SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[blutoski]

We are not in disagreement then.

Not about the original post.

I was in disagreement with your suggestion that the original poster's thesis was somehow bolstered by activity in online forums. I think that's misguided.

 

[Beth]

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.

You had asked why a serious researcher would care to which I responded, somewhat flippantly, "were we discussing serious research here?" You responded saying those folks are serious researchers but since those folks have not done serious research on the topic under discussion I felt that didn't constitute discussion of serious research regarding the psychology of the skeptic.

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?

Because there are more than 4 people claiming to be skeptics on the internet and most of them are not famous.

Is everybody on the internet a skeptic?

I don't think so. Did you assume I did?

Is Old Bob a skeptic just because he rants at JREF Forums?

No. It depends on what he's ranting about. Plenty of non-skeptics go on rants here too. However, some rants are certainly sufficient to make it clear their authors self-identify as skeptics.

Do you understand even the basics of psychological surveys? (specifically, self-identification is a terrible way to identify a category's membership)

I don't disagree, but can you point me towards some pyschological surveys that have attempted to identify skeptics in a more rigorous and objective manner? If not, I'll have to settle for self-identification until a better method has been developed.

 

[Beth]

Not about the original post.

I was in disagreement with your suggestion that the original poster's thesis was somehow bolstered by activity in online forums. I think that's misguided.

<shrug>. Where else is some one who isn't involved in the paranormal research going to observe skeptics and their reactions? I wouldn't argue it's convincing - too many problems with bias, non-representative sample, etc. - but if observations of such self-identified skeptics were at odds with his hypothesis, it would be evidence against his point. Since my assessment of my observations is that they don't contradict his hypothesis, logically it can be considered to be weak support.

 

[blutoski]

You had asked why a serious researcher would care to which I responded, somewhat flippantly, "were we discussing serious research here?" You responded saying those folks are serious researchers but since those folks have not done serious research on the topic under discussion I felt that didn't constitute discussion of serious research regarding the psychology of the skeptic.

I asked why a serious researcher would care about online forums.

The author of the OP was a serious researcher. His original audience were serious researchers, not an online forum, and the essay was written for them. The skeptics he described were serious researchers. In retrospect, your response was flippant; but I had interpreted it to simply mean you had not read the thread and didn't understand its purpose. I'm still not convinced I was wrong about that.

Because there are more than 4 people claiming to be skeptics on the internet and most of them are not famous.

"on the internet..." vague. Which is my criticism. Shoot: the JREF Forum is frickin anonymous. I have no idea why anybody would consider it a credible sample of a real-world community.

I don't think so. Did you assume I did? No. It depends on what he's ranting about. Plenty of non-skeptics go on rants here too. However, some rants are certainly sufficient to make it clear their authors self-identify as skeptics.

Spoiler alert: everybody self-idenfies as a skeptic. Every quack I' ve ever debated, every creationist, every dowser, every ghost hunter... every online forum is filled with self-identified skeptics.

I don't disagree, but can you point me towards some pyschological surveys that have attempted to identify skeptics in a more rigorous and objective manner? If not, I'll have to settle for self-identification until a better method has been developed.

I think a standard method is to use the community's standard. The original poster was speaking to people who have interacted with these specific individuals because they accept that they are authentic skeptics, not because they are 'famous'.

I'm pretty confident that the psi advocates like Sheldrake would not give this forum the time of day.

 

[blutoski]

<shrug>. Where else is some one who isn't involved in the paranormal research going to observe skeptics and their reactions? I wouldn't argue it's convincing - too many problems with bias, non-representative sample, etc. - but if observations of such self-identified skeptics were at odds with his hypothesis, it would be evidence against his point. Since my assessment of my observations is that they don't contradict his hypothesis, logically it can be considered to be weak support.

Very weak support. As is all confirmation bias.

The thesis isn't that skeptics think this way, but that this is a skeptical way of thinking. The null hypothesis is that it is a human way of thinking.

A disconfirmation attempt would be to survey non-skeptical forums to see if this behavior is demonstrated elsewhere. Finding these characteristics in other fora would disconfirm the hypothesis that it is a skeptical artefact.

 

[Beth]

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.

