SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[Ersby]

Heard it.

Funny thing about Sheldrake's experiments with Jay-Tee. He published two papers on the subject which are measuring two different things. In the first the hypothesis is that Jay-Tee goes to the window more when the owner begins her journey home. In the second, the hypothesis is that Jay-Tee goes to the window immediately before the owner arrives back.

Just thought I'd mention it.

 

[Beth]

I appreciate that you're trying hard, here, but this isn't about generalizations. This is about specifically using anonymous online forums to armchair psychoanalyze a real population. It's an epic fail.

I must disagree. I think it's about as successful as armchair psychoanalysis can ever be.

I do not think it's a better sample than four famous skeptics. It's "just as useless."

My apologies for misinterpretting you. I though we were in agreement on that point. I guess we're not. I think the much larger sample available from an on-line forum is far better suited to armchair psychoanalysis than basing it on a sample of four famous individuals. To be sure, it's not a representative sample, but I don't think it's completely useless either.

Not in any way that has meaning. The opening post was presenting a theory that skeptics are different than believers (which is 90% of the population) because of the specified mental problems.

It was the central thesis for the post: skeptics are different than believers because skeptical thinking is defective.

You know, I went back and read through the OP before responding to this because that wasn't my impression of the article at all. And I still don't read it to indicate the author feels that skeptics are different because of 'mental problems' or that 'skeptical thinking is defective'. He does quote a few people who seem to feel that way, but he also quotes a few (including Randi) who are far harsher in their judgement of those who believe in psi. I read it as the author being of the opinion that skeptics and their ways of thinking are ought be as interesting to psychologists as believers and their ways of thinking and it would be helpful to parapsychologists to understand those ways of thinking in order to present their arguments and their work in the best possible light to those folks. That doesn't seem any different to me that skeptics giving some thought to how believers think in order to do the same thing. I have noticed that such efforts are a common topic of conversation on this forum. That approach does not necessary imply that the skeptic thinks the believer has mental problems and/or defective thinking (yes I know, some skeptics do think that, but not all).

Could you indicate where you think the author has indicated that he feels skeptics
have mental problems or skeptical thinking is defective? Perhaps I read it too quickly. I must admit I just scanned some parts.

Are you sure the OP didn't make you feel defensive or angry at, rather than pity for, the author?

I read polemics against nonbelievers all the time, and I mentally file this one in the same place as Coulter or Browne's screeds.

Do you just feel sorry for them too? Or do they ever make you angry?

 

[blutoski]

I must disagree. I think it's about as successful as armchair psychoanalysis can ever be.

? If you're saying that you agree that psychoanalysis outside of a professional interview is useless, then we agree.

My apologies for misinterpretting you. I though we were in agreement on that point. I guess we're not. I think the much larger sample available from an on-line forum is far better suited to armchair psychoanalysis than basing it on a sample of four famous individuals. To be sure, it's not a representative sample, but I don't think it's completely useless either.

I question this entirely, obvioulsy. Maybe it's my experience working with both online usability analysis and marketing, and also psychological research itself. If anybody seriously advanced the proposal that we should learn about a general population by sampling online conversations I suspect they would be marginalized. The obvious exception is the analysis of online communities themselves. ie: you can probably collect data about active posters by reading their posts.

The problem is the weak representation/correlation between [real community]<=>[online community]<=>[active posters]. Each is a segment of the former, but it is pretty reasonable to assume that they are not representative samples.

1. did you attempt to validate that the postings were representative of the communities how did you determine that it was not, say, representative of only those who posted (ie: since lurkers are 90% of all online communities, how did you determine that the posters are representative of the lurkers - doesn't it actually stand to reason that there would be a fundamental personality distinction between posters and lurkers?)

2. did you attempt to validate that the citations obtained were from forums which are representative of the online communities? ie: what was your selection criteria for the forums themselves? Were other smaller forums omitted, even though they may represent a larger body of users?

3. (the most important one) did you attempt to validate that the online communities are representative of the skeptical population in general?

When I'm doing a literature review, I document how I created my list of candidate papers. I describe in detail what keywords I entered in google or pubmed, so that others can identify a weakness in my attempt to locate the relevant publications. It's very important to ensure that I have a representative sample.

