SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[plumjam]

So when people here criticise (as they very often do) positions for not having any published peer-reviewed articles in their favour, that too, then, is an appeal to authority I guess. Unless I'm missing something.

 

[blutoski]

A form of an appeal to authority?

I'm not sure what your question refers to, so I'm going to assume you meant fls' recent post.

It's important to recognize that appeal to authority is a very important - possibly key -skeptical tool, not necessarily a fallacy.

The fallacy is "appeal to questionable authority". eg: "Don't use psychiatric medication - Tom Cruise says it's more harmful than beneficial."

In contrast, there is an argument pattern called "appeal to authority" (or: "argument from authority") that skeptics use to support their arguments very frequently. eg: "Use psychiatric medication - a widely respected independent medical organization's psychiatric experts say it's more beneficial than harmful."

Appeal to authority is a deductive fallacy, but can be inductively true if important criteria are met. Science is inductive and compartmentalized, so analyzing the criteria is the cornerstone of scientific discussions.

(Note: one way I recognize pseudoskeptics, is that they believe appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy - they're doing more damage to skepticism than good, and it just ends up confusing the public)

 

[blutoski]

So when people here criticise (as they very often do) positions for not having any published peer-reviewed articles in their favour, that too, then, is an appeal to authority I guess. Unless I'm missing something.

No, you're not missing anything. Appeal to authority has criteria, and peer-review meets the criteria (specifically: the criteria that individuals selected for peer-review are considered authorities by their peers, and have no vested interest toward validating the thesis).

 

[plumjam]

No, you're not missing anything. Appeal to authority has criteria, and peer-review meets the criteria (specifically: the criteria that individuals selected for peer-review are considered authorities by their peers, and have no vested interest toward validating the thesis).

Yes, you and I agree. In certain circumstances I believe that appeals to authority are entirely justified.
I'm also glad that you recognise the existence and modus operandi of pseudoskeptics here. A common tactic they tend to employ is to reply merely by sticking a fallacy label onto a point someone has made, as though that has irreversibly dismissed the point. This has the added advantage of meaning they can justify to themselves not having to address the substance of the point itself.
There are other so-called fallacies which I believe are very valid (depending on the circumstances) ways of determining what is the case. One would be the Argument from Incredulity. Science, being based on probability, is founded on an Argument from Incredulity. The particular argument being 'I am incredulous that these results occurred purely by chance, therefore I will interpret them as valid in determining what is the case.'
And yet science-worshippers bring that one out time and again. It's ironic

Getting back to the thread, I think Maatorc's point is well made. If it's the case that some people have experience of psychical realities then they are going to be in a better position of authority to do peer-review than would someone who lacks any such experience, or flat-out believes such experiences are impossible.

 

[Mashuna]

There are other so-called fallacies which I believe are very valid (depending on the circumstances) ways of determining what is the case. One would be the Argument from Incredulity. Science, being based on probability, is founded on an Argument from Incredulity. The particular argument being 'I am incredulous that these results occurred purely by chance, therefore I will interpret them as valid in determining what is the case.'
And yet science-worshippers bring that one out time and again. It's ironic

That's an interesting take you have on the Argument from Incredulity. It's not an interpretation I've ever heard before. I am personally incredulous of it's validity.

 

[tyr_13]

My comment was towards Maatorc's point. I tend to assume that the 'appeal to authority' fallacy was assumed to be, 'appeal to authorities who don't have evidence or aren't really authorities'. Which brings me to this...

Getting back to the thread, I think Maatorc's point is well made. If it's the case that some people have experience of psychical realities then they are going to be in a better position of authority to do peer-review than would someone who lacks any such experience, or flat-out believes such experiences are impossible.

No. Belief in, or having believed one has experienced 'psychic realities' (as opposed to real realities?) does not make one more qualified as an authority on the subject. It does not make one a valid peer for peer review. People can, and have, dis proven psychic's claims without ever having themselves been psychic. Cross field review is useful.

Science worshipers? It would seem you have a very tenuous grip on science and Argument from Incredulity, and thus are forced to frame them in a convention that you are more comfortable and familiar with.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...There are other so-called fallacies which I believe are very valid (depending on the circumstances) ways of determining what is the case. One would be the Argument from Incredulity. Science, being based on probability, is founded on an Argument from Incredulity. The particular argument being 'I am incredulous that these results occurred purely by chance, therefore I will interpret them as valid in determining what is the case.'
And yet science-worshippers bring that one out time and again. It's ironic...

