SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[blutoski]

Why is he still given the benefit of the doubt?

To answer the second question: because everything I've read of his is independently verifiable by neutral sources, so he appears to put his money where his mouth is, and has a reputation for reliability.

 

[JihadJane]

A reference would be nice...

Sorry for the lack of reference. I'd assumed that the psychic dog controversy would be common knowledge. It was one of the first bits of information I came across when I did a bit of google research into who James Randi is when I joined this forum. I'd previously only vaguely heard of him. Blutoski's and cj.23's (and others?) ignorance of this controversy suggests they haven't applied their skeptical curiosity to the Master . Interestingly, one of the the episodes that Sheldrake relates is very similar to those described in the OP (apparently inaccurately) in the Edison and the Wright brothers examples:

"Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: 'Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by.' This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape."

http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html

I'd like to echo Limbo's comment:

Overall, I would have to say the dominant vibe coming from skeptic communities is hatred.

though my experience of "debunkers" online has been less of hatred than of weirdly juvenile and condescending bullying. Most of my posting experience has been on a general political discussion forum (commentisfree) where there are heated debates on many topics. The especially petty nastiness of "debunkers" attracted to debates there on the paranormal, homeopathy, 911 skepticism and global warming is outstanding.

My experience on JREF has confirmed my suspicion that a certain domineering personality type is attracted to the easy emotional rewards of debunking. As a poster above observes these playground bullies could be just a noisy minority but that is not my impression. Few debunkers seem to be able able to restrain their need to aggressively assert their supposed psychological superiority and dominance. It has led me to surmise that they feel inferior in some way and are compensating. Their often juvenile approach to difference suggests to me that their emotional drive to debunk could be rooted in authoritarian child-rearing practices.

The OP is interesting but mostly anecdotal. It would be more interesting to see a large sample of skeptics and their victims submitted to some personality tests. Perhaps this has already been done?

 

[tyr_13]

The victims of skeptics? Wow...just, wow...

Confirmation bias much?

 

[Moochie]

Sorry for the lack of reference. I'd assumed that the psychic dog controversy would be common knowledge. It was one of the first bits of information I came across when I did a bit of google research into who James Randi is when I joined this forum. I'd previously only vaguely heard of him. Blutoski's and cj.23's (and others?) ignorance of this controversy suggests they haven't applied their skeptical curiosity to the Master . Interestingly, one of the the episodes that Sheldrake relates is very similar to those described in the OP (apparently inaccurately) in the Edison and the Wright brothers examples:

"Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: 'Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by.' This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape."

http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html

I'd like to echo Limbo's comment:


though my experience of "debunkers" online has been less of hatred than of weirdly juvenile and condescending bullying. Most of my posting experience has been on a general political discussion forum (commentisfree) where there are heated debates on many topics. The especially petty nastiness of "debunkers" attracted to debates there on the paranormal, homeopathy, 911 skepticism and global warming is outstanding.

My experience on JREF has confirmed my suspicion that a certain domineering personality type is attracted to the easy emotional rewards of debunking. As a poster above observes these playground bullies could be just a noisy minority but that is not my impression. Few debunkers seem to be able able to restrain their need to aggressively assert their supposed psychological superiority and dominance. It has led me to surmise that they feel inferior in some way and are compensating. Their often juvenile approach to difference suggests to me that their emotional drive to debunk could be rooted in authoritarian child-rearing practices.

The OP is interesting but mostly anecdotal. It would be more interesting to see a large sample of skeptics and their victims submitted to some personality tests. Perhaps this has already been done?

Much waffle and a bit of psychobabble.

Here, evidence rules. You know, that stuff that you can't make up.


M.

ETA: I apologize for quoting the entire post; it seems apropos.

 

[tyr_13]

Funny, I just googled James Randi, and nothing about this 'controversy' came up. Also, Rupert's accusation has no link, no supporting quote, and in general, no evidence backing it. He just says it happened. Even if it had, oh no! Randi's human!

Of course the critisim of Rupert Sheldrake and his is work is far from limited to 'Master' Randi and 'skeptics', but includes mainstream scientists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake Maybe you should look in places besides Mr. Sheldrake's own website for information?