You know, I went back and read through the OP before responding to this because that wasn't my impression of the article at all. And I still don't read it to indicate the author feels that skeptics are different because of 'mental problems' or that 'skeptical thinking is defective'. He does quote a few people who seem to feel that way, but he also quotes a few (including Randi) who are far harsher in their judgement of those who believe in psi. I read it as the author being of the opinion that skeptics and their ways of thinking are ought be as interesting to psychologists as believers and their ways of thinking and it would be helpful to parapsychologists to understand those ways of thinking in order to present their arguments and their work in the best possible light to those folks. That doesn't seem any different to me that skeptics giving some thought to how believers think in order to do the same thing. I have noticed that such efforts are a common topic of conversation on this forum. That approach does not necessary imply that the skeptic thinks the believer has mental problems and/or defective thinking (yes I know, some skeptics do think that, but not all).

Could you indicate where you think the author has indicated that he feels skeptics
have mental problems or skeptical thinking is defective? Perhaps I read it too quickly. I must admit I just scanned some parts.

There's no 'part' that shows this - it's the whole point of the article. He identifies denial and cognitive dissonance early in the essay.

Are you sure the OP didn't make you feel defensive or angry at, rather than pity for, the author?

You asked a similar question to another forum poster in this thread earlier. This is a pretty ironic demonstration of cognitive dissonance or denial. You simply can't accept the facts presented, so the only conclusion is that we're lying.

My counter-hypothesis mentioned earlier was that cognitive dissonance and denial is a human attribute, but not special to skeptics, or even especially evident in the high-profile skeptics identified in the essay. From what I can see, the more this discussion progresses - both here and at the author's blog website - the more the thesis that there is nothing special about skeptical psychology is supported.

Do you just feel sorry for them too? Or do they ever make you angry?

Mostly I feel sorry for polemecists, yes. I went to school with Rachel Marsden. I can only feel sorry for somebody who lives in such a cynical and distorted imaginary world. It has ruined her life: nobody trusts her; nobody likes her. I doubt even her family likes her very much at this point. (note: Rachel Marsden does have mental problems, as diagnosed and reported in her trial)

In any case, these feelings aren't mutually exclusive. I mostly feel sorry for people like this, but sometimes if they do something threatening (Marsden was arrested for stalking, uttering threats, and blackmail) I could get angry, sure. But this particular essay doesn't make me angry, no.

Also: see above re: denial.

 

[Beth]

? If you're saying that you agree that psychoanalysis outside of a professional interview is useless, then we agree.

Depends what you mean by 'psychoanalysis' and 'success'. I suspect that for the definitions you are using, I would agree. I'm not so sure I would agree with your definitions though. I think that simply understanding yourself and others better is 'success' and I think armchair pyschoanalysis can be helpful in that regard.

I question this entirely, obvioulsy. Maybe it's my experience working with both online usability analysis and marketing, and also psychological research itself. If anybody seriously advanced the proposal that we should learn about a general population by sampling online conversations I suspect they would be marginalized.

This is why I think we are using different definitions. I'm haven't been talking about it from a professional POV.

There's no 'part' that shows this - it's the whole point of the article. He identifies denial and cognitive dissonance early in the essay.

Are denial and cognitive dissonance are considered 'mental problems' and 'defective thinking' in and of themselves? I don't think of them that way, but as simply part of being human. What I took to be the subject was the 'unique to skeptics' subject matter of what is being denied or ignored to avoid cognitive dissonance and the lengths that individuals might go to in order to do so.

You asked a similar question to another forum poster in this thread earlier. This is a pretty ironic demonstration of cognitive dissonance or denial. You simply can't accept the facts presented, so the only conclusion is that we're lying.

My bad. I thought it was you I had asked earlier and your response seemed at odds with what I thought had been your answer to that question. At any rate, I prefer to think the best of other people until evidence exists otherwise and rarely "conclude" that someone is lying. I certainly had not in this case. Sometimes, I suspect that people may have made a mistake. In this case, it was me that made the error.

Incidently, you seem rather quick to jump on the armchair psychoanalysis bandwagon yourself, jumping to the conclusion that I can't accept 'facts' as presented and therefore must be in either denial or suffer from cognitive dissonance on the matter.