Not ironic. You made a mistake. That argument is also called the Argument from Ignorance, viz
"Argument from Incredulity is an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from an inability to imagine or believe the converse. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:

I can't imagine how P could possibly be false
Therefore, P.
A simple variation on this is

I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
Therefore, not-P.
This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way. This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time."
(from SkepticWiki)

 

[maatorc]

1... Yes, those people with knowledge and experience at the same or higher level are the source of our skepticism (if we are not one of those people ourselves).
2... I'd forgotten that you are the person who posits a secret cadre of true psychics......
3... ......what you are suggesting is that a true skeptic holds no doubt about anything except the exquisitely narrow range where their knowledge and experience (if present) approach the most advanced thinking.
4... And a pseudoskeptic is someone who thinks it is possible to listen to the doubts of others who hold the expertise they lack......Linda

1... No problem here where genuine skepticism in a given context as a source of knowledge and understanding, to one who is not a genuine skeptic in the same context, is not confused with genuine skepticism in itself.
2... A discussion of this here could derail the thread.
3... No: Genuine skepticism is not a synonym of certainty below the level of the most advanced thinking.
4... No: A pseudo-skeptic assumes the authority of genuine skepticism without possessing the necessary knowledge and experience.

 

[blutoski]

Yes, you and I agree. In certain circumstances I believe that appeals to authority are entirely justified.

Uh... plumjam... you're the one who brought it up. Are you accusing yourself of pseudoskepticism?

It's not just your or my opinion. It's critical thinking, and the circumstances have been pretty stable for a few hundred years. I just blogged about it:

[Skeptical MythConceptions - part 1 - Authority]

Getting back to the thread, I think Maatorc's point is well made. If it's the case that some people have experience of psychical realities then they are going to be in a better position of authority to do peer-review than would someone who lacks any such experience, or flat-out believes such experiences are impossible.

I think the statement is too vague to be meaningful. How would, say, mathematicians do peer-review, since there's no physical experience involved?

Peer-review in the natural sciences is about demonstration of competence and objectivity: did you adequately self-criticize your own research over the years? Have you demonstrated depth of knowledge in this field? Are you keeping up to date? Can you demonstrate that you are sufficiently disinterested in the thesis?

Their experience may give them more depth, but it may not: psi researchers have disputes all the time over their incompatible personal experiences. (Consider my ghost hunting colleagues: the ones that had hands-on experience seeing orbs with their eyes were at odds with the ones that had hands-on experience making orbs by tinkering with their cameras) Personal experience may also reduce their disinterest by increasing their emotional investment.

 

[blutoski]

There are other so-called fallacies which I believe are very valid (depending on the circumstances) ways of determining what is the case. One would be the Argument from Incredulity. Science, being based on probability, is founded on an Argument from Incredulity. The particular argument being 'I am incredulous that these results occurred purely by chance, therefore I will interpret them as valid in determining what is the case.'
And yet science-worshippers bring that one out time and again. It's ironic

Well... something here is ironic.

Specifically, that this is the same error as rejecting Argument from Authority.

Argument from Personal Incredulity usually comes in the form of rejecting a commonly held (or authoritatively validated) belief because one personally does not understand it. It's also called Argument from Ignorance.

 

[Jeff Corey]

PJ, two posters have now commented on your use of the term "ironic". It appears to be an example of meta-irony.

 

[eirik]

Interesting thread- I learn a lot from most of you guys.

As a sidenote to the OP, I just saw a norwegian TV show, a very good satirical "mockumentary" of some sorts. It didn't have english subs, but for those of you who understand norwegian, check it out: http://www1.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/335020

I'll give you a little summary, the plot is just pure genious!

The most famous skeptical organization in Norway(more like an atheistic NGO, "Human-Etisk Forbund", but close enough) need to buy new offices, and buys an old hospital building at a bargain price.

Why they got it cheap? it's built on top of a hospital cemetery for malpractised patients, and the rumours has it that it's haunted from all the mistreated patients from the fifties.

It's just hilarious when pencils and phones and soda cans fly around midair in the middle of a skeptics board meeting , and they are all just rationalizing it, "it's just natural phenomenons with low air pressure combined with static electricity" and so on---

In the end they have to acknowledge the paranornal presense, when the ghosts writes something like "dork" in the chairmans forehead with a flying permanent marker But as the sceptics said, - this must NEVER come out. How would it be perceived if it were to come out that the sceptics were haunted?

