Possibly, Dan.
My understanding of quantum theory is that it applies to the micro world of subatomic particles, not the macro world of our everyday experience.
But I am no expert.
My understanding of quantum theory is that it applies to the micro world of subatomic particles, not the macro world of our everyday experience.
But I am no expert.
This particular part of the discussion started with me pointing out that asking a question that assumes the truth of something which has not yet been proven and which the person to whom you put the question disagrees, is insulting. You introduced points in your reply which I ignored (though we can return to those in due course if you wish) because they were irrelevant to the problem I was addressing.
Someone else came up with the idea of coin flipping. Yes, I designed the protocol to ensure the test was being conducted with adequate controls. JM was happy to test the idea using that protocol. I did not alter the protocol. JM altered the protocol, when he found it was not testing what he usually does in real life. And you did not address the claims JM made, you assumed his claim was false before even testing it and expected him to aswer questions that assume his claims are false.
You don't see the insult because you still do not seem to realise wherein the insult lies. It's clearly an insult to ask someone if he has stopped beating his wife yet (when he has never beaten his wife in the first place). Similarly, it is clearly an insult to expect someone to answer a question which assumes the truth of something which has not been established and with which you know he disagrees.
Not true. If you read back, JM expressed his reaction to you before I did. It was clearly insulting to him.
Tim, I do not claim my ability is paranormal, okay?
The point I was making is that my (NON-paranormal) ability to run a marathon in 3 hours on a particular day may depend on a lot of conditions being just right. If I fail on one particular day, that doesn't mean I haven't done it in the past when conditions were more favourable and that I can't do it in the future when conditions are more favourable (eg proper training, no health issues, cooler weather, didn't run one yesterday)
Now, here is the point I am making: This reasoning should also apply to claims of pararnormal abilities. There may be times when he is unable to demonstrate his paranoramal ability becuase the conditions are not right. This does not mean that he has not done so in the past or can not do so in the future.
timokay
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 158
I will either create my own thread to discuss what I feel is the relevant issue, or wait for Jim to start his thread about the claims he has made. I do not wish to derail this thread any more with our discussion.
Or I will bring it up in his thread about perpetual motion. Want to meet me there?
Last edited:
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
timokay, A useful thread (or even sub forum) might be the hypothetical discussions of how to setup a testing protocol for various abilities. If these are done without a specific applicant there would be no one to be insulted in the process. If a different skeptic took the role of proxy applicant for a psychic power or ability for each thread I think the exercise could be instructive in a number of ways.
timokay
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 158
I think this relates to the heart of the changes to the challenge.
A great deal of time can be wasted creating protocols for this claimed ability or that claimed ability. And I am sure that many people are willing to devote this time, working out the fine details to make sure that the protocol is solid. This is all well and good, and a thread devoted to "pre-screening" protocols could be very helpful.
I however, am more of a big picture person, and like the new challenge, I prefer to cut right to the heart of the claim, and try to determine exactly what makes it paranormal, and want to hold the claimant to a strict scientific standard. There has to be something there to begin with, not just anecdotes and assumptions.
I want laws with teeth, that make it a criminal offense to take money for a product or service that cannot be proven to be effective. Homeopaths, psychics and astrologers are criminals and need to be convicted as such and put out of business.
Let's hope the new challenge works towards this goal.
You don't need a proxy applicant, you need a devil's advocate.
But, how many sceptics are there on the forum who could play devil's advocate.
But there are degrees of failing to run a marathon. If you claim you can run one in 3 hours and take 3 hours and 10 minutes when tested, while you have failed on that occasion it is reasonable to assume that you could do what you claim, and that you had a bad day or the conditions weren't quite right. If you run 100 metres and then collapse on the floor wheezing it would be rather silly to pretend it is the fault of the conditions and not simply that you cannot do what you claim. The paranormal is no different. In all tests I have seen, the applicants have failed after 100 metres. They make all kinds of excuses about the conditions being wrong, but given the magnitude of their faliure these excuses are just silly. We don't expect claimants to be 100% perfect 100% of the time, but we do expect them to be able to do something.
RAmen, brother.
Standard protocols would be useful if you had standard claims.
I wonder how common they are though?
As long as you're careful that, when you generalise (big picture), you don't run over the top of the individual (small picture). Not everyone is a charlatan. There are many people who genuinely believe in their paranormal ability. It serves no purpose, and can even prove counterproductive, to run them over.
I wish it were so simple.
In any case, my understanding is that the new challenge recognises three types of individuals: the nutcases, the genuine claimants, and the charlatans. The new challenge aims to eliminate the nutcases, because they are a waste of time and resources and achieve nothing; identify the genuine claimants by requiring media profile and academic endorsement and test them if they apply; identify and go after the charlatans because they do great harm in the community.
(By genuine claimant, I mean someone who genuinely believes he has a paranormal ability)
Anyway, it sounds like you're signing off.
Cuddles,
I agree with you, but...
I agree with you, but...
I was replying to timokay who was saying exactly the opposite (of the bolded bit).
timokay
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 158
BillyJoe, this is the crux of where we differ.
If someone genuinely believes they have a power, but can provide no evidence, and has nothing but anecdotal evidence and bad science to back them up, then it is counterproductive to start designing a protocol.
Better to challenge the claim on the evidence presented, and to try to put light on whatever is valid or invalid about what exactly the claimant is saying their paranormal power is.
Do I run them over? Fine, if you call asking direct questions running over. It is a challenge. If the claim is valid, then it will hold up. If not, then no time and resources are wasted. This is the heart of the new challenge, I think.
Are you speaking to me?
If you are, I've already agreed with it (read three posts back).
Well, let's look at JM.
