Richard Wiseman

[Alan]

Just for example:

When 1% of the evidence supports a claim being true and 99% of the evidence supports it being false, the people claiming it is true have a long way to go.

When 49% of the evidence supports a claim being true and 51% of the evidence supports it being false, it requires a lot less extra evidence for it to be accepted than the first example.

Do you disagree?

 

[paximperium]

In other words, Rodney's Red Herring garbage about meteorites was finally solved by actually finding a meteorite.

So what does Remote Viewing have? Bad studies and an affect so pathetic that it hides in the realm of insignificant random noise. Not only that, it has no mechanism, no success and is contradicted by essentially all of science.

So what do you have? Anything at all?

 

[fls]

Rodney, although you obviously intend the opposite effect, your story about meteorites actually serves to illustrate the reliability and validity of depending upon scientific investigation and attending to whether or not information is considered persuasive. During the thousands of years that people were informed by superstition, rather than science, lots of nonsensical claims were made. While some people believed that rocks fell from the sky they also believed that casting spells would cause disease, blood-letting would release disease, the outcome of a battle could be determined by the casting of bones, and that inanimate spirits manipulated natural forces. Stones falling from the sky was only one of thousands of extraordinary claims and information in support of the idea was sparse.

Fast forward to a time when a rational understanding of the world is gaining momentum, and useful methods for doing so are developed. A scientist puts forward an idea which, in the absence of reliable and valid supporting information, is not generally accepted among scientists. Then when the idea is subject to an appropriate investigation, reliable and valid information is found which supports the idea, at which point it becomes generally accepted among scientists.

This illustrates the usefulness of the process. When you had thousands of nonsensical claims, it was able to pick out one which was true. And the performance of an investigation to obtain reliable and valid information was able to quickly and easily change the opinion as to the merit of the idea among scientists. Compare this to the hundreds of years it took to persuade the Roman Catholic church to endorse heliocentrism and the extreme steps it took along the way to avoid doing so.

And does it not bother you that you had to go back hundreds of years to find your example of "scientists with-holding consent for an idea which turned out to be plausible after all"?

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Stones falling from the sky was only one of thousands of extraordinary claims and information in support of the idea was sparse.

No, information in support of the idea was abundant, it's just that the scientific establishment turned a deaf ear to the evidence. As the source I quoted states:

"Then, at the end of the 1700s, a series of remarkable infalls of meteorites began. Physicist Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1744-1799) witnessed a bright, spindle-shaped fireball at Gottingen on November 12, 1791 at 6:30 p.m., and shared his unworldly experience with German physicist Ernst F. Chladni (1756-1827). Chladni became so enthralled with Lichtenberg’s experience, he furiously researched fireballs and falling bodies in the Gottingen library for the next three weeks. 'Chladni found that the descriptions were so astonishingly similar from place to place and century to century that, to his lawyer’s ear, the eyewitnesses were telling the truth: falling masses of iron and stone are genuine natural phenomena and not the fantasies of unlettered observers.'

And does it not bother you that you had to go back hundreds of years to find your example of "scientists with-holding consent for an idea which turned out to be plausible after all"?

I didn't have to go back that far, I just think that's a particularly good example. If you want a recent example, consider rogue waves:

"For centuries sailors have been telling stories of encountering monstrous ocean waves which tower over one hundred feet in the air and toss ships about like corks. Historically oceanographers have discounted these reports as tall tales– the embellished stories of mariners with too much time at sea . . .

"Encounters with rogue waves have been rare but memorable. In 1933 in the North Pacific, the US Navy transport USS Ramapo triangulated a rogue wave at thirty-four meters in height. In 1942, the RMS Queen Mary was transporting 15,000 US troops to Europe when it was hit by a twenty-three meter wave and nearly capsized. The giant vessel listed by about 52 degrees due to the impact, after which it slowly righted itself.

"In 1978, the 37,000-ton MS Munchen radioed a garbled distress call from the mid-Atlantic. When rescuers arrived, they found only 'a few bits of wreckage,' including an unlaunched lifeboat with one of its attachment pins 'twisted as though hit by an extreme force.' It is now believed that a rogue wave hit the ship, causing it to capsize and sink. No survivors were ever found.

"In 1996, the Queen Elizabeth 2 encountered a rogue wave of twenty-nine meters, which the Captain said 'came out of the darkness' and 'looked like the White Cliffs of Dover.' London newspapers said that the captain situated the vessel to 'surf' the wave to avoid being sunk.

