SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[fls]

Definitely peer or higher level knowledge and experience of the reality: Hence the impossibility of resolution of testing for 'paranormal/psychic/supernatural/occult' events and/or powers by phenomenally and therefore contextually necessarily pseudo-skeptically driven procedures.

And that's the problem. As I mentioned earlier, we are poor judges of the nature of our experiences, so merely having the experience does not help us discover the verdicity of that experience. Without a way to discover what is false, you don't know what may be true. If you wish to convince anyone that your method is a useful way to discover what may be true and what is false, we simply need an answer to this question. What have your genuine psychics discovered to be false about their experiences?

Linda

 

[maatorc]

And that's the problem. As I mentioned earlier, we are poor judges of the nature of our experiences, so merely having the experience does not help us discover the veridicity of that experience. Without a way to discover what is false, you don't know what may be true. If you wish to convince anyone that your method is a useful way to discover what may be true and what is false, we simply need an answer to this question. What have your genuine psychics discovered to be false about their experiences?
Linda

At an acknowledged simplistic level, without sarcasm, are you saying that if you meet a friend or send me a message you cannot be sure you met your friend or sent me a message?

 

[blutoski]

At an acknowledged simplistic level, without sarcasm, are you saying that if you meet a friend or send me a message you cannot be sure you met your friend or sent me a message?

I can't speak for fls, but I can speak for myself: Yep. That's skepticism: there's a chance we could be incorrect about recalling the details of events. Absolutely.

I send things to people - I'm sure about it - and realize that actually intended to and composed it but forgot to send it. Sometimes I didn't even compose it - just in my head. I just remember it wrong. Sometimes I remember things that didn't happen; sometimes I forget things that actually happened. I've driven home with no recollection of the route.

When external objective information contradicts my memory of events, there's a pretty good chance that I'm wrong about my recollection.

Be mindful that it was a psi advocate who made this same claim: the gorilla movie is a way to demonstrate that we remember things incorrectly, especially if our attention is distracted.

 

[blutoski]

When external objective information contradicts my memory of events, there's a pretty good chance that I'm wrong about my recollection.

I sort of threw this out without emphasis, but it's the key point: with no contradicting information, memory is all you have. With contradicting information, memory is often found to be incorrect.

In addition to recall challenges, the human mind has a way of manufacturing experiences based on expectations. The classic example from science is Blondlot's "discovery" of N-rays. Blondlot "felt" n-rays. He was sure of it. Why could so few other people not feel n-rays? Well, he suggested, maybe it's a gift or talent?

My understanding is that even after it was shown beyond a doubt that his experience was entirely imaginary, he would not let it go. He had felt n-rays, so they were real. Case closed.

This is the way skeptics regard many psi "experiences": another round of n-rays.

 

[plumjam]

I can't speak for fls, but I can speak for myself: Yep. That's skepticism: there's a chance we could be incorrect about recalling the details of events. Absolutely.

I send things to people - I'm sure about it - and realize that actually intended to and composed it but forgot to send it. Sometimes I didn't even compose it - just in my head. I just remember it wrong. Sometimes I remember things that didn't happen; sometimes I forget things that actually happened. I've driven home with no recollection of the route.

When external objective information contradicts my memory of events, there's a pretty good chance that I'm wrong about my recollection.

Be mindful that it was a psi advocate who made this same claim: the gorilla movie is a way to demonstrate that we remember things incorrectly, especially if our attention is distracted.

I sort of threw this out without emphasis, but it's the key point: with no contradicting information, memory is all you have. With contradicting information, memory is often found to be incorrect.

In addition to recall challenges, the human mind has a way of manufacturing experiences based on expectations. The classic example from science is Blondlot's "discovery" of N-rays. Blondlot "felt" n-rays. He was sure of it. Why could so few other people not feel n-rays? Well, he suggested, maybe it's a gift or talent?

My understanding is that even after it was shown beyond a doubt that his experience was entirely imaginary, he would not let it go. He had felt n-rays, so they were real. Case closed.

This is the way skeptics regard many psi "experiences": another round of n-rays.

Are you sure you're remembering this correctly?
What you're doing is undermining experience. The only thing you can use to undermine experience is experience, ..which is, of course, self-defeating.
What happens in practice is that people apply this undermining-of-experience to those aspects of experience they wish to be false, in order to fit into their world view. They typically don't apply it to the stuff they already believe in.

 

[tyr_13]

I am saying that as pseudo-skepticism is driving tests for psychic reality that such tests are necessarily undecidable.

Finally, a sentence that I can discern with little ambiguity! No, the views of the people asking for tests does not render the test undecidable. Someone who doesn't know how a car works, who is skeptical that a car works at all, could be shown how a car works. They could test and find out. This has not been the case with psi.

