Being skeptical of skepticism?

[martu]

Now, you've already accepted the law of conservation of mass as "proven."

I want my proof dammit! She can accept the law all she wants (actually I'd like to see her try not to that would be fun) but that's not what she said, she said it was proven.

 

[drkitten]

Is there ?

Absolutely. I believe that the Riemann hypothesis is true, but I certainly wouldn't claim there's proof.

More pragmatically, I believe that it's true that OJ killed his wife, but I don't think there is proof available. The jurors evidently didn't think there was proof available.

Let's face it, this is how most cops (and working scientists) operate. Having looked at the crime scene, they'll come up with a set of beliefs about what happened and who dunnit and look for further evidence until either they are forced to drop their beliefs or get enough supporting evidence that they can consider them "proven."

If my footprints are on the floor beside the body and my fingerprints are on the knife, it would be a dumb cop indeed who didn't believe that I had done it. You bet I'd be a suspect and be interviewed very extensively. On the other hand, when they find out I have an ironclad alibi and they find evidence that someone rifled my cutlery set and my shoes, they'll start believing quite the opposite. Eventually the DA will haul the real criminal into court and prove that he did it (and thereby prove my innocence).

 

[Belz...]

Absolutely. I believe that the Riemann hypothesis is true, but I certainly wouldn't claim there's proof.

More pragmatically, I believe that it's true that OJ killed his wife, but I don't think there is proof available. The jurors evidently didn't think there was proof available.

Let's face it, this is how most cops (and working scientists) operate. Having looked at the crime scene, they'll come up with a set of beliefs about what happened and who dunnit and look for further evidence until either they are forced to drop their beliefs or get enough supporting evidence that they can consider them "proven."

If my footprints are on the floor beside the body and my fingerprints are on the knife, it would be a dumb cop indeed who didn't believe that I had done it. You bet I'd be a suspect and be interviewed very extensively. On the other hand, when they find out I have an ironclad alibi and they find evidence that someone rifled my cutlery set and my shoes, they'll start believing quite the opposite. Eventually the DA will haul the real criminal into court and prove that he did it (and thereby prove my innocence).

Damn. And I wanted to see what Deep44 would've answered.

You've just spoiled my week-end, Kitten.

 

[Limbo]

I asked for scientific evidence. That is a page trying to sell me $250 "worth" of DVD and asks, "How much success, prestige, respect and even $$$ can be yours with this mind-boggling power?"

$250 "worth" of DVDs are not necessary. All you need is a ring or something, and a piece of string. You would have realized that had you read the page carefully.

Not quite the a scientific journal...

There is no substitute for personal experience. Don't take this the wrong way...but are you a little nervous, perhaps? That would be understandable, but there is nothing to be nervous about. You won't be hypnotizing yourself...you won't be harmed. You won't be magically transformed in an evil "woo". You will be using a simple, home-made pendulum to play "20 questions" with your unconscious/subconscious mind. That's it.

Like what? What new evidence is in either of these two videos do you feel would be compelling enough for me to reconsider my position that crop-circles are anything other than man made?
How so?

Do you not have the time to watch it yourself? I would think that for something as important as this, people would make the time. But that's just me...I'm the hands-on, do-it-yourself investigative sort.

I'm trying to encourage you to do a little experimenting and investigating yourself. Please don't let me go away thinking that your 'stance' discourages or prohibits such things. I do want to keep a little faith in skepticism.

 

[drkitten]

Damn. And I wanted to see what Deep44 would've answered.

You've just spoiled my week-end, Kitten.

I'm sorry. I don't think that Deep44 would have answered with anything particularly snickerworthy (or praiseworthy), though. For what it's worth.

 

[drkitten]

Don't take this the wrong way...but are you a little nervous, perhaps? That would be understandable, but there is nothing to be nervous about. You won't be hypnotizing yourself...you won't be harmed. You won't be magically transformed in an evil "woo". You will be using a simple, home-made pendulum to play "20 questions" with your unconscious/subconscious mind.

