'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

[Pragmatist]

SKeptics are approaching the question of the paranormal with the presupposition that reality must operate on certain principles.

Wow! Ian, you're a SKeptic!

 

[Pragmatist]

Waiting for evidence of a person acutally thinking the moon is made of green cheese, first.

Why? You know perfectly well the onus is on the claimant to show evidence for the claim, not for anyone else to disprove it.

But since I am nothing but accomodating, I once told my son when he was 4 years old that the moon was made of green cheese - he believed me for about a week until he actually looked it up.

Some skeptics often bring up the 'green cheese' thing, but what is the point if no one has ever seriously considered that?

Because it's a well known proverb. It illustrates a general point about credulity. Most people seem to have no problem with it and can see beyond the literal to the wider implication.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Could you name one of these people and give a list of the principles he or she says that reality "must operate on", a priori.

Yes, it is a game. It's the same halfwitted game you're always playing. And losing.

A prominent sceptic Susan Blackmore has stated:

There are some members of the skeptics' groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion. . . . I have to say it-most of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type.

(Blackmore, S. J. (1994b). Women skeptics. In L. Coly & R. White (Eds.), Women and Parapsychology (234-236). New York: Parapsychology Foundation).

 

[Open Mind]

Your opinion is wrong, however. That's not what a priori means.

Latin never interested me much and a debate over the philosophical meaning of a-priori doesn’t alter the point at all. But I am willing to listen to you explain to me how Rothman is not using a-priori (by any of the slightly different definitions old or new) to dismiss paranormal claims.

By CF Larsen…….

Hmmmmm......you don't get it, do you?

The laws of physics rule out the existence of paranormal phenomena. If paranormal phenomena exist, then science is all wrong. That's what is meant by "impossible".

Claus mind, if you read my old posts, you will find I have said many times physics would probably require modification of physics theories if PSI is acknowledged to the weakest but proven degree. But you are wrong to say ‘then science is all wrong’ a few theoretical interpretations need modified ….. and these might open up other areas of exciting discovery that are not necessarily related or weak as most human psi ability.

But it isn't impossible a priori. All it takes to topple science, is one paranormal phenomenon to be real. Just one.

Not to topple science, just to topple super sKepticism … And this ‘just one’ isn’t true either. . Many sKeptics will accept nothing but a constantly repetitive strong effect, they will miss weak effects or stronger erratic effects, over and over again dismissing it as nothing but something else.

by Oleron ……

It is essential that scientists take a hard skeptical line when dealing with claims of the paranormal. Anything else is non-rigorous and open to challenge.

Does anyone seriously want CSICOP or the JREF to start setting the standards lower to enable people to pass? What good does that do either side of the debate?

JREF is looking for strong effects in short trials. CSICOP on the other hand does take more interest in denying weak effects in parapsychology but CSICOP does not conduct long term trials either. Anomalous effects have still occurred under the strictest of controls …… however …...……to quote Hyman of CSICOP …..

’ “Even if one assembles all the world’s magicians and scientists and puts them to the task of designing a fraud-proof experiment, it cannot be done”

So as a last resort, when any other explanation cannot be made to fit, the fraud card is played. Any weak effect or stronger erratic effect can always be brought under doubt.

Close minded skeptics are potentially very gullible, not only have they stopped looking properly, they seldom question the quality of the information that is designed to debunk.

So super sKepticism, the dogma of the pseudo skeptics, just need to invent a few conspiracy like theories to imply fraud and this gets the sKeptic club even more passionately wound up in the bitter fight against what they assume (without proof) is conscious planned deception.

‘HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING’ – over 50 techniques, great advice for budding super sKKKKeptics!!! For free! http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

 

[CFLarsen]

A prominent sceptic Susan Blackmore has stated:

Name these people, Ian. Don't merely repeat the claim.

 

[Open Mind]

And the crickets went: chirp, chirp, chirp.

Well, I guess there was no answering that.

You don't like the example I gave?

How about .... the skeptic Professor Nicholas Humphrey and his book 'Soul Searching'

'
The general directions of the author's critique maybe indicated by a selection of his headings: "it is impossible a priori, hence it never happened" , "debunking as a substitute for scientific arguments", "censorship as part of the normal scientific process" ...... .

Book Review By Professor Brian Joesephson
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/humphrey.html#humphrey

"there are no ghosts, no poltergeists and no hauntings. They are all mistaken, imaginary, or false".

