-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Are skeptics familiar enough with parapsychology literature?
- Thread starter Arouet
- Start date
-
- Tags
- parapsychology psi
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
They do???
The difficulty, as I see it, is that proponents of the paranormal act as if each bit of published literature--regardless of the venue--is The One, that final evidence that shows skeptics have all been wrong before. Even ignoring that many of those same proponents haven't actually read the proffered research themselves but instead have only read the abstract or someone else's glowing summation, it quickly becomes a game of whack-a-mole.
What about this one?
Okay, that one wasn't good, but what about the next one?
Alright, how about this one?
It is unreasonable to expect anyone to spend all their time reading all the literature simply because it has been published, unless they have a paid position allowing them the time to do so.
It is reasonable, however, for the paranormal proponents to expect one other thing and for the skeptics to expect something of the proponents:
First, the skeptics can reasonably expect that the proponents be able to articulate what in the new literature differentiates it from the vast body of earlier literature.
Second, once the first is accomplished, it is reasonable for the proponents to expect the skeptics who decide to comment upon that specific piece of literature to have actually read that specific piece.
I think it is the first expectation (that of proponents articulating the difference in the new literature) that is most unmet, meaning we never even get to where it is appropriate to expect the second to be met.
What about this one?
Okay, that one wasn't good, but what about the next one?
Alright, how about this one?
It is unreasonable to expect anyone to spend all their time reading all the literature simply because it has been published, unless they have a paid position allowing them the time to do so.
It is reasonable, however, for the paranormal proponents to expect one other thing and for the skeptics to expect something of the proponents:
First, the skeptics can reasonably expect that the proponents be able to articulate what in the new literature differentiates it from the vast body of earlier literature.
Second, once the first is accomplished, it is reasonable for the proponents to expect the skeptics who decide to comment upon that specific piece of literature to have actually read that specific piece.
I think it is the first expectation (that of proponents articulating the difference in the new literature) that is most unmet, meaning we never even get to where it is appropriate to expect the second to be met.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
That remind me a lot of JAQing. We see that very often for example where people throw a long list of "medium" proof or "ESP" proof or "mediumship" proof. Or UFO.
Really when you ask them to show the *BEST* evidence they have, then suddenly they get all shifty, or present something which is from before the "information age".
Look at the exorcist story. Somebody had to go deep in the story to get all the in and out and had to spend an innordinate amount of time. But in the mean time all proponent had only given bad info in their book and pseudo-research. Such story are really eye openner. There is no way for all skeptic to go as deep.
Really when you ask them to show the *BEST* evidence they have, then suddenly they get all shifty, or present something which is from before the "information age".
Look at the exorcist story. Somebody had to go deep in the story to get all the in and out and had to spend an innordinate amount of time. But in the mean time all proponent had only given bad info in their book and pseudo-research. Such story are really eye openner. There is no way for all skeptic to go as deep.
Many times we are discussing specific studies, which doesn't need a familiarity with the literature as much as it needs a familiarity with research methods and evaluating studies. And there are many with that sort of expertise here. Other kinds of criticisms may require more familiarity. I read all of the references in Radin's Entangled Minds I could get my hands on, for example, before considering criticizing his book. Otherwise, most of my reading has been of the ganzfeld studies, specific studies which have been brought up for discussion, plus my own literature searches on related topics. My experience with the homeopathy studies (where it is clear that I have read more of the studies than the proponents have) makes me wonder if the same may be true for parapsychology.
Ersby went above and beyond the call of duty with his review of the ganzfeld studies. He serves as a special resource here. And cj by his reading of a big chunk of the literature, plus his ability to access these studies is a good resource.
The only way that familiarity may hold us back is if psi proponents are not bringing forward the best studies for discussion. But that would be dumb anyways.
Linda
Ersby went above and beyond the call of duty with his review of the ganzfeld studies. He serves as a special resource here. And cj by his reading of a big chunk of the literature, plus his ability to access these studies is a good resource.
The only way that familiarity may hold us back is if psi proponents are not bringing forward the best studies for discussion. But that would be dumb anyways.
