Can atheists be rational? (not a parody thread)

[MattusMaximus]

You misread me. I said Invisible Goblins are a naturalistic hypothesis, and hence subject to scientific scrutiny. I asserted Zeus and my God were not. They can act upon nature, but as any activity in nature will appear naturalistic, how would you detect that? That is not to say one might not test the Zeus and God hypothesis, but not by experimental science.

What specifically distinguishes Zeus/God from Invisible Goblins? What is it that makes the IGs naturalistic but makes Z/G supernaturalistic? You need to be very clear and concrete in your definitions & descriptions here.

Having said that, outline an experiment that could test for your hypothetical IGs, one which uses methodological naturalism.

Also, please outline what kind of test you'd put forth for the Z/G hypothesis - if not one using MN, how would you do it in a manner that is repeatable and independently verifiable? How can you possibly invalidate either Zeus, God, or both? Please outline the protocols clearly.

And, lastly, I repeat my earlier questions...

1. If your test (whatever that may be) validates Zeus, will you start to worship Zeus?

2. If your test invalidates both Zeus and God, will you drop all religious belief and embrace atheism?

 

[cj.23]

It's never too late... On the contrary, whenever new info comes to hand, I feel we are obliged to revise any/all ideas, hypotheses, theories, etc that no longer square with reality

Agreed.

However, it's also not too late for CJ to climb off the woo-championing woo treadmill and start answering sincere, straightforward, forthright, direct questions in kind

You will have to define woo first. As far as i can tell I am not especially susceptible to it... still as apparently you and gord are not comprehending my argument, I'll restate it more clearly --

I said Invisible Goblins are a naturalistic hypothesis, and hence subject to scientific scrutiny. I asserted Zeus and my God were not. They can act upon nature, but as any activity in nature will appear naturalistic, how would you detect that? That is not to say one might not test the Zeus and God hypothesis, but not by experimental science.

Right, now I have always been VERY clear i think that I define supernatural by the etymological root, super = "above", nature ="time/space". A supernatural entity is one (by the definition I employ here) that transcends Space/Time. In fact I dedicated a whole post to clarifying this earlier? Regardless of whether you accept my definition or not, the problem remains (and I know I have to address MM's objection) of methodological naturalism in science.

Now to understand my post above you have to know that methodological naturalism is simply the premise employed in science that if something happens, we can explain it in terms of lawful, natural actions - causality. It excludes any supernatural causality. Look the term up, and you will see I am not redefining it, or inventing anything, though my discussion with MM above should have shown you this. Here is the wiki link we both invoked --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_and_Metaphysical_Naturalism
It's hardly rockest science. Also assumed (to overcome the Induction Problem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction )) is uniformity of nature - that nature works the same way everywhere, eternally. That is less relevant here.

Now let's go through my post again

Sentence 1. "I said Invisible Goblins are a naturalistic hypothesis, and hence subject to scientific scrutiny."

Right - naturalistic - Invisible Goblins are natural if they exist, because being in nature they must be part of nature. They would not be supernatural, as not external to the world. Therefore such enties would be within the scope of scientific enquiry.

Sentence 2. I asserted Zeus and my God were not

- Both Zeus and God are defined as by classical formulations like the Creeds and legends as supernatural, and in the case of the Christian God the terms employed are Transcendent (outside of time/space = my supernatural) and Immanent (acting within Time/Space = nature.) So my point was that Zeus and God are defined as not within the naturl order, so supernatural.

Sentence 3. They can act upon nature, but as any activity in nature will appear naturalistic, how would you detect that?

-Now remember methodological naturalism? We have defined supernatural entities as not part of the purview of science by this premise, the standard default assumption of science. So let's just explain this more clearly -- from an earlier post on another thread

"My first contention is that any Supernatural action within the Universe is by definition therefore Natural, and will manifest in terms of Natural Law. That manifestation may be highly unusual, or extremely rare, but it would not be as in Hume's famous definition of a miracle a violation of Natural Law, as by definition anything that occurs in Nature is Natural.

