'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

[Jeff Corey]

Certainly possible. I suspect you already know that!

It is just not helpful in respect of starting flame wars.

No, I don't know that. It could be a null class as far as I can see.

 

[DrWoo]

Well, that would be my guess as well Scientists as a group are pretty good at spotting weak effects given sufficient time and motivation.

Alternatively, the effects that exist are so weak that they haven't shown up on any of the tests that have been done. Weak to the point of being an operational definition of nonexistent.

Or perhaps scientists haven't been sufficiently motivated. After all, finding clear-cut scientific evidence for psi would only earn the discoverer a Nobel prize, a tenured position at any university in the world, an endless stream of book contracts and lecture fees, and a place in the history books to rival Newton and Freud.

Or perhaps there's the sooper-sekrit conspiracy among scientists to keep this kind of stuff from being widely known. But if that were the case, I'd have to shoot you all because I just mentioned the conspiracy.

You'd first have to show that the experiements you refer to have been debunked. Which experiments are you referring to and could you provide the corresponding papers which unequivicably debunk those said experiments? Thanks in advance.

 

[drkitten]

You'd first have to show that the experiements you refer to have been debunked. Which experiments are you referring to and could you provide the corresponding papers which unequivicably debunk those said experiments? Thanks in advance.

Deceptive attempt to move the goalposts and to shift the burden of proof noted. It's not enough to spot flaws in a paper on my own, but I need cite other published work refuting it.

But I'll sort of play along for the moment:

Blatant methodological mistreatment (data mining) in the Global Consciousness Project, as documented on the appropriate thread.
Blatant research misconduct in Dr. Schwartz's lab, as documented on the appropriate thread.
Blatant failure of astrology to produce accurate predictions, as documented on the appropriate thread.
Blatant failure of psi to stand up to controlled analysis, as documented by PEAR (and the appropriate thread).
Blatant history of attempted fraud by major "psi" workers, as exemplified by Uri and John (and documented on the appropriate thread).

Since this isn't a court of law, I'm also allowed to notice your inability inability to name an un-debunked experiment that shows psi abilities.

Based on this wide-ranging sample, I submit that there is no evidence suggesting that psi effects need to be explained. (Beyond the explanations already given of incompetence, research incompetence, and outright fraud.) If you want to suggest that there are any psi experiments that have not been debunked, you are welcome to introduce them into evidence.

(N.b. Again, this isn't an a priori judgement of impossibility; it's an inference from an admittedly small sample, based on the preponderance of the evidence.)

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

Dr K, using the measure of Truzzi, are you really claiming that pseudo-skepticism or closed-mindedness has not been evidenced in this thread? If so, I am sceptical of such claims.

Using the measure of Truzzi? Are we talking about the same thing?

From the paper previously cited
The second common approach is what critics usually call the debunkers' approach. This is the main attitude of the orthodox scientific community towards anomaly claims. It is characterized by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). "Whatever is claimed is nothing but ... something else." Seemingly anomalous phenomena are denied first and sometimes investigated only second. Like the Fortean the debunker is not concerned with the full explanation. Whereas the Fortean types don't want explanations, the debunkers don't need them as they believe they have already them.

Let's see. "Seemingly anomalous phenomena are denied first and sometimes investigated only second."

Yes, I deny that such closed-mindedness has been displayed. Disprove me.

Again, from Truzzi:

The good scientist is one who is unprejudiced with an open mind, ready to embrace any new idea supported by facts.

There are no "facts" in evidence in this discussion. There are a number of experiments that have been alluded to -- whups, those experiments have mostly been alluded to by the skeptics, haven't they? Obviously, the skeptics are famililar with the experiments prior to the beginning of this discussion and had previously investigated them.

 

[Beth]

Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

But I'll take you at your word -- "if they habitually make pre-judgmental statement, we could say that they seem closed minded." So find me someone -- ANYONE -- who habitually makes such statements.

