable to the discussion. Math is exact in it´s concepts, and subjects of cold reading are not. "2+2 = 4" is not the same as "someone in your family is moving on". The math example of yours is scientifically demonstrated and the cold reading counter part has not.

 

[omegablue]

It's interesting that Omega ignores the fact that PEAR was not forthcoming with their data and they wouldn't allow outside scientists to replicate the experiments with their equipment. That's ok, Omega, you are a believer and we understand you'll keep on spinning.

Oh am I ignoring this? Sorry I did not know. Where did I make it clear? In fact i´m still investigating PEAR´s case in order to have a more concise opinion.

And speaking of being a believer, I could equally say that you are too. Cuz you are spinning around without noticing that there is no scientific evidence for cold reading being behind psychic claims. Unless you are speaking that you are not pretending to do science while debunking the psi, but rather warring against using your beliefs and points of view as your only guns.

 

[omegablue]

And boxer ken,

My part on this discussion right now has more to do with the cold reading issue than the thread title itself. So , I have to apologize for being off-topic.

 

[cj.23]

A psychic claims that spirits told her 2*3*3 = 18.

Now, we can say, "no she used math."

At least she would have 100% genuinely used a psychic power and lived up to her name. The question is really is have they used a psychical power? (Being playfully pedantic as always - I tried to win the Bad Psychics challenge by demonstrating a psychic power - memory. They laughed at me! )


cj x