Therfore, I contend that supernatural causation would be effectively invisible to our naturalistic Science, which by definition is bounded by the natural. While logic and reason (and perhaps mathematics) might be used to explore what lies "beyond" the Universe, experimental and procedural science can not. As a "supernatural event" becomes natural by definition as soon as it occurs in the universe, Science will indeed find no "miracles" - which is not to say that supernatural interventions do not occur. One could only hope to establish if this was the case by logic or reason. Professor Dawkins has suggested that the law of Nature in a Universe created by a deity should look quite different from those in one without - but that we will have to address later.

Let me give a playful example. Let us assume that the Norse Trickster God Loki built the universe. His handiwork is the Laws of Nature, and any examination thereof will reveal nothing but Natural forces acting in accordance with Natural Law. Any arbitrary exception he introduced, such as the Duckbill platypus (I know it's quite explicable really, but you get my point!)would be quite Natural, and entirely explicable by Science. Then imagine a Scientist who looks at the world and says "There is no Loki". Yet equally rational is the Loki-ist theologians, who looks at the same Science and says "we can not see Loki, but we can learn the nature of Loki from his handiwork!" The Loki-ist might remark after JBS Haldane that Loki appears to have "an inordinate fondness for beetles!""


Sentence 4. That is not to say one might not test the Zeus and God hypothesis, but not by experimental science.

I think this goes without saying. The argument science can tell us nothing about God is pointless, as by definition science excludes those questions, and so is merely a circular argument - a point only MM has contested really.

@CJ:

You seem to have overlooked my post from way back

If you are here to discuss stuff (as opposed to merely trolling this forum), perhaps you could answer what I think are 'sincere, straightforward, forthright, direct questions' in kind

TIA

I'll have a look. However i hope now you can see i am not trolling - indeed I find the suggestion I am mildly amusing.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

If I claimed to have had a divine revelation from the Great Noodly One, would that qualify as evidence for the existence of the FSM, as you've defined it?

Yes. It would be extraordinarily weak evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Science does not say there is no evidence for any proposition, merely that another hypothesis is more complete in it's covering power, more coherent, more parsimonious or has greater utility etc, etc. (The whole demarcation problem arises from our inability to actually accurately state where the limits of science lie accurately, or how define precisely it works.)

If so, note that I would be providing an un-testable, supernatural explanation for my revelatory experience. There are, of course, more naturalistic explanations - I was high on drugs, I was dreaming, or I was just lying - that are subject to being tested using methodological naturalism. This outlines the very point I've been attempting to get you to understand.

Tells us nothing about the ontology of the experience does it? You have provided rival explanations - demonstrating that the hypothesis is underdetermined - so our most scientific hypotheses. You can assume that one of the naturalistic explanations is better, but without actual evidence to demonstrate one of them we are no closer to an explanation. A wind turbine gets blown down or hit by something - and there are thousands of possible explanations i'm sure - but unless we have evidence, we are no closer to providing an objective explanation than "the FSM did it". Of course claiming God or the FSM did it would be an illegitimate scientific hypothesis -because it breaks the employment of methodological naturalism. So the only hypothesis a scientist could not test would be the hypothesis that the fSM touched you with his Noodly Appendage.

Besides which, as I said your single experience would be weak evidence. Mystical experience is rather well attested, with conformity across age demographic, many culturally independent fetures,etc, etc. There is a significant body of evidence to be addressed here.

Good point. I see what you're saying and I agree. IMO, the "ghost model" just doesn't stand up as providing any kind of decent explanation. That is why I've dismissed it.

Right, it lacks explantory power, beyond postulating "dead guys". If we have other evidence for dead guys, we still lack a proposed mechanism at this time. Does not follow that we never will have of course.

Sorry, CJ, but you are begging the question here. You claim that there is evidence for this thing called God. Is there evidence of something? Yes.

It's evidence for the God hypothesis. Something is only evidence in the context of a research question. "Gord posts on this forum" is a piece of data - it becomes evidence if our research question is "does Gorrd post on the internet." All hypotheses set questions, so by definition beg the question, but are not guilty of logical fallacy.

But what about your explanation that the thing behind this evidence is God? That is an open question, one which - for the reasons I've outlined above - is not open to scientific exploration. Hence, on the question of God, we are left with philosophical discourse as the only avenue of exploration.