More on Randi and how he relates to Sheldrake's work is about half way down this page. http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-09/09806guess.html

Although it is really funny that here, http://www.skeptiko.com/blog/?p=13 , Sheldrake tries to make out like Randi is doing something wrong while Sheldrake keeps posturing.

You have trouble with the, "certain domineering personality type is attracted to the easy emotional rewards of debunking," that makes very little difference in the end. I have trouble with the tendency of believers to desire absolute truth, blame others for problems, and in general simply not accept responsibility for their own lives. They want patterns or 'truths' to be in control so that they cannot be held responsible for what happens in their lives, or that others are to blame. They don't want hard choices, and are all to willing to give control to those who want to control them. That doesn't change evidence.

Talk about what personalities are attracted to skepticism all you want, it doesn't change the evidence.

Who says we give Randi the benefit of the doupt? He just happens to back what he is saying up. If that changed, people besides the 'victims' of 'Master Randi' would point that out and back it up.

 

[Soapy Sam]

If there is trickery through advanced technology, what did tricksters use to fake light shows in the days before fiber optic filamants? Mysterious lights are very old.

It seems to me that an explanation needs to apply to the past as well as the present, or else it lacks explanatory power.

Why?

WE now have perfectly natural explanations of natural light phenomena which would certainly apply to similar phenomena in the past- Lightning, St.Elmo's Fire, The Aurora, etc.

Some light phenomena we have suggested explanations for- piezoelectric / triboluminescent effects in tectonically stressed minerals for example would seem not implausible. Time will tell.

But we are not discussing meteorological phenomena whose causes may be presumed to have been the same in 1000AD as in 2000AD.



No explanation available to 19th century science would explain a laser lightshow, because lasers did not exist at the time. Likewise, one cannot use lasers to explain light that burned holes through metal in 1840.
(None are reported to have done so.)

The descriptions I have of the lights seen at Scole are highly specific and are (to my mind suspiciously) similar to special effects used in Pixar type movies.
There are cultural and iconic features which I have never encountered in descriptions of earlier light apparitions. Like the hairstyles of the Cottingley Fairies, they are oddly..fashionable. When an object is described as looking like a spaceship from a movie, it seems more probable that art is imitating art than that the moviemakers copied their designs from a real paranormal phenomenon. Perhaps you would feel differently about that.

This - and the knowledge that at least one unfrocked charlatan was associated with Scole, (though not a member of the Scole Research Group itself), inclines me to suspect trickery, possibly performed by an outsider.
I freely state that I do not know how such trickery might have been done, but that in itself is meaningless: I have been flummoxed by close up magic performed by professional conjurors. How they did it is for them to know and for me to work out.
In any case, I did not mention advanced technology. I mentioned advanced trickery. The most astonishing stage magic effects are often done using very simple methods.

 

[JihadJane]

The victims of skeptics? Wow...just, wow...

Confirmation bias much?

I use the word deliberately because skeptics appear to in permanent attack mode, presumeably because they feel threatened. I’m not sure by what. Perhaps some of the possibilities suggested in the OP are accurate.

Much waffle and a bit of psychobabble.

Here, evidence rules. You know, that stuff that you can't make up.


M.

ETA: I apologize for quoting the entire post; it seems apropos.

I am simply sharing my impressions and suggesting that more research would be interesting.

Impressions are inherently subjective.

Funny, I just googled James Randi, and nothing about this 'controversy' came up.

Perhaps you need to be a little more imaginative with your search criteria.

Also, Rupert's accusation has no link, no supporting quote, and in general, no evidence backing it. He just says it happened. Even if it had, oh no! Randi's human!

Randi has proved fond of litigation in other areas so I'm sure he would challenge Sheldrake's statement if it weren't true. I also doubt that Sheldrake, a scientist, would published easily discredited lies on his website.

Yes Randi's human and he lied. That's all I was saying - in response to someone saying that someone who cheats once shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.

Of course the critisim of Rupert Sheldrake and his is work is far from limited to 'Master' Randi and 'skeptics', but includes mainstream scientists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake Maybe you should look in places besides Mr. Sheldrake's own website for information?

More on Randi and how he relates to Sheldrake's work is about half way down this page. http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-09/09806guess.html

Although it is really funny that here, http://www.skeptiko.com/blog/?p=13 , Sheldrake tries to make out like Randi is doing something wrong while Sheldrake keeps posturing.