Mike Hutchinson (CSICOP)
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus mind, if you read my old posts, you will find I have said many times physics would probably require modification of physics theories if PSI is acknowledged to the weakest but proven degree. But you are wrong to say ‘then science is all wrong’ a few theoretical interpretations need modified ….. and these might open up other areas of exciting discovery that are not necessarily related or weak as most human psi ability.

You are dead-wrong about that.

If e.g. observations and measurements of gravity have in any way been influenced by telekinesis, then all theories of gravity go out the window. And don't forget that the scientific theories depend on each other: E.g., evolution depend on the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Weak telekinesis? Not a problem, we got the most sensitive scales you can imagine. And if they can move matchboxes, why not something that's detectable?

Not to topple science, just to topple super sKepticism … And this ‘just one’ isn’t true either. . Many sKeptics will accept nothing but a constantly repetitive strong effect, they will miss weak effects or stronger erratic effects, over and over again dismissing it as nothing but something else.

I don't care about this C-K game. Who are these people you are talking about? Names, please. I'm not going to discuss this, unless we can find out who these people are, and what they actually mean.

JREF is looking for strong effects in short trials.

Absolutely not. The effects can be as subtle as needed, all that is required is for it to be real.

CSICOP on the other hand does take more interest in denying weak effects in parapsychology but CSICOP does not conduct long term trials either. Anomalous effects have still occurred under the strictest of controls …… however …...……to quote Hyman of CSICOP …..

’ “Even if one assembles all the world’s magicians and scientists and puts them to the task of designing a fraud-proof experiment, it cannot be done”

So as a last resort, when any other explanation cannot be made to fit, the fraud card is played. Any weak effect or stronger erratic effect can always be brought under doubt.

Sure, it can - and it should. Should we accept a low standard, when it comes to parapsychology? On the contrary, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Close minded skeptics are potentially very gullible, not only have they stopped looking properly, they seldom question the quality of the information that is designed to debunk.

Who are these people? Names, please.

So super sKepticism, the dogma of the pseudo skeptics, just need to invent a few conspiracy like theories to imply fraud and this gets the sKeptic club even more passionately wound up in the bitter fight against what they assume (without proof) is conscious planned deception.

‘HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING’ – over 50 techniques, great advice for budding super sKKKKeptics!!! For free! http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

Yeah, yeah. Show us some evidence of a paranormal phenomenon instead.

 

[hgc]

ROF @ ". . . and you will still be jealous of their achievments in human thought and want to appropriate that word too."

I aim to be informative and entertaining. I'm glad you take it in the spirit in which it's offered.

Now, how about dropping this silliness about different ways to spell the same word and how some non-believers have an aggressive attitude? What really matters here? I think it's the respect for and teaching a way of looking at things that relies more on evidential reality than on wishful thinking.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So, no-one is able to give an example of anyone in the world who believes that "most unexplained phenomena are a priori impossible".

I'm not surprised.

 

[turtle]

I aim to be informative and entertaining. I'm glad you take it in the spirit in which it's offered.

Now, how about dropping this silliness about different ways to spell the same word and how some non-believers have an aggressive attitude? What really matters here? I think it's the respect for and teaching a way of looking at things that relies more on evidential reality than on wishful thinking.

How about not posting in this thread if you don't like it?

I started the thread, others who chose to posted. I can't help what's posted. And where you're coming from regarding "believer's aggressive attitude" is ... odd. ??? Don't even know what that means.

 

[voodoochile]

Hmmmmm......you don't get it, do you?

The laws of physics rule out the existence of paranormal phenomena. If paranormal phenomena exist, then science is all wrong. That's what is meant by "impossible".

But it isn't impossible a priori. All it takes to topple science, is one paranormal phenomenon to be real. Just one.

And we are still waiting for that one phenomenon to show itself...

Fantastic point.

The implied part of the statements made regarding all of those concepts is - "If Science as we know it is correct than...'

If you start with the concept that the last several thousand years of scientific achievement are wrong then you can start to validate these paranormal concepts, but first you have to prove the science is wrong.

I don't think that I qualify as stupid, but I am not going to start trying to disprove Newton, Einstein, etc, Anyone else who wants to give it a go, knock yourself out. I will await with baited breath your layman descriptions of the work you accomplish.