Do you see my point?

Yes. I think I agree with it*, are we not saying the same thing? But then we are left with the clear point that while there is evidence pertinent to making a case for the god hypothesis, it can not be scientifically invoked because of the default assumption of science. So to say ther eis no scientific evidence for God is merely a circular argument, and to say there is evidence for God more generally patently false. I don't see how anyone can argue this is untrue.

*my hesitation lies in that there are anumbe rof ways of knowing outside of philosophy and science thta can be invoked - history say.
cj x

 

[RandFan]

Tells us nothing about the ontology of the experience does it?

What about temporal lobe seizures, organic defect and induced illusions via psychotropic drugs and magnetic fields?

What about Derren Brown's ability to bring people to tears and to influence them to willingly accept that an experience was spiritual when he was simply manipulating their emotions?

 

[six7s]

You will have to define woo first.

Anything that induces a response along the lines of 'Woo! That's incredibly amazing!' from those who are happier to reinforce rather than dispel their delusions

As far as i can tell I am not especially susceptible to it...

Given that you hold Anglican (?) beliefs, I beg to differ

still as apparently you and gord are not comprehending my argument, I'll restate it more clearly

Thanks for at least trying... alas, for me, it wasn't any clearer

I'll have a look.

It's pretty simple CJ... a cursory glance is all it takes

However i hope now you can see i am not trolling

I see no evidence to suggest otherwise

indeed I find the suggestion I am mildly amusing.

I think it's funny... but not in a humourous way

 

[cj.23]

Anything that induces a response along the lines of 'Woo! That's incredibly amazing!' from those who are happier to reinforce rather than dispel their delusions

This applies to atheist as much as any other part of the population I'm afraid. Everyone is entirely susceptible to confirmation bias etc. Unfortunately woo! can be cried at anything - I've heard pious Creationist invoke it on genetics f'rinstance.

Given that you hold Anglican (?) beliefs, I beg to differ

If you define Anglican beliefs as woo, sure, I'm a woo. That really does not progress the argument.

Thanks for at least trying... alas, for me, it wasn't any clearer

I think MM or Athon could probably explain what I am saying if they are about?

It's pretty simple CJ... a cursory glance is all it takes

OK< I'll dig out the post and response. The reply function cause it to vanish when I try to reply to your last post with it repriused in...

I see no evidence to suggest otherwise

That I am not a troll? Trolls do not add information to a discussion. I think I have added a considerable amount of information to various discussions. The fact that my opinions differ from you on this matter, or you do not follow my chain of reasoning does not make me a troll. Still if you think I am trolling why not ask the mods? Is that not what report functiosn are for?

cj x

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

cj is not a troll.

But he did make at least one mistake above. I haven't finished reading it all, but Zeus was not considered above the natural order. He was part of the "created order", as were the other Greek gods. Chaos was primal.

ETA:

OK, I've read it all. The second issue -- not properly a mistake -- is that the way cj has formalized it, God is simply an extra layer laid on top of what we see as the natural order, working through it.

That leaves two important questions:

1. Have miracles occurred? You seem to deny them, but leave open the space for them.

2. How do you account for interaction between the two realms? Does not interaction imply mechanism, especially if that interaction is lawful? Does not mechanism fall within the purview of naturalism?

 

[cj.23]

What about temporal lobe seizures, organic defect and induced illusions via psychotropic drugs and magnetic fields?

I've done a lot of work in those fields. TLE seizures are interesting -- I've talked about them in the past on this forum - but the symptoms of SPS, CPS and SCTCS do not normally include those associated with the mystical experience. In my personal experience of dealing with TLE patients olfactory hallucinations were most common, though bright lights resolving in to archetypal figures such as "ghosts" or in once case I worked with "a UFO" were present in a small minority of cases, so theoretically there could be a link.