I'm not sure how much evidence you would require to show "habitually", but I think the following quote from PixyMixa from another thread: "Everyone who applies for the challenge is either delusional or a fraud. Everyone." is indicative of a closed mindset. Further, it seems pretty typical of that poster particular poster to me. There are others, but I've put those I consider to be the worst regarding that mindset, such as thaiboxerken on my ignore list. I generally don't find their posts worth the bother of reading.


Beth

 

[Dr Adequate]

Re: Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

I'm not sure how much evidence you would require to show "habitually", but I think the following quote from PixyMixa from another thread: "Everyone who applies for the challenge is either delusional or a fraud. Everyone." is indicative of a closed mindset.

Er... but it's true. Everyone who has ever been through the preliminary stage of the challenge has either thought they had psychic powers when they didn't (a delusion) or were frauds (a tiny minority --- I can only remember hearing of one). This has invariably been the case. How did it become "indicative of a closed mindset" to say so? Would someone with an "open mindset" say that the $1,000,000 has been won by a highly talented psychic? Do tell.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

I'm not sure how much evidence you would require to show "habitually", but I think the following quote from PixyMixa from another thread: "Everyone who applies for the challenge is either delusional or a fraud. Everyone." is indicative of a closed mindset.

As Dr. A pointed out, this is an empirically validatable statement.
The set of people who have applied for the JREF challege is well-documented, in KRAMER's files if nowhere else. All of them have claimed powers, or they wouldn't have applied.

None of them (with the possible exception of the accepted and pending testing pool) have possessed the powers they claimed.

Either they believed they had powers that they did not -- which makes them delusional by definition, or they did not believe they had the powers that they claimed -- which makes them frauds.

The statement "Everyone who applies for the challenge is either delusional or a fraud. Everyone." is a fact based upon observation. Unfortunately, it also supplies a basis for inductive reasoning -- using the JREF applicant pool as a sample, it's possible to make the inductive inference that "everyone who claims paranormal abilities is either delusional or a fraud." That's not an observation, but it's certainly a legitimate inductive generalization from a set of observations.

 

[DrWoo]

Such a statement is obviously 'close-minded'. It is a prejudiced statement. The decision has been made before the application.

 

[Valmorian]

Such a statement is obviously 'close-minded'. It is a prejudiced statement. The decision has been made before the application.

This is irrelevant. The statement could be easily proven false with just one success. So far, no dice.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor

No; in my experience, people who are acquainted with rules of evidence and/or the scientific process *tend* to be more open minded. More open minded than those who simply believe in this or that and do not require (or desire in many cases) evidence that may or may not alter their beliefs.





quote:
There are some myths about science and scientists that need to be dispelled. Science gets mistaken as a body of knowledge for its method. Scientists are regarded as having superhuman abilities of rationality inside objectivity. Many studies in the psychology of science, however, indicate that scientists are at least as dogmatic and authoritarian, at least as foolish and illogical as everybody else, including when they do science. In one study on falsifiability, an experiment was described, an hypothesis was given to the participants, the results were stated, and the test was to see whether the participants would say, "This falsifies the hypothesis". The results indicated denial, since most of the scientists refused to falsify their hypotheses, sticking with them despite a lack of evidence! Strangely, clergymen were much more frequent in recognizing that the hypotheses were false.

Marcello Truzzi
http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html

Precisely. So much for the open mindedness of scientists

 

[Pragmatist]

It is not actual evidence, it is testimony.

You could, but it wouldn't be evidence. It would be testimony.

All you'd have to do is show some evidence, not stories.

Just show some evidence of adults who believe moon green cheese etc.. You keep pontificating here, asking questions. Just show the evidence of what I am requesting. You haven't.

I'm not going to repeat everything again, I've said what needed to be said. All I note is that you have offered no evidence of your claims and have persisted in trying to shift both the burden of proof and the goal posts instead of actually answering anything - as usual.

Exactly! So show some actual evidence so we don't have to take your stories as gospel. Can you, or would you like to ask more questions to dodge?

Ad hom, straw man, and outright lie. Nice try. I think it's perfectly evident to anyone precisely who has been dodging the questions here.