 

[tyr_13]

Are you sure you're remembering this correctly?
What you're doing is undermining experience. The only thing you can use to undermine experience is experience, ..which is, of course, self-defeating.
What happens in practice is that people apply this undermining-of-experience to those aspects of experience they wish to be false, in order to fit into their world view. They typically don't apply it to the stuff they already believe in.

Why can you only use experience to undermine experience? Recording doesn't work?

 

[plumjam]

Why can you only use experience to undermine experience? Recording doesn't work?

You have to experience the recording before you know what it says.
'Was your experience of the recording accurate?.... ' ad infinitum..

 

[tyr_13]

That doesn't mean we can't ever come to an understanding of what anything is. Reproducibility is one method. I mean, the entire scientific method, etc. If you don't believe in any of that, have fun.

 

[plumjam]

I am pointing out the uneven way in which people play the 'but-human-experience-is-fallible' card. Always to try to undermine stuff they don't believe in; hardly ever applying it to experience supporting what they do believe in.
Science, philosophically, is founded on empiricism (experience). So any argument which undermines experience undermines empiricism, and therefore science.
Though most will not realise it, the 'human-experience-is-fallible' ploy is actually anti-scientific. They tend not to realise it because, like I said, it tends to get applied only to stuff they want to dismiss. If they applied it evenly and persistently it would destroy their whole world view.

 

[blutoski]

I am pointing out the uneven way in which people play the 'but-human-experience-is-fallible' card. Always to try to undermine stuff they don't believe in; hardly ever applying it to experience supporting what they do believe in.

I don't see an uneven play. Actually, I find that skeptics are just about the only even-handed ones in the game. Skeptics frustrate everybody, unfortunately, including their peers.

Science, philosophically, is founded on empiricism (experience). So any argument which undermines experience undermines empiricism, and therefore science.

I have no idea why you would say this. "Founded on"? No idea what that means. Who's this "founder"? I'd like to read about him! Founded on empiricism? I've never come across that claim. (I teach a course on the philosophy of science) Not that this is the final word, but perhaps a scan of the Wikipedia entry on [philosophy of science] will help? Note the section titled "Indeterminacy of theory under empirical testing" - this section discusses the fact that empiricism is no more a part of science than any other endeavour, since an infinite number of theories can be built around an observation.

Relevant excerpt:

One result of this view is that specialists in the philosophy of science stress the requirement that observations made for the purposes of science be restricted to intersubjective objects. That is, science is restricted to those areas where there is general agreement on the nature of the observations involved. It is comparatively easy to agree on observations of physical phenomena, harder for them to agree on observations of social or mental phenomena, and difficult in the extreme to reach agreement on matters of theology or ethics (and thus the latter remain outside the normal purview of science).

The important take-away is that mental phenomena is very close to being non-science altogether, by most models of scientific/nonscientific demarcation.

If there's one thing that distinguishes the natural sciences from other professions, it's the expectation that models have independent predictive value. Personal experience is very difficult to evaluate independently (perhaps impossible) and psi phenomena are frustratingly unpredictable.

Though most will not realise it, the 'human-experience-is-fallible' ploy is actually anti-scientific. They tend not to realise it because, like I said, it tends to get applied only to stuff they want to dismiss. If they applied it evenly and persistently it would destroy their whole world view.

I hope you don't really believe that. It's gibberish. As they say, not only not right, but not even wrong. Sort of just disconnected.

 

[blutoski]

Are you sure you're remembering this correctly?

No, I'm not sure. It's a good thing it's written down.

What you're doing is undermining experience. The only thing you can use to undermine experience is experience, ..which is, of course, self-defeating.

No it isn't self-defeating. I'm not relying just on my own experience. It's important to get independent evaluation. Science is a product of community.

What happens in practice is that people apply this undermining-of-experience to those aspects of experience they wish to be false, in order to fit into their world view. They typically don't apply it to the stuff they already believe in.

Who knows what people do all day! People see Elvis at Burger King! Does that count as 'typically'?

But researchers investigate specific claims, specific experiments, &c. The results are available to all, and in many cases, outsiders are urged to replicate the experiment in order to confirm the findings.

Again: the lesson of n-rays. The consensus grew out of the widespread failure of independent replication, and the inability for the experiment to predict anything: Blondlot was ultimately unable to even distinguish whether the apparatus was on or off.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
I am saying that as pseudo-skepticism is driving tests for psychic reality that such tests are necessarily undecidable.

Finally, a sentence that I can discern with little ambiguity! No, the views of the people asking for tests does not render the test undecidable. Someone who doesn't know how a car works, who is skeptical that a car works at all, could be shown how a car works. They could test and find out. This has not been the case with psi.

There is no way pseudo-skeptic phenomenally based procedures can noumenally demonstrate the truth or falsity of psychic reality.

 

[zooterkin]

There is no way pseudo-skeptic phenomenally based procedures can noumenally demonstrate the truth or falsity of psychic reality.

I really have no idea what you're trying to say, sorry.

