SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[Beth]

I'm just disappointed that addressing these points (is the dismissal of evidence unfair? if so, could it be due to mindset? what is the mindset? is that sufficient to explain the dismissal?) with "he was mean to me" stories is considered reasonable.

Linda

Hmm. That's not what I said. Did you interpret my comments that way or were you referring to someone else?

 

[blutoski]

I agree. Did it make you feel angry, threatened or defensive about being a skeptic?

Not really. It made me feel sad for the author.

What I find fascinating is that if the arguments go the other way, if a skeptics phrasing seems to imply a 'given' that psi doesn't exist, and a hidden premise that those words indicate that believers have mental problems, objecting to those premises is treated far differently depending on the forum you are posting on.

Well, what do web forums have to do with anything? Why would a serious researcher care?

 

[Beth]

Well, what do web forums have to do with anything? Why would a serious researcher care?

I'm sorry, were we discussing serious research here? I haven't seen any yet.

 

[fls]

Hmm. That's not what I said. Did you interpret my comments that way or were you referring to someone else?

I don't think that's what you said. Your contribution has been more along the lines of providing your personal perspective. I don't think that's a reasonable way to address the ideas raised in the OP either (since it was referring to serious inquiries, rather than discussions on internet forums), but (from what I gleaned from your response) I don't think your posts were meant to address the topic of this thread.

Linda

 

[Beth]

I don't think that's what you said. Your contribution has been more along the lines of providing your personal perspective. I don't think that's a reasonable way to address the ideas raised in the OP either (since it was referring to serious inquiries, rather than discussions on internet forums), but (from what I gleaned from your response) I don't think your posts were meant to address the topic of this thread.

Linda

Since there isn't any actual research to discuss, I think personal perspective is the only way to address the topic of this thread.

 

[blutoski]

I'm sorry, were we discussing serious research here? I haven't seen any yet.

Maybe if you read the opening post? The poster appears to be bringing examples from James Randi, Martin Gardner, Carl Sagan and Ray Hyman. These are serious researchers.

Later, some other posters started talking about web forums. I'm not sure why. Is it some profound discovery that Internet forums are a social activity and awash with pointless discussions?

 

[blutoski]

Since there isn't any actual research to discuss, I think personal perspective is the only way to address the topic of this thread.

So, you agree with the skeptics that the original poster has no grounds to support his statements? ie: you are skeptical of his claim?

 

[Beth]

Maybe if you read the opening post? The poster appears to be bringing examples from James Randi, Martin Gardner, Carl Sagan and Ray Hyman. These are serious researchers.

It was not my impression that the OP was claiming those folks had done serious research on the topic of the psychology of the skeptic. I thought they were brought up as examples of skeptics to illustrate the mindset attributed to skeptics. That's a bit different now isn't it?

Later, some other posters started talking about web forums. I'm not sure why. Is it some profound discovery that Internet forums are a social activity and awash with pointless discussions?

I think they are simply easily accessable respositories of the examples of the behaviors being discussed and as representative a sample as we are likely to obtain without having access to actual research which isn't available because it hasn't been done. In short, they provide a larger and somewhat more representative sample that that of the afformentioned prominent skeptics.

 

[fls]

I'm sorry, were we discussing serious research here? I haven't seen any yet.

That's kind of a mean thing to say about Brian Josephson, Dean Radin, and the authors of the other studies that have been referenced. It's also kind of mean to Limbo. At least the rest of us didn't dismiss the lecture she/he provided out-of-hand, but I have to admit that I didn't expect you to be rude about it.

Linda

 

[fls]

Since there isn't any actual research to discuss, I think personal perspective is the only way to address the topic of this thread.

Huh?

By which I mean Are You ****ing Serious?

Linda

 

[Beth]

So, you agree with the skeptics that the original poster has no grounds to support his statements? ie: you are skeptical of his claim?

I am skeptical of his claim, but I would disagree that he has no grounds to support his statements. He has his observations, but they are anecdotal in nature and do not constitute a set of data which warrants the conclusion he has drawn from them. At the same time, I cannot say definitely that he is wrong either. Do you disagree with this assessment?

 

[Beth]

That's kind of a mean thing to say about Brian Josephson, Dean Radin, and the authors of the other studies that have been referenced. It's also kind of mean to Limbo. At least the rest of us didn't dismiss the lecture she/he provided out-of-hand, but I have to admit that I didn't expect you to be rude about it.

Linda

I was just thinking of Limbo's blog, which was I did not take to be research but merely a blog airing his opinion and ideas. If I was mistaken about that, my apologies to Limbo. I don't recall any actual research papers having been discussed in this thread; I thought the converstation had been solely about Limbo's blog. Has research on the psychology of the skeptic from the others been discussed and I've inadvertantly skipped over the comments and links about their research? If so, my apologies.

 

[Beth]

Huh?

By which I mean Are You ****ing Serious?

Linda

What actual research on the psychology of the skeptic are you wanting to discuss?

 

[fls]

I was just thinking of Limbo's blog, which was I did not take to be research but merely a blog airing his opinion and ideas.

The "blog" referred to in the opening post was the transcript of a lecture given at a Society for Psychical Research study day. The speaker, Robert McLuhan (I don't know if that's Limbo), lectures in the company of serious researchers like Rupert Sheldrake. It seems to me that it should be given at least some consideration.