You ask many, many questions about it and it is of no interest? If you are a skeptic not a scoffer, you will ask him and find out how he sampled. Please, do it.

I have asked questions of you in relation to your numerous claims. I simply note that you will not answer them. You accuse, but you don't provide the evidence to back it up. Coward.

I have plants that are more intimidating.

Ah. Most interesting. Freudian slip perhaps? You see calling someone on bogus claims as an attempt to intimidate? Don't judge others by your own intentions please.

I repeat: ask Claus how he sampled. Please, just do it and see.

I don't care how Claus sampled. Sampling is not an issue here. Of course you want to make it an issue because you know full well that your claim has no substance unless you can make up a straw man by claiming that Claus did something he didn't.

"stalked", please, don't be as emotional as jj.

I admitted my mathematical error. JJ also admitted his error (trying to take an inner product of vectors of unequal length). So what is the problem?

Liar. JJ didn't make any error. He only used two different variables because the poster he was answering had used them, and he said quite clearly that m=n.

And there is nothing emotional in my comment, it is factual. You are a petty, vicious, stalker, apparently desperate to find anything, no matter how trivial, to get at or irritate certain posters, Claus, Hoyt and JJ being prime examples. Your posting history, both now as "jzs" and previously as "T'ai Chi" speaks for itself. But what is really both sad and funny at the same time is that usually you are completely wrong. You call people for "errors" only to discover, more often than not that the errors are yours. You can deny it all you like, but some of us notice these things.

And what is truly disgusting is that more often than not you don't have the honesty or integrity to admit when you're wrong. Instead you just lie - the above being a prime example.

For inference, the method of sampling is important, not the numbers. If the samples weren't random, how do you know your sample is representative of the population? You have yet to answer this without constructing non real-world scenarios.

Already answered numerous times.

We're not talking about your highly artificial and irrelevant examples. We're talking about real life.

Ask him specifically how he sampled. Just do it, you'll see..

We're not talking about your highly artificial and irrelevant examples. We're talking about real life.

Where is your evidence that the charts he got constitute the entire population of sun sign charts?!!!???!???

I've explained in plenty of detail the elementary logic involved. I don't believe that you cannot understand it. I do believe you'll do anything to avoid acknowledging it because it shows you don't have a case.

No, you said these sampled charts are all the charts, period. You just said that above, now you change your story. Which is it? Do those 7 charts constitute a sample or the entire population of sun sign charts in the world?

I said that those sampled charts were the only ones relevant to a specific inference drawn in relation to those specific charts. As you well know. Does it ever occur to you that anyone can simply read the thread above and see exactly what I said? Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?

AGAIN, since you dodged it the last time: those specific 7 charts, or sun-sign charts in general?

Who do you think you are fooling liar? Anyone can see whether I dodged the question or not. Perhaps I "dodged it" like this in my last post:

The article makes no reference to similar charts, therefore it is self-evident that the inference is in relation to those specific charts.

...or maybe I "dodged it" like this in my post before that one:

His inference is to any population of astrologers who use those specific charts.

...which, incidentally, you even quoted in your last reply...yeah, I really "dodged" that question didn't I?

We're not talking about your highly artificial and irrelevant examples. We're talking about real life. Are YOU seriously claiming that there are only 8 such sun-sign charts in the world? Is that all your argument boils down to?

Straw man. See, I can do it too. The only difference is that *I* don't do it to avoid answering serious questions...

And that is why you are behaving like a scoffer and not a skeptic. You don't care. You don't want to play by the standard rules of science or, in this case, of statistical reasoning. You don't care about the method of sampling, even though that is the central issue.

You make accusations. You offer no evidence in support of them. You ignore anything you don't want to hear. You twist and distort what anybody says and pretend to "innocently" misinterpret anything you don't like. Do you honestly believe that anyone on here is stupid enough not to see it?

If you read the article you would see some of the names. You could then search for those names. If you had read the article, and if you have done some work, and not just scoffed, that is.