My counter-hypothesis mentioned earlier was that cognitive dissonance and denial is a human attribute, but not special to skeptics, or even especially evident in the high-profile skeptics identified in the essay. From what I can see, the more this discussion progresses - both here and at the author's blog website - the more the thesis that there is nothing special about skeptical psychology is supported.

I agree, but I don't understand why you feel that this is an attempt to present skeptics as having 'mental problems' or 'defective thinking' rather than, as the author claims, an attempt to understand skeptics better?

Mostly I feel sorry for polemecists, yes. I went to school with Rachel Marsden. I can only feel sorry for somebody who lives in such a cynical and distorted imaginary world. It has ruined her life: nobody trusts her; nobody likes her. I doubt even her family likes her very much at this point. (note: Rachel Marsden does have mental problems, as diagnosed and reported in her trial)

In any case, these feelings aren't mutually exclusive. I mostly feel sorry for people like this, but sometimes if they do something threatening (Marsden was arrested for stalking, uttering threats, and blackmail) I could get angry, sure. But this particular essay doesn't make me angry, no.

Also: see above re: denial.

No disagreement here either. Nice talking with you.

 

[blutoski]

Depends what you mean by 'psychoanalysis' and 'success'. I suspect that for the definitions you are using, I would agree. I'm not so sure I would agree with your definitions though. I think that simply understanding yourself and others better is 'success' and I think armchair pyschoanalysis can be helpful in that regard.

The problem is the reliability from using online examples. The examples are too skimpy, and text is too limited a limited sensory medium, and there's inadequate interactive potential.

I'm specifically talking about attempts to interpret unconscious motivations.

Just as a bit of background: while my major was immunology, I did complete a degree in psychology. I find that this was a good platform for somebody interested in skepticism, since so much of skepticism is understanding these behaviors.

But I have to suck it up and accept not only my personal limitations regarding diagnosis, but especially the systematic limitations imposed by internet interactions, or even the time-and-space limited interactions during face-to-face skeptical events.

This is why I think we are using different definitions. I'm haven't been talking about it from a professional POV.

It's not even about a professional pov... it's about a competent pov. An amateur is often very capable of coming to correct conclusions if he uses an appropriate methodology (a qualified statement, dependent on what subject we're discussing). However, in regards to my description of how a professional would be treated: an amateur does not have to answer to peers, so would be exempt from ridicule. He'd still be wrong because the sample is not representative. I was simply emphasizing that surveying online forums to develop a model of real-world communities is regarded as inadequate by people who are experts on whether or not this has worked in the past, because they have tried it and found it leads to false conclusions.

Are denial and cognitive dissonance are considered 'mental problems' and 'defective thinking' in and of themselves? I don't think of them that way, but as simply part of being human. What I took to be the subject was the 'unique to skeptics' subject matter of what is being denied or ignored to avoid cognitive dissonance and the lengths that individuals might go to in order to do so.

Denial is a spectrum. If a person is in severe enough denial, it could be considered pathological. It can be an indicator of a psychotic episode, for example.

Cognitive dissonance is also spectral, but it's rare that it ever gets so serious as to be described as pathological. It's more a psychology thing than a psychiatry thing.

My point is more that the author of the essay is treating these as unusual and problematic, rather than normal human behavior, which leads me to believe that he is discussing the pathological end of the spectrum. The author also has clarified on his blog discussion that the focus of the essay was trying to explain why certain skeptics were responding irrationally, emotionally, in a 'militant' manner... 'in denial' about things that were not debatable, but were obviously true (eg: the meaningfulness of results of particular experiments). Denial is not about a dispute over uncertain facts: it is about rejection of what is widely accepted as true, resulting in personal consequences.

With the latter in mind, it's important to note that the author is not using the term 'denial' in its actual psychological sense, but in a more colloquial use, which I interpret as perjorative.

My bad. I thought it was you I had asked earlier and your response seemed at odds with what I thought had been your answer to that question. At any rate, I prefer to think the best of other people until evidence exists otherwise and rarely "conclude" that someone is lying. I certainly had not in this case. Sometimes, I suspect that people may have made a mistake. In this case, it was me that made the error.

