Are skeptics familiar enough with parapsychology literature?

[lexvonrockets]

Possibly, but that's a moral debate.

But assuming that's true... my impression is that 'education' is not taking place if the speaker isn't informed on the topic. Hearing one more uninformed opinion is not learning facts. We already live in a world where opinion is eclipsing facts as our main information diet - I can't endorse adding more.

Ok, I see, yes, I agree. Ok, presuming appropriate background, it may be appropriate, if it is the wish of the speaker, to edumacate, any currently unspecified proponent of woo, should the speaker have sufficient time, energy, and... gumption? Yes, gumption. Sometimes I do not have gumption.

No, I'm just saying that a neutral listener would probably consider "I don't know - I haven't examined this claim closely enough,"

or:
"I'm not familiar with all of this topic, but my colleague X has examined it exhaustively and is well versed in stats, and his conclusion is that it's very unlikely,"

to be a quality answer


vs:
"I haven't read up on this subject at all, but - undaunted - here's my personal opinion off the top of my head."

The lattermost is very weak sauce.

Yeah there is a lot of the latter going around, in lieu of the more appropriate former two. I'm not sure why this is. I think we are living in an era in which we are under the impression that we are not only entitled to our own opinions, but we are also entitled to foist them upon others. Hell, we are entitled to not even be aware that they are opinions! I mean who gives a **** what you think about quantum theory if you've never had a proper course in it?*

*This is a question I wonder about followers of Nassim Haramein all of the time!

 

[lexvonrockets]

I mean who gives a **** what you think about quantum theory if you've never had a proper course in it?*

*This is a question I wonder about followers of Nassim Haramein all of the time!

Is it gauche to quote oneself?

Anyhoo this very idea reminds me, I propose a counter-question to the topic of this thread.

ARE PARAPSYCHOLOGISTS FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE?

Anyone?

 

[cj.23]

Anyhoo this very idea reminds me, I propose a counter-question to the topic of this thread.

ARE PARAPSYCHOLOGISTS FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE?

Anyone?

There aren't very many parapsychologists, but yes, in my experience. The problem is "scientific literature" - what science? (as i which discipline?) I'd say understanding of methodology and philosophy of science was high, and usually stats get a pretty good discussion? Howver if you mean are we familiar with the latest research on quasar, probably not, and I certainly am weak on Agronomy. Sovaries from person to person, excty like Skeptics - can't generalise.

I actually despite having read a huge amount of the SPR literature (by accident, kinda, sorta -- I was sleeping on it, and had to move boxes out of it out of the bath if i wanted to bathe) would not feel competent to comment on most parapsychology. I trust you lot to help me critique papers i struggle with, and hang out on sceptic forums to get a decent overwiew, and learn where the weaknesses in key papers lie.

Actually that might be interesting - I could try and draw up a list of the more intereting parapsychological papers sometime...

cj x

 

[Aepervius]

I think that depends a lot on how this is worded.

Based on the above paragraph, I would ask: how do you know these unread papers aren't reproduceable strong evidence of ESP? Are you dismissing them without reading them?

My guess is that you're relying on somebody else who a) you trust and b) has read them (is this correct?), which means your honest answer would be something like: "based on the most recent reports from people I consider reliable about this topic, my current understanding is that there hasn't been any reproducible strong evidence of ESP yet."

For the record: this is my position, when asked.

Yes indeed if my mastery of enligsh was as good as my french that is what i would say. After all I am "expert" only in a very small subset of physic, and for the rest I rely on other people expertise. I run into the risk to be fool,ed by "expert" with an agenda to refuse paranormal, but as the XKCD cartoon examplified, and as I see it, if paranormal really existed, its evidence would be much stronger than a slight increase in rpobabiltiy from 25% to 33% of guessing a card. It would for example have implication on gambling and military , domain which readily had tests for paranormal but dropped it.

 

[lexvonrockets]

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.<clipped>

I couldn't agree more! In fact, I believe there are entire disciplines of logic designed to lead anyone from a set of premises to a valid conclusion (and back again), be they schooled in the actual content/subject matter of the statements, or not!

If we dissect the system that we use now - the peer-reviewed scientific institution, I think it can certainly be agreed that it is flawed (as Kuhn scandalously first pointed out in Structure of Scientific Revolutions), mostly by our unconscious and sometimes conscious biases as human scientists.

BUT, not only are scientists aware of this, they are HYPERAWARE of this. A true scientist would rather die than bring false evidence before his peers! It is the ultimate sin, maybe the only sin.

Thus, the system works pretty well. Nobody has proposed anything better. Certainly no woo. Until someone suggests a system that works as well as how science is currently done, I don't see a need for anyone ever to stop their lives and waste what is yes, very precious time, investigating independent and/or previously discarded premises at the behest of others.

I am a busy gal, and I have a lot of things I like to do. Physics and teaching are only two things I do. I don't have the time or the capabilities (or, frankly, the desire) to be an expert in everything, so I do what every rational human being should be doing, post-modernism be damned - I DEFER TO THE EXPERTS. I don't really care about the opinion of anyone who isn't an expert. I don't even care about *MY* opinion on subjects of which I know nothing.

Thus, I am baffled that others do.

My point in all of this, really, is that if experts in every field that overlaps with the alleged discipline of parapsychology find no evidence of PSI, and have no gaps in their theory for which PSI is an excellent patch (not that PSI could be a patch in a scientific theory, because it is neither scientific, nor a theory, because it is not falsifiable, i.e. can apparently not be disproven, at least not if one pays attention to several centuries of history, which demonstrate a remarkable tradition of post hoc adaptation by its proponents), then why is it still around?