Linda
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
Familiarity with "literature" is irrelevant. Familiarity with research is what matters. They can write all they want about the subject, and it would be "literature", but if it isn't research it's not something that anybody has any particular reason to pay attention to.
To say to someone who doesn't believe in "X" that (s)he doesn't understand it well enough to dismiss it is to say that "X" is to be automaticly presumed and treated as true with or without evidence for it, and that the burden is on the unbelievers to prove it false, rather than on the believers to prove it true. It also attempts to make "X" untouchable by asserting the existence of, but not defining, a standard one must meet in order to be qualified to speak about it, which not only establishes a ready-made argument for reuse at any future time (that the unbelievers just haven't met that standard yet), but also demanding lots of extra work of the unbelievers and implying that they're willfully ignorant/bullheaded if they don't do it.
To say to someone who doesn't believe in "X" that (s)he doesn't understand it well enough to dismiss it is to say that "X" is to be automaticly presumed and treated as true with or without evidence for it, and that the burden is on the unbelievers to prove it false, rather than on the believers to prove it true. It also attempts to make "X" untouchable by asserting the existence of, but not defining, a standard one must meet in order to be qualified to speak about it, which not only establishes a ready-made argument for reuse at any future time (that the unbelievers just haven't met that standard yet), but also demanding lots of extra work of the unbelievers and implying that they're willfully ignorant/bullheaded if they don't do it.
I think you misunderstand what this place actually is. If you're a "professional skeptic" then maybe keeping up with the literature would be important. However, this is just an internet forum, with a huge variety of people posting for very different reasons. As a skeptic, I have no duty to do anything at all. I come here for my own entertainment and I have no responsibility to read anything, discuss anything, or do anything that I don't feel like (OK, not quite so much in my case since I'm a moderator and actually do have duties that I agreed to, but assume I'm speaking in terms of a generic member). If that means taking part in discussions where I'm not aware of all the facts, that may end up reflecting badly on my part, but it says nothing whatsoever about anyone else.
You seem to be falling into the same trap that many believers do, in thinking that there is some unified "skeptics' movement" that all believe the same thing, make the same arguments, and any member saying anything must speak for all of us. That's just not how it is. We're all individuals, and someone making a bad argument is far more likely to be slapped down by other skeptics than anyone else.
I would certainly agree that you shouldn't try to argue about things you don't know anything about, on the grounds that you're likely to end up looking rather silly if you do. However, that's a long way from saying that anyone here has any kind of duty to do anything or act in a particular way.
Yes we will. It doesn't matter how much you know or how much research you've done, nuts and believers will always accuse people who disagree with them of being pseudo-skeptics, along with all kinds of other misused or made up terms. You can argue that we should strive to make sure that the accusations are not actually true, but that will never stop them being thrown around, or stop other people from believing them.
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
I'm not.
sadhatter
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2009
- Messages
- 8,694
What bothers me about the statement in the op is as follows.
Paranormal claims, are simply, at this point in time, not new. Almost anything we get is a rehash of some previous claim. A claim that has already been looked into, debunked, and forgotten for a period of time.
A claim does not suddenly gain validity once someone new states it. And state it they do, there is an absolute mountain of repeated claims out there, and to expect to give each and every one the same amount of attention you gave it the first time you heard it is just not reasonable.
But that is why science is set up the way it is. It doesn't matter if i skim the latest information saying psi is real, because , if indeed it is real, someone much smarter than myself will attempt the same experiment, and recieve the results that the original person recieved. Within a rather short time, as more and more people get the same results, it will become established scientific fact.
REally it is a matter of not wasting time. If something new and intersting comes out, i will give it a full on read. But if i were to spend my time giving this attention to every silly claim, i would be doing nothing but reading articles on the paranormal. And as much as i like a good laugh, i do have other things to do.
Paranormal claims, are simply, at this point in time, not new. Almost anything we get is a rehash of some previous claim. A claim that has already been looked into, debunked, and forgotten for a period of time.
