Are skeptics familiar enough with parapsychology literature?

[Arouet]

Hi folks,

I'm a skeptic, though I hang out on some proponent oriented sites (Skeptiko for example). The critique that I hear most often (after the compulsory vilification of James Randi ) is that skeptics just aren't really familiar with the parapsychology literature, or are stuck on old studies, flaws, etc.

Now, I know there are certainly some people around here who are quite well read, but is there some truth to this accusation? Among the skeptical crowd in general? And even perhaps at the leadership? Don't we have a duty, if we're going to be discussing the paranormal, to be as well researched as possible on this stuff, in order to really figure out what is going on, and to provide legitimate critique, rather than gut reaction?

Or is the critique misguided?

I don't want this to be a thread about whether psi is real or not, but rather about whether we're doing our jobs as skeptics in this discussion, in keeping up with the research.

 

[Aepervius]

Some skeptic are not well acquainted with the litterature. Myself for example. I don't care. As the recent XKCD verily examplified, if there was *anything* to that ESP thingy, it would be monetised (and by that it is not meant sold to gullible, but really sold to military, industry to make money or weapon). Not even counting how the process would go, like you know, what physical process it would use.

But anyway.

Wiseman ? It does not seem so, looks to me he is competent at looking parapsy litterature and critizing it.

Or even our resident ersby or fls ? I would be my last shirt they are well acquainted. look at the latest thread on wiseman or even sheldrake. You will immedaitely see that their knowledge of the litterature, meta analysis and the bundangle is often much greater than the one of the proponent.

 

[Apology]

I think the critique is misguided.

Whenever there's a new study published, someone or other posts a link to it here on the JREF forums for our perusal. For example, there's this thread here:

Bem's Latest Experiments

Many JREF members read the study and then discuss it in detail. I've noticed that there are often far more lurkers than members reading the JREF forums (lurkers cannot post). On top of that, only a fraction of the people who read the thread and the evidence actually post about it. For instance, I made a post or two early in the thread; since then, I've decided to sit back and let far more scientifically minded members post and I simply observe what they say. There's no doubt in my mind that JREF members and lurkers are quite willing to examine any evidence that's put forth.

Usually when I see this complaint myself, what the believer is complaining about is the skeptic's unwillingness to read a heap of anecdotes in favor of whatever the believer is advocating. However, most JREF members are fully aware that anecdotes are not evidence. What good would it do us to read yet more anecdotes that say "I saw a UFO, it was triangular and black, and it performed maneuvers that no terrestrial craft could ever do!" or "My five-year old said 'You're not my mommy!' so I think he's remembering a past life when he had different parents!" It would do us no good whatsoever. I, for one, refuse to read a mountain of such anecdotal tripe---I've already read enough anecdotal tripe in the past, and the new anecdotal tripe reads exactly like the old anecdotal tripe, so why waste my time? It won't add anything to the discussion.

Another time when I see this complaint is when the believer insists that the skeptic simply must read a half-dozen of the same woo books that the believer has read in order to fully understand the woo in question. Of course this is nonsense; I don't need to read every one of Sylvia Browne's awful books to know that Sylvia Browne is a liar and a fraud. Nor do I want to spend my own money and make Sylvia Browne even richer by buying them just so I can have a discussion about psychics. When we buy Sylvia Browne's books (or Deepak Chopra's, or L. Ron Hubbard's, or Jane Roberts', or any other 'guru' you can name), to the publisher it still counts as a sale, whether you bought the book because you want to criticize it or because you believe in it, and the author is rewarded accordingly. A lot of books have "Over one million copies sold!!!" printed on the cover; however, that doesn't mean that one million people enjoyed the book, or believed what the book said.

Finally, a lot of believers, having just discovered the mysteries of their woo subject of choice, assume that we, as skeptics, somehow don't know about the subject and haven't read about it ourselves. It's new to them, so clearly it must be new to us as well. I think that there's a mistaken belief that skeptics were always skeptics and somehow aren't subject to such beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us here on the JREF have made a personal journey through the world of woo before we reached skepticism, as I did.

I hope my opinion on your very valid question clarifies the issue a bit.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't think we can really answer this question. I'm sure some skeptics are not sufficiently familiar, while others are. The problem is, regardless of whether psi is ultimately found to have something other than a mundane explanation, the field is full of apologetics and whatever the opposite of that is. There is so much analysis, re-analysis, meta-analysis, and critique that the entire enterprise turns into a he-said she-said argument. It is almost impossible to keep track of the status of individual experiments, paradigm groups, and meta-analyses.

An explanation for all of this is the possibility that, indeed, psi is the control group for science:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ib/parapsychology_the_control_group_for_science/

Another explanation is that psi is so subtle and capricious that it will always appear to be the control group for science even when it isn't.

~~ Paul

 

[Ersby]

Hey, Arouet.

There are plenty of skeptics who don't keep up with the most up-to-date studies. There are plenty of believers who don't too. I have to admit to rolling my eyes once the million dollar challenge is mentioned. I try my best, but with no formal scientific education, I wonder how far my critiques can go. Which is why I post here, since other people can tell me if I'm on the right road or not.