Ah, but notice that you are only seeking clarification when the facts disagree with your thesis? Why just these passages? Why not ask if the author really believes what he wrote, for example? Perhaps he is in denial about his inner skeptic?

Incidently, you seem rather quick to jump on the armchair psychoanalysis bandwagon yourself, jumping to the conclusion that I can't accept 'facts' as presented and therefore must be in either denial or suffer from cognitive dissonance on the matter.

It was an attempt to illustrate my point: reading somebody's posts is a woefully inadequate way to identify these cognitive issues. If you are not suffering from them, then perhaps the other posters are not either.

I agree, but I don't understand why you feel that this is an attempt to present skeptics as having 'mental problems' or 'defective thinking' rather than, as the author claims, an attempt to understand skeptics better?

The author can claim anything he wants, but I interpret it as a mundane polemic, not an attempt to 'understand skeptics better.'

 

[Beth]

The problem is the reliability from using online examples. The examples are too skimpy, and text is too limited a limited sensory medium, and there's inadequate interactive potential.

I'm specifically talking about attempts to interpret unconscious motivations.

Ah. I see our disconnect. I'm not.

He'd still be wrong because the sample is not representative. I was simply emphasizing that surveying online forums to develop a model of real-world communities is regarded as inadequate by people who are experts on whether or not this has worked in the past, because they have tried it and found it leads to false conclusions.

I don't disagree with any of what your saying, except about the part that it's useless and leads to wrong conclusions. A non-representative sample is better than no sample at all and, if you keep in mind the limitations, may not lead to incorrect conclusions. Back in the 60's and 70's, homosexuals were judged by the flamboyant ones that people could recognize. Those obviously gay guys gave an indication of the directions in which gay men differed from heterosexual males. Similarly, skeptics are not necessarily obvious in day to day life. On-line forums are likely to be as skewed a sample as flamboyant gays, but OTOH, they are also likely to indicate what directions the less extreme individuals lean towards.

Denial is a spectrum. If a person is in severe enough denial, it could be considered pathological. It can be an indicator of a psychotic episode, for example.

Cognitive dissonance is also spectral, but it's rare that it ever gets so serious as to be described as pathological. It's more a psychology thing than a psychiatry thing.

Okay. That's what I thought.

My point is more that the author of the essay is treating these as unusual and problematic, rather than normal human behavior, which leads me to believe that he is discussing the pathological end of the spectrum.

What did he say that caused you to believe that?

With the latter in mind, it's important to note that the author is not using the term 'denial' in its actual psychological sense, but in a more colloquial use, which I interpret as perjorative.

Interesting. I don't interpret it that way.

Ah, but notice that you are only seeking clarification when the facts disagree with your thesis? Why just these passages?

Ah, but notice that you have commented extensively on the authors claims of denial. Why just those passages and not on the remarks about the hostility commonly displayed by skeptics towards parapyschologists?

Why not ask if the author really believes what he wrote, for example? Perhaps he is in denial about his inner skeptic?

He isn't posting here. Otherwise, I probably would.

It was an attempt to illustrate my point: reading somebody's posts is a woefully inadequate way to identify these cognitive issues. If you are not suffering from them, then perhaps the other posters are not either.

I think I have not made myself clear in earlier posts. I haven't been talking about the internal motivations of others. I've been thinking instead of the hostility directed at those who believe differently and the quickness with which they accept explanations to discount experimental results that don't match their expectations. Those are behaviors, not speculations about motivations. I agree that the speculations on motivations are unsupported. But the observations about hostility seem quite accurate and consistent with my own observations and those of others. I must admit, I'm curious about why so many skeptics seem so hostile regarding those who don't share their beliefs. Do you have any opinions on why there is so much hostility towards others expressed by skeptics?

The author can claim anything he wants, but I interpret it as a mundane polemic, not an attempt to 'understand skeptics better.'

I find this behavior to be at odds with the claim that you don't feel 'angry' in response to the essay. You assume a very derrogatory interpretation of his essay towards skeptics and ignore his stated motivation. I associate such interpretations of others words with feelings of anger and defensiveness. That's why I keep asking about it. Care to expound any further on your feelings about it?

 

[fls]

To what extent does anyone think that science/scientists is/are informed by skeptics?