I know, I know, I'm preaching to the choir. Mostly.

 

[Rramjet]

Is it gauche to quote oneself?

Anyhoo this very idea reminds me, I propose a counter-question to the topic of this thread.

ARE PARAPSYCHOLOGISTS FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE?

Anyone?

I have no strong opinions about the veracity of "Psi", but a quick search and I found:

http://www.rhine.org/research.htm
http://www.highbeam.com/The+Journal+of+Parapsychology/publications.aspx
http://www.parapsychology.org/dynamic/010302.html
http://www.aiprinc.org/
http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops
(there were many more links I could cite pertaining to peer-reveiwed parapsychology literature - but don't want to be accused of spamming - and I thought at least someone in this thread should point to at least some up-to-date literature)

Perhaps the question should be: Is anyone posting in this thread familiar with the parapsychology literature?

 

[Ersby]

Did you even read this thread?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We need a short name for the "if only you'd read all the literature then you would be convinced like me" ploy.

How about "fallacy of extra books"?

~~ Paul

 

[Aepervius]

We need a short name for the "if only you'd read all the literature then you would be convinced like me" ploy.

How about "fallacy of extra books"?

~~ Paul

I would say that such people are JAQ-booking (jack boot).



Ok that was a bad one.

 

[Aepervius]

Perhaps the question should be: Is anyone posting in this thread familiar with the parapsychology literature?

Yes. there is at least one, Esrby. And I would hold that Fls does too. And if you had read the thread you would know that too.


But don't let that blimp of a problem disturb you.

 

[fls]

Actually that might be interesting - I could try and draw up a list of the more intereting parapsychological papers sometime...

cj x

I'd be interested in that, cj.

Linda

 

[Sledge]

Perhaps the question should be: Is anyone posting in this thread familiar with the parapsychology literature?

That doesn't make any sense. Please explain.

To answer the OP's question: yes.

 

[tsig]

I have no strong opinions about the veracity of "Psi", but a quick search and I found:

http://www.rhine.org/research.htm
http://www.highbeam.com/The+Journal+of+Parapsychology/publications.aspx
http://www.parapsychology.org/dynamic/010302.html
http://www.aiprinc.org/
http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops
(there were many more links I could cite pertaining to peer-reveiwed parapsychology literature - but don't want to be accused of spamming - and I thought at least someone in this thread should point to at least some up-to-date literature)

Perhaps the question should be: Is anyone posting in this thread familiar with the parapsychology literature?

All those links are to organizations that want to sell you something.

 

[cj.23]

All those links are to organizations that want to sell you something.

these don't?

www.spr.ac.uk
http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/

cj x

 

[blutoski]

We need a short name for the "if only you'd read all the literature then you would be convinced like me" ploy.

How about "fallacy of extra books"?

~~ Paul

I'm not sure it's a fallacy - skeptics also seem pretty convinced that exposure to facts can/does change minds.

"If people read evolution/science textbooks, they would stop being creationists."

The false hidden premise might be the assumption that disagreement can only be caused by an opponent's insufficient information.

 

[Rramjet]

All those links are to organizations that want to sell you something.

This is something I don’t quite understand about many of the JREF's so called “skeptics” - that they persist in making patently false assertions. It is as if they believe that no matter what assertion they put forward (unfounded, just plain false – or even true), that the mere statement of that assertion will somehow confer truth on it… Such statements represent a direct insult to the intelligence of the people posting in and reading this (and other) threads and do nothing to advance the debate whatsoever. I am also not sure what makes them think that such tactics are an effective way of communicating ideas.

In this thread there seemed to be much talk about this or that author relating to some obscure references claiming this or that position on behalf of those references - but only once did I see a link referenced to any of the actual articles or authors mentioned so the general reader could check on the veracity of some of the statements made.

As this thread is about familiarity with the literature, it struck me as kind of odd that no-one was actually referring to the extant literature… confirming by default that the OP criticism - that “skeptics” were not familiar with the literature - was correct - even while people made sweeping generalisations (such as this from Captain Swoop: “ It would help if they used science. ” and this from Aepervius: “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".).

Given that kind of sentiment and the dearth of references to the scientific and up-to-data parasychological literature in this thread, I just though I would post a couple of links as a demonstration that there does exist a peer-reviewed scientific literature base concerning parapsychology – something that some people posting in this thread actually seemed to be unaware of…

My concern is not with parapsychology itself (I have not read the literature and thus have no basis on which to express an informed opinion), however, what does concern me is the willingness of others to dismiss the field as woo, seemingly without even being aware of the literature that does exist!

I am not saying that all participants are unfamiliar with the literature, just that for as long as I have been a member of the JREF forums, the general pattern is an often strident dismissal of the paranormal without ever having examined the evidence – and that, in my humble opinion – is not a sceptical approach or attitude to take – especially considering the
forum we are in.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The false hidden premise might be the assumption that disagreement can only be caused by an opponent's insufficient information.

Precisely. What shall we call this? Reverse Slippery Slope?

~~ Paul

 

[Resume]

these don't?

www.spr.ac.uk
http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/

cj x

Yes, they do. Both are trying to sell you the notion that things like auras, ghosts and other paranormal phenomena exist without any replicable evidence that they do.

 

[cj.23]

Yes, they do. Both are trying to sell you the notion that things like auras, ghosts and other paranormal phenomena exist without any replicable evidence that they do.

You find that on either page??? Seriously? Show me the evidence then?

cj x

 

[Resume]

You find that on either page??? Seriously? Show me the evidence then?

cj x

Read beyond the first page.