Isn't it interesting how whenever rationalists refuse to play along with a long-discredited enabling "game," it's somehow evidence of psychological problems on the rationalists' part? All the armchair psychologists seem to come out in force.

No, Limbo. It won't turn us into evil "woo." It won't, in fact, do anything --- including allow me to play 20 questions with anything.

All it will do is waste my all-too-precious time.

 

[drkitten]

Do you not have the time to watch it yourself?

Er, no.

I would think that for something as important as this, people would make the time.

Even the assessment that it's "important" is wrong.

Crop circles have been done to death, by a lot of people. This is no more "important" than yet another snake oil salesman saying "but this bottle of magic water is truly different." Every carnival huckster and shady conman says the same thing -- "this one is different."

And every huckster will find marks that believe him.

 

[Limbo]

Isn't it interesting how whenever rationalists refuse to play along with a long-discredited enabling "game," it's somehow evidence of psychological problems on the rationalists' part? All the armchair psychologists seem to come out in force.

No, Limbo. It won't turn us into evil "woo." It won't, in fact, do anything --- including allow me to play 20 questions with anything.

All it will do is waste my all-too-precious time.

I run into this kind of thing a lot with skeptics. It's very frustrating.

That's why I conducted my own personal experiment a while back with several skeptics. Not only were they able to use a home-made pendulum to effectively communicate with their unconscious mind, but some were actually able to use the pendulum to find house-hold objects they misplaced. How? The location of the object was in their unconscious mind all along...the pendulum and ideomotor motion was a way to get to that information.

They were shocked.

Dr Kitten, I think that sometimes people are scared that they will be proven wrong about something...scared to be shocked...scared they may have to re-evaluate the stance that they have an emotional investment in, and so when given a chance to actually do it themselves they will rationalize reasons not to do it...or not to read something...or not to watch a certain video. Psychological defense mechanisms kick in to protect their investment. I see the same thing with religious folk. It's all too human.

That is one of the reasons why I have very little faith in "skepticism"...why I am "skeptical of skepticism". Here skeptics have an opportunity...but you, and evidently EHocking as well, refuse to take it. I hesitate to use the word cowardice...but maybe it applies.

 

[Tbone]

I have an anecdote too. I did the exact same thing that Limbo did with his skeptics, and not only were the people quite annoyed that I had wasted their time to do something so stupid and pointless, they neither communicated with anything nor found anything they had misplaced.

Yep, personal experience is the best.

 

[Belz...]

That's why I conducted my own personal experiment a while back with several skeptics. Not only were they able to use a home-made pendulum to effectively communicate with their unconscious mind

Woah, wait a minute. Stop right there.

What the hell is an "unconscious mind" ?

I thought we had ONE mind, part of which operated without us focusing on it.

Or perhaps you know something I don't

but some were actually able to use the pendulum to find house-hold objects they misplaced. How?

The fact that you can't think of how does not mean that the pendulum works.

The location of the object was in their unconscious mind all along...

That's a pretty stupid brain that evolution has produced, right ? I mean, why would the conscious mind forget that but, somehow, this mythical other mind of yours remembers. What's the evolutionary advantage of not remembering something useful ?

They were shocked.

and gullible, I guess.

Dr Kitten, I think that sometimes people are scared that they will be proven wrong about something...

Let's see you put your money where your mouth is. Are YOU willing to get tested for this ?

That is one of the reasons why I have very little faith in "skepticism"

The other being that people who are skeptical of claims such as yours are harder to scam ?

 

[Limbo]

I have an anecdote too. I did the exact same thing that Limbo did with his skeptics, and not only were the people quite annoyed that I had wasted their time to do something so stupid and pointless, they neither communicated with anything nor found anything they had misplaced.

Yep, personal experience is the best.

Then try it yourself. Or are you scared?

 

[Limbo]

The fact that you can't think of how does not mean that the pendulum works.

'How' was a rhetorical question, which I answered in the sentence after.

That's a pretty stupid brain that evolution has produced, right ? I mean, why would the conscious mind forget that but, somehow, this mythical other mind of yours remembers. What's the evolutionary advantage of not remembering something useful ?