Outside of skeptics themselves, I think that the scientists within any particular field are largely unaware of what Randi or Gardner has to say about their area of study. Instead, skeptics are informed by science. They take their cue as to what is worthy of ridicule from what is considered unworthy of interest by scientists in related fields. Doubt for a particular idea seems to come from within (from the scientists) rather than from without (skeptics).

For example, in this article by Wackermann about correlations between the brain states of two people who are in separate rooms, there is no reference to skeptics as a source for the author's doubt. Instead, he outlines a case for doubt based on a consideration of what sort of reliable conclusions can be drawn from the available information.

http://www.mindmatter.de/mmpdf/wackermann.pdf

This example also illustrates the problem with addressing criticisms against the field of parapsychology by addressing the output of vocal skeptics. It completely misses the relevant target. Dean Radin uses the references in the above paper as evidence of a "breakthrough of stunning proportions" in the field of parapsychology and mind/matter interactions. Throughout his book, Entangled Minds, he refers to the research in various areas as so strong, it's like ignoring "aliens landing on the White House lawn". He then rails endlessly against the lack of acceptance by scientists in related fields by focusing on criticizing vocal skeptics. Yet, his books and his articles on his blog fail to accomplish his purported primary goal - acceptance by scientists in related fields. If this work represents a stunning breakthrough, Wackermann should be easily persuaded. And yet, upon reviewing the same research as Radin, he finds that it doesn't indicate that a paranormal explanation is necessary in order to explain the results.

They've got the wrong end of the stick.

Linda

 

[Limbo]

To what extent does anyone think that science/scientists is/are informed by skeptics?

To some extent. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum, and before people are scientists they are just ordinary people immersed in a culture.

To what extent does anyone think that science/scientists is/are informed by parapsychological journals?

 

[fls]

To some extent. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum, and before people are scientists they are just ordinary people immersed in a culture.

I'm just not sure that the exposure of people like Randi and Gardner is that broad. I only recently discovered them myself (like within the last 5 years), yet I've been a scientist for over 20 years. Most of my colleagues have no idea who I'm talking about if I bring them up.

(Caveat: I've been familiar with Gardner since my teenage years, but only as a mathematician.)

To what extent does anyone think that science/scientists is/are informed by parapsychological journals?

They seem to be, since they quote the relevant research from parapsychological journals (see my example above). Subscriptions will not tell you the story, since by and large the practice of academics is to depend upon their institution's library and to perform indexed searches, rather than depending upon subscriptions to a few journals that they then read cover to cover.

Linda

 

[blutoski]

I don't disagree with any of what your saying, except about the part that it's useless and leads to wrong conclusions.

It's not just my opinion, though. My current employment involves internet based marketing, and it is simply a fact that online participation is not a good model for real-world activity. See Jacob Nielsen's work over the last 15 years for the hard data behind this.

The only thing worse than no information is incorrect information.

Okay. That's what I thought. What did he say that caused you to believe that?

I'm talking about his clarifications in his blog. He said that he was not talking about skeptics in general, but about a handful of skeptics he refers to as 'militant'. In my opinion, this is a backtrack, rather than a true clarification, because his essay was not titled 'the psychology of select militant skeptics.'

Ah, but notice that you have commented extensively on the authors claims of denial. Why just those passages and not on the remarks about the hostility commonly displayed by skeptics towards parapyschologists?

If you don't understand that, then you may have missed the point. I point out that I do not interpret his difference of opinion as denial because it doesn't fit the definition any more than James Randi's behavior does. I am applying the same standard to everybody equally, and don't find much denial in these examples at all. The author, on the other hand, should be interpreting his own words as denial, but isn't - which means he has not standardized his definition of denial, and seems to be saying that denial is defined as rejection of his worldview.

I think I have not made myself clear in earlier posts. I haven't been talking about the internal motivations of others. I've been thinking instead of the hostility directed at those who believe differently and the quickness with which they accept explanations to discount experimental results that don't match their expectations. Those are behaviors, not speculations about motivations.

The text of the original post was explicitly using terms like 'denial' and 'cognitive dissonance' and 'psychology'. If you're talking about just observing behavior, then you appear to be abandoning a defense of the author's essay thesis and starting a new subject. We can do that, but be prepared to provide convincing evidence of these claims of behavior.

