Telepathy Debate in London

[T'ai Chi]

http://www.nature.com/nsu/040119/040119-7.html

 

[Tricky]

Don't you hate it when people start threads with just a link and absolutely no comment?

For those who don't wish to follow the link, it was a article in Nature about a "debate" betweena paranormal believer and one of Britain's top scientists. Here's a shocker. People believe in the paranormal.

Sheldrake, who moved beyond the scientific pale in the early 1980s by claiming that ideas and forms can spread by a mysterious force he called morphic resonance, kicked off the debate.

He presented the results of tests of extrasensory perception, together with his own research on whether people know who is going to phone or e-mail them, on whether dogs know when their owners are coming home, and on the allegedly telepathic bond between a New York woman and her parrot. "Billions of perfectly rational people believe that they have had these experiences," he said.

Yeah, people suck this stuff up. Everybody wishes there were magic in the world. But was there any hard evidence produced? Any testable hypotheses? Anything other than anecdotes? (Well, there was a new piece of paranormal gobbledygook, "morphic resonance" added to the woo-woo lexicon).

Nope, nothing at all of substance. Charismatic believer scores points with everyday folks. If popularity made something true, then there really would be a Hogwarts school of magic.

 

[geni]

" added to the woo-woo lexicon).

Nope, nothing at all of substance. Charismatic believer scores points with everyday folks. If popularity made something true, then there really would be a Hogwarts school of magic.

Shouldn't that be Unseen University? Morphic resonance is a phrase Pratchett uses a lot.

 

[Interesting Ian]

From the article

Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist at University College London, made the case against the existence of telepathy . . .

Wolpert is one of Britain's best-known public spokesmen for science. But few members of the audience seemed to be swayed by his arguments . . .

For Ann Blaber, who works in children's music and was undecided on the subject, Sheldrake was the more convincing. "You can't just dismiss all the evidence for telepathy out of hand," she said. Her view was reflected by many in the audience, who variously accused Wolpert of "not knowing the evidence" and being "unscientific".

Yes! We might win the war yet!

 

[KelvinG]

From the article



Yes! We might win the war yet!

Why do I get the feeling that you deem "winning the war" as swaying public opinion in the favour of belief in the paranormal.
Forget about evidence and facts. It's all about indoctrinating the weak minded.
You'd make a great creationist, Ian.

 

[Tricky]

Why do I get the feeling that you deem "winning the war" as swaying public opinion in the favour of belief in the paranormal.
Forget about evidence and facts. It's all about indoctrinating the weak minded.
You'd make a great creationist, Ian.

Indeed. In fact paranormalists had the war much more "won" back in the dark ages. In those days, you wouldn't find anybody who didn't have some sort of paranormal beliefs. Now the rationalists are only overwhelmingly outnumbered, rather than non-existant.

To quote Roger Waters, "But oh-oh-oh, the tide is turning".

 

[T'ai Chi]

Don't you hate it when people start threads with just a link and absolutely no comment?

You hate that? Uh ok.

Several people on this board do that. Zakur does it all the time in the Politics section, and so does another person who posts those skeptical news links every so often, and a couple more.

I think the point is that comments are unnecessary when the full text is a click away.

 

[Zep]

So the result depended on who was the more persuasive speaker, NOT on any demonstrable, testable, reliable facts?

Oh good. Science by popularity poll. That makes SO much sense!

 

[Lucianarchy]

""You can't just dismiss all the evidence for telepathy out of hand," she said. Her view was reflected by many in the audience, who variously accused Wolpert of "not knowing the evidence" and being "unscientific"."

Indeed. We skeptics have often upheld Occam to measure the overall body of evidence. The most likely explanation is that each and every last piece of data cannot all be bogus. The simplest explanation is that people experience what is being purported - ESP.

As skeptics, we must now move on to understanding the mechanism than waste time on irrational denial.

 

[Zep]

"You can't just dismiss all the evidence for telepathy out of hand," she said. Her view was reflected by many in the audience, who variously accused Wolpert of "not knowing the evidence" and being "unscientific"."

Indeed. We skeptics have often upheld Occam to measure the overall body of evidence. The most likely explanation is that each and every last piece of data cannot all be bogus. The simplest explanation is that people experience what is being purported - ESP.