See my post above on induced experiences through magnetic fields - this is the Persinger research, often cited but not adequately double blind and failed in replication - see Per Granqvist's failed replication, referenced in this Nature article - http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/full/news041206-10.html I can dig out the paper probably if you want to read it. Actually it's titled Sensed presence and mystical experiences are predicted by suggestibility, not by the application of transcranial weak magnetic fields in Neuroscience Letters, 2005 Apr 29;379(1):1-6. Here is the pubmed reference http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15849873

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with weak (micro Tesla) complex waveform fields have been claimed to evoke the sensed presence of a sentient being in up to 80% in the general population. These findings have had a questionable neurophysiological foundation as the fields are approximately six orders of magnitude weaker than ordinary TMS fields. Also, no independent replication has been reported. To replicate and extend previous findings, we performed a double-blind experiment (N=89), with a sham-field control group. Personality characteristics indicating suggestibility (absorption, signs of abnormal temporal lobe activity, and a "new age"-lifestyle orientation) were used as predictors. Sensed presence, mystical, and other somatosensory experiences previously reported from the magnetic field stimulation were outcome measures. We found no evidence for any effects of the magnetic fields, neither in the entire group, nor in individuals high in suggestibility. Because the personality characteristics significantly predicted outcomes, suggestibility may account for previously reported effects. Our results strongly question the earlier claims of experiential effects of weak magnetic fields.

I need to dig out my notes on Ramachandran's TLE + GSR studies, and drugs will have to wait till I am not working - but I promise I will reply in depth, simply because as I mewntioned i began my research career studying the relationship between psychedelics and mystical experience (see earlier post).

What about Derren Brown's ability to bring people to tears and to influence them to willingly accept that an experience was spiritual when he was simply manipulating their emotions?

I am afraid I think Derren Brown uses no such emotional manipulation or psychological techniques, but rather very simple magic and misdirection. I think there are several excellent threads on this forum about this Clever & interesting guy, but I'm not remotely convinced the methods he uses are the methods he suggests he uses - I suspect many magicians could acheive similar without nay hyponsis, NLP, or whatever else he claims is involved.

Still ven if we have a neurological mechanism, why would this be a surprise? We have a neurological mechanism for experiencing love, rainbows, rembering what we had for dinner and icrecreams taste. The presence of a biological basis for experience tells us nothing about the ontology of the experience.

Still good fun to discuss!
cj x

 

[cj.23]

cj is not a troll.

But he did make at least one mistake above. I haven't finsished reading it all, but Zeus was not considered above the natural order. He was part of the "created order", as were the other Greek gods. Chaos was primal.

Ah! A similar thing can be found in some readings of Genesis 1, which would suggest that from some early Jewish manuscripts not all Jews advocated creation ex nihilo for Yahweh either. I have some notes on the issue if you are interested? Of course I know the creation of Zeus, and the Titanomachy - hard not to if like me you are an Ars Magica writer, it crops up a lot in the books in the line - but I still think many conceptions of Zeus in the period were effectively supernaturalistic, because Zeus was still outside of "nature", as then defined by the Greeks. He is however quite clearly created, and you are completely correct.

Oh and thanks for saying I'm not a troll. I may be many things - but a troll would I suspect not be at pains to point out as I am that they consider atheism completely rational and sensible, and might be slightly more concerned with converting folks to their position than quibbling over logical issues and discussing the nature of science? I have no axe to grind with atheism - I'm a prgamatic humanist in my personal morality after all - I just started this thread to see if we could falsify the "theists can be rational" point.

cj x

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I've done a lot of work in those fields. TLE seizures are interesting -- I've talked about them in the past on this forum - but the symptoms of SPS, CPS and SCTCS do not normally include those associated with the mystical experience. In my personal experience of dealing with TLE patients olfactory hallucinations were most common, though bright lights resolving in to archetypal figures such as "ghosts" or in once case I worked with "a UFO" were present in a small minority of cases, so theoretically there could be a link.

The issue with temporal lobe seizures do not simply include mystical experience.

First, it doesn't matter what is more common, only that the possibility exists that TLE can explain cases of mysticism.

Second, olfactory hallucinations are not the most common aura. The most common aura for TLE is a poorly described sensation generally beginning in the stomach and rising through the body before loss of consciousness (if the seizure progresses to a CPS).

Third, feelings of dissociation from the body or depersonalization are fairly common. I hear that complaint at least every month or so from new patients.