"Mythical other mind"...lol. Call it what you will...unconscious processes, subconscious mind, unconscious cognition, nonconscious, etc etc or the part of our ONE mind which "operates without us focusing on it."

It is the part of our minds which can micro-manage ideomotor movement (which is beyond conscious control) in order to make the pendulum swing a particular direction. A direction which means 'yes', clockwise for instance. It can micro-manage ideomotor movement in order to make the pendulum swing the other direction for 'no'. You can then ask that part of your mind yes/no questions.

Gee...imagine that. Something so simple yet skeptics are so arrogantly SURE it can't be true...that they are unwilling to try it at home. Keep it up, skeptics. Prove me right about the weakness of your stance.

"Though it is rarely spoken of in discussions about human movement, descriptions of ideomotor activity are present in the medical literature beginning in 1852 when The Proceedings of the Royal Institution reprinted a lecture by William Carpenter. He identified ideomotor as a third category of nonconscious, instinctive behavior, which also included excitomotor (breathing and swallowing) and sensorimotor (startle reactions) activity. Ideomotor movement is secondary to thought, and it begins in the cerebrum.

The discovery of its presence and descriptions of intricate studies demonstrating its manifestation conducted in the 19th and 20th centuries can be found in Hermann Spitz's text (see resources).

In short, ideomotor action is well documented and the reality of its presence has never been refuted. Instead, it seems simply to have been forgotten. As Ray Hyman states, "Although the effects of ideomotor action have been understood for at least one hundred fifty years, the phenomenon remains surprisingly unknown, even to scientists."
http://www.barrettdorko.com/articles/ideomotor.htm

Let's see you put your money where your mouth is. Are YOU willing to get tested for this?

Do you think this is a paranormal...supernatural...magical claim I'm making here?

The other being that people who are skeptical of claims such as yours are harder to scam ?

Oh yes...you're onto me. I'm trying to "scam" you out of a few minutes of your time.

Maybe I should add paranoid to the list of skeptic shortcomings...along with cowardly and arrogant.

I wonder if there are any brave and intellectually honest skeptics around here?

 

[tyr_13]

Limbo, you are describing the placebo effect. You tell them that the device will work, help them find something, and it does. Of course you can do the same thing with any other trick too, including 'spells' of finding. You want to know another one that 'works'? The the people to just go to the object they are looking for. They already know where it is, so just go there. Of course this only works if they really do know where it is. It isn't accessing information that is stored in another part of the brain, it is just tricking them into focusing. I'm not saying it isn't a useful trick, akin to bedtime rituals to help you go to sleep, but it isn't proof that a pendulum works because, as I understand it, the claim is that the pendulum works better than just focusing.

The pendulum does NOT work. Mental tricks 'work'. It isn't the pendulum any more the sugar in sugar pills for what 'works'.

Also, your criticism is about arrogance and dismissive attitudes NOT skepticism. But there are many reasons to be skeptical about people who ask, "why not just give it a try?" This is because the skeptic knows that they can be tricked, or scammed, and are often targeted for it. This is human nature, not skeptical nature. Your problems seems to be not with skepticism, but specific tendencies of people who are skeptics. Please don't lump them all together.

 

[Limbo]

The pendulum does NOT work.

"Work"...in what manner? A supernatural manner? Is that what you think I'm claiming?

Sorry, I won't accept anything from skeptics who refuse to try this for themselves. Skeptics are pretty good at weaseling out of things. NO WEASELING OUT.

"Try this simple experiment: Get a pendulum or create one by, tying a piece of string to a ring. You can also use a necklace or gold chain of some sort that swings easily in all directions. Something 8 to 10 inches long is ideal. Rest your elbow on a table with your arm straight up and your hand parallel to the table (your wrist will be bent at a 90 degree angle). Hold the string or chain loosely in between your index finger and thumb. Ask your unconscious mind to choose a movement to indicate yes. It can be a clockwise circular motion, a counter clockwise circular motion or a back and forth motion in any direction. Mentally think "yes" over and over again. Usually within a few seconds the pendulum begins to move. Ask your unconscious to pick a different motion to signify "no". Notice which way the pendulum moves this time. You have now set up ideomotor signals to communicate directly with your unconscious mind."

http://www.hypnosis101.com/ideomotor.htm

Read the whole page and follow the directions closely.