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

I've scanned through this entire thread and clicked on all the links you've posted. I didn't see anything that constituted research on the psychology of the skeptic. They all appeared to be opinion pieces to me. Have the standards for what constitutes research changed or have I misinterpreted one or more of those articles? I think Ersby posted the closest thing to actual research on the subject, but it dealt with believers rather than skeptics. If you disagree with this assessment of the links posted, you'll need to point out to me the article previously linked to that you consider to be research in the area of skeptical pyschology.

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

I was saying that you have convinced me I was wrong. I will now assume that some research on the subject of the pyschology of the skeptic actually exists (rather than assuming it doesn't exist simply because I'm not aware of it and haven't seen any links or references to such research posted in this thread). I await your posting of the link or reference you have in mind so that we can discuss it rather than simply anecdotes, personal opinions and experiences.

 

[fls]

I've scanned through this entire thread and clicked on all the links you've posted. I didn't see anything that constituted research on the psychology of the skeptic.

I think we agree on that - that specific research, while quoted as though it supports various conclusions about how skeptics behave, doesn't really distinguish skeptics from humans or isn't particularly relevant to the issue.

They all appeared to be opinion pieces to me. Have the standards for what constitutes research changed or have I misinterpreted one or more of those articles?

Perhaps you were in too much of a rush? I linked to an experiment. And there were references to experiments in some of the other articles. As far as I know, performing experiments and reporting on the results is considered research?

I think Ersby posted the closest thing to actual research on the subject, but it dealt with believers rather than skeptics. If you disagree with this assessment of the links posted, you'll need to point out to me the article previously linked to that you consider to be research in the area of skeptical pyschology.

I'm not quite sure what the nature of your complaint is. I agree that the research that was linked to directly, or the research that was referenced in the various articles does not actually support the opinions that were presented in the various articles, as somehow specific to skeptics.

I was saying that you have convinced me I was wrong. I will now assume that some research on the subject of the pyschology of the skeptic actually exists (rather than assuming it doesn't exist simply because I'm not aware of it and haven't seen any links or references to such research posted in this thread).

Umm...I'm not sure why you are making these assumptions (regardless of the direction they fall) in the first place, in the absence of knowledge. All I'm suggesting is that it is useful to look for this information in order to address the issues that were brought up in the OP.

I await your posting of the link or reference you have in mind so that we can discuss it rather than simply anecdotes, personal opinions and experiences.

I don't have a reference in mind, since it's not my argument. I guess you missed it, but I actually do not agree with the conclusions drawn in the OP.

Linda

 

[Beth]

I think we agree on that - that specific research, while quoted as though it supports various conclusions about how skeptics behave, doesn't really distinguish skeptics from humans or isn't particularly relevant to the issue.

Okay. That was all I was saying originally, albeit rather flippantly. I'll try harder to avoid humor in posts since it always seems to get me trouble. This time was no exception. I should have been more specific and clarified that I felt there was no relevant research to discuss.

Perhaps you were in too much of a rush? I linked to an experiment. And there were references to experiments in some of the other articles. As far as I know, performing experiments and reporting on the results is considered research?

Perhaps I was too hasty. But you had said I owed an apology to Brian Josephson, Dean Radin, Limbo and others. Now, it seems that you agree most of what has been linked is not research and the research that has been posted isn't revelant. Perhaps you were a bit hasty too?

I don't have a reference in mind, since it's not my argument. I guess you missed it, but I actually do not agree with the conclusions drawn in the OP.

I didn't miss it. I was just in contrary mood yesterday and didn't mind arguing about trivialities. After you charactorized my posts in this thread with the following comment: "Why bother looking up research if everyone else is happy pulling stuff out of their ass?", I found it amusing to watch (listen?) to you insist that there had been research posted and we should discuss it rather than our own opinions/observations when doing so would require classifing opinion pieces that you didn't agree with as research or discussing irrelevant research. Now that we've established that neither of us is aware of any pertinant research, can we discuss opinions and personal perspectives without insults?

I'm not quite sure what the nature of your complaint is. I agree that the research that was linked to directly, or the research that was referenced in the various articles does not actually support the opinions that were presented in the various articles, as somehow specific to skeptics.