Fourth, both feelings of intense pleasure (as though I have been filled with God) or intense displeasure (it's like all the goodness of the universe was sucked out of existence and I'm alone with absolutely nothing) have been described and are not at all rare. Sometimes the intense feelings of pleasure are described in sexual terms (it's like that feeling right before orgasm).

Fifth, a well-recognized neuropsychiatric syndrome described by Norman Geschwind does occur occasionally in TLE patients. This syndrome consists of hyposexuality, hypergraphia, hyper-religiosity, and excessive attention to detail. This can obviously play into interpretations of what seizures mean. More often it impairs treatment since folks decide that God has cured them because of their deep and abiding faith.

Lastly, I'm sure you are aware of Dostoevsky and his description of his own aura. Enough said.

 

[cj.23]

That leaves two important questions:

1. Have miracles occurred? You seem to deny them, but leave open the space for them.

A "miracle" might theoretically occur, but we run in to a problem. If as Hume argued a miracle is a suspension of natural law, then nope I think it unlikely to occur - but there is a way in which it could - I'll whitter about it if you like, but it would not be an exception anyway ultimately. (In brief, a designer outside of space/time could forsee every single contingent outcome of space/time, and build natural laws to give any miracles wanted when and as desired, by programming the initial parameters to allow for the desired outcome.... one thing Richard Dawkins and i agree on is that most theologians conceptions of God are incredibly parochial an dlimiting, and that if a God exists it is far more wonderful than most religious folk begin to comprehend...)

Secondly, if a miracle occurs in nature, it is by definition natural. Imagine some dreadful TV evangelist prays for a child who is paralyzed, and they begin to walk. By my reasoning, as it happened in nature, that process is subject to natural law - if we look hard enough we could find the mechanism by which it occurred. Therefore, if, Peter Popoff et al ( http://casa.colorado.edu/~dduncan/pseudoscience/PeterPopoff.htm ) excluded, such healings DO ever occur, then I sure as hell hope the evangelist and people concerned will immediately contact reputable hospitals and medical research establishments to check out what happened. There seems to be a fear that finding a "natural cause" will prevent it being miracolous - what nonsense - if we can find out what that natural cause was, we can immediately try to use it to help others, without all the faith healing razzamatazz - and thousands might be helped by a medical science breakthrough. That would be a far greater "miracle" to the glory of god to my mind.

2. How do you account for interaction between the two realms? Does not interaction imply mechanism, especially if that interaction is lawful? Does not mechanism fall within the purview of naturalism?

That's the question that has bugged me for three years or more. Because i'm supremely unimpressed by quantium consciousness notions, not because i know they are wrong, but simply because of very basic issues with my understanding of them (i'll explain if you want) I'm not following Penrose et al yet. I've written a helluva lot on this issue, but I am currently doing some new stuff based on the age old brain/mind issue that I hope will allow me to at least explain my vague hunch more coherently. Give me acouple of weeks, rather than me trot out loads of my really, really tedious theorizing from the past, and i may have something we might at least be able to sensibly consider.

cj x

 

[six7s]

.. you - as elf-confessed Anglican - are tacitly endorsing woo

The devil made me do it

a self-confessed Anglican

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Agreed.



You will have to define woo first. As far as i can tell I am not especially susceptible to it... still as apparently you and gord are not comprehending my argument, I'll restate it more clearly --



Right, now I have always been VERY clear i think that I define supernatural by the etymological root, super = "above", nature ="time/space". A supernatural entity is one (by the definition I employ here) that transcends Space/Time. In fact I dedicated a whole post to clarifying this earlier? Regardless of whether you accept my definition or not, the problem remains (and I know I have to address MM's objection) of methodological naturalism in science.

Now to understand my post above you have to know that methodological naturalism is simply the premise employed in science that if something happens, we can explain it in terms of lawful, natural actions - causality. It excludes any supernatural causality. Look the term up, and you will see I am not redefining it, or inventing anything, though my discussion with MM above should have shown you this. Here is the wiki link we both invoked --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_and_Metaphysical_Naturalism
It's hardly rockest science. Also assumed (to overcome the Induction Problem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction )) is uniformity of nature - that nature works the same way everywhere, eternally. That is less relevant here.