He genuinely believes he has the ability to affect events around him and he has a lot of personal experience to relate. Okay, call it belief in the paranormal with only anecdoatal evidence to back it up. But I have never heard him offer up bad science as an explanation for his claimed ability. And he has at least attempted to provide evidence - initially to himself before subjecting himself to a public test. How, in this situation is it counterproductive to design a protocol to help him test his ability scientifically.
You have mischaracterised JM because of your obsession with generalising rather than attending to the individual before you.
If you are going to challenge the evidence presented by JM, why not help him with a protocol that is likely to produce evidence that is worth considering. It seems to me you are not interested in any evidence he may or may not be able to present because you have already decided, based on your generalisations, that he could not possibly have this ability.
I can't believe you still haven't got the point about the man beating his wife.
So you don't think we should help potential claimants by designing protocols which would show them whether or not they have an ability and what exactly that ability is? How exactly are you going to actually challenge them then???
timokay
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 158
Here you go, Billyjoe:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75409
I am happy to discuss it here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75409
I am happy to discuss it here.
Klaymore
Critical Thinker
I've been trying to read the response to the challenge changes, but it's getting tough to find them. If I remember correctly, we stopped talking about them on about page 8. So if this is stuff that's already been said, hey, blame whoever wrote 10 pages of off-topic gunk...
The changes to the challenge that involve going after fakes like Sylvia, Geller, Edwards, etc. by name are a GREAT idea. NO WAY are those guys ever going to take a challenge, because they know they'd fail, but at least it will turn up the heat on them, and maybe a few of their victims will start stop feeling ashamed, and TAKE LEGAL ACTION!
As far as requiring "media presence" and "academic standing," or whatever; bad, bad, bad, disappointing, bad, letdown, mistake, bad, bad.
The heart of this challenge is its democratic nature. ANY psychic, necro-talker, asstral-projector, or alien-anal-probe recipient who can 1) define an acceptable protocol, and 2) read minds, talk to the dead, project their ass, or get ET's finger into their butt under the agreed-upon conditions DESERVES a million bucks. Period.
Yeah, there are huge challenges to doing things that way. The poor idiots who do apply are, almost to a man, schizo. Very few of them can--despite their ability to speak to the dead--communicate with the living at all (I stole that from another poster; can't remember who). They will not (and in most cases, probably CAN not) write a simple, concise application that follows the rules. Those who initially sound (even a little) sane, and can (more or less) follow the application guidelines eventually just start weasling, going off message, and digressing until their claims are--thankfully--dumped.
Those are huge, frustrating problems, and I am glad I'm not the guy who has to deal with them. As a former member of a paperback house editorial staff and defense attorney, I know how frustrating it is to try to keep disturbed people on message and elicit coherent information from them.
But the answer to that is fairly simple. Just dump the applications that don't conform to the guidelines. Yep, it's that simple. Don't tell them what they need to do, ask for affidavits, or give them guidance. Don't ask them to clarify their powers, or devise better protocols. Nope, just let them know that their claim has been rejected because they didn't follow the guidelines.
Will the psychics, the dowsers, the dead-chatters, the desperate, the mad, and the damned cry "FOUL"? Sure. That's what they do already. The only difference is that NOW they do it after 200000 resource-burning e-mail exchanges.
Change your PROCEDURE so that you follow the rules you have (i.e., applications that do not subscribe to the guidelines will be summarily rejected), and all you will lose is the time you waste trying to keep these nutty bastards on message.
Change the RULES to exclude people who are willing to put their "powers" to the test, and you look chicken.
The changes to the challenge that involve going after fakes like Sylvia, Geller, Edwards, etc. by name are a GREAT idea. NO WAY are those guys ever going to take a challenge, because they know they'd fail, but at least it will turn up the heat on them, and maybe a few of their victims will start stop feeling ashamed, and TAKE LEGAL ACTION!
As far as requiring "media presence" and "academic standing," or whatever; bad, bad, bad, disappointing, bad, letdown, mistake, bad, bad.
The heart of this challenge is its democratic nature. ANY psychic, necro-talker, asstral-projector, or alien-anal-probe recipient who can 1) define an acceptable protocol, and 2) read minds, talk to the dead, project their ass, or get ET's finger into their butt under the agreed-upon conditions DESERVES a million bucks. Period.
Yeah, there are huge challenges to doing things that way. The poor idiots who do apply are, almost to a man, schizo. Very few of them can--despite their ability to speak to the dead--communicate with the living at all (I stole that from another poster; can't remember who). They will not (and in most cases, probably CAN not) write a simple, concise application that follows the rules. Those who initially sound (even a little) sane, and can (more or less) follow the application guidelines eventually just start weasling, going off message, and digressing until their claims are--thankfully--dumped.
Those are huge, frustrating problems, and I am glad I'm not the guy who has to deal with them. As a former member of a paperback house editorial staff and defense attorney, I know how frustrating it is to try to keep disturbed people on message and elicit coherent information from them.
But the answer to that is fairly simple. Just dump the applications that don't conform to the guidelines. Yep, it's that simple. Don't tell them what they need to do, ask for affidavits, or give them guidance. Don't ask them to clarify their powers, or devise better protocols. Nope, just let them know that their claim has been rejected because they didn't follow the guidelines.
Will the psychics, the dowsers, the dead-chatters, the desperate, the mad, and the damned cry "FOUL"? Sure. That's what they do already. The only difference is that NOW they do it after 200000 resource-burning e-mail exchanges.
Change your PROCEDURE so that you follow the rules you have (i.e., applications that do not subscribe to the guidelines will be summarily rejected), and all you will lose is the time you waste trying to keep these nutty bastards on message.
Change the RULES to exclude people who are willing to put their "powers" to the test, and you look chicken.