Old joke: the cognitive psychologist asks "Was it good for you"; the behaviorist asks "Was it good for me?"

I agree that the speculations on motivations are unsupported. But the observations about hostility seem quite accurate and consistent with my own observations and those of others. I must admit, I'm curious about why so many skeptics seem so hostile regarding those who don't share their beliefs. Do you have any opinions on why there is so much hostility towards others expressed by skeptics?

I have already explained: 'because skepticism is composed of humans, and has some hostile people in it, just like every other community'. I don't know what you're really asking, here: are you saying that you believe skeptics are more hostile toward criticism than the general population? (I say this as somebody who just resigned from the board of a gardening club because of the degenerate infighting)

I find this behavior to be at odds with the claim that you don't feel 'angry' in response to the essay. You assume a very derrogatory interpretation of his essay towards skeptics and ignore his stated motivation. I associate such interpretations of others words with feelings of anger and defensiveness. That's why I keep asking about it. Care to expound any further on your feelings about it?

Not really. I read hundreds of websites, postings, emails, &c, a week that are hostile to skepticism, and they just go in one end and out the other. Maybe it's a question of relative interest: I preserve my emotional motivations for healthfraud where people are actually killed or injured. In contrast, psi research is a source of belly-laughs for me, which is why I continue to participate.

 

[Jeff Corey]

"Old joke: the cognitive psychologist asks "Was it good for you"; the behaviorist asks "Was it good for me?"
Older still is the two psychoanalysts who meet on the street and greet eachother with, "So, how am I today?"

 

[Limbo]

Update to the OP:

Unengaged, implausible, illogical

"Among many issues that came out of my last entry, I was asked to provide evidence for certain claims I made about skeptics' behaviour. Here they are:

1) refusing to engage with parapsychological investigations on any level as being of no interest, undoubtedly fraudulent, obviously nonsense, etc.

It's surely not uncontroversial to say that this is true of many scientists, as most might proudly agree. Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins and Lewis Wolpert have all been fairly explicit about their lack of interest - to name only three. If you want a specific example, try Lewis Wolpert's attitude during a public debate with Rupert Sheldrake on telepathy - notably his refusal even to watch a relevant clip that Sheldrake was showing to support his case.

Another example is the public exchange between Sheldrake and Atkins, in which Atkins candidly admitted he hadn't read any of the evidence of telepathy that he had dismissed as a 'charlatan's fantasy'.

2) engaging with [psychical investigations], but explaining them away with all kinds of implausible scenarios which in any other context no one would entertain for a moment"

[...]

 

[Beth]

It's not just my opinion, though. My current employment involves internet based marketing, and it is simply a fact that online participation is not a good model for real-world activity. See Jacob Nielsen's work over the last 15 years for the hard data behind this.

The only thing worse than no information is incorrect information.

Not a statement I agree with. Is Newtonian physics useless? I am reminded of Dr. George Box's famous quote "All models are wrong. Some models are useful." Biased information can be useful when the direction of the bias is known.

I have already explained: 'because skepticism is composed of humans, and has some hostile people in it, just like every other community'. I don't know what you're really asking, here: are you saying that you believe skeptics are more hostile toward criticism than the general population?

Yes, but not just towards criticism. EVERYBODY is hostile towards criticism. Rather, I find that skeptics as a group (at least in the on-line forums which is the only contact I have with them) seem noticably more hostile towards those who don't share their materialistic assumptions about the world we live in than nearly any other group of people I have had internet interactions with. I've been hanging out and debating various subjects on the internet for nearly two decades now. Usually I find there are a few people I can't talk to and enjoy conversing with the rest. With skeptic forums, I have to look for the people I can enjoy conversing with (you're one of them ) and ignore the rest.

At any rate, I don't understand why skeptics on the internet are more hostile than other groups. I have come to feel it's not simply my own biases, as it's not an observation unique to me, but something that has been remarked upon by many others, both on-line and in print as the OP and some other links in this thread demonstrate. I remain curious.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Update to the OP:

Unengaged, implausible, illogical



[...]

