Richard Wiseman

[jj-158]

It took me about eight seconds. It was the eighth result on the first page of results. You didn't even really try, did you?

Why don't you try to be a little more patient with other people?

Not everyone is as good as you are.

 

[RSLancastr]

I've come to the conclusion that we should throw Wiseman under the bus for saying something so stupid.

Linda

Do we know how accurate the quote is?

He evidently later said that it had been "mangled."

Let's hold off on any bus-throwing for now, I say.

 

[Darat]

And of course it could be that Wiseman is wrong whatever he did or did not say.

 

[fls]

It pains me to see disagreement among skeptics but -- as a point of information -- do you disagree with the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? In other words, if you believed that Ganzfeld and other paranormal claims had met the usual standards of evidence, would you accept those claims?

I don't think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but rather ordinary evidence. It's just that extraordinary claims are those which are low in ordinary evidence to begin with (i.e. they have a lot of catching up to do).

Linda

 

[fls]

Do we know how accurate the quote is?

Yes, in a prior thread on this topic, Rodney emailed Wiseman and received a clarification which was posted here. I've also read through the skeptico podcast in which Wiseman explained this statement in detail.

He evidently later said that it had been "mangled."

Let's hold off on any bus-throwing for now, I say.

Because you assume that everyone but you makes rash judgements?

Linda

 

[Rodney]

I don't think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but rather ordinary evidence.

I'm happy to hear that -- it distinguishes you from many other skeptics.

It's just that extraordinary claims are those which are low in ordinary evidence to begin with (i.e. they have a lot of catching up to do).

That's true of most extraordinary claims, but I don't think all. Take Edgar Cayce, for example . . . (but I guess we've been through that a few times, already)

 

[fls]

That's true of most extraordinary claims, but I don't think all. Take Edgar Cayce, for example . . . (but I guess we've been through that a few times, already)

It depends upon which Cayce claim you are referring to. If you mean the claim that he was mostly as useful as any other sort of distraction when it comes to medical care, then I agree that there is an ordinary amount of evidence for that claim.

Linda

 

[Kuko 4000]

See also: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140596

 

[rpri]

Who decides what is an incredible claim?

The non-credulous are those who decide, in the main, aren't they? The signed-up believers don't have the qualification to decide, do they?

 

[Alan]

Anyone who can see the evidence for and evidence against can decide for themselves whether something is incredible.

 

[Rodney]

The non-credulous are those who decide, in the main, aren't they? The signed-up believers don't have the qualification to decide, do they?

Bear in mind that my question was in response to Leon's post, which stated: "Just guessing, but it might be the case that results have been obtained at, say, the 5% significance level. That might be acceptable for some investigations, but the claims for remote viewing are so incredible that a much higher significance level is required."

Do you agree with his assertion; i.e., "incredible" claims require a much higher significance level than ordinary claims?

 

[Beth]

Do you agree with his assertion; i.e., "incredible" claims require a much higher significance level than ordinary claims?

Rodney, I agree with that assertion. I do think that incredible claims need better evidence that a statistically 1/20 chance of occurring. As for what claims are "incredible", we each decide that for ourselves based on our background knowledge and experience.

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, I agree with that assertion. I do think that incredible claims need better evidence that a statistically 1/20 chance of occurring. As for what claims are "incredible", we each decide that for ourselves based on our background knowledge and experience.

Okay, so let me throw out three claims and you (or anyone else who cares to weigh in) can tell me what significance level should be applied to each claim before it should be accepted:

(1) Remote viewing exists
(2) UFOs exist
(3) Chiropractic treatment of back pain is generally efficacious

 

[fls]

Bear in mind that my question was in response to Leon's post, which stated: "Just guessing, but it might be the case that results have been obtained at, say, the 5% significance level. That might be acceptable for some investigations, but the claims for remote viewing are so incredible that a much higher significance level is required."

Do you agree with his assertion; i.e., "incredible" claims require a much higher significance level than ordinary claims?

Significance levels only really determine the number of false-positives you will generate due to chance. This is almost a trivial consideration when it comes to claims which are extraordinary. The choice of significance level will have little impact on whether the results can be considered reliable and valid compared to the very strong effects of prior probability and bias. Even passing an incredibly high significance threshold (generating a tiny number of false positives due to chance) won't be able to overcome the effects that the low prior probability (generating a low number of true-positives) and bias (generating a relatively substantial number of false-positives) have on the likelihood that a positive result is a true-positive. Rather than arguing about the relatively unimportant significance level, it makes more sense to establish prior probability (by performing experiments which build a hypothetical/theoretical base) and to focus on methods which eliminate or reduce bias as much as possible (which also helps with the first part).

Linda

 

[Alan]

Okay, so let me throw out three claims and you (or anyone else who cares to weigh in) can tell me what significance level should be applied to each claim before it should be accepted:

(1) Remote viewing exists
(2) UFOs exist
(3) Chiropractic treatment of back pain is generally efficacious

I wonder how could significance levels be applied to whether UFOs exist. But:

It is on the weight of the scientific literature that these types of things are accepted or not accepted. If you are wanting a specific number (whether it's a p value, an effect size or a percentage of papers supporting a particular view), then I can't give it to you and I do not think it could be done.

If you're looking for something other than "evidence for that is stronger than the evidence against it", what do you suggest?

 

[Rodney]

Rather than arguing about the relatively unimportant significance level, it makes more sense to establish prior probability (by performing experiments which build a hypothetical/theoretical base) and to focus on methods which eliminate or reduce bias as much as possible (which also helps with the first part).

If you had been alive in the late 19th Century and were trying to establish the prior probability of heavier-than-air flight, how would you have gone about it?

 

[Darat]

If you had been alive in the late 19th Century and were trying to establish the prior probability of heavier-than-air flight, how would you have gone about it?

Pointed out all the things that we can observe and measure that are heavier than air yet fly...

 

[paximperium]

If you had been alive in the late 19th Century and were trying to establish the prior probability of heavier-than-air flight, how would you have gone about it?

Nice birdy...oooooh...hot air ballooooon

 

[SonOfLaertes]

If you had been alive in the late 19th Century and were trying to establish the prior probability of heavier-than-air flight, how would you have gone about it?

Heavier-then -air flight was a technological achievement, a result of centuries of incremental scientific progress; the general population had no experience or referential observations in which to form an opinion on the possibility prior to the first forays up, up, and away in beautiful balloons. I'm sure that when the first hot air balloons - and other forms of such travel - were observed gliding over the horizon, many people began to believe that other types of flight were possible. The technology incrementally developed, and people were forced to slowly alter their expectations.


No such progress is made with ESP, or ghosts, etc. - century upon century passes and no one has been able to prove the existence of such powers. Our knowledge in just about every other area of human endeavor advances by leaps and bounds; paranormal studies stay paranormal because no real progress is ever made. Anecdotal evidence of "powers" is rife, as it always has been. Paranormal studies are inconclusive; believers crow about shaky results that would be considered abject failures in any other field of endeavor.

And therein lies the rub for "paranormal sciences" - eventually the disparity between such "studies" and the astounding acceleration of progress in all other fields of scientific endeavor becomes convincing evidence against such abilities in and of itself.

The old adage "put up or shut up" increasingly comes into play.

 

[Beth]

Okay, so let me throw out three claims and you (or anyone else who cares to weigh in) can tell me what significance level should be applied to each claim before it should be accepted:

(1) Remote viewing exists
(2) UFOs exist
(3) Chiropractic treatment of back pain is generally efficacious

(1) I'd personally like to see experiments that consistently produce significance levels of 0.001 or lower.
(2) I'm assuming you mean alien produced UFO's here. We can't do experiments on this, so significance levels are irrelevant.
(3) I think normal significance levels of 0.05 are appropriate.