Now let's go through my post again

Sentence 1. "I said Invisible Goblins are a naturalistic hypothesis, and hence subject to scientific scrutiny."

Right - naturalistic - Invisible Goblins are natural if they exist, because being in nature they must be part of nature. They would not be supernatural, as not external to the world. Therefore such enties would be within the scope of scientific enquiry.

Sentence 2. I asserted Zeus and my God were not

- Both Zeus and God are defined as by classical formulations like the Creeds and legends as supernatural, and in the case of the Christian God the terms employed are Transcendent (outside of time/space = my supernatural) and Immanent (acting within Time/Space = nature.) So my point was that Zeus and God are defined as not within the naturl order, so supernatural.

Sentence 3. They can act upon nature, but as any activity in nature will appear naturalistic, how would you detect that?

-Now remember methodological naturalism? We have defined supernatural entities as not part of the purview of science by this premise, the standard default assumption of science. So let's just explain this more clearly -- from an earlier post on another thread

"My first contention is that any Supernatural action within the Universe is by definition therefore Natural, and will manifest in terms of Natural Law. That manifestation may be highly unusual, or extremely rare, but it would not be as in Hume's famous definition of a miracle a violation of Natural Law, as by definition anything that occurs in Nature is Natural.

Therfore, I contend that supernatural causation would be effectively invisible to our naturalistic Science, which by definition is bounded by the natural. While logic and reason (and perhaps mathematics) might be used to explore what lies "beyond" the Universe, experimental and procedural science can not. As a "supernatural event" becomes natural by definition as soon as it occurs in the universe, Science will indeed find no "miracles" - which is not to say that supernatural interventions do not occur. One could only hope to establish if this was the case by logic or reason. Professor Dawkins has suggested that the law of Nature in a Universe created by a deity should look quite different from those in one without - but that we will have to address later.

Let me give a playful example. Let us assume that the Norse Trickster God Loki built the universe. His handiwork is the Laws of Nature, and any examination thereof will reveal nothing but Natural forces acting in accordance with Natural Law. Any arbitrary exception he introduced, such as the Duckbill platypus (I know it's quite explicable really, but you get my point!)would be quite Natural, and entirely explicable by Science. Then imagine a Scientist who looks at the world and says "There is no Loki". Yet equally rational is the Loki-ist theologians, who looks at the same Science and says "we can not see Loki, but we can learn the nature of Loki from his handiwork!" The Loki-ist might remark after JBS Haldane that Loki appears to have "an inordinate fondness for beetles!""


Sentence 4. That is not to say one might not test the Zeus and God hypothesis, but not by experimental science.

I think this goes without saying. The argument science can tell us nothing about God is pointless, as by definition science excludes those questions, and so is merely a circular argument - a point only MM has contested really.

I'll have a look. However i hope now you can see i am not trolling - indeed I find the suggestion I am mildly amusing.

cj x

Well thank err . . . some non-naturalistic entity for clearing that up.

-- Gord walks away shaking his head. --

No wait.

Do you think that because you can define something it must exist?

And please note that I was baptized into the Church of England and thus in some way I am non-trollishly qualified to try and understand.

 

[RandFan]

I've done a lot of work in those fields. TLE seizures are interesting -- I've talked about them in the past on this forum - but the symptoms of SPS, CPS and SCTCS do not normally include those associated with the mystical experience. In my personal experience of dealing with TLE patients olfactory hallucinations were most common, though bright lights resolving in to archetypal figures such as "ghosts" or in once case I worked with "a UFO" were present in a small minority of cases, so theoretically there could be a link.

See my post above on induced experiences through magnetic fields - this is the Persinger research, often cited but not adequately double blind and failed in replication - see Per Granqvist's failed replication, referenced in this Nature article - http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/full/news041206-10.html I can dig out the paper probably if you want to read it. Actually it's titled Sensed presence and mystical experiences are predicted by suggestibility, not by the application of transcranial weak magnetic fields in Neuroscience Letters, 2005 Apr 29;379(1):1-6. Here is the pubmed reference http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15849873

First link is 404. The second is a criticism of a single study. I think there is significantly more than that one study.