There is absolutely no excuse for insisting that something doesn't "work", and then refusing to try it to see for oneself...especially when it's so damn simple.

There is no cost involved...I have nothing to gain from you, there is no scam, there is no trick. It can be done in your home with a few house-hold items and a little time.

There is only ONE reason why a skeptic wouldn't try it. Cowardice. Fear of being wrong.

 

[Limbo]

Also, your criticism is about arrogance and dismissive attitudes NOT skepticism. But there are many reasons to be skeptical about people who ask, "why not just give it a try?" This is because the skeptic knows that they can be tricked, or scammed, and are often targeted for it. This is human nature, not skeptical nature. Your problems seems to be not with skepticism, but specific tendencies of people who are skeptics. Please don't lump them all together.

As I said earlier, I get the same kind of thing from religious folk. It's because both religion and "skepticism" encourage a great deal of emotional investment. People come to identify themselves as "religious", and then defend religion tooth and nail. They are part of a team...a community. It's part of their persona. An us-against-them tribal mentality takes over...spirituality often takes a back seat.

By the same token, people come to identify themselves as "skeptics" and then defend "skepticism" tooth-and-nail. Especially when they identify themselves so strongly as a "skeptic" that they seek out and join local or on-line communities (such as this one) ...make friends with other skeptics...conform to social norms...identify common enemies. They are then part of a team...a community. It's part of their persona. An us-against-them tribal mentality takes over...the personal quest for truth often takes a back seat.

Then, the self-proclaimed "skeptic" has fallen into the same trap that the self-proclaimed "religious" folk fall into. Two sides of the same ugly coin.

So yes, when someone cares enough about "skepticism" to be active in this community, then they have an emotional investment and I lump them together...but I suppose I should call the people here pseudo-skeptics...because calling the people here skeptics is an insult to true skeptics out there...true skeptics would not let themselves become so emotionally invested in their position that they can't bring themselves to perform a simple experiment at home. A true skeptic would have done it long ago...a true skeptic would have the intellectual honesty and the humility to come back and admit the experiment was successful and then be willing and able to discuss the implications with me like an adult.

Communities like this...revolving around "de-bunkers"...end up perverting the true spirit of skepticism. (just as organized religion can end up perverting spirituality) It becomes about ideology, pride in "our side", etc. Communities like this give self-proclaimed skeptics too much to lose...too much to protect...so much so that they become cowardly...cynical...prejudiced...paranoid. Afraid that their persona, which they have invested so much time and emotion in, will crack.

"Birds of a feather flock together."

 

[Marrena]

I don't want to veer this thread too much, but I think the skeptics here have too much faith in the veracity and pure-minded motives of the scientific community, particularly the medical scientific community. I posted a link earlier in this thread, but this one is more pointed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/the-anthrax-perpetrator-a_b_119278.html

"The drug companies spend billions of dollars each year, often in the form of hush money for lawsuit settlements, in order hide from the public how deadly their drugs can be. They advertise heavily in the scientific journals and in the general media, and use this leverage to suppress negative information about their products. The drug companies control much of what happens in organized medicine and psychiatry, including nearly all pharmacology research. The FDA and the NIMH act like partners to the drug industry in what I call the psychopharmaceutical complex. This is not so much a conspiracy as an open partnership among interest groups who feed off pushing psychiatric drugs onto the public."

 

[drkitten]

I run into this kind of thing a lot with skeptics. It's very frustrating.

Then I suggest you stop projecting and start actually thinking.

Dr Kitten, I think that sometimes people are scared that they will be proven wrong about something...