 

[Arouet]

I agree that fls and Ersby are well up to date on the literature, and I'm quite in awe of them and their analytical abilities in this area. Paul too. I try to read what I can, but I'm quite a lay person myself and struggle with the complicated stats, protocols etc.

I love the threads such as those discussing the Ganzfeld and the Bem studies. I'm wondering whether there should be more of them around here. I'll try and take it upon myself to start some threads, posting some studies that may not have been reviewed here.

I worry a bit about the attitude in the first reply, with all due respect. I think as skeptics discussing these topics actively, we have a duty to go out of our way to be familiar with this material. Not doing so opens us up to some legitimate critique. As skeptics, if there are studies out there claiming positive results, provided they aren't done by total crackpots, we have a duty to review them and critique them head on. If too few of us are dealing with these studies and they are flawed, then they stand uncorrected. If there is some legitimacy to them (as perhaps there may be in the Bem study) then we want to know that too. But at least we won't be accused of being pseudo-skeptics, a label I despise and think is thrown around too casually by proponents, yet nevertheless are not completely unjustified in all situations.

I haven't posted much here, though have lurked quite a bit. I look forward to more active participation from hereon out!

 

[TubbaBlubba]

It'd help if the parapsychology community produced more literature worth reading.

 

[Arouet]

It'd help if the parapsychology community produced more literature worth reading.

Well, not quite, right? To know if something is not worth reading, we actually have to read it (or someone does and has to give a review). We're much better off reading it, critiquing it, pointing out flaws, and merits as well.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Yes, but if it's worth reading, more people will read it once the initial few do. If it's a piece of junk, the people who read it will say "It's a piece of junk, don't bother".

 

[Aepervius]

I agree that fls and Ersby are well up to date on the literature, and I'm quite in awe of them and their analytical abilities in this area. Paul too. I try to read what I can, but I'm quite a lay person myself and struggle with the complicated stats, protocols etc.

I love the threads such as those discussing the Ganzfeld and the Bem studies. I'm wondering whether there should be more of them around here. I'll try and take it upon myself to start some threads, posting some studies that may not have been reviewed here.

I worry a bit about the attitude in the first reply, with all due respect. I think as skeptics discussing these topics actively, we have a duty to go out of our way to be familiar with this material. Not doing so opens us up to some legitimate critique. As skeptics, if there are studies out there claiming positive results, provided they aren't done by total crackpots, we have a duty to review them and critique them head on. If too few of us are dealing with these studies and they are flawed, then they stand uncorrected. If there is some legitimacy to them (as perhaps there may be in the Bem study) then we want to know that too. But at least we won't be accused of being pseudo-skeptics, a label I despise and think is thrown around too casually by proponents, yet nevertheless are not completely unjustified in all situations.

I haven't posted much here, though have lurked quite a bit. I look forward to more active participation from hereon out!

There is a limit time where we are alive , and we need to have priorities. My priorities are set. For those, I will read litterature , "advance in QM" publications, etc... For the rest for lack of time, I just overflow the field, and become rapidely cynic. it spare me time, and i can revisitate my cynism once reproducible evidence is forthcoming.

So you are right there is a "should", but that is overlooking time limit.

Make me immortal and I will study all litterature in all woo. Barring that, I will keep being cynic and relying on the absence of evidence.

 

[Fnord]

I think that I am familiar enough with wooish publications to know what woo is all about, having read most of von Däniken's books, the Bible, Analog and Astounding magazines, just about every issue of the National Enquirer from 1965 to 1975, and nearly every issue of Wired and Scientific American for the last 10 years.

I also have a degree in electrical engineering.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Hi folks,

I'm a skeptic, though I hang out on some proponent oriented sites (Skeptiko for example). The critique that I hear most often (after the compulsory vilification of James Randi ) is that skeptics just aren't really familiar with the parapsychology literature, or are stuck on old studies, flaws, etc.

Now, I know there are certainly some people around here who are quite well read, but is there some truth to this accusation? Among the skeptical crowd in general? And even perhaps at the leadership? Don't we have a duty, if we're going to be discussing the paranormal, to be as well researched as possible on this stuff, in order to really figure out what is going on, and to provide legitimate critique, rather than gut reaction?

Or is the critique misguided?

I don't want this to be a thread about whether psi is real or not, but rather about whether we're doing our jobs as skeptics in this discussion, in keeping up with the research.

Since I commented in length on what appears to be a sister thread to this one, I'll also give my opinion here.

You don't need to have read any psi literature to be an informed skeptic.
Aepervius is right. These common sense observations are all you really need.

The counter argument is that if noone ever took a closer look, nothing would ever change. That is true but does not imply a duty to investigate any claim.
There will always be another crazy claim that takes hours and hours to debunk. Oftentimes it will not even be possible, one can only conclude that there is no sufficient reason to expend further resources.
There are areas, such as alternative medicine, which are far more destructive. Countering claims in these areas is far more urgent.

On the whole, I think (internet) skeptics tend to be more familiar with the lliterature than (internet) believers. Believers tend to be more versed in new agey literature. They know the claims but not the experimental data.