Personally, I find it the height of arrogance for people to claim that they are smarter than the most brilliant minds in human history. If you truly are, go prove it. Get the training, take the classes and go prove you are "all that and a bag of chips" when it comes to brains...

 

[hgc]

How about not posting in this thread if you don't like it?

Thanks, but I could have figured that out all by myself. I like posting in this thread. It's almost as much fun as a chocolate eclair.

I started the thread, others who chose to posted. I can't help what's posted. And where you're coming from regarding "believer's aggressive attitude" is ... odd. ??? Don't even know what that means.

Would indeed be odd, if that's what I said. Read again. It says, "... some non-believers have an aggressive attitude ..." I find that copy & paste helps with getting quotes correct.

 

[Dr Adequate]

How about not posting in this thread if you don't like it?

Did I hear a stupid whining sound? I did. Obviously hgc does like posting on this thread, or he wouldn't do it. Even turtle isn't stupid enough to be unaware of this. But translated from whine language into English, it comes out as: "If you disagree with what I say, you shouldn't post" which is also utterly stupid, but in a different way.

I started the thread, others who chose to posted. I can't help what's posted. And where you're coming from regarding "believer's aggressive attitude" is ... odd. ??? Don't even know what that means.

No, turtle, you don't even know what he means. Nor, it seems, do you even know what he wrote. Apparently you wanted to respond to his post, but were too lazy to try to overcome your stupidity and find out what he actually said.

Edited to add... there's a funny echo in here.

 

[jj]

Who decides whether a notion is made in seriousness?

Based on what?

C'mon, Claus, JZS is claiming the negative here.

Did he provide conclusive, complete evidence for his claim to negative exclusion, or is it just another extraordinary claim?

 

[turtle]

Did I hear a stupid whining sound? I did.

Yes, I did too. Came from hgc who made a comment about it, and from you.

Me, I made a comment -- which was not rude by the way,. something you're incapable of not doing -- to someone's post. Big deal, I made a mistake in reading what he said regarding his second comment. You'll live, in spite of this dire little drama, I'm sure. So relax.

I also see you just can't help yourself. Being rude and combative is obviously a very deep seated disorder with you.

Obviously hgc does like posting on this thread, or he wouldn't do it.

shrug. Seemed he didn't, but if, as he says, he does fine. I don't care either way.

Even turtle isn't stupid enough to be unaware of this. But translated from whine language into English, it comes out as: "If you disagree with what I say, you shouldn't post" which is also utterly stupid, but in a different way. No, turtle, you don't even know what he means.

Look, when someone complains about a thread, I figure they can either leave, or post things other than whining, to try to turn the thread to where they'd like to see it go. It isn't any big deal, but of course, you seem to think it is. In fact, you seem to think anything I post is a big enough deal for you to be rude and insulting.

Nor, it seems, do you even know what he wrote. Apparently you wanted to respond to his post, but were too lazy to try to overcome your stupidity and find out what he actually said.

The only thing I misunderstood was his 'believer aggressive' post, which wasn't what he said. That's between me and him, not you, "self appointed guru of all that is wrong in this forum." You're not even a moderator, so buzz off.

By the way, as I keep telling you, take responsibility for your behavior, find something more productive to do, and stop proving what many of us "believers" think about you types: that you're ill mannered, rude, insutling creeps.

Edited to add... there's a funny echo in here.

There's also a sense of deja vu: you know, where you'be posted insulting rude posts for no other reason than to be an idiot?

By the way, responding to someone is not "whining" and you really need to get over yourself in that regard.

In fact, I would say you're the one is who "whining" -- posting rude comments at me or whoever it is you've decided to put on your list -- at the drop of a hat.

 

[LovleAnjel]

I am a working scientist, and the world does indeed operate on specific principles. Principles are theories which have been supported by confirming evidence, and lack disconfirming evidence, and are the closest things to facts that we have. We start from the assumption that these principles are correct. If a phenomenon were to directly contradict a principle, I would pretty much laugh it off. Examples and explanations of principles in physics can be found at http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp
For biology:
http://clab.cecil.cc.md.us/faculty/biology1/principles.htm
In geology, we have the principles of superposition, original horizontality, cross-cutting relations, and a number of others you would learn in any introductory course.