I can just imagine the comical situation if the JREF all of a sudden got a bad case of poltergeist

The tone in the show is just real laughable, and it is sort of like an absurd perspective on how "believers" view sceptics. Metahumor..

They also did some other great sceptical episodes of this show, one with a "homeopathic emergency ambulance helicopter". Just think how many more people could have been saved from air crashes, traffic incidents and drowning accidents, if the school medicine(big pharma) would allow for alternative emergency treatment.(horoscopes, healing, homeopathic, foot acupressure and so on) http://www1.nrk.no/nett-tv/indeks/6312

End of derail..

Eirik

 

[fls]

1... No problem here where genuine skepticism in a given context as a source of knowledge and understanding, to one who is not a genuine skeptic in the same context, is not confused with genuine skepticism in itself.

I can't tell what you're trying to say here.

3... No: Genuine skepticism is not a synonym of certainty below the level of the most advanced thinking.

Lack of doubt is not certainty in this case. It is credulity - simply believing what you are told.

4... No: A pseudo-skeptic assumes the authority of genuine skepticism without possessing the necessary knowledge and experience.

You said "no", but then you repeated what I said. I don't think you are paying attention to what I am saying.

I suspect you are misapplying the idea of expertise. In order to determine whether or not an individual is a genuine psychic, i.e. their abilities represent something paranormal, one needs to have an expert understanding of what normal abilities encompass. That some individuals have decided that their abilities (or the abilities of others) are not normal does not make them experts in what can't be normal. In fact, it encourages them to remain ignorant in that regard so as to preserve the illusion of magic. I prefer to depend upon the expert opinion of those who have a thorough understanding of the possibilties of human cognition, instead of those who don't, when it comes to whether or not I believe someone who declares "this is not possible by normal means".

Linda

 

[plumjam]

Not ironic. You made a mistake. That argument is also called the Argument from Ignorance, viz
"Argument from Incredulity is an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from an inability to imagine or believe the converse. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:

I can't imagine how P could possibly be false
Therefore, P.
A simple variation on this is

I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
Therefore, not-P.
This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way. This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time."
(from SkepticWiki)

Yeah, and whichever way you look at it scientists base their conclusions on a de facto disbelief that what are described as statistically significant results came about purely by chance.
Science is based on this disbelief. Incredulity.

 

[plumjam]

Uh... plumjam... you're the one who brought it up. Are you accusing yourself of pseudoskepticism?

It's not just your or my opinion. It's critical thinking, and the circumstances have been pretty stable for a few hundred years. I just blogged about it:

[Skeptical MythConceptions - part 1 - Authority]

Seems like you're misinterpreting me. I'm saying that at the heart of some examples of what are often labeled fallacies, lie valid ways of discerning what is the case. The mistake pseudoskeptics make is to uncritically label things as fallacies and feel that this allows them to dismiss the wider point.

I think the statement is too vague to be meaningful. How would, say, mathematicians do peer-review, since there's no physical experience involved?

Huh? Mathematicians are in a better position to do peer review on mathematics papers because they have relevant mathematical experience. They have more keenly honed mathematical perception, just as a psychic would have more keenly honed psychic perception.

Peer-review in the natural sciences is about demonstration of competence and objectivity: did you adequately self-criticize your own research over the years? Have you demonstrated depth of knowledge in this field? Are you keeping up to date? Can you demonstrate that you are sufficiently disinterested in the thesis?

So?

Their experience may give them more depth, but it may not: psi researchers have disputes all the time over their incompatible personal experiences.

So do mathematicians and physical scientists. So, if anything, that's a good sign.

(Consider my ghost hunting colleagues: the ones that had hands-on experience seeing orbs with their eyes were at odds with the ones that had hands-on experience making orbs by tinkering with their cameras) Personal experience may also reduce their disinterest by increasing their emotional investment.

Yeah, like there's no emotional investment in non-paranormal science, including peer-reviewers.

Well... something here is ironic.

Specifically, that this is the same error as rejecting Argument from Authority.

Yes. To reiterate, I'm arguing that Argument from Authority, and Argument from Incredulity can be valid ways of discerning what is the case. The fact that I think so on the latter means I can accept scientific results.