You're right. Sometimes that happens. I estimate the likelihood of that actually happening at about one in a hundred or thereabouts. Sometimes what happens is people are simply annoyed because they're being asked to participate in a long-disproved magic trick that they've seen done dozens of times, but for some reason the 'mark' not only doesn't know the trick, but doesn't even believe that someone else might know the trick.

That is one of the reasons why I have very little faith in "skepticism"...why I am "skeptical of skepticism". Here skeptics have an opportunity...but you, and evidently EHocking as well, refuse to take it.

I remember my mother telling me, when I was considerably smaller, that I would like shellfish if only I tried it. I tried it, I didn't like it. The next time she prepared shellfish, she told me that I would like it if only I tried it. I tried it, I didn't like it. The next time she prepared shellfish, I refused to eat it. She said that I had an opportunity to learn that I liked shellfish, and I asked for a single credible reason to believe that this shellfish would taste any different than the last several times that I had tried it.

To this day, I hate shellfish. I will still refuse to eat it, because it tastes foul. And I'm not sure what you could say to me to persuade me to try it,... but telling me about an opportunity or calling me a coward certainly isn't it.

You like opportunities? Here's one for you. Here's your opportunity to explain how and why this particular bit of already-disproven woo is different from the literally hundreds of pieces of already-disproven woo out there.

Like it or not, beliefs come with a track record. (Most woos don't like it.) Stupid beliefs come with track records of stupidity, and most skeptics learn quicky that anything arriving in a package labeled "stupid" is most likely wrong -- wrong to the point of not wasting time on.

Here's your opportunity. You have an opportunity to provide evidence to distinguish this particular stupid belief from the hordes of other beliefs that are not only stupid, but wrong. And so far, you've been failing. And, again, we've been noticing this failure to provide evidence --- which in practical terms amounts to evidence that it is not only stupid, but wrong. (That's another thing woos don't like. As much as you might like to believe that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the simple fact is that if we have reason to believe that evidence would be available, and it's not produced, that's grounds for reasonable disbelief. Check Bayes' rule for a formal proof.)

So you've already several strikes against you. You walk into the discussion with a lame theory, and then instead of providing evidence, the best you can provide is a web page obviously selling snake oil and $250 DVDs, and a set of lame interviews that supposedly prove your point, but from which you can't even extract a salient summary. Every post you've made has provided evidence --- whether you like it or not -- for a rational person not to believe the theory you're peddling.

So here's your final chance. My energy and time are not limitless; if you want me to perform "a simple experiment at home, " make it worth my while. Show me why I should believe that YOUR shellfish tastes any less nasty than any of the other nearly identical shellfish I've been exposed to in my life.

 

[drkitten]

I posted a link earlier in this thread, but this one is more pointed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/the-anthrax-perpetrator-a_b_119278.html

And totally un-credible. The Huffington Post is up there with the National Enquirer in terms of journalistic credibility.

 

[-Fran-]

That's why I conducted my own personal experiment a while back with several skeptics. Not only were they able to use a home-made pendulum to effectively communicate with their unconscious mind, but some were actually able to use the pendulum to find house-hold objects they misplaced. How? The location of the object was in their unconscious mind all along...the pendulum and ideomotor motion was a way to get to that information.

I am skeptic that they were skeptics!

 

[Limbo]

You like opportunities? Here's one for you. Here's your opportunity to explain how and why this particular bit of already-disproven woo is different from the literally hundreds of pieces of already-disproven woo out there.

Anyone who actually reads what I have said, critically, would see that what I am claiming is not "woo". Here is a "woo" claim: "The pendulum is a magical device that allows you to communicate with supernatural entities, to receive reliable information known only to those supernatural entities. Win the lotto! Know the future!"

Here is another one: "The pendulum is a tool of the devil, it will put your soul in danger to use one. Just like a Ouija board...it will make you vulnerable to demonic influence. Beware!"

Now, here is what I am claiming: Through ideomotor movement and a device, such as a pendulum, our sub-conscious mind (or whatever the hell you want to call it) can communicate with our conscious mind giving meaningful measurable results.

This can be verified with a simple test and a little time. It's so easy a caveman could do it.

Gee whiz...