A claim does not suddenly gain validity once someone new states it. And state it they do, there is an absolute mountain of repeated claims out there, and to expect to give each and every one the same amount of attention you gave it the first time you heard it is just not reasonable.
But that is why science is set up the way it is. It doesn't matter if i skim the latest information saying psi is real, because , if indeed it is real, someone much smarter than myself will attempt the same experiment, and recieve the results that the original person recieved. Within a rather short time, as more and more people get the same results, it will become established scientific fact.
REally it is a matter of not wasting time. If something new and intersting comes out, i will give it a full on read. But if i were to spend my time giving this attention to every silly claim, i would be doing nothing but reading articles on the paranormal. And as much as i like a good laugh, i do have other things to do.
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
You're the only one who isn't.
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 12,942
We are legion.
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 12,454
So... two things...
1) to answer the OP's question
Across the board, only a handful of people have read all of the original literature in this - or any - discipline. That's normal. This is true of both skeptics and psi advocates. It's also true of physicists, oncologists, sociologists, &c. Nevertheless, some people specialize in psi, have read all of the literature, and usually have the expertise to evaluate it.
These are the go-to people for the rest of us. In theory, psi advocate and skeptical experts should be collaborating and ultimately come to the same conclusions, since the data is the same for everybody.
Yet... skeptical specialists disagree with the psi advocate specialists. What causes this?
It's not because some have read all the data and some have not.
It's because they have different methods for evaluating data. <- key
Skeptics tend to have a scientific worldview, which precludes making special exceptions for evaluating psi data. In contrast, psi advocates insist science must change to accomodate these models that they "know are true", but are frustratingly disproven by rigourous science.
(Summary: psi advocates model that if science shows their hypothesis is wrong, they believe science has been proven indadequate - they are testing the scientific method, they are not testing their hypotheses.)
2) thoughts about the role of a nonspecialist skeptic
My observation is that skeptics can be a bit inconsistent about their approach to subjects that they have little real information about.
This is something I've had 20+ years to think about, and I've formed the opinion that the root of this debate is indecision about building a personal method of epistemology.
Three common confusions that lead to scrambled reasoning:
1. skeptics are a distinct culture because we use a process to evaluate expertise - we are entitled to opinions about subjects we have not personally evaluated *if* we can identify an expert who is qualified to evaluate the subject
2. 'common sense' is not actually a good guide to what's scientifically valid - I advise against that line of reasoning. Consider general relativity or the prevalence of fallacies - deference to common sense is the *problem* not the solution.
3. skepticism attracts opinionated people, but not necessarily knowledgeable or industrious people - I think we need fewer opinionators and more investigators/researchers/dedicated experts to do these subjects justice and to put paranormal/CAM advocates on the spot
One additional thought... I admit I'm an old guy, but something that *is* absent is institutional memory. It's not that I think new recruits have to be conversant in paranormal soap operas from the 19th century, but a lot of time and effort is wasted in reinventing the wheel. I don't have a solution, so am adding this last point more as a 'how can we work on this' question.
1) to answer the OP's question
Across the board, only a handful of people have read all of the original literature in this - or any - discipline. That's normal. This is true of both skeptics and psi advocates. It's also true of physicists, oncologists, sociologists, &c. Nevertheless, some people specialize in psi, have read all of the literature, and usually have the expertise to evaluate it.
These are the go-to people for the rest of us. In theory, psi advocate and skeptical experts should be collaborating and ultimately come to the same conclusions, since the data is the same for everybody.
Yet... skeptical specialists disagree with the psi advocate specialists. What causes this?
It's not because some have read all the data and some have not.
It's because they have different methods for evaluating data. <- key
Skeptics tend to have a scientific worldview, which precludes making special exceptions for evaluating psi data. In contrast, psi advocates insist science must change to accomodate these models that they "know are true", but are frustratingly disproven by rigourous science.
(Summary: psi advocates model that if science shows their hypothesis is wrong, they believe science has been proven indadequate - they are testing the scientific method, they are not testing their hypotheses.)