Argument from Personal Incredulity usually comes in the form of rejecting a commonly held (or authoritatively validated) belief because one personally does not understand it. It's also called Argument from Ignorance.[/QUOTE]
Why try to make a connection between Incredulity and Ignorance? If they were the same 'fallacies' why would they need two descriptors. We all know that incredulity and ignorance are widely differing states.
My argument was about incredulity. I've noticed one or two other people have tried to do this to confuse the issue.

 

[plumjam]

double post

 

[blutoski]

Seems like you're misinterpreting me. I'm saying that at the heart of some examples of what are often labeled fallacies, lie valid ways of discerning what is the case. The mistake pseudoskeptics make is to uncritically label things as fallacies and feel that this allows them to dismiss the wider point.

I'm sure it happens, but your passage above is a bit too vague to accept or reject. What fallacies, exactly? I've identified one, but the one you raised as a second example doesn't make sense to me for the reasons described in a previous post.

Huh? Mathematicians are in a better position to do peer review on mathematics papers because they have relevant mathematical experience. They have more keenly honed mathematical perception, just as a psychic would have more keenly honed psychic perception.

Now you're moving the goalpost. First you were talking about experiences, now you're talking about 'perception' - this is part of the vagueness I mentioned in the previous post. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

If you could clarify your claim, I'd be willing to continue. Right now, I'm struggling.

Yeah, like there's no emotional investment in non-paranormal science, including peer-reviewers.

Of course there's emotional investment. That's why I brought it up as a criteria. It's on the table as a real concern. We are arguing about whether a person with more emotional investment is a better objective peer reviewer. I say 'no', regardless of what the subject is. You seem to think that it's a problem for science, but a benefit for psi researchers. I don't understand why you apply different standards.

Yes. To reiterate, I'm arguing that Argument from Authority, and Argument from Incredulity can be valid ways of discerning what is the case. The fact that I think so on the latter means I can accept scientific results.

Why try to make a connection between Incredulity and Ignorance? If they were the same 'fallacies' why would they need two descriptors. We all know that incredulity and ignorance are widely differing states.

Nevertheless, they're just two different names for the same fallacy, and at this point it seems like you're quibbling over semantics. Did you read my blog entry? Appeal to Authority has six common names, two of which refer to the argument format, four of which describe fallacious use.

My argument was about incredulity. I've noticed one or two other people have tried to do this to confuse the issue.

I found your use of it to be confusing enough. The example you gave about 'skeptics' was to invoke a common nonskeptic argument: that there are no coincidences. I am really struggling to understand your thoughts in this thread.

 

[blutoski]

Yeah, and whichever way you look at it scientists base their conclusions on a de facto disbelief that what are described as statistically significant results came about purely by chance.
Science is based on this disbelief. Incredulity.

I think I'm grasping what you're saying, and it's just plain mistaken. Statistical significance describes how confident we are that the results are not chance, but there is no experiment I'm aware of where the statistical significance is so low that we eliminate chance.

So, I think you're offering a strawperson.


To give a more concrete example, when I do pilot studies which involve patient outcomes, I typically look for a confidence interval of p<=.05.

If the results are positive, I can describe it as probably true, but it could be a false positive one time in twenty. The p<=.05 recognizes that we could have got this result purely by chance. Statistical significance specifically acknowledges that results could be chance.

The decision to use confidence intervals of .05 or .01 or .0001 is dependent on the purpose of the study. eg: I prefer to see .01 for replication studies, as it reduces the chance of a false positive. This is about managing Type I and Type II errors. In pilot studies, we want to make sure we capture real positives, but in replication studies, we want to make sure we eliminate real negatives.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Yeah, and whichever way you look at it scientists base their conclusions on a de facto disbelief that what are described as statistically significant results came about purely by chance.
Science is based on this disbelief. Incredulity.

No. If they reject the null hypothesis, they are stating the probability that the results did not occur by chance. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the Argument from Incredulity. Read that quoted definition more closely.

 

[maatorc]

......In order to determine whether or not an individual is a genuine psychic, i.e. their abilities represent something paranormal, one needs to have an expert understanding of what normal abilities encompass. That some individuals have decided that their abilities (or the abilities of others) are not normal does not make them experts in what can't be normal. In fact, it encourages them to remain ignorant in that regard so as to preserve the illusion of magic. I prefer to depend upon the expert opinion of those who have a thorough understanding of the possibilties of human cognition, instead of those who don't, when it comes to whether or not I believe someone who declares "this is not possible by normal means".Linda

I accept that is your position.