• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

Limbo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Those are unreasonable expectations for any field. People are allowed to have opinions on subjects where they have read the necessary literature, rather than the entire body of literature.

In science, we have the Cochrane Collaboration, which conducts literature reviews so others don't have to. There are also medical associations and colleges to identify expertise and allocate resources to these concerns so that their membership don't have to waste time performing redundant actions. Skeptics have organizations like JREF and CSI to do the heavy lifting in relevant subject matter.

On an individual basis, the good news is that much work can be done by asking advocates to merely present their best cases for examination. If they are found weak, then it's reasonable to believe - based on the judgement of the advocates themselves - that the remaining cases are even less convincing.

Such is the state of skepticism and psi.
 
It would be an interesting exercise, to ascertain how much of the parapsychology literature has been read by each contributer to, say, the recent American Journal of Parapsychology, or European Journal of Parapsychology.

I'd wager I have the average author beat in that regard, but no, I have not read 1500 articles (I have read a bit of Tart, though)... in part, I have not read all the parapsychology literature because I have been also reading the relevant psychology literature. I'd have to suggest that Tart's requirements are far too lenient; an informed opinion should also be cognizant of the non-paranormal literature relevant to the observed phenomena. To comment meaningfully on ESP, one should also be knowledgeable about the experimental research in sensation, perception, psychophysics, memory and cognition. If all you have is a very thorough understanding of the whole of the paranormal research, you are unprepared.
 
Some people that think they are skeptics, often just wear those nice glases ;)

Scheuklappenbrille.jpg
 
Some people can only hint that these baaad skeptics exist, but not be able to name them, or argue why.
 
Limbo said:
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).
Click to expand...

cj, that sounds like he's referring to Hyman, but the article was written in 1997. Wouldn't Marks and Kammann also be on the list? Surely they've read a great deal of the relevant literature. Ackers' extensive article on methodologic flaws in parapsychology was written before 97, I think, so he should be on the list too. Add Scott, Dingwall, Kennedy and Alcock. And that's just me sitting in an internet cafe thinking off the top of my head.

edit:

Markwick, Hansen, Blackmore...
 
Last edited:
Jeff Corey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your paranoia may be caused by misinterpreting evidence and fabricating quotes.

Your IQ comment illustrates my observation, above, about how many "debunkers" rely on 'Remote Viewing' (ESP) to guide them through life's complexities!
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
To comment meaningfully on ESP, one should also be knowledgeable about the experimental research in sensation, perception, psychophysics, memory and cognition. If all you have is a very thorough understanding of the whole of the paranormal research, you are unprepared.
Click to expand...

I agree with this absolutely. I know a great deal about psi research into the ganzfeld, but almost nothing about the gestalt theory from which it came. I've read only one article summarising Metzger's early ganzfeld work (in Italian) and I noticed that what people "saw" in those non-psi ganzfeld experiments (rectangles, tunnels, spheres) do not appear to be what people see in psi ganzfeld experiments (water, sun). This is a curious facet, but I do not have the wherewithal (or more current data) to interpret it properly.
 
Whenever I see 'skeptic' spelled as 'sceptic', I can't help but read it as 'septic' ... I wonder if this is intentional...
 
This quote may sum up the problem.

"Science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14-inch strap-on."

Linda
 
Limbo said:
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).
Click to expand...
Limbo,

If people only expressed an opinion after they had read more than the smallest fraction of the literature the Blogsphere would wither and die. I was involved in opposing a local campaign to ban wi-fi in schools. A month of speed reading and neglecting my day job gave me a decent understanding of the issues and history of the 'debate' but I still hadn't read an aweful lot more than I had. I just don't think what you are asking for is a reasonable expectation.

Limbo said:
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.
Click to expand...
True, but people who understand Quantum Mechanics can and do summarize it so that ignorant people like us can understand it. Any fool can see that the double slit experiment is a puzzling result. Where is the psi equivalent of the double slit experiment that shows the layman that there is a phonomenon that needs explaining?

Limbo said:
...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.
Click to expand...
Is the evidence really so weak that it is only by reading 1500 articles that the evidence becomes compelling? Remember Quantum Mechanics can be shown to be 'doing something' in one easily repeated experiment. Maybe for good reasons it's a bit harder for psi... but having to read 1500 articles, please! Is there a conspiracy, or is it the case that there is no easily repeated experiment that can demonstrate any effect that could win the Randi $1,000,000?
 