Yeah. So were they all Danish or not?

Again, present your evidence that there are only 7 sun-sign charts in the world. You have yet to do this, and your entire argument hinges on this claim.

Evidence that I said that first please - otherwise it's just a straw man again isn't it?

But he talks about astrologers in general. How can he possibly know his sample was representative?

Please show where he specifically and explicitly says that his sample was representative of astrologers in general.

And there you go. "apparently referring to a wider group of astrologer" means he made inference to some larger population, when it wasn't warranted, as I've been saying all along.

I repeat. "However, there is nothing there that would indicate that the specific conclusion in relation to the specific charts should be inferred to all astrologers, if anything I read it as an example in support of the more general statements."

No, you don't 'only have to look', you have to do some analysis of the actual data.

O.K. true. Do you think the data is likely to show they are substantially in agreement?

Strawman. I didn't say all of them were. See above.

So why did you focus exclusively on Danish astrologers/charts? Remember? Let me refresh your memory:

Are you assuming my astrologer uses charts by Danish astrologers?

Why would my astrologer (again, hypothetical) in the USA, use a Danish chart?

If we take away the strawmen and ad homs, and unanswered claims, your post is pretty short.

Let me rephrase that for you. If you duck out of answering most of the specific points and arguments I raised, my post is indeed pretty short.

Congratulations, you have excelled yourself here. Your post is one of the finest examples of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice I have ever witnessed.

Pathetic.

 

[Pragmatist]

Precisely. So much for the open mindedness of scientists

Yeah. All scientists just have to be closed minded jerks.

So why pray tell do you (and just about every other woo) clutch so desperately at scientific ideas/theories/papers every time you are asked to justify your strange beliefs?

I mean, if scientists are so bad, then why on earth do you claim (for example) that quantum mechanics, a discipline invented by scientists is support for your theories?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Blatant methodological mistreatment (data mining) in the Global Consciousness Project, as documented on the appropriate thread.

Please substantiate your assertion (I have no idea what thread you are talking about, nor am I interested in ploughing through a old thread. You can substantiate your assertion here).

Blatant failure of astrology to produce accurate predictions, as documented on the appropriate thread.

Please substantiate your assertion

Blatant failure of psi to stand up to controlled analysis, as documented by PEAR (and the appropriate thread).

Please substantiate your assertion.

Blatant history of attempted fraud by major "psi" workers, as exemplified by Uri and John (and documented on the appropriate thread).

Who the hell is John?? And the fact that "psi" workers commit fraud is uterly irrelevant to whether psi exists or not I've explained this many many times before, but you're too stupid to understand anything.

Does the blatant history of fraud which has taken place in all other areas of science justify dismissing those fields too??

Anyway, again I say please substantiate your assertion.

Since this isn't a court of law, I'm also allowed to notice your inability inability to name an un-debunked experiment that shows psi abilities.

Scarcely any of them have been debunked. You Doc are a liar. You are a disgrace to your University and a disgrace to rational thinking (as are all sKeptics).

Based on this wide-ranging sample, I submit that there is no evidence suggesting that psi effects need to be explained.

What you submit doesn't alter cold facts. Maybe it can all be explained away, but certainly no-one has ever come near to doing so. In and of itself, the scientific evidence is very suggestive that anomalous cognition/perturbation exists, although of course the conclusion is not compelled. Making out it has all been debunked will only impress those that have made their mind up prior to any investigation; namely sKeptics.

(Beyond the explanations already given of incompetence, research incompetence, and outright fraud.)

My understanding that these charges are difficult to apply to parapsychologists themselves, although it might be more applicable to scientists from other fields who carry out parapsychological research (parapsychological research tends to be more rigorous than in other branches of science).

If you want to suggest that there are any psi experiments that have not been debunked, you are welcome to introduce them into evidence.

The vast majority of them. Please name any that have, and back up your allegations.

 

[drkitten]

Such a statement is obviously 'close-minded'. It is a prejudiced statement. The decision has been made before the application.