Despite that, there are indeed many skeptical rebuttals that simply do not make sense. This is usually due lack of knowledge of statistics, research methods or simple mistakes.
Familiarity with the psi literature is rarely required to address specific claims. As is frequently criticized, parapsychology does not produce knowledge. If you want to talk intelligently about any paper in any field of real science you have to be familiar with what it has produced so far. Think chemistry, physics, biology...
Psi papers are pretty stand alone, usually. Exceptions are where meta-analyses are concerned. Yet even those can be addressed without ever having heard of J.B. Rhine for example.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Nobody has time to be up to date in every possible area, so we tend to focus on our own interests and rely on others here (for whom it is a special interest) to tell us if anything novel or amazing comes up in their own area. I am more of a generalist, I know a little about quite a lot of areas, especially in health, psychology, alternative therapies, but I don't even have the basic knowledge required to recognise a physics crank (other than by their reactions when challenged by those I know to have good knowledge of physics).

 

[cj.23]

Hi folks,
The critique that I hear most often (after the compulsory vilification of James Randi ) is that skeptics just aren't really familiar with the parapsychology literature, or are stuck on old studies, flaws, etc.

Wel I say nice things about James Randi, and i like to think I am a sceptic - though perhas an unsual variety. Still if you are asking do we know the literature, 've read the PSPR from 1882 to around 2006, and the JSPR from the beginning through to the late eighties, and then from 2001 to now, mssing 2006-2008. I have a library of maybe 200 hundred volumes on parapsychology; I'm an associate member of the SPR (never made full membership as i keep leaving when I run out of money) and I tend to use Lexscien to track down references in journals I don't own. I'd say the JREF seems to havea very high knowledg of the literature generally, and posters like Rodney and Limbo (believers I think) certainly do, but fls and co certainly know their onions, and stand in awe of Ersby's grasp and dediction to researching centra issues in modern arapsychoogy - Ersby is someone the whole sceptic community should be immensely proud of, and he would be the first person I would turn to ask about something realted to parapsi.

cj x

 

[Aepervius]

and stand in awe of Ersby's grasp and dediction to researching centra issues in modern arapsychoogy - Ersby is someone the whole sceptic community should be immensely proud of, and he would be the first person I would turn to ask about something realted to parapsi.

cj x

I felt the same . I am also in awe of some otehr poster in the BF thread , or in the christian stuff.

 

[Arouet]

These are some good responses, and reflect to a large extent what I've been telling proponents who do lay this kind of charge. I think we do have to be wary about dismissing some of this stuff a priori, but I also agree that not everyone can focus on these studies. We just have to be wary in our pronouncements, in order to avoid being non-skeptical ourselves.

 

[Brattus]

I don't need to read a book about flying pigs to know that pigs can't fly.
If pigs could fly I would be to busy dodging the falling pig crap to read a book about it anyway.

I also don't need to read a book about trees to determine if they are something real in the real world.
I can simply go outside and touch one.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

It boils down to this: What are we talking about?

If we are talking about actual discoveries \ belief systems then there is no need what so ever to read any of the woo garbage.
If anything the woos claim would work, we would see results.
I don't think I ever read a physics book in my life, yet I comunicate via the internet with people all over the globe.

On the other hand, if we are talking about some form of debate or try and convince other people to drop their woo-ish garbage for what ever reason (get real medical help, not lose themselves to some brainwashing cult etc)
then reading the material is essential is that is basically showing them that you do know what you're talking about.

And on that point, the real skeptics always win because in reality, the woos don't bother reading skeptic materials while it is going the other way around.

Heck, from what I've seen, most woos don't bother reading their own material.

 

[Arouet]

then reading the material is essential is that is basically showing them that you do know what you're talking about.

This. If we haven't read the material we are ostensibly critiquing, or even dismissing, then we open ourselves up to being ignored just on that basis. Worse, accused of basing our views on "faith" and not on the evidence! Even if our message is correct, our effectiveness will be very small in communicating it.

 

[tsig]

It boils down to this: What are we talking about?

If we are talking about actual discoveries \ belief systems then there is no need what so ever to read any of the woo garbage.
If anything the woos claim would work, we would see results.
I don't think I ever read a physics book in my life, yet I comunicate via the internet with people all over the globe.

On the other hand, if we are talking about some form of debate or try and convince other people to drop their woo-ish garbage for what ever reason (get real medical help, not lose themselves to some brainwashing cult etc)
then reading the material is essential is that is basically showing them that you do know what you're talking about.

And on that point, the real skeptics always win because in reality, the woos don't bother reading skeptic materials while it is going the other way around.

Heck, from what I've seen, most woos don't bother reading their own material.

Some of them don't bother to write it themselves either.

Automatic writing is the alleged process or production of writing material that proponents claim does not come from the conscious thoughts of the writer. Practitioners say that the writer's hand forms the message, with the person being unaware of what will be written. In some cases, it is done by people in an alleged trance state. In others, the writer is aware (not in a trance) of their surroundings but claims not to be aware of the actions of their writing hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_writing