Ersby said:
cj, that sounds like he's referring to Hyman, but the article was written in 1997. Wouldn't Marks and Kammann also be on the list? Surely they've read a great deal of the relevant literature. Ackers' extensive article on methodologic flaws in parapsychology was written before 97, I think, so he should be on the list too. Add Scott, Dingwall, Kennedy and Alcock. And that's just me sitting in an internet cafe thinking off the top of my head.

edit:

Markwick, Hansen, Blackmore...
Click to expand...


Yes that was what threw me. I assumed the article must date to the about 1981, and he must be referencing researchers active at that time. From Frank Podmore in the 1880's to say Wiseman, Smith and Savva we have never had any lack of intelligent and committed sceptics who are familair with the literature? I am genuinely confused, but I think he must be referring to a limited are of experimental research, maybe the Ganzfeld? But then why not Blackmore at least?

cj x
 
Mercutio said:
It would be an interesting exercise, to ascertain how much of the parapsychology literature has been read by each contributer to, say, the recent American Journal of Parapsychology, or European Journal of Parapsychology.

I'd wager I have the average author beat in that regard, but no, I have not read 1500 articles (I have read a bit of Tart, though)... in part, I have not read all the parapsychology literature because I have been also reading the relevant psychology literature. I'd have to suggest that Tart's requirements are far too lenient; an informed opinion should also be cognizant of the non-paranormal literature relevant to the observed phenomena. To comment meaningfully on ESP, one should also be knowledgeable about the experimental research in sensation, perception, psychophysics, memory and cognition. If all you have is a very thorough understanding of the whole of the paranormal research, you are unprepared.
Click to expand...

I have to agree that Tart has missed the mark. For example, evidence-based medicine does not find it necessary to recommend that all the articles on any particular topic be read. Instead, one applies simply screening tools to reject many of those articles that provide poor information from which to draw conclusions. Presumably parapsychologists who are making a case for the presence of a particular phenomenon are doing the same - referring to what they consider good information from which to draw conclusions. Recognizing the kind of evidence that allows reliable and valid conclusions to be drawn is not specific to any particular specialty.

If parapsychologists are making their best case with information that is less likely to lead to reliable or valid conclusions, how can we be chastized for failing to consider the information they didn't see fit to include? If the rest of the information is of even poorer quality, it can't add to the strength of any particular conclusion. And if it is not of poorer quality, but rather of better quality, then why aren't parapsychologists using it instead?

Or, if one knows how to perform and/or understand a meta-analysis, it is possible to recognize what conclusions can reasonably drawn from them, and to recognize the various factors which makes those conclusions likely to be invalid, regardless of whether or not anything is known about the area of study.

Linda
 
I suspect Ersby and I would win a study of "parapsychological lit. read" against most of the people i know working in parapsi, but for very different reasons.

Ersby has read a great deal to my certain knowledge, because of his ganzfeld meta analysis - which I regard as the best out there.

I read lot for less noble reasons. Years ago the SPR needed to move a great deal of lit, a couple of tons of SPR Journals and Proceedings, plus some other stuff from storage. My then landlord got a two ton truck and moved it all in to our house. For about a year I slept on boxes of PSPR and JSPR, cooked round them, and had to move them from the bath whenever i wanted a shower. SO I read them, systematically from the 1880s onwards through. A few years later an author from the SPR kindly gifted me with a huge box of offprints from the research for his latest book, so I read those. Finally I found that as a student it was cheap to subscribe to the online parapsi journal database, so I did. In short I never really set out to become well read in the field, but with my research interests and the fact the stuff filled every available corner of my home, well I did I think. :) How much I can remember? Dunno, but reading it was what actually gave me the respect I have for the field. It's generally good critical intelligent stuff.

cj x
 
Last edited:
cj.23 said:
I suspect Ersby and I would win a study of "parapsychological lit. read" against most of the people i know working in parapsi, but for very different reasons.

Ersby has read a great deal to my certain knowledge, because of his ganzfeld meta analysis - which I regard as the best out there.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

For about a year I slept on boxes of PSPR and JSPR, cooked round them, and had to move them from the bath whenever i wanted a shower. SO I read them, systematically from the 1880s onwards through. A few years later an author from the SPR kindly gifted me with a huge box of offprints from the research for his latest book, so I read those.

[...]

cj x
Click to expand...

I'm jealous.

edit: well, I would've been jealous a few years ago. I think now it might drive me insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom