Richard Wiseman

[GeeMack]

It is pretty sad that someone who has nothing to present to support his woo has only this delusion that his strawman arguments are somehow not dishonest and foolish. It's more amusing when Rodney's claims actually falsify his strawman and show his entire argument as nothing more than whining about why science won't give his woo special treatment. The establishment actually changed its mind when presented with good evidence...what does out pathetic paranormal believer have? Nothing except strawmen and special pleading.

So do you have anything else to say or is this whining all you actually have?

So far that seems to be pretty much it.

 

[paximperium]

So since you believe in the scientific validity of paranormal experiences, how would you suggest you go about breaking through the conspiracy that exists among all the scientists on Earth to keep you shut up about it?

Duh, scientist need to have lower standards for evidence.
You know, like start blindly accepting bad studies and anecdotes.

 

[Resume]

It's just that, if you look at the history of science, new ideas don't tend to be welcomed with open arms by the scientific establishment,

Problem with this is that many paranormal notions are hardly "new" and have been examined and rejected countless times. There is no reason for the "scientific establishment" to fawn over another photo of a tossed hubcap for just one example.

 

[Robin]

I think Rodney has been upfront about what he is saying, at least if you take into account his prior participation in this forum. The current status that psi enjoys as the poster-child for pseudoscience is unwarranted. The evidence for psi is much stronger than the "scientific establishment" (of which we are mindless followers) will admit to. And the proof of this is that the "scientific establishment" has ridiculed ideas which didn't warrant ridicule, in the past.

Linda

On the other hand it is not a good look if you have to run down someone else's branch of science to make your own look good.

 

[Robin]

I wouldn't go so far as to say "mindless followers" (with a few exceptions, of course ). Again, my point is not that profound (I'm sure you'll all agree with that.) It's just that, if you look at the history of science, new ideas don't tend to be welcomed with open arms by the scientific establishment, particularly when the public is generally supportive of those ideas. So, when people claim to have seen meteorites or rogue waves, or when they report paranormal experiences, the prevailing attitude of the establishment is: "Isn't it sad that the masses are so uneducated -- if not downright delusional -- that they believe that kind of foolishness."

Well no, if you look at the history of science you don't see that in general.

You have provided two cases and you are determinedly ignoring hard evidence that you were wrong about the second.

In the 18th century people didn't claim to have seen meteorites. They claimed to have seen rocks from the sky. In general they were believed and the scientific community investigated these when they could.

For a long time they formed incorrect hypotheses - such as that the rocks were thrown up from volcanoes somewhere else on earth, or that people had seen lightning strikes or that the rocks had formed in some chemical reaction in the upper atmosphere.

But fairly soon someone formed the correct hypothesis and eventually it was accepted.

In general we see in science that there is resistance to new ideas, there is a lead time before acceptance and that acceptance comes only after hard evidence.

That is the way it should be. Science would not work if scientists leaped onto every new idea before it was properly tested. Any scientist knows they have to do the hard yards in order to demonstrate something new.

 

[Mojo]

It's just that, if you look at the history of science, new ideas don't tend to be welcomed with open arms by the scientific establishment...

No, they are heavily scrutinized. That's how science works, and is why science has made such progress over the last few hundred years. Go for the alternative if you want, but it would be hypocritical of you to carry on using the fruits of this poisoned tree if you are going to do so.

 

[catsmate]

On the other hand it is not a good look if you have to run down someone else's branch of science to make your own look good.

As usual xkcd has a somehat suitable cartoon:

 

[fls]

That's actually my hidden agenda -- the scientific establishment accepts only blue/green waves, when there is incontrovertible evidence that rouge waves exist.

http://www.google.com/images?q=red+...esult_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CDMQsAQwAw

 

[fls]

You're giving him way too much credit.
I know of his prior participation in this forum especially his predisposition to believe in various types of supernatural claims.

His inability to even come out and say what he wants to say while attempting to go about in this cowardly fashion is an interesting insight into his character and beliefs. It is the same "wedge" tactic employed by the Discovery Institute. Looks like Rodney has learned something after all these years here.

So no, there is nothing "upfront" about him.
That is easily surmised by anyone who is familiar with his arguments and history in this forum. What I find more amusing is his lame attempts at insinuating this without having the testicular fortitude to say it.

???

He has been clear that he is a supporter of psi and that 'psi' is the explanation he wishes to place into any artificially created gaps in parapsychological research. This is different from the DI/ID types who pretend that it isn't God they are trying to put into their gaps.

I agree that this tactic of pretending that the process of science 'doesn't work' only if it comes up with something believers don't want to hear is similar to their tactics.

Linda

 

[fls]

I wouldn't go so far as to say "mindless followers" (with a few exceptions, of course ). Again, my point is not that profound (I'm sure you'll all agree with that.) It's just that, if you look at the history of science, new ideas don't tend to be welcomed with open arms by the scientific establishment, particularly when the public is generally supportive of those ideas. So, when people claim to have seen meteorites or rogue waves, or when they report paranormal experiences, the prevailing attitude of the establishment is: "Isn't it sad that the masses are so uneducated -- if not downright delusional -- that they believe that kind of foolishness."

You are mistaken. Science loves new ideas and expends its considerable effort developing and encouraging new ideas, even those whose origin was was plebeian. What science does not welcome is bad ideas, not new ideas.

Linda

 

[Darat]

Problem with this is that many paranormal notions are hardly "new" and have been examined and rejected countless times. There is no reason for the "scientific establishment" to fawn over another photo of a tossed hubcap for just one example.

This is the nub of it, the idea of "psi" (in terms of magic and so on) has been around for a long time and like a lot of what we believed about the world turned out not to be true. People couldn't put a spell on someone else, people couldn't bend metal with the power of their mind or read someone's mind (beyond what can be accounted for by human interaction) or speak with the dead and so on. It is not that these things weren't investigated, it was just that when they were it turned out they didn't exist, like unicorns and mermaids and the Cottingley faeries.

 

[Robin]

This is the nub of it, the idea of "psi" (in terms of magic and so on) has been around for a long time and like a lot of what we believed about the world turned out not to be true. People couldn't put a spell on someone else, people couldn't bend metal with the power of their mind or read someone's mind (beyond what can be accounted for by human interaction) or speak with the dead and so on. It is not that these things weren't investigated, it was just that when they were it turned out they didn't exist, like unicorns and mermaids and the Cottingley faeries.

Well I have to disagree with one of those.

People can speak to the dead.

It is just that the dead don't answer.

 

[Darat]

 

[zooterkin]

Well I have to disagree with one of those.

People can speak to the dead.

It is just that the dead don't answer.

Ah, but Darat said speak with the dead, which generally implies a two-way interaction, rather than speak to, which can be one-sided.