As skeptics, we must now move on to understanding the mechanism than waste time on irrational denial.

Wrong. Occam's Razor is "The simplest answer that accords with all the FACTS".

In the case of psi and ESP and all that, there have been NO SOLID FACTS PRESENTED AT ALL! Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

So, applying Occam, the simplest explanation of ESP and so on, in accordance with the fact that nothing reliable supports it, is that it is a load of bollocks.

But then I'm sure you will agree that anecdotes ARE solid evidence, won't you! But if you do, be prepared to defend your position! (Hint: you will lose badly)

 

[Interesting Ian]

Wrong. Occam's Razor is "The simplest answer that accords with all the FACTS".

In the case of psi and ESP and all that, there have been NO SOLID FACTS PRESENTED AT ALL! Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

There is sound evidence for certain parpsychological phenomena. That is a cold fact which skeptics might not like, but which is true.

 

[geni]

There is sound evidence for certain parpsychological phenomena. That is a cold fact which skeptics might not like, but which is true.

Really where? (and why havn't you taken the million yet?)

 

[Interesting Ian]

So the result depended on who was the more persuasive speaker, NOT on any demonstrable, testable, reliable facts?

Oh good. Science by popularity poll. That makes SO much sense!

{shrugs}

I agree that it is appalling. But this is how the question of the existence of controversial phenomena is decided. Not so much by a popularity vote, but by those who wield the power.

This following extract from a parapsychological text book may be of interest.

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter17.pdf Page 314

"Some critics (e.g., Hyman, Á980) have argued for the need to respond to
parapsychology in a sober and proper manner, but nonetheless a common tactic
of skeptics is the use of ridicule. Parapsychological phenomena are derided
as nonsensical and primitive folk beliefs and parapsychological research is
belittled as occultism in pseudoscientiÞc garb. This approach especially is characteristic
of the Committee for the ScientiÞc Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal (CSICOP). CSICOP is a group of scientists and other people originally
founded to examine objectively the evidence for paranormal phenomena (Frazier,
Á996), but it has maintained an inßexible stance against research into the
paranormal (Hansen, Á992), some of its aàliates even resorting to deception
in experimental reports (Pinch & Collins, Á984); many of its more evenhanded
members consequently have resigned.
Articles published in the Humanist and in CSICOPÕS own periodical the
Skeptical Inquirer (see Frazier, Á98Á, Á986, Á99Á) amalgamate parapsychological
research with astrology, vampires, UFOs, pyramid power, numerology, the
Bermuda triangle, witchcraft, the Tarot, the Abominable Snowman and the
like, encouraging an impression of parapsychologyÕs guilt by association. Parapsychology
has been depicted by some skeptics as a spiritualist or occultist
movement seeking to maintain popular support by adopting a facade of scienti
Þc methodology; for example, the discipline is said to be a ÒpseudoscienceÓ
(Alcock, Á98Á) and Òa prime example of magical thinkingÓ (Bunge, Á99Á, p.
Á36), its researchers Òcloset occultistsÓ (Romm, Á977), and its concepts Òa reversion
to a pre-scientiÞc religio-mystical traditionÓ (Moss & Butler, Á978, p.
Á077). The results of parapsychological research are dismissed out of hand or
are patently misrepresented. Bunge (Á99Á, p. Á33), for example, makes the bald
declaration, Òall of the well-designed parapsychological experiments have produced
negative results.Ó Similarly, in a major report commissioned at the
request of the US Congress Hyman (Á995, p. 325) asserted, ÒOnly parapsychology,
among the Þelds of inquiry claiming scientiÞc status, lacks a cumulative
database.Ó
Although parapsychologists deplore these rhetorical devices the fact of the
matter is that this is how scientiÞc controversy is waged. As Feyerabend (Á975)
maintains, it is not so much the logic of the case that determines the outcome of a scientiÞc controversy but rather the rhetorical skills of the advocates for
each side". (emphasis added)

 

[Interesting Ian]

Really where? (and why havn't you taken the million yet?)

Look at the reseach done over the past 60 years. As a whole it is clearly highly suggestive of anomalous cognition and perturbation.