From your link:
"a successful experiment reported by J.B. Rhine at Duke University in the 1930s. Rhine's colleague Gaither Pratt tested a theology student named Hubert Pearce for ESP in card experiments. In four series involving a total of 74 runs, where 5 was the mean, Pearce scored averages of 9.9, 6.7, 7.3, and 9.3 - the odds of that happening by chance are a hundred thousand billion billion to one. In one of the experiments Pearce was guessing cards at pre-arranged intervals while Pratt was turning over the cards in another part of the building. (Rhine, J B and J G Pratt (1954), ‘A Review of the Pearce-Pratt Distance Series of ESP Tests’, Journal of Parapsychology, 18, 3, pp. 165-77.)

Interesting that this, to my knowlege, has was never replicated without the opportunity for known human sensory leakage, and is also an example of Rhine's famous file drawer effect,

 

[godless dave]

Update to the OP:

Unengaged, implausible, illogical

"Among many issues that came out of my last entry, I was asked to provide evidence for certain claims I made about skeptics' behaviour. Here they are:

1) refusing to engage with parapsychological investigations on any level as being of no interest, undoubtedly fraudulent, obviously nonsense, etc.

After a certain amount of investigation has been performed, it's understandable to abandon a line of inquiry that hasn't produced any results. When parapsychological investigations start producing real results, they'll get more attention.

 

[Ersby]

There’s no denying that sceptics have scored a few own goals in public debates. Wolpert and Atkins did themselves no favours by not familiarising themselves with the data.

Although there’s a similar problem with pro-psi proponents. When faced with sceptical literature/arguments, they seem to have difficulty processing it. Storm and Ertel’s response to Milton and Wiseman’s ganzfeld meta-analysis is a rag-bag of massaged numbers and misrepresentations of M&W’s work. Berger’s oft-quoted critique of Blackmore’s student work was derided by Blackmore for factual errors in a not-very-oft-quoted reply. Rhine, of course, seemed to have enormous difficulty in published negative/chance results.

This from a talk by the chemist Langmuir:

"Of course not,” he [Rhine] said. "That would be dishonest. "
"Why would it be dishonest?" [said Langmuir]
"The low scores are just as significant as the high ones, aren't they? They proved that there's something there just as much, and therefore it wouldn't be fair. "
I said, "Are you going to count them, are you going to reverse the sign and count them, or count them as credits?"
"No, No," he said.
I said, "What have you done with them? Are they in your book?"
"No."
"Why, I thought you said that all your values were in your book. Why haven't you put those in?"
"Well," he said, "I haven't had time to work them up."
"Well, you know all the results, you told me the results. "
"Well," he said, "I don't give the results out until I've had time to digest them."
I said, "How many of these things have you?” He showed me filing cabinets--a whole row of them. Maybe hundreds of thousands of cards. He has a filing cabinet that contained nothing but these things that were done in sealed up envelopes. And they were the ones that gave the average of five.

As for implausible explanations for good results, I’d need to see Wiseman/Smith’s paper on detecting the unseen gaze – in the abstract they don’t mention getting significant results. As for issues with randomisation being implausible, that was the backbone of Bierman’s compelling paper against Sheldrake’s remote staring results, in which he posited that the mix of poor randomisation/feedback/response bias could explain the results seen (“The invisible gaze: three attempts to replicate sheldrake.s staring effects” Lobach, Bierman, PA Convention 2004)

 

[fls]

Rather, I find that skeptics as a group (at least in the on-line forums which is the only contact I have with them) seem noticably more hostile towards those who don't share their materialistic assumptions about the world we live in than nearly any other group of people I have had internet interactions with. I've been hanging out and debating various subjects on the internet for nearly two decades now.

What standardized definition of 'hostile' do you apply in order to make that assessment?

Linda

 

[Jeff Corey]

Ersby,
I'd like to use that Langmuir quote as a reference. Where can I locate it? I originally saw something similar by Sir Peter Medawar, but now I can't locate that either. Thirty years ago it was merely of interest, now I need a citation.
As I recall, Rhine told Medawar that the "psi negative" results were produced by people hostile his views, in order to discredit the notion of ESP.

 

[Ersby]

Langmuir's talk is here

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the contents - the bit about Rhine is under Extra Sensory Perception/

 

[Beth]

What standardized definition of 'hostile' do you apply in order to make that assessment?

Linda

The one in my head. It matches fairly well with the one in the dictionary.