I need to dig out my notes on Ramachandran's TLE + GSR studies, and drugs will have to wait till I am not working - but I promise I will reply in depth, simply because as I mewntioned i began my research career studying the relationship between psychedelics and mystical experience (see earlier post).

BTW: We should also note Blackmore who began her career trying to find evidence of the suprenatural. After years of serious research she has put it aside and no longer gives any credence to it.

I am afraid I think Derren Brown uses no such emotional manipulation or psychological techniques, but rather very simple magic and misdirection.

Odd statement. Magic is a psychological technique. And when he brings people to tears it's kinda odd to say it's not emotional manipulation.

I think there are several excellent threads on this forum about this Clever & interesting guy, but I'm not remotely convinced the methods he uses are the methods he suggests he uses - I suspect many magicians could acheive similar without nay hyponsis, NLP, or whatever else he claims is involved.

? Again, really odd.

Derren strikes me as extremly honest. He has no motivation to lie. He doesn't give away anything by explaining that it is psychological, as does Randi, and many, many others. Let me point out Dr. Richard Wiseman who has a doctorate in psychology uses the very same manipulation and explanations as Brown. I'm sure you would like to create controversy here but I'm affraid on this one we have the science, research and the edge.

The salient point is that we know people can be manipulated into believing things that are not real by simply understanding psychology. We are getting a better handle on this all the time.

 

[cj.23]

First link is 404. The second is a criticism of a single study. I think there is significantly more than that one study.

annoying I must have messed up the link - I'll fix it. The Swedish study applies to the methodology used throughout as far as i can make out - there is a response from Persinger too which I will find.

BTW: We should also note Blackmore who began her career trying to find evidence of the suprenatural. After years of serious research she has put it aside and no longer gives any credence to it.

Yes, and I and others who knew her and were in the SPR with her continued as we drew opposite conclusions. I'm sure Ersby knows her as well, actually, they do not live far apart. I have not seen Susan for a couple of years but her current interests are consciousness: I disagree with her there too, but so do a lot of people. Still her books are entertaining, and I always find her personally charming. The fact Blackmore and I have drawn opposite conclusions leaves us in an interesting position - who is right? I can think of one other example - Louie Savva - of someone who completely quite the field - and i hope he is doing well and enjoying life - but we still have Bernard Carr, Richard Wiseman, Ciaiaran O Keefe, Alan Gauld, Chris French and a host of others, "believers" and "sceptics" alike pursuing the subject area.

Odd statement. Magic is a psychological technique. And when he brings people to tears it's kinda odd to say it's not emotional manipulation.

Well it is on that level, but thats not how Derren says he does it.

Derren strikes me as extremely honest. He has no motivation to lie. He doesn't give away anything by explaining that it is psychological, as does Randi, and many, many others. Let me point out Dr. Richard Wiseman who has a doctorate in psychology uses the very same manipulation and explanations as Brown. I'm sure you would like to create controversy here but I'm affraid on this one we have the science, research and the edge.

The salient point is that we know people can be manipulated into believing things that are not real by simply understanding psychology. We are getting a better handle on this all the time.

Oh yes, I agree here. Still these articles will show you what I mean
--
http://www.simonsingh.net/Derren_Brown_Article.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33384

I don't doubt he is awesome. I just think his explanation is smoke and mirrors - hypnosis? NLP??? hmmm!

cj x

 

[cj.23]

And on Brown again, PJH says this

I actually wrote to Randi once about Derren Brown to say how impressive it was to see what he could do using psychological trickery.
Randi replied to say basically, no, it's just normal trickery.
I looked at his act again and basically slapped my head in stupidity.

from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=894736#post894736

cj x

 

[RandFan]

Yes, and I and others who knew her and were in the SPR with her continued as we drew opposite conclusions. I'm sure Ersby knows her as well, actually, they do not live far apart. I have not seen Susan for a couple of years but her current interests are consciousness: I disagree with her there too, but so do a lot of people. Still her books are entertaining, and I always find her personally charming. The fact Blackmore and I have drawn opposite conclusions leaves us in an interesting position - who is right?