I posted about Sheldrake's criticism of Randi's "work" not Randi's criticism of Sheldrake's work.

You have trouble with the, "certain domineering personality type is attracted to the easy emotional rewards of debunking," that makes very little difference in the end.

Where did I say I had trouble with them? It was an observation. I am interested to know what's behind "debunkers'" online behaviour.

I have trouble with the tendency of believers to desire absolute truth, blame others for problems, and in general simply not accept responsibility for their own lives. They want patterns or 'truths' to be in control so that they cannot be held responsible for what happens in their lives, or that others are to blame. They don't want hard choices, and are all to willing to give control to those who want to control them. That doesn't change evidence.

What's that got to do with the psycholgy of skeptics?

Talk about what personalities are attracted to skepticism all you want, it doesn't change the evidence.

Evidence of what? I was discussing the psychology of skeptics.

Who says we give Randi the benefit of the doupt? He just happens to back what he is saying up. If that changed, people besides the 'victims' of 'Master Randi' would point that out and back it up.

A poster suggested people who cheat should not be given "the benefit of the doubt".

 

[Mashuna]

I also doubt that Sheldrake, a scientist, would published easily discredited lies on his website.

Why would you doubt this?

 

[tyr_13]

You have still not shown that Randi lied. Your theory is that Randi sues people, therefore, if a man lied about Randi, he would have been sued. Because he has not been sued, he must not be lying. Also being wrong does not equal lying.

Maybe 'debunkers' are in perpetual 'attack mode' in order to get people to listen and change.

"Perhaps you need to be a little more imaginative with your search criteria." So I should type in 'James Randi is a lair' or, 'James Randi sucks' to get it?

I was pointing out all the other people who have been critical of the psychic dog guy to show how your assertion that skeptics don't apply skepticism to James Randi is off base. Other people back it up with reasoning.

My observation is that if you think 'debunkers' are, "weirdly juvenile and condescending bullying," than you have not spent much time on the internet.

 

[shuttlt]

I'd assumed that the psychic dog controversy would be common knowledge.

I had heard about it, and would be surprised if it wasn't fairly well known on the forum.

On the subject of hatred, you might want to take a look at the following thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128787

Another interesting link on this topic is:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html
Where Karla McLaren, an ex-New Age believer talks about exactly the kind of rudeness that I think you refer to.

One of the things that has struck me reading about mobile phones causing cancer (where my interest began), homeopathy, cancer cures, psychics, proof of the Bible etc... is the mind numbing sameness of it all. The specifics of the science change, but the core argument feels, at least to me, to be the same every time. If people don't always seem willing to give a believer a decent hearing, I suspect it is often because this is far from the first time they've heard what the believer has to say. For myself, I am often drawn back by the fantasy that these threads can resolve themselves in anything other than stale mate. I hear it happens, but I have yet to see it.

The hatred on this forum tends to be reserved from people who appear to be making money from, or causing harm through their promotion of things that we believe are either useless or harmful. Pity, boredom or at worst irritation would be the worst I'd say about the way regular believers are normally treated.

 

[cj.23]

Sorry for the lack of reference. I'd assumed that the psychic dog controversy would be common knowledge. It was one of the first bits of information I came across when I did a bit of google research into who James Randi is when I joined this forum. I'd previously only vaguely heard of him. Blutoski's and cj.23's (and others?) ignorance of this controversy suggests they haven't applied their skeptical curiosity to the Master .

JihadJane, I work in the field of parapsychology, and will cheerfully ask Sheldrake about it -- I recall the dog/pet owner research, and have myself participated in some of Sheldrake's research in a very minor way. I just can't recall James Randi being involved, but I think your notion that I am a follower of the "master" might surprise James Randi, and rather a lot of posters on thsi forum! I just felt it out of character for what I know of James Randi - not much, but I have friends in common and he has always struck me as a an intelligent, astute and honest observer - if combatitive and perhaps at times curmudgeonly! I rarely impart anything but the best intent to my opponents, and I still think Mr Randi would have been entirely sincere in whatever critique he made -- wrong, possibly, but sincere.