The development of theory of evolution did not "depend" on any of the laws of thermodynamics. It was arrived at and supported over time without any physicists' help. It does, however, have to follow their laws. If evolution contradicted any physical law, it would be roundly dismissed. People have used this to try and dispute evolution (which, as a theory, is only a step down from a principle in the scientific hierarchy).

I am very confused by what is meant by "weak" and "erratic" effects. The weak and erratic effects I encounter in my work are the result of statistical noise, and of no consequence. They are never considered significant, and positing them as such gets one's hypothesis and paper rejected. It also gets one critiqued by undergrads in seminars learning how to read and understand scientific literature. An effect is either statistically significant, or it isn't. Five hundred papers with statistically insignificant ("weak") results are worth nothing compared to a single paper with a statistically significant result. And altering your p-value threshold or massaging your data to achieve significance is equally worthless.

I think there are some very "close-minded" people on both sides of these debates. Saying that there is a spectrum of personalities inhabiting the sceptical movement doesn't weaken the meaning of the word. And I dislike when people (anyone!) try and invent language to serve a political purpose.

"Gay" is slang for stupid in America as well. "Liberace gay" means really stupid. These words are mostly offensive when used by straights, just like white boys calling their friends "niggaz" is also offensive. They're essentially cultural in-jokes.

 

[turtle]

Thanks, but I could have figured that out all by myself. I like posting in this thread. It's almost as much fun as a chocolate eclair.Would indeed be odd, if that's what I said. Read again. It says, "... some non-believers have an aggressive attitude ..." I find that copy & paste helps with getting quotes correct.

Nothing is as fun as a chocolate eclair! (Well, almost nothing. . .)

 

[jj]

Nothing is as fun as a chocolate eclair! (Well, almost nothing. . .)

You must know my teenager! She would agree wholeheartedly.

You wouldn't know where they make a good one in the Seattle area, would you?

But, turtle, there is a point here, and the point is that people who come up with extraordinary claims must have some evidence to support them. People come up with extraordinary claims all the time, and most often they crash and burn when any evidence is examined. Not always, no, but nearly always.

Life is too short to investigate the 999th claim to the same extraordinary effect UNLESS THERE IS SOME SOLID EVIDENCE THIS TIME, and unless that evidence appears repeatable. Therein lies the problem, usually.

 

[jj]

The development of theory of evolution did not "depend" on any of the laws of thermodynamics. It was arrived at and supported over time without any physicists' help. It does, however, have to follow their laws. If evolution contradicted any physical law, it would be roundly dismissed.


Hold on thar a minute, slick!

No, if evolution contradicted some physical law, and still has as much evidence for it as there is (which is, roughly speaking, more evidence than there is for anything else in existance, give or take), then what we would see is not dismissal, but rather a very careful, serious examination of WHAT was going on, WHY it was going on, and which "law" was wrong, and how said law would be extended.

The laws have to respond to reality, no matter how upsetting.

Continental drift is a good example here, it was thought to contradict the whole idea of how the earth was pretty static, etc, and was rejected, BUT when new evidence, in particular the seafloor spreading in the Atlantic, came into existance, the old "laws" of geology are what bit the dust, and had to be reunderstood as being part of plate tectonics and an active mantle/core, etc.


People have used this to try and dispute evolution (which, as a theory, is only a step down from a principle in the scientific hierarchy).

Disputing evolution via thermodynamics is a foolish thing, because the earth isn't a closed system. In fact, I think most people who have examined the issue and who still raise the issue are raising it disingeniously, because even the simplest, most trivial study of thermo will point out the fallacy involved in suggesting that the solar system, even, is a closed system.

 

[turtle]

You must know my teenager! She would agree wholeheartedly.

You wouldn't know where they make a good one in the Seattle area, would you?

But, turtle, there is a point here, and the point is that people who come up with extraordinary claims must have some evidence to support them. People come up with extraordinary claims all the time, and most often they crash and burn when any evidence is examined. Not always, no, but nearly always.

Life is too short to investigate the 999th claim to the same extraordinary effect UNLESS THERE IS SOME SOLID EVIDENCE THIS TIME, and unless that evidence appears repeatable. Therein lies the problem, usually.

Not in Seattle, haven't been up there for some time. In Eugene there's a fantastic bakery though!

Re: evidence,yes, I do understand. But as I posted to Aussie T., -- sigh. Well, I'm not a skeptic, or, rather, don't have that innate 'skeptic gene" so I'm coming from a different place. . .