It's realy simple (btw, please forgive my patronizing attitude) let me give an example. It was once believed that the mass of the sun was too great for particles to escape its gravity. Then someone suggested solar wind and the establishment laughed and poo pooed it. But the logic and evidence held up and after subsequent publishing in peer reviewed journals it caught on because the power of evidence and reason tend to lead to consensus.

Who is right? Publish your finding in a peer reviewed journal and create a new paradigm and forge a new consensus.

That's not likely to happen, know why? There's nothing there but noise.

Well it is on that level, but thats not how Derren says he does it.

I don't doubt he is awesome. I just think his explanation is smoke and mirrors - hypnosis? NLP??? hmmm!

I've got to go back to Wiseman. BTW, I did study magic for awhile which is how I found Randi in the first place and it is the practical use of magic that you begin to understand the importance of psychology. I'm happy to be skeptical of anyone and everyone. I don't put anyone on pedestals. It's certainly possible for Derren to make a mistake or mislead but I've heard him explain what he does and it is inline with what Randi, Wiseman and others have said. And magic is a psychological technique.

 

[RandFan]

And on Brown again, PJH says this

from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=894736#post894736

cj x

???

Are you kidding? A quote of paragraph with no link and it is hearsay? Really? Dude? No, really, dude.

 

[RandFan]

BTW: You really should check out www.quirkology.com

 

[cj.23]

It's certainly possible for Derren to make a mistake or mislead but I've heard him explain what he does and it is inline with what Randi, Wiseman and others have said. And magic is a psychological technique.

This is deeply ironic. The reason I first noted that Brown was using conjuring tricks for some stuff, not NLP. hypnosis or deep psychology was because Richard Wiseman had taught me the same trick. It involves a very simple method that while it does rely on the misdirecting the audiemse does so in exactly the same manner as James Randi would employ. Wiseman did at an SPR lecture, and then later when he was my guest lecturer at my psychic reseach group. I think Derren Brown is a brilliant magician - I just don't think that his explanations reveal anything. Now Richard Wiseman is indeed an expert in the Psychology of Deception, and his later book on The Luck Factor is sort of a response (though not stated as such) I think to Richard Broughton's psi as luck hypothesis.

I like Richard Wiseman, and genuinely admire his parapsychological research - and it continues, here are his latest 3 EJP articles --

Richard Wiseman & Robert L. Morris. (1994). Modelling the Stratagems of Psychic Fraud, Volume 10, pp. 31-44



Matthew D. Smith, Richard Wiseman, Peter Harris & Richard Joiner. (1996). On Being Lucky: The Psychology and parapsychology of Luck, Volume 12, pp. 35-43



James Houran, Richard Wiseman & Michael Thalboume. (2002). Perceptual-Personality Characteristics Associated with Naturalistic Haunt Experiences, Volume 17, pp. 17-44


and you might enjoy


Wiseman, R. and Watt, C. (2006). Belief in psychic ability and the misattribution hypothesis: A qualitative review. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 323-338.

O'Keeffe, C., & Wiseman, R. (2005). Testing alleged mediumship: Methods and Results. British Journal of Psychology, 96(2), 165-179.

Schiltz, M., Wiseman, R., Watt, C. & Radin, D. (2006). Of two minds: Sceptic-proponent collaboration within parapsychology. British Journal of Psychology. 97, 313-322

Wiseman, R. & Schlitz, M (1997) Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring.The Journal of Parapsychology 61, 197-207

Wiseman, R. & Schlitz, M (1999) Experimenter Effects and the Remote Detection of Staring: A Replication. The Journal of Parapsychology, 63 232–233

I just did a citation search on the last SPR conference, and those were his papers referencesd in the abstracts -- and while a sceptic, Wiseman remains one of the most cited and influential of British parapsychologists. Who said parapsychologist had to believe? And I hope he does not regard me as a woo, but I shall enquire, I assure you! Maybe if he does TAM again you might want to ask him about his experience of British parapsychology over a coffee? I think you will find he would regard the notion of "all woos" as ludicrous... and ask him if there is "no evidence for psi", or "no evidence for apparitions", etc...

cj x