My complaint? It was your complaint! I had said there was no research to discuss and you jumped all over me about it. Then when I make my mea culpas and ask you what specific research you want to discuss, you agree that there is no relevant research to discuss. You must have been in as contrary a mood yesterday as I was.

 

[Beth]

I asked why a serious researcher would care about online forums. .

Depends on the researcher and what they are researching. Some serious researchers do use the internet as a cost-effective way of collecting information on groups of people. With proper controls, it can be useful.

The author of the OP was a serious researcher. His original audience were serious researchers, not an online forum, and the essay was written for them. The skeptics he described were serious researchers. In retrospect, your response was flippant; but I had interpreted it to simply mean you had not read the thread and didn't understand its purpose. I'm still not convinced I was wrong about that.

No, I’ve read the thread. I was just being flippant. I’ll try harder to avoid any attempts at humor in the future.

"on the internet..." vague. Which is my criticism. Shoot: the JREF Forum is frickin anonymous. I have no idea why anybody would consider it a credible sample of a real-world community.

Who was claiming it was a credible sample of a real world community? I said it was a better sample than four famous skeptics, a sample which you appeared to take seriously. Do you disagree?

I think a standard method is to use the community's standard.

Have you read through any threads on what constitutes a ‘true skeptic’. There is no community standard. Instead, there is some fairly intense disagreement over things like whether someone who believes in god can be a skeptic. At the moment, community standards are not a viable method for distinguishing skeptics from non-skeptics.

The original poster was speaking to people who have interacted with these specific individuals because they accept that they are authentic skeptics, not because they are 'famous'.

I think that being famous is what would allow people to accept them as ‘authentic skeptics’. However, you have a valid point. I hadn’t considered it from the perspective of other people agreeing that they are skeptics.

The thesis isn't that skeptics think this way, but that this is a skeptical way of thinking. The null hypothesis is that it is a human way of thinking.

Seems to me you’re splitting a rather fine hair here. Would not a skeptical way of thinking be the way skeptics think?

A disconfirmation attempt would be to survey non-skeptical forums to see if this behavior is demonstrated elsewhere. Finding these characteristics in other fora would disconfirm the hypothesis that it is a skeptical artefact.

Only if the hypothesis was that it is a unique artifact of skeptical thinking. I’m not sure I would agree that was part of the hypothesis, though I’ll certainly agree that it isn’t unique to skeptics.

 

[fls]

Okay. That was all I was saying originally, albeit rather flippantly. I'll try harder to avoid humor in posts since it always seems to get me trouble. This time was no exception. I should have been more specific and clarified that I felt there was no relevant research to discuss.
Perhaps I was too hasty. But you had said I owed an apology to Brian Josephson, Dean Radin, Limbo and others. Now, it seems that you agree most of what has been linked is not research and the research that has been posted isn't revelant. Perhaps you were a bit hasty too? I didn't miss it. I was just in contrary mood yesterday and didn't mind arguing about trivialities. After you charactorized my posts in this thread with the following comment: "Why bother looking up research if everyone else is happy pulling stuff out of their ass?", I found it amusing to watch (listen?) to you insist that there had been research posted and we should discuss it rather than our own opinions/observations when doing so would require classifing opinion pieces that you didn't agree with as research or discussing irrelevant research. Now that we've established that neither of us is aware of any pertinant research, can we discuss opinions and personal perspectives without insults?
My complaint? It was your complaint! I had said there was no research to discuss and you jumped all over me about it. Then when I make my mea culpas and ask you what specific research you want to discuss, you agree that there is no relevant research to discuss. You must have been in as contrary a mood yesterday as I was.

I realized that you didn't understand what the thread was about (although not at first) and that you were being flippant, but since we had been talking about the opinions of serious researchers, I didn't feel like letting the opportunity to give you a hard time pass. Just because I didn't agree that they had made their case, after I had read their opinions and the research they used to support their opinions, doesn't mean that it would have been reasonable for me to dismiss it without giving it any consideration beforehand. It also doesn't mean that it is reasonable for me to default to a position of ignorance.

Regardless of how serious I was, my objection stands. The uninformed opinions and personal perspectives that you and JihadJane think should form the basis of our discussion I consider useless, as would any serious researcher. I still find it difficult to reconcile your participation in an academic program with your willingness to disregard more learned opinions and a disinterest in seeking the relevant research yourself.

