This is what pathological skeptics believe

[Garrette]

Open Mind:

Can you provide more specific information on the two instances of "cold readers" faring poorly in comparison to professed psychics?

I am unfamiliar with them.

Perhaps someone here can link to a post about Ian Rowland's performance a year or so ago on television.

He fared very well.

As did Derren Brown as I have recently mentioned.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's absolutely disgusting to charge such sums of money. Who is arguing that it is reasonable? Is this the best you can do? We all know that frauds exist. We all know that people are out there who will exploit others for money -- whether in claiming paranormal abilities or in a million other ways.

But you really should have enough sense to understand that this gives absolutely zero evidence or reason to disbelieve in mediumship or the paranormal.

Until you "skeptic" guys admit the blatantly obvious, no intelligent person is ever going to take any notice of your assertions. Concentrate on converting thicko believers. Until you become more honest and sensible with your arguments you're wasting your time on people like myself and Open Mind .

Ian, every case of the so-called paranormal that has been investigated in a properly controlled experiment has failed. Many of the claimants have been shown to be outright frauds. There has never been a single properly designed experiment that has shown any evidence for the paranormal.

And "properly designed" isn't some post-facto thing to prevent psychic powers from working. It's really straightforward: Prevent cheating, eliminate experimenter bias, and make sure you are measuring the effect and not something else.

When we do that, the claimed effect always disappears. Always, Ian. Every single bleeding time.

And the so-called researchers in the field are still running experiments that don't properly control for these factors, after decades of having their results demolished by people who actually know how to run an experiment. There are only two possible conclusions: They are fools, or frauds.

 

[PixyMisa]

Who is this 'we', do you have a group mind? What happened to individual 'critical thinking'?

We is us. And yes, I do have a group mind.

And you think CSICOP doesn't do that?

Cite.

Ah you are mystic colourologist, how long have you had this gift? A prize awaits

If you think that black text on a bright cyan background is a reasonable way to present a web page, then you have a diseased mind. Or possibly everyone involved in creating that site is completely colourblind. Or both.

 

[Open Mind]

If the paranormal claim behaves in a manner that is "normal, consistent, and predictable" enough for people to charge $200-$1000 per hour to demonstrate it, then it is "normal, consistent, and predictable" enough to test it under controlled conditions. You can't have it both ways.

If the paranormal claim behaves in a manner that is "normal, consistent, and predictable" enough for people to charge $200-$1000 per hour to demonstrate it, then it is "normal, consistent, and predictable" enough to test it under controlled conditions. You can't have it both ways.

I have never argued what you claim. If you read my posts elsewhere on this forum you will find I favour restricting the amount of money psychics and mediums can earn. To save you searching …… I don't want to see mediumship outlawed (as some scaremongers want in here) but I would suggest a law that restricts the money they can earn, to help remove the motives of con artistes or pure greed for a weak ability. I also suggest there are guidelines for psychics/mediums to tell the recipient to treat it as an experiment, remind recipients they make mistakes and discourage 'fortune telling' (i.e. predicting the future for people’s lives ... unless clearly stated as a mere possibility that may or may not occur, definitely not as something that will happen) .... with these in place adding to the already existing 'fraudulent mediums act' it is harmless .......those who desire to go further, seem to want to legislate against free choice or guard against human stupidity that can happen in all areas of life

 

[PixyMisa]

I have never argued what you claim. If you read my posts elsewhere on this forum you will find I favour restricting the amount of money psychics and mediums can earn. To save you searching …… I don't want to see mediumship outlawed (as some scaremongers want in here) but I would suggest a law that restricts the money they can earn, to help remove the motives of con artistes or pure greed for a weak ability.

That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

False advertising is already illegal in most countries, but earning money is only restricted under the most repressive regimes.

They can earn as much money as they want. They just can't lie about their abilities.

If a medium says "I can't actually do anything, but I can pretend real well." and people still give her $750 a pop, well, whatever. There are plenty of no-talent "celebrities" earning far more.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Open Mind:

I have never argued what you claim. If you read my posts elsewhere on this forum you will find I favour restricting the amount of money psychics and mediums can earn. To save you searching …… I don't want to see mediumship outlawed (as some scaremongers want in here) but I would suggest a law that restricts the money they can earn, to help remove the motives of con artistes or pure greed for a weak ability. I also suggest there are guidelines for psychics/mediums to tell the recipient to treat it as an experiment, remind recipients they make mistakes and discourage 'fortune telling' (i.e. predicting the future for people’s lives ... unless clearly stated as a mere possibility that may or may not occur, definitely not as something that will happen) .... with these in place adding to the already existing 'fraudulent mediums act' it is harmless .......those who desire to go further, seem to want to legislate against free choice or guard against human stupidity that can happen in all areas of life

I must say, OM, this is a truly excellent piece of showmanship on your part. Expertly devised to give the impression that you are objective and caring.

It is also codswallop.

How about we extend this to snake oil, too, and see what happens?