I just don't see this as a "party political" issue. I'll go have a look, and if I am completely wrong will apologize! I think Limbo can assure you however that I am hardly an a priori sceptic.
cj x

 

[blutoski]

Sorry for the lack of reference. I'd assumed that the psychic dog controversy would be common knowledge. It was one of the first bits of information I came across when I did a bit of google research into who James Randi is when I joined this forum. I'd previously only vaguely heard of him. Blutoski's and cj.23's (and others?) ignorance of this controversy suggests they haven't applied their skeptical curiosity to the Master . Interestingly, one of the the episodes that Sheldrake relates is very similar to those described in the OP (apparently inaccurately) in the Edison and the Wright brothers examples:

I'm not 'ignorant of the controversy'... you were vague and I had no idea what you were talking about.

"Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: 'Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by.' This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape."

http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html

Well, two things... if it's true, then we need more information to determine if this was a lie or an error on Randi's part. I haven't seen evidence specifically about a lie. Secondly, if it's not true, then is Sheldrake lying or in error?

Out of curiosity, how did you determine which story is true? (keeping in mind that you are very upset at Skeptics for 'just accepting x's word for it.')

One of the reasons that skeptics aren't as obsessed with this as psi people is that we're focusing on the central claim's validity, rather than the ancillary theatrics.

 

[Limbo]

I think Limbo can assure you however that I am hardly an a priori sceptic.
cj x

Yes I can cheerfully do that CJ my friend!

I believe Sheldrake touches on this whole dog and Randi thing in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY

 

[blutoski]

Yes Randi's human and he lied. That's all I was saying - in response to someone saying that someone who cheats once shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.

I would suggest that demonstrating that Randi lied on TV (again: this remains to be proven) is not at all related to giving experimenters the benefit of the doubt involving claims that appear to defy the laws of physics. Parsimony is contextual. Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.

To put this into a scientific context, science has had its share of fraud. The participants' careers are ruined, specifically because they cannot be trusted ongoing.

Why should PSI work differently if they want to be considered a science?

Are you saying that PSI research should work like a TV show?

 

[blutoski]

I just can't recall James Randi being involved

The example was just JR espousing about the footage on a television show. He wasn't directly involved in Sheldrake's experiment.

, but I think your notion that I am a follower of the "master" might surprise James Randi, and rather a lot of posters on thsi forum! I just felt it out of character for what I know of James Randi - not much, but I have friends in common and he has always struck me as a an intelligent, astute and honest observer - if combatitive and perhaps at times curmudgeonly! I rarely impart anything but the best intent to my opponents, and I still think Mr Randi would have been entirely sincere in whatever critique he made -- wrong, possibly, but sincere.

That's my guess at this point. He's, what, 80? Getting his footage films mixed up, and Sheldrake's fanboys making a federal case out of it. It's sad if the best they can do is exploit senescence.

I recall a few years ago when Atkins died and some skeptics made a big deal out of the fact that he was technically overweight. I consider it a low blow whether it's a skeptic or woo.

I just don't see this as a "party political" issue. I'll go have a look, and if I am completely wrong will apologize! I think Limbo can assure you however that I am hardly an a priori sceptic.
cj x

According to my first wife "everything's political." I am disappointed to see the psi people openly advocating for polemics and soap operas over improving research quality.

 

[blutoski]

To put this into a scientific context, science has had its share of fraud. The participants' careers are ruined, specifically because they cannot be trusted ongoing.

Why should PSI work differently if they want to be considered a science?

Further to this, there is also an effort made within the scientific community to distinguish between fraud, incompetence, versus honest mistake. It's the first two situations that ruin careers, but the third shouldn't.

A case in point is that I'm very disappointed with Duesberg's HIV/AIDS proclaimations, but I try not to let that cloud my evaluation of his recent ideas about cancer. He could be right, and I'm not going to let that poison an opportunity to pursue a new direction in cancer detection and treatment.

But a big distinction is that his ideas - while unusual - are entirely plausible, and he has provided good evidence corroborated by others who, like me, think he's misguided, if sincere.

 

[Limbo]

Science versus Opinion on the Paranormal

Article

Evidence vs Opinion on the Paranormal:

Jim Balter, arguing against Sue Pockett's pleas for open-minded consideration of the relevance of parapsychological data to consciousness studies, states:

"It takes a closed mind to tacitly assume that those who reject the parapsychological have not evaluated the evidence."

May I add a reality note from actual personal experience?