"Despite these and other encounters with rogue waves, scientists long rejected such claims as unlikely. Anecdotal evidence is often unreliable, so researchers used computer modelling to predict the likelihood of such massive waves. Oceanographers’ findings indicated that waves higher than fifteen meters were probably very rare events, occurring perhaps once in 10,000 years. That all changed in 1995 when a freak wave hit the Draupner North Sea oil platform. The oil rig swayed a little, suffering minor damage, but its onboard measuring equipment successfully recorded the wave height at nineteen meters." See http://www.damninteresting.com/monster-rogue-waves

So, the scientific establishment refused to accept eyewitness accounts and physical evidence, but instead relied on erroneous computer models until a smoking gun was found only 15 years ago.

 

[Rramjet]

... Basically, it's a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Hate to come in late, but when there is "woo" in the air I feel compelled to draw it to people's attention.

The particular phrase quoted above is perhaps one of the most frequently promulgated pieces of woo within skeptical discussion. Precisely what is "extraordinary evidence"? Evidence is evidence. You either have it or you do not. Until anyone can actually define "extraordinary evidence" - and critically, provide an example of it - the phrase will remain nonsensical.

Of course the phrase has a certain emotional appeal, but such an appeal has no place in critical thinking, logic, or scientific discussion.

 

[paximperium]

Yaw...so Rodney has nothing. How boring.

 

[paximperium]

Hate to come in late, but when there is "woo" in the air I feel compelled to draw it to people's attention.

The particular phrase quoted above is perhaps one of the most frequently promulgated pieces of woo within skeptical discussion. Precisely what is "extraordinary evidence"? Evidence is evidence. You either have it or you do not. Until anyone can actually define "extraordinary evidence" - and critically, provide an example of it - the phrase will remain nonsensical.

Of course the phrase has a certain emotional appeal, but such an appeal has no place in critical thinking, logic, or scientific discussion.

I consider Extraordinary Evidence to be either conclusive irrefutable evidence(such as finding an asteroid or an alien) or series of evidence that is superior to the evidence against the claim.

But I agree. I'd be happy to start with just good evidence.

 

[leon_heller]

Hate to come in late, but when there is "woo" in the air I feel compelled to draw it to people's attention.

The particular phrase quoted above is perhaps one of the most frequently promulgated pieces of woo within skeptical discussion. Precisely what is "extraordinary evidence"? Evidence is evidence. You either have it or you do not. Until anyone can actually define "extraordinary evidence" - and critically, provide an example of it - the phrase will remain nonsensical.

Of course the phrase has a certain emotional appeal, but such an appeal has no place in critical thinking, logic, or scientific discussion.

I heard Richard Dawkins say it on TV a couple of evenings ago, in a programme about woo. I think I mentioned it in connection with significance levels - I'd go for something much smaller than p < 0.05 if I was performing an experimental investigation of some paranormal phenomenon, and want lots of replicated studies. Dawkins probably meant something similar.

 

[Robin]

I didn't have to go back that far, I just think that's a particularly good example. If you want a recent example, consider rogue waves:

"For centuries sailors have been telling stories of encountering monstrous ocean waves which tower over one hundred feet in the air and toss ships about like corks. Historically oceanographers have discounted these reports as tall tales– the embellished stories of mariners with too much time at sea . . .

"Encounters with rogue waves have been rare but memorable. In 1933 in the North Pacific, the US Navy transport USS Ramapo triangulated a rogue wave at thirty-four meters in height. In 1942, the RMS Queen Mary was transporting 15,000 US troops to Europe when it was hit by a twenty-three meter wave and nearly capsized. The giant vessel listed by about 52 degrees due to the impact, after which it slowly righted itself.

"In 1978, the 37,000-ton MS Munchen radioed a garbled distress call from the mid-Atlantic. When rescuers arrived, they found only 'a few bits of wreckage,' including an unlaunched lifeboat with one of its attachment pins 'twisted as though hit by an extreme force.' It is now believed that a rogue wave hit the ship, causing it to capsize and sink. No survivors were ever found.

"In 1996, the Queen Elizabeth 2 encountered a rogue wave of twenty-nine meters, which the Captain said 'came out of the darkness' and 'looked like the White Cliffs of Dover.' London newspapers said that the captain situated the vessel to 'surf' the wave to avoid being sunk.

"Despite these and other encounters with rogue waves, scientists long rejected such claims as unlikely. Anecdotal evidence is often unreliable, so researchers used computer modelling to predict the likelihood of such massive waves. Oceanographers’ findings indicated that waves higher than fifteen meters were probably very rare events, occurring perhaps once in 10,000 years. That all changed in 1995 when a freak wave hit the Draupner North Sea oil platform. The oil rig swayed a little, suffering minor damage, but its onboard measuring equipment successfully recorded the wave height at nineteen meters." See http://www.damninteresting.com/monster-rogue-waves

So, the scientific establishment refused to accept eyewitness accounts and physical evidence, but instead relied on erroneous computer models until a smoking gun was found only 15 years ago.