Huh?

In what way is an accurate description of past events "prejudiced"?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Precisely. So much for the open mindedness of scientists


Pragmatist
Yeah. All scientists just have to be closed minded jerks.

Informal logical fallacy. The fact that scientists are not Spock like figures (as they try to portray themselves) does not entail that they are precisely the opposite of Spock like figures. It simply means they are no more open minded than the rest of the human race.

So why pray tell do you (and just about every other woo) clutch so desperately at scientific ideas/theories/papers every time you are asked to justify your strange beliefs?

I mean, if scientists are so bad, then why on earth do you claim (for example) that quantum mechanics, a discipline invented by scientists is support for your theories?

It wasn't invented by scientists. QM describes reality -- and extraordinarily accurately too. My arguments are against materialists and sKeptics, not against what science reveals about the world. Their beliefs are not justified by science, although they appear to erroneously believe they are.

 

[drkitten]

Does the blatant history of fraud which has taken place in all other areas of science justify dismissing those fields too??

If it existed outside of your fevered dreams and wishful thinking, it would.

I can easily name three scientists who are demonstrably not frauds. Transistors, as discovered/invented by John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley in 1947, can be easily demonstrated to work. (I could actually name and demonstrate thousands of nonfraudulent scientists, but this would become a very long post).

Name three psi proponents who are demonstrably not frauds.

 

[Beth]

Re: Re: Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

As Dr. A pointed out, this is an empirically validatable statement.
The set of people who have applied for the JREF challege is well-documented, in KRAMER's files if nowhere else. All of them have claimed powers, or they wouldn't have applied.

None of them (with the possible exception of the accepted and pending testing pool) have possessed the powers they claimed.

That group is a large percentage of all applicants. Relatively few applicants progress to actual testing. Therefore I do not consider it open-minded to make that assumption based on the facts available.

Either they believed they had powers that they did not -- which makes them delusional by definition, or they did not believe they had the powers that they claimed -- which makes them frauds.

To believe that only two such possibilities exist is close-minded. Someone could be mistaken without being delusional. They could have tested themselves, but their own tests were flawed in some way. Someone could apply without believing in their powers but rather in an attempt to attain help in testing. That doesn't make them a fraud if they are upfront about their reasons for applying. There is also the possibility that someone might possess the powers claimed and still fail the test. Even Babe Ruth didn't hit a home run every time he was up at bat.

The statement "Everyone who applies for the challenge is either delusional or a fraud. Everyone." is a fact based upon observation.

I must disagree with you here. It is not a fact based on observation but an extrapolation based on apriori assumptions about applicants. That constitutes being closed-minded, not merely skeptical.

Beth

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

I must disagree with you here. It is not a fact based on observation but an extrapolation based on apriori assumptions about applicants.

Really? As I pointed out, the set of applicants is a finite (small) set. Find me a counterexample, then.

Absent a counterexample, it's a fact based on observation.

 

[Pragmatist]

Informal logical fallacy. The fact that scientists are not Spock like figures (as they try to portray themselves) does not entail that they are precisely the opposite of Spock like figures. It simply means they are no more open minded than the rest of the human race.

I was being sarcastic Ian...

It wasn't invented by scientists. QM describes reality -- and extraordinarily accurately too. My arguments are against materialists and sKeptics, not against what science reveals about the world. Their beliefs are not justified by science, although they appear to erroneously believe they are.

Your argument that I addressed was against scientists.

Anyway, I'm much more interested to know exactly who invented quantum mechanics if it wasn't scientists? This should be good!

 

[Beth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

Really? As I pointed out, the set of applicants is a finite (small) set. Find me a counterexample, then.

Absent a counterexample, it's a fact based on observation.

I can provide myself as a counterexample. I applied primarily to obtain help in testing, specifically to get help in the form of observers since acting as both subject and observer makes my previous test results suspect. I am not a fraud since I made this fact clear to Kramer before I submitted my application. You must be familiar with my claim since you have commented on it previously.

Beth