I didn't say that I wasn't aware of any pertinent research. I said the pertinent research does not support their supposition.

Linda

 

[Beth]

I realized that you didn't understand what the thread was about (although not at first) and that you were being flippant, but since we had been talking about the opinions of serious researchers, I didn't feel like letting the opportunity to give you a hard time pass. Just because I didn't agree that they had made their case, after I had read their opinions and the research they used to support their opinions, doesn't mean that it would have been reasonable for me to dismiss it without giving it any consideration beforehand. It also doesn't mean that it is reasonable for me to default to a position of ignorance.

I did read their essays. Further, I don't dismiss their opinions, I simply don't consider their essays to be research. Do you?

Regardless of how serious I was, my objection stands. The uninformed opinions and personal perspectives that you and JihadJane think should form the basis of our discussion I consider useless, as would any serious researcher.

I still find it difficult to reconcile your participation in an academic program with your willingness to disregard more learned opinions and a disinterest in seeking the relevant research yourself.

Whoa their Nellie. First of all, who is disregarding their learned opinions? Seems to me that would be you and a few others posting here rather than myself. (I can't speak for Jihad Jane.) After all, I have not assumed their opinion is incorrect, as others here have nor have I charactorized their opinions as "pulled out of their ass". I'm only saying that such essays do not qualify as research.

Second, why do you assume I have a disinterest in seeking out the relevant research? What relevant research have you sought out and linked to in this thread? None IMO. Should I assume that you have a disinterest in seeking out the relevant research?

Finally, are you claiming to be a participating in this conversation as a serious researcher of skepics and skeptical thinking? I'm not. I'm just conversing to amuse myself. Why should I apply the same standards I would to doing academic research to participating in an internet conversation? More to the point, why are you applying that standard to me in this forum and then denigrating my research capabilities based on that? Seems rather harsh.

I didn't say that I wasn't aware of any pertinent research. I said the pertinent research does not support their supposition.
Linda

If you are aware of relevant research, why haven't you posted the links to it? I keep asking you what research you think is relevant, but you have yet to reference any. You linked early in the thread to "Gorilla's in our midst" but turn around say it doesn't support their supposition. Do you consider that research relevant to the OP? If so, is any particularly reason why you couldn't have just said so when I first asked what research you wanted to discuss? If that isn't the research you are thinking of, why haven't you referenced what you do consider relevant. After all, I've asked you to do so several times now and I can't help but notice a severe lack of any specific research identified to discuss. Instead, you have chosen instead to disparage my contributions as unworthy.

 

[fls]

I did read their essays. Further, I don't dismiss their opinions, I simply don't consider their essays to be research. Do you?

Nobody claimed they were.

If you don't dismiss their opinions, then why are you not interested in discussing theirs in favour of your own?

Whoa their Nellie. First of all, who is disregarding their learned opinions?

You have stated specifically, several times, that your personal perspective is what you wish to discuss.

Seems to me that would be you and a few others posting here rather than myself. (I can't speak for Jihad Jane.) After all, I have not assumed their opinion is incorrect, as others here have nor have I charactorized their opinions as "pulled out of their ass". I'm only saying that such essays do not qualify as research.

But nobody said otherwise. It wasn't their opinion that I characterized as "pulled out of their ass".

Second, why do you assume I have a disinterest in seeking out the relevant research?

Because you stated several times that you don't know whether there is any relevant research.

What relevant research have you sought out and linked to in this thread? None IMO. Should I assume that you have a disinterest in seeking out the relevant research?

No, because I have not stated that personal perspective is the only way to address the topic of this thread.

Finally, are you claiming to be a participating in this conversation as a serious researcher of skepics and skeptical thinking?

No. I'm stating that the thread was initiated to consider the words of serious researchers in the field of parapsychology.

I'm not. I'm just conversing to amuse myself. Why should I apply the same standards I would to doing academic research to participating in an internet conversation? More to the point, why are you applying that standard to me in this forum and then denigrating my research capabilities based on that? Seems rather harsh.

I realize that. To be honest, it didn't really occur to me to apply different standards towards answering my questions depending upon who was listening in. If you do that, then my criticism is unwarranted.

If you are aware of relevant research, why haven't you posted the links to it?