Let's start with some definitions. What do you mean by 'psychic reality', and what do you mean by 'pseudo-skeptic'?

 

[Mashuna]

I really have no idea what you're trying to say, sorry.

Let's start with some definitions. What do you mean by 'psychic reality', and what do you mean by 'pseudo-skeptic'?

He means psychic abilities don't work if you try to test them in a scientific manner, and you're a big meanie for saying they don't exist.

 

[Pixel42]

Though most will not realise it, the 'human-experience-is-fallible' ploy is actually anti-scientific. They tend not to realise it because, like I said, it tends to get applied only to stuff they want to dismiss. If they applied it evenly and persistently it would destroy their whole world view.

"Human-experience-is-fallable" is the reason why the scientific method was invented. The scientific method actually consists to a large extent of a set of techniques for carefully and methodically eliminating all of many ways in which we know our fallible perceptions can inadvertantly fool us. Hence blind tests, controls etc. Only after we apply these techniques can we draw supportable conclusions about whatever we'd originally thought we'd perceived.

For example if a scientist who thinks they've developed an effective cure for an illness discovers, via a double blind clinical trial, that his cure works no better than placebo then he is obliged to accept that fact, whether he likes it or not.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I am pointing out the uneven way in which people play the 'but-human-experience-is-fallible' card. Always to try to undermine stuff they don't believe in; hardly ever applying it to experience supporting what they do believe in.

<snip>

Actually a good scientific experiment is set up in such as way as to try and undermine stuff the experimenters *do* believe in. I.e. the results of an experiment have to be sufficiently different from what would be expected by chance for the null-hypothesis to be rejected.

Because people suck at seeing the truth when they know it will challenge a belief they hold the best experiments are blinded, so the beliefs of the experimenters cannot influence the analysis of the results and hence the outcome.

ETA: Note to self: read to the end of the thread before posting.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
There is no way pseudo-skeptic phenomenally based procedures can noumenally demonstrate the truth or falsity of psychic reality.

I really have no idea what you're trying to say, sorry.
Let's start with some definitions. What do you mean by 'psychic reality', and what do you mean by 'pseudo-skeptic'?

Psychic reality is that level or category of perception or awareness lying outside our normal perceptions of time and space based on our physical senses.

As an example: If you visually observe a place by physically being there that form of perception is called phenomena. If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there that form of perception is called noumena.

Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable: Phenomenal means cannot measure noumenal events.

A genuine skeptic is one with knowledge and experience at a peer or higher level in a given subject which qualifies one to question the ideas presented on the subject and chooses to do so.

A pseudo-skeptic is one who lacks the qualifications to be a genuine skeptic on a given subject but falsely assumes the role of a genuine skeptic.

 

[blutoski]

Psychic reality is that level or category of perception or awareness lying outside our normal perceptions of time and space based on our physical senses.

As an example: If you visually observe a place by physically being there that form of perception is called phenomena. If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there that form of perception is called noumena.

Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable: Phenomenal means cannot measure noumenal events.

I'm pretty sure that's true, and that appears to match what skeptics claim. You will have to take this up with your psi-advocate peers, because they think psi can be investigated through familiar scientific approaches.

A genuine skeptic is one with knowledge and experience at a peer or higher level in a given subject which qualifies one to question the ideas presented on the subject and chooses to do so.

A pseudo-skeptic is one who lacks the qualifications to be a genuine skeptic on a given subject but falsely assumes the role of a genuine skeptic.

Out of curiosity: why do you think we would accept definitions that you appear to have pulled out of your butt? These terms have established meanings, and you appear to have personal meanings that don't jibe with reality.

Are you saying, in fact that you wish these were the meaning of skeptic and pseudoskeptic, but are frustrated that they are not?

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Psychic reality is that level or category of perception or awareness lying outside our normal perceptions of time and space based on our physical senses.
As an example: If you visually observe a place by physically being there that form of perception is called phenomena. If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there that form of perception is called noumena.
Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable: Phenomenal means cannot measure noumenal events.

1... I'm pretty sure that's true, and that appears to match what skeptics claim.....

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
A genuine skeptic is one with knowledge and experience at a peer or higher level in a given subject which qualifies one to question the ideas presented on the subject and chooses to do so.
A pseudo-skeptic is one who lacks the qualifications to be a genuine skeptic on a given subject but falsely assumes the role of a genuine skeptic.

2... Out of curiosity: why do you think we would accept definitions that you appear to have pulled out of your butt? These terms have established meanings, and you appear to have personal meanings that don't jibe with reality.
Are you saying, in fact that you wish these were the meaning of skeptic and pseudoskeptic, but are frustrated that they are not?

1... If it is true, and matches what skeptics claim, why does the MDC exist when it relies entirely on phenomenal procedures to test claimants. You are clearly missing something fundamental here.

2... I am distinguishing between false skeptics like you and genuine skeptics who do not appear to be here.