I have devoted a significant part of my 30+ years career to studying the scientific (not the popular) literature on parapsychology and actually carrying out some studies of psychic abilities in my own laboratory. When I first got interested in this field I (naively) assumed that intelligent people, *especially scientists*, read thoroughly in the relevant scientific literature of published experiments before reaching a conclusion about the reality or lack of it of various ostensible psi abilities. I'm sorry to say that out of the several dozens of people who are strongly critical of parapsychological studies that I have read the writings of and/or met, I can only think of one who has read even a small fraction of the relevant experimental literature, and that one has a very poor track record of persistently repeating factual mistakes in his arguments that he has been corrected on and acknowledged (at the time).

I'm not in favor of irrational belief, but irrational disbelief is just as bad, especially when such people present themselves as scientists. I might think that quantum physics is pretty crazy, e.g., but if I voice an opinion to that effect I'll make it clear that it's my uninformed, layman's personal opinion, not my opinion as a scientist who has studied and comprehended the relevant data.

So if any of you want to have a strong opinion that there's nothing in parapsychological studies we need be concerned with, and you state it as your *personal* opinion, I have no quarrel with you. But if you want us to believe this is the informed opinion of a scientist (or philosopher or rational person), kindly go out and read and study the experimental literature first. You have about 1500 articles to read.

I don't have time for a long discussion of this, but (my personal opinion), after 30+ years, I really am weary of the least informed making the most noises.

Perhaps Balter is an exception to my experience and has studied this experimental literature in detail and found specific, plausible flaws: if so, he should be publishing detailed articles in the parapsychological literature so that experimenters can correct any such problems. I don't recall seeing any such articles.

I am preparing further articles on the relevance of parapsychological findings to the study of consciousness and in due time will present a systematic and detailed exposition of this material.

Charley Tart

Copyright Detail

1. You must copy this document in its entirety, without modifications, including this copyright notice.

2. You do not have permission to change the contents or make extracts.

3. You do not have permission to copy this document for commercial purposes.

 

[JihadJane]

Thanks for the various responses and the links, shuttlt. I aim to respond fully soon. I was reading the ""This is what you believe" post and thread ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128787 ) last night. I composed but didn't post this response:

I hope this isn't considered off-topic but I wanted to add that this tendency ["This is what you believe" arguments] isn't limited to God debates. In the "Conspiracy Theories" section I am frequently told what I believe, am informed about what are the real workings of my inner mind and about what I am really thinking. It has been a surprise to me to discover how many "debunkers" rely on 'Remote Viewing' to guide them through life!

I consider myself a skeptic though, in the subject area where I have most frontline experience, terrorism, my skepticism falls on the wrong side of JREF skepticism so that it sometimes appears to me that skeptics are, indeed, as someone above says about magicians, as easily duped as whatever non-skeptics are called ("twoofers", and variants thereof, in my case!).

Best wishes.

 

[cj.23]

Hi Limbo!

I'm guessing the one was Ray Hyman? I think you could add several more these days - many more actually, and even then Jessica Utts was a prime candidate - though she 'converted' to belief in psi as I recall?

Blutoski, I think the experiments were shown on British TV back in about 1996. I may well be totally wrong. I have no idea about what happened, but asking Randi seems the best way forward, and I'll drop an email to Rupert Sheldrake if we don't already have his side of things? I'm afraid i know almost nothing about the research in question. just remeber a brief TV bit on a news show or something but I'll have a look through the parapsi lit database tomorrow and se if i can find it. Anyone help? I don't think we have to assume senility or forgetfulnmess. Randi seemed as sharp as ever last few things I saw from him on here in the commentary!

cj x
cj x

 

[Jeff Corey]

...I consider myself a skeptic though, in the subject area where I have most frontline experience, terrorism,

That scares me. I hope you don't get your paycheck out of my taxes. Having you actually have "frontline experience with terrorism" makes me hope you are checking airline passengers' toothpaste for C4. With a dog with an IQ testably higher than yours.

... my skepticism falls on the wrong side of JREF skepticism so that it sometimes appears to me that skeptics are, indeed, as someone above says about magicians, as easily duped as whatever non-skeptics are called ("twoofers", and variants thereof, in my case!)...

You are right about that. Your bogus skeptism devolves into incoherent babble.