2) thoughts about the role of a nonspecialist skeptic
My observation is that skeptics can be a bit inconsistent about their approach to subjects that they have little real information about.
This is something I've had 20+ years to think about, and I've formed the opinion that the root of this debate is indecision about building a personal method of epistemology.
Three common confusions that lead to scrambled reasoning:
1. skeptics are a distinct culture because we use a process to evaluate expertise - we are entitled to opinions about subjects we have not personally evaluated *if* we can identify an expert who is qualified to evaluate the subject
2. 'common sense' is not actually a good guide to what's scientifically valid - I advise against that line of reasoning. Consider general relativity or the prevalence of fallacies - deference to common sense is the *problem* not the solution.
3. skepticism attracts opinionated people, but not necessarily knowledgeable or industrious people - I think we need fewer opinionators and more investigators/researchers/dedicated experts to do these subjects justice and to put paranormal/CAM advocates on the spot
One additional thought... I admit I'm an old guy, but something that *is* absent is institutional memory. It's not that I think new recruits have to be conversant in paranormal soap operas from the 19th century, but a lot of time and effort is wasted in reinventing the wheel. I don't have a solution, so am adding this last point more as a 'how can we work on this' question.
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
I don't think Arouet is falling into that trap. I think he's simply asking whether skeptics, in general, are making snap judgements on parapsychology issues without being familiar enough with the literature. He is certainly not ordering you to do anything you don't want to do.Cuddles said:
~~ Paul
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
The thing is, most of the paranormal claims that get jumped on round here are not the type of stuff that is being researched all that much. Most of the claims are psychics and mediums and stuff who are claiming, how shall we put it, large effects. The research literature, in contrast, (as far as I know - I'm one of those who isn't really up on it) is mainly about whether very small effects occur - slight deviations from chance etc. You don't have to know the reams of research inside out to know that that woman is *not* talking to your late husband, she's using cold reading. When it does come to discussion of the possible smaller effects, the discussion is dominated by very knowledgable people.
I think cold reading is the most likely too. And the small effect sizes can be frustrating. Still, this work is more serious than JVP or Silvia Brown, and also more challenging to then refute (or support). It's the high hanging fruit. It's also more intriguing (IMO).
I think its worthy of more attention from the skeptical community in any event.
roger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2002
- Messages
- 11,466
I'm extraordinarily confident that if a replicable result is found, you will not be able to find a newspaper, magazine, blog, or frickin facebook page that does not publish the result. I mean, it's that huge of a result.
And, as others have mentioned, if any proponent feels that some paper has received short shrift, they merely need to post it here or on a number of other science minded forums and we will look.
It would be amazingly cool to get positive results for any of this, as it would constitute a unimaginable change in our understanding of how the world works. I know a lot of people agree with me. So it's not like we are going to ignore and poo-poo something out of spite or what have you.
And, as others have mentioned, if any proponent feels that some paper has received short shrift, they merely need to post it here or on a number of other science minded forums and we will look.
It would be amazingly cool to get positive results for any of this, as it would constitute a unimaginable change in our understanding of how the world works. I know a lot of people agree with me. So it's not like we are going to ignore and poo-poo something out of spite or what have you.
I've started a thread on Skeptiko seeking suggestions for studies to discuss here. I'll try and start a thread or two with a couple interesting studies to discuss. If there is interest, I'll continue to do it. If not, then I'll stop!
And you just fell into exactly the same trap right there. The whole point is that the question of whether "skeptics" do anything is completely meaningless. Sure, some skeptics certainly do make snap judgements. Others don't. That's because skeptics are just people, not some homogeneous mass that all think alike.
The question "Are skeptics familiar enough with parapsychology literature?" is completely useless because the answer is simply "Some are, some aren't", and who falls into which group depends entirely on what aspect of parapsychology you're talking about, what you consider to be the relevant literature, and your definition of "familiar enough". Sometimes gross generalisations can be useful shorthand but most of the time, such as in this kind of situation, they're useless and just serve to obscure the real issues.