I can't find any evidence of scientists actually rejecting the notion of rogue waves. Is there a link to any scientist that explicitly rejects the idea? I can see mention made of a linear model that predicts 30m only every 10,000 years, but I can't see who did this or find a paper.

It sounds a bit like that old myth about scientists claiming that a bumble bee can't fly.

I would be a little surprised if any reputable scientist had claimed that computer models could model the ocean so well as to rule out the possibility of these waves.

 

[Robin]

This article for example suggests that oceanographers did not reject the existence of rogue waves but were hampered by incomplete models and lack of proper measurements and so were not able to explain them.

Not being able to explain a phenomenon is different to rejecting it.

 

[paximperium]

I heard Richard Dawkins say it on TV a couple of evenings ago, in a programme about woo. I think I mentioned it in connection with significance levels - I'd go for something much smaller than p < 0.05 if I was performing an experimental investigation of some paranormal phenomenon, and want lots of replicated studies. Dawkins probably meant something similar.

It's by Carl Sagan.

 

[leon_heller]

It's by Carl Sagan.

I was in good company, then, with both Dawkins and Sagan saying it. Rramjet's view that it's "woo" looks like nonsense.

 

[paximperium]

I was in good company, then, with both Dawkins and Sagan saying it. Rramjet's view that it's "woo" looks like nonsense.

Actually Epistemologically speaking, he isn't that far off. Sagan's quote is a nice and pretty concise statement but it has significant flaws.

First of all...what is extraordinary evidence? That in it by itself kind of biases the standard of evidence one places to an "extraordinary" claim.
I don't really need extraordinary evidence to believe in an extraordinary claim. All I really need is good and sufficient evidence that is superior to any opposing evidence.

 

[paximperium]

I would like to thank Rodney for essentially falsifying his silly claim about the close mindedness of science by providing these examples.

According to Rodney apparently "science" was close minded towards meteorites and rogue waves but then accepted these claim once evidence was provided.

So what does Rodney have? Apparently nothing.

 

[leon_heller]

Actually Epistemologically speaking, he isn't that far off. Sagan's quote is a nice and pretty concise statement but it has significant flaws.

First of all...what is extraordinary evidence? That in it by itself kind of biases the standard of evidence one places to an "extraordinary" claim.
I don't really need extraordinary evidence to believe in an extraordinary claim. All I really need is good and sufficient evidence that is superior to any opposing evidence.

I thought I provided it - setting a high significance level and plenty of replicated studies.

 

[fls]

No, information in support of the idea was abundant, it's just that the scientific establishment turned a deaf ear to the evidence. As the source I quoted states:

"Then, at the end of the 1700s, a series of remarkable infalls of meteorites began. Physicist Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1744-1799) witnessed a bright, spindle-shaped fireball at Gottingen on November 12, 1791 at 6:30 p.m., and shared his unworldly experience with German physicist Ernst F. Chladni (1756-1827). Chladni became so enthralled with Lichtenberg’s experience, he furiously researched fireballs and falling bodies in the Gottingen library for the next three weeks. 'Chladni found that the descriptions were so astonishingly similar from place to place and century to century that, to his lawyer’s ear, the eyewitnesses were telling the truth: falling masses of iron and stone are genuine natural phenomena and not the fantasies of unlettered observers.'

Exactly. At the end of the 1700's, there was abundant evidence because of a remarkable number of falls which point scientists were able to more thoroughly investigate. Within a fairly short period of time (especially compared to the proto/prescientific state prior to that), there was enough information to consider which sources could be considered plausible.

I didn't have to go back that far, I just think that's a particularly good example. If you want a recent example, consider rogue waves:

But again, this doesn't seem to an example of scientists ignoring good evidence, but merely with-holding opinions until good evidence was available on which to build ideas. And neither of these examples are comparable to the ganzfeld database or paprapsychological research in general, where they've had ample time and opportunity to demonstrate the presence of any extraordinary phenomena, if it were actually present. They've been going at it longer than modern medicine and look at how much more we have accomplished because the effects we are studying actually exist, even though many of them are as elusive and fickle as psi is claimed to be.

Linda

 

[Alan]

Actually Epistemologically speaking, he isn't that far off. Sagan's quote is a nice and pretty concise statement but it has significant flaws.

First of all...what is extraordinary evidence? That in it by itself kind of biases the standard of evidence one places to an "extraordinary" claim.
I don't really need extraordinary evidence to believe in an extraordinary claim. All I really need is good and sufficient evidence that is superior to any opposing evidence.

What "extraordinary evidence" means to me is evidence sufficient in quantity/quality to overcome what makes it an extraordinary claim (which is the evidence against it).