Let’s allow people to sell whatever abominable concoction of roots and herbs they like with the claim it cures cancer, leprosy, gullibility, indebtedness, anemia, and impotence. We’ll simply tell them they may only charge $15 (or about 5 pounds, I guess) per bottle. That should remove the motivation of hucksters, yes?

And to be doubly sure, we’ll require the sellers to put (in small print on the back of the bottle) a disclaimer that it really hasn’t been tested, it might not actually cure anything, the seller hasn’t passed a single medical board nor even studied medicine, it might possibly kill you.

So long as they do that, we won’t mind that the front has the big bold saying
THIS IS GREAT STUFF!! IT WILL SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS SO LONG AS YOU CAN"T DISTINGUISH PLACEBO FROM ACTUAL MEDICINE!

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So for them to be right, physics, chemistry and biology would have to be wrong in really major ways.

Only, physics, chemistry and biology work, very reliably, so we know they're not wrong in really major ways.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the job of a theory is to describe accurately (or not) what is being studied, the best ones can (or cant) make accurate predictions. But jumping from that to ascribe them an ontological reality beyond our belief system is nonsense.

Every mayor theoretical approach has been proved "wrong" at some point, when new observations demonstrate new facts that were not predicted by the old theory, so I could not care less about current theoretical frameworks "being wrong".

Not that Im trying to argue in favor of the "psi effect", but if in order to deny it you need to appeal to "the authority of science" then your argument becomes weak.

In the end this is it, either there is proof about the psi effect or there is not. So far, there is not, and also there is no need to believe it existed in the first place, why do you need to appeal to the "reality" of any other theory in order to "establish this?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

People act as they should in accordance with how the laws of physics effect the dynamics of the brain. There is no need for self-awareness even in the remotest sense. As I said, there is absolutely no data.

That is true, it is an inference. There is just one self awareness in the perceived world: Mine.

(this of course applies to anyone who believe he/she is self aware too).

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Skeptics suffer from the same human weaknesses as believers .... bias ....... skeptics remember misses and believers remember hits. Believers make information fit, skeptics will try to work out a reason why it doesn’t fit well. The problem is 'rater bias' .... whereas someone like Schwarts does seem to show a rater bias ... I’ve seen skeptics suffer from the opposite rater bias, skipping over ‘luck’ straight to the next problem and most skeptics don't notice or object because it fits their paradigm

I would start with "some skeptics of this forum", but yes, I think you are right. Still, thats why we have to design strong protocols when doing science, to avoid bias, to let the evidence to talk "by itself".

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

TYou have not, in fact, kicked anyone.

Well, not in here that much is true. Do you, in fact, doesnt feel pain if someone kicks you in your dreams?

That's where your thinking is flawed, not mine. You assume that because we cannot categorically prove that other people are self-aware, that there cannot be any evidence indicating that it is so.

Sadly, it is yours. You cant prove any of us is aware, we could be robots programed to annoy you. You infer we are self aware, but thats about it. Got it?

 

[drkitten]

Sadly, it is yours. You cant prove any of us is aware, we could be robots programed to annoy you. You infer we are self aware, but thats about it. Got it?

I think you missed Pixy's point. We can acknowledge that a particular statement cannot be proven to the standard of Cartesian undoubtability -- but this does not imply that there is no evidence that can be brought to bear on the statement.

There can be compelling evidence that fails to be "proof"; when I see a puppy standing next to a newspaper and looking guilty, and there's a pile of poo in the wrong corner, I don't usually consider the possibility that a troupe of invisible dung-flinging monkeys wandered into my house. No sensible person would. You could all be robots programmed to annoy me, but that ranks up there with invisible dung-flinging monkeys on the credibility scale. (For one thing, I've programmed robots. No one is that good.)

If all of the available evidence points in one direction, there's usually little reason to look for far-fetched interpretations until new evidence comes up. "If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

 

[Batman Jr.]

As I do note, it does not PROVE that the external world exists, only that it acts as if it does, and that you'd better treat it accordingly. It will show the (weak or strong) solipsist that while they might be imagining the external world, they do not have control over it.

I think it is a pragmatic argument, not an emotional one: Since the experienced world is indistinguishable from a real, external world, the solipsism question is really moot.

Hans

Okay, then yes, I agree with you. Pragmatism makes you treat others as if they were aware regardless of what actually is. After all, empathy is just as much a product of natural selection as any other biological trait.

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Blah blah.

What you can't do is kick someone in the bum and then proceed to insult their mother during R.E.M. sleep.

You can dream something along those lines, but dreams are dreams. You have not, in fact, kicked anyone.

But how can you distinguish real life from a dream if the same things can occur both in reality and in an imagined, illusory world?

Originally posted by PixyMisa
And all of the evidence points to this assumption being correct.

That's where your thinking is flawed, not mine. You assume that because we cannot categorically prove that other people are self-aware, that there cannot be any evidence indicating that it is so.

No, I never said anything of the sort. What I said is that no one can observe another person's experiences. They can only make inferences as to what they are based on behavior and how that same behavior