If I was mistaken about that, my apologies to Limbo. I don't recall any actual research papers having been discussed in this thread; I thought the converstation had been solely about Limbo's blog. Has research on the psychology of the skeptic from the others been discussed and I've inadvertantly skipped over the comments and links about their research?

It looks like it.

Linda

 

[fls]

What actual research on the psychology of the skeptic are you wanting to discuss?

Nah, I like your original idea. Why bother looking up research if everyone else is happy pulling stuff out of their ass?

Linda

 

[blutoski]

It was not my impression that the OP was claiming those folks had done serious research on the topic of the psychology of the skeptic. I thought they were brought up as examples of skeptics to illustrate the mindset attributed to skeptics. That's a bit different now isn't it?

Different than what? I was talking about the skeptics he was talking about. You were talking about web forums. I think you've confirmed what I said above.

I think they are simply easily accessable respositories of the examples of the behaviors being discussed and as representative a sample as we are likely to obtain without having access to actual research which isn't available because it hasn't been done. In short, they provide a larger and somewhat more representative sample that that of the afformentioned prominent skeptics.

Why would you think that? Is everybody on the internet a skeptic? Is Old Bob a skeptic just because he rants at JREF Forums? Do you understand even the basics of psychological surveys? (specifically, self-identification is a terrible way to identify a category's membership)

 

[blutoski]

I am skeptical of his claim, but I would disagree that he has no grounds to support his statements. He has his observations, but they are anecdotal in nature and do not constitute a set of data which warrants the conclusion he has drawn from them. At the same time, I cannot say definitely that he is wrong either. Do you disagree with this assessment?

I think this is exactly much what I said, although I did point out that the observations were also consistent with these traits being 'human' rather than limited to 'skeptics'. His essay appeared to imply that these traits were not involved, say, in his own motivations to write such a polemic. I wondered if/why the author excluded himself from such introspection.

I went further to apply critical thinking, and felt we had some clear-cut examples of hasty generalization and confirmation bias.

I also provided some ideas for actually finding out whether the hypothesis is actually true. I have an interest in determining the underlying reality.

 

[Beth]

The "blog" referred to in the opening post was the transcript of a lecture given at a Society for Psychical Research study day. The speaker, Robert McLuhan (I don't know if that's Limbo), lectures in the company of serious researchers like Rupert Sheldrake. It seems to me that it should be given at least some consideration.

I'm sorry, but simply because a professional gives a lecture that does not automatically confer the title of 'research' to everything they might discuss. Sometimes, they are merely lecturing regarding their observations, experiences and opinion about a particular subject rather than about research they've conducted on the subject. Dawkins certainly does it frequently with regard to religion, but I haven't noticed anyone claiming that constitutes legimate research he has done on religious beliefs and/or religion.

My reading of the transcript was that it was regarding an area he had been making observations about in tandem with other areas he was researching, but had not (yet?) done a more disciplined evaluation of such observations that might accurately be termed research. Perhaps I was overly hasty in my reading of it though. Was there some evidence presented there you considered to be legitimate research on the subject and wished to discuss?

Nah, I like your original idea. Why bother looking up research if everyone else is happy pulling stuff out of their ass?

Linda

I would be more than happy to discuss actual research. Care to point me towards any? I notice that you haven't done so yet. At any rate, if no links appear from here on out I'll presume that you would prefer to simply continue discussing opinions pulled out of various person's rear ends. I'll no longer assume that there simply isn't any of the more rigorous evidence that the term 'research' is usually referring to on this forum on the subject of 'skeptics psychology'.

 

[Beth]

I think this is exactly much what I said, although I did point out that the observations were also consistent with these traits being 'human' rather than limited to 'skeptics'.

We are not in disagreement then.

 

[fls]

I'm sorry, but simply because a professional gives a lecture that does not automatically confer the title of 'research' to everything they might discuss. Sometimes, they are merely lecturing regarding their observations, experiences and opinion about a particular subject rather than about research they've conducted on the subject. Dawkins certainly does it frequently with regard to religion, but I haven't noticed anyone claiming that constitutes legimate research he has done on religious beliefs and/or religion.

I didn't mean to imply that the research was contained in the opening post, only that his opinion may be somewhat more informed than some anonymous blogger.

My reading of the transcript was that it was regarding an area he had been making observations about in tandem with other areas he was researching, but had not (yet?) done a more disciplined evaluation of such observations that might accurately be termed research. Perhaps I was overly hasty in my reading of it though. Was there some evidence presented there you considered to be legitimate research on the subject and wished to discuss?

The references to specific research papers were in subsequent posts from various posters including Limbo (and myself).

I would be more than happy to discuss actual research. Care to point me towards any? I notice that you haven't done so yet.

You'd hardly know if I had, though, since you haven't read through the thread.

At any rate, if no links appear from here on out I'll presume that you would prefer to simply continue discussing opinions pulled out of various person's rear ends.

That was supposed to be a joke - I used the humorous device of stating the opposite of what I actually meant.

I thought "ass" would get auto-censored, though.

I'll no longer assume that there simply isn't any of the rigorous evidence that the term 'research' is usually referring to on this forum on the subject of 'skeptics psychology'.

I can't tell what you're trying to say - it doesn't seem to make sense once I sort out all the negatives, but I don't always do very well with those.

Linda