Regular evidence can count, but a lot of that (= an "extraordinary" amount) would be needed as appropriate to counter the evidence against it.

 

[fls]

I think that it is a mistake to repeat this quote ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence")' because the people at which it is aimed do not understand what it means. It sounds like scientists are cheating by raising the bar only for those claims they are biased against. And since that isn't the case, all we have managed to do with this catchy-sounding phrase is to embroil ourselves in attempts to defend ourselves against people like Rodney, who quite correctly are able to recognize that we should not make a distinction a priori between ordinary and extraordinary claims.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Exactly. At the end of the 1700's, there was abundant evidence because of a remarkable number of falls which point scientists were able to more thoroughly investigate. Within a fairly short period of time (especially compared to the proto/prescientific state prior to that), there was enough information to consider which sources could be considered plausible.

You evidently missed this: "Chladni found that the descriptions were so astonishingly similar from place to place and century to century . . ." So, the evidence had been there long before Chladni, it's just that meteorites did not comport with the conventional scientific wisdom, and so were conveniently ignored.

But again, this doesn't seem to an example of scientists ignoring good evidence, but merely with-holding opinions until good evidence was available on which to build ideas.

Where we differ is that I regard credible eyewitness accounts and massive physical damage to ships as "good evidence" of rogue waves.

And neither of these examples are comparable to the ganzfeld database or paprapsychological research in general, where they've had ample time and opportunity to demonstrate the presence of any extraordinary phenomena, if it were actually present.

Researchers such as Wiseman are not convinced that psi does not exist, they just haven't seen a smoking gun yet. But bear in mind that both meteorites and rogue waves existed for countless centuries before there was a smoking gun proving their existence.

They've been going at it longer than modern medicine and look at how much more we have accomplished because the effects we are studying actually exist, even though many of them are as elusive and fickle as psi is claimed to be.

Examples?

 

[Rramjet]

I consider Extraordinary Evidence to be either conclusive irrefutable evidence(such as finding an asteroid or an alien) or series of evidence that is superior to the evidence against the claim.

But I agree. I'd be happy to start with just good evidence.

Yes, you’re getting close, but strictly speaking there is also no such thing as “good” (or “bad”) evidence either. Evidence is evidence. You either have it or you do not. The preceding adjectives (“extraordinary”, “good”, etc), especially without context, are subjective and emotive post hoc value judgements that should have no place in true sceptical debate (with the implied constraints of conforming to the strict standards of critical thinking, logic and science).

I heard Richard Dawkins say it on TV a couple of evenings ago, in a programme about woo.

It's by Carl Sagan.

“Sagan is also widely regarded as a freethinker or skeptic; one of his most famous quotations, in Cosmos, was, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."[40] This was based on a nearly identical statement by fellow founder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, Marcello Truzzi, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."[41] This idea originated with Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827), a French mathematician and astronomer who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."[42]” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan)

I was in good company, then, with both Dawkins and Sagan saying it. Rramjet's view that it's "woo" looks like nonsense.

Like a game of Chinese whispers, the true meaning of the message becomes distorted over time to end in complete nonsense. That is, LaPlace’s sensible “weight of evidence” becomes in Sagan’s hands the nonsensical phrase “extraordinary evidence”.

…and no matter the “eminence” of the person stating it, it remains nonsensical.

We should thus, as ever, be forewarned about simply accepting without critical thought received “wisdom”. All is often rarely what it seems.

What "extraordinary evidence" means to me is evidence sufficient in quantity/quality to overcome what makes it an extraordinary claim (which is the evidence against it).

Regular evidence can count, but a lot of that (= an "extraordinary" amount) would be needed as appropriate to counter the evidence against it.

Yes, you are perfectly describing Laplace’s “weight of evidence”, but critically, an “extraordinary amount” of evidence does not make the evidence itself “extraordinary”.

I think that it is a mistake to repeat this quote ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence")' because the people at which it is aimed do not understand what it means...

The “people at which it is aimed” do not understand it in equal proportion to the people who state it – because it is nonsense dressed up as wisdom.

It sounds like sScientists are cheating by raising the bar only for those claims they are biased against...

Corrected that for you… (but I guess "scientists” can be forgiven, for they simply do not understand what they say).

...And since that isn't the case, all we have managed to do with this catchy-sounding phrase is to embroil ourselves in attempts to defend ourselves against people like Rodney, who quite correctly are able to recognize that we should not make a distinction a priori between ordinary and extraordinary claims.

Precisely.

ETA: Just a suggestion for an easy solution ...why don't we just agree use the phrase "weight of evidence" and thus forgo all the baggage and argument tied up in the nonsensical phrase "extraordinary evidence"?