I imagine that the million hasn't been won because

• Randi is not primarily interested in testing for parapsychological phenomena
• He is a skilled illusionist
• The type of phenomena does not appear to be the type which can be switched on and off at will, which would seem to be required to win the $ million.
• And most importantly of all, the results that he requires are way way beyond what all the evidence would reasonably be said could be acheived.
  [/list=a]
  
  All this is very very obvious. Now please decease being a complete pr*ck.

 

[Garrette]

a. Not interested in testing for parapsychological phenomena? Tripe. He's interested in testing for anything paranormal that the claimant can and will define.

b. I think you're on to something with this one. Claimaint: I can do something that makes most people think I have paranormal abilities. If I pass Randi's test, I'll get a million dollars. But, wait, Randi's a skilled illusionist. Hmmm....I don't think I can pass Randi's test.[/I] Yep. Nothing wrong with this reason.

c. The vast majority of claimed phenomena most certainly does seem to be able to switched on and off. Or are you suggesting that the phenomena which you claim has solid evidence in support of it is of a different type, and the vast majority of folks claiming paranormal abilities out there truly are frauds or are deluded?

d. Surely you can't be serious? The results he requires are exactly that the claimant can perform to the degree of success he claims he can perform. Oh, wait. That probably is way beyond the level that anyone could be expected to actually achieve. I guess you're right on this one, too.

2 out of 4 correct, II. Not bad.

 

[shemp]

The only complete pr*cks around here are the people who insist that the burden of proof is upon the skeptics to prove that telepathy doesn't exist.

It's very simple guys. The burden is on you to prove it exists. Jeez, with all these educated guys like Sheldrake running around saying it does exist, you'd think they could get together and design an experiment that could be run in a way that the public could watch the results in real time, with analysis of the data by a panel of disinterested statisticians. But nooooooooo!

Like Nike says, "Just do it!" Stop debating it and just do it where everyone can see it.

The million still lies unclaimed. I don't wonder why.

 

[Ed]

Look at the reseach done over the past 60 years. As a whole it is clearly highly suggestive of anomalous cognition and perturbation.


All this is very very obvious. Now please decease being a complete pr*ck.

As a whole, unfortunately, it suggests gullibility, fraud, ignorance of anything approaching a scientific perspective, amaturishness, playing for the gallery, ignorance of statistics, ignorance of the seamier side of human nature, overall naivite, wishful thinking.

That is, taken as a whole, as you have suggested.

 

[pupdog]

Now, let's see ... did all of the participants stay at home and telepath, or did they actually have to travel to a central meeting place?

I'll wait for the proceedings to come to me in my dreams.

 

[Interesting Ian]

a. Not interested in testing for parapsychological phenomena? Tripe. He's interested in testing for anything paranormal that the claimant can and will define.

I've never come across any claims being tested which come under the purview of parapsychology. Please name some.

b. I think you're on to something with this one. Claimaint: I can do something that makes most people think I have paranormal abilities. If I pass Randi's test, I'll get a million dollars. But, wait, Randi's a skilled illusionist. Hmmm....I don't think I can pass Randi's test.[/I] Yep. Nothing wrong with this reason.

Yeah, and apparently he's always got an out. But let's forget about that shall we.

c. The vast majority of claimed phenomena most certainly does seem to be able to switched on and off.

I repeat, there is no solid evidence to substantiate any claims that paranormal phenomena can be switched on and off at will.

You may or may not like that, but I suggest you deal with it.

Or are you suggesting that the phenomena which you claim has solid evidence in support of it is of a different type, and the vast majority of folks claiming paranormal abilities out there truly are frauds or are deluded?

I have absolutely zero interest in people who claim they can reproduce paranormal phenomena at will. As far as I'm concerned they're as big a pr*cks as skeptics.

d. Surely you can't be serious? The results he requires are exactly that the claimant can perform to the degree of success he claims he can perform.

I have absolutely zero interest in what simple minded fools or charlatans can claim they can perform.

 

[Interesting Ian]

The only complete pr*cks around here are the people who insist that the burden of proof is upon the skeptics to prove that telepathy doesn't exist.

If there is solid scientific evidence, and if people throughout human history and across all cultures have believed that they have experienced telepathy, then it is incumbent upon those that deny the reality of this alleged phenomenon to argue their case. Not just simply sit back in thier chairs and make ill-informed crass comments.