I'm not aware of any research that supports the idea that skeptics are uniquely dismissive or that parapsychologists think differently from other humans. As I stated before, the relevant research I have read does not support their supposition. I don't have anything to offer in support of their premise - not because I haven't looked, but because I have looked and haven't found anything. I don't think my search is exhaustive, but on the other hand, if there was anything, you'd think the parapsychologists would have used it.

I keep asking you what research you think is relevant, but you have yet to reference any. You linked early in the thread to "Gorilla's in our midst" but turn around say it doesn't support their supposition. Do you consider that research relevant to the OP?

Yes. It is an example of the research that Dean Radin uses to conclude that skeptics are unreasonable.

If so, is any particularly reason why you couldn't have just said so when I first asked what research you wanted to discuss?

I didn't realize that you hadn't read the thread and the articles when you first asked.

If that isn't the research you are thinking of, why haven't you referenced what you do consider relevant. After all, I've asked you to do so several times now and I can't help but notice a severe lack of any specific research identified to discuss. Instead, you have chosen instead to disparage my contributions as unworthy.

I have also noticed a lack of research. But I honestly don't think it's reasonable to fill that lack with my own personal perspective. Maybe that's what makes me a skeptic?

Linda

 

[Limbo]

The speaker, Robert McLuhan (I don't know if that's Limbo)

Nope. FYI.

 

[Beth]

Linda,

I will try to respond to the bulk of this post via PM later. It's really off topic to discuss your disparagement of me in this thread.

If you don't dismiss their opinions, then why are you not interested in discussing theirs in favour of your own?

Excuse me, but I have not suggesting discussing personal perspectives on this thread in order to pontificate about my own but to listen to other peoples. I have read the essays; I did at the start. I had previously seen the Gorilla's in the midst and Ersby's links, so I didn't bother to read them through this time around. When I said I was unaware of any relevant research, that did not imply I was unaware of those studies. I simply didn't consider them to be relevant research to the topic.

I didn't assume this thread was to critique about the opinions of their authors, but to discuss the subject of those opinions. Having read the essays, I now know their opinions. What I don't know are the opinions of people like you or Limbo or blutoski. Did you notice that I have Not giveN my opinion unless directly asked? I've only volunteered observations and I've tried to word those in value neutral terms. Did it not occur to you that I might want to listen to your (and others) actual opinions on the subject rather than just your critique of sometone else's?

Is that really such an inappropriate expection on a forum like this?

 

[fls]

Linda,

I will try to respond to the bulk of this post via PM later. It's really off topic to discuss your disparagement of me in this thread.

You are right. This thread is for the disparagement of skeptics only!

I didn't assume this thread was to critique about the opinions of their authors, but to discuss the subject of those opinions. Having read the essays, I now know their opinions. What I don't know are the opinions of people like you or Limbo or blutoski. Did you notice that I have Not giveN my opinion unless directly asked? I've only volunteered observations and I've tried to word those in value neutral terms. Did it not occur to you that I might want to listen to your (and others) actual opinions on the subject rather than just your critique of sometone else's?

Is that really such an inappropriate expection on a forum like this?

I don't think you'll suffer from a shortage of material for a more informal inquiry here, regardless of whether or not we weigh in.

Linda

 

[Ersby]

Reading the opening post again I think the implication is clear that he thinks that the psychology he’s describing is a feature of “sceptics”, although it is not clear what he means by “sceptic”. He seems to be talking about scepticism with regards to the paranormal, but gives two examples of scepticism from other fields of science.

About the differences between sceptics and believers, there’s been some research into whether believers somehow misjudge probabilities of chance events. Then I found this (non-parapsychology paper)

“Thinking About Low-Probability Events”, Koehler, Macchi, 2004

The way people respond to the chance that an unlikely event will occur depends on how the event is described. We propose that people attach more weight to unlikely events when they can easily generate or imagine examples in which the event has occurred or will occur than when they cannot.”

And that idea about our ability to “generate or imagine examples” effecting how we judge the possibility of events reminded me of the finding from the paper I mentioned to ages ago about believers greater capacity for linking unrelated items.

 

[Ersby]

I found a paper by Blackmore detailing a questionnaire sent to sceptics and parapsychologists (not necessarily two exclusive groups, but treated as such in this paper). It’s called “What do we really think?” and I expect it’s on her site. It dates from 1988.

Things that pertain to the discussion here are (NB, this is out of 38 replies, 18 parapsychologists, 17 skeptics, 3 unclassified):

“Although S[keptic]s are often accused of not knowing the literature there was no significant difference in the amount the two groups claimed to have read. There was, however, a big difference in what they read. Not surprisingly P[arapsychologist]s had read far more of the Journal of Parapsychology [...] and JSPR [...] and Ss far more of Skeptical Inquirer”

How people first became interested in parapsychology was broadly the same for both groups (reading, intellectual interest) except for...

“Ps were more likely to have become interested through personal experience (other than conjuring) [...] and Ss by performing as a magician or conjuror.”

When answering “Does psi exist?”, 72% of Ps said yes and none said no. For the sceptics, 35% said no, none said yes (the rest gave qualified answers).

For the question “What would make you change your mind?” 82% of sceptics said experimental results and 18% talked about a better theory. Meanwhile 27% of parapsychologists (ie, five people) said nothing could make them change their mind. 22% said experimental results, and another 22% said evidence of fraud.

For the question “How have your beliefs changed during the period of your interest in psi?”

[…] “only one person (P) claimed it had increased while many (6P 9S) said it had decreased. [...] Several respondents (7P 3S 2U) said their beliefs had become more complex as time went on.

Lastly, this observation is interesting...

“To try and discover whether there is any natural grouping on the basis of the answers given to the questions a cluster analysis was performed (using GENSTAT, hierarchical clusters). [...] When question 10 [ie, Does psi exist?] was excluded no clear groupings emerged. In other words, apart from the question of belief in psi, the respondents do not fall naturally into separate groups.”

 

[fls]

Reading the opening post again I think the implication is clear that he thinks that the psychology he’s describing is a feature of “sceptics”, although it is not clear what he means by “sceptic”. He seems to be talking about scepticism with regards to the paranormal, but gives two examples of scepticism from other fields of science.

I had trouble sorting that out as well. It wasn't just examples of scepticism from other fields, but scepticism with respect to ideas that eventually became well-established. I don't know if he's suggesting that there's some way to tell beforehand, whether he thinks paranormal phenomena are equally well-established, or whether it was just happenstance.

About the differences between sceptics and believers, there’s been some research into whether believers somehow misjudge probabilities of chance events. Then I found this (non-parapsychology paper)

“Thinking About Low-Probability Events”, Koehler, Macchi, 2004

The way people respond to the chance that an unlikely event will occur depends on how the event is described. We propose that people attach more weight to unlikely events when they can easily generate or imagine examples in which the event has occurred or will occur than when they cannot.”

And that idea about our ability to “generate or imagine examples” effecting how we judge the possibility of events reminded me of the finding from the paper I mentioned to ages ago about believers greater capacity for linking unrelated items.

That's a very interesting connection you've made.

Linda

 

[Cuddles]

Reading the opening post again I think the implication is clear that he thinks that the psychology he’s describing is a feature of “sceptics”, although it is not clear what he means by “sceptic”. He seems to be talking about scepticism with regards to the paranormal, but gives two examples of scepticism from other fields of science.

This is pretty standard behaviour, it's really just a variation of the Galileo gambit. "They laughed at Galileo and he was right, therefore I must be right because they laugh at me." In this case, Limbo is taking the usual dishonest position of saying, to paraphrase, "Skeptics doubted X and it turned out to be true, therefore all skeptics are big meanies who dismiss everything out of hand.". Which of course completely misses the point of what skepticism actually is. The whole OP was just yet another repetition of the same boring fallacies that are trotted out every time a believer hears the word "skeptic". The only real difference between Limbo and all the ranting nutjobs who demand we must believe in their chosen woo is that he is actually literate. But while his posts are at least coherent, they really have no more content.

 

[Limbo]

Has anyone read this:

Parapsychology and the Skeptics

Here are some excerpts:

http://www.parapsychologyandtheskeptics.com/P&Ssamples.pdf

An interview with the author:

http://www.skeptiko.com/get.php?web=skeptiko-2008-05-01-65144.mp3

Transcript of the interview:

http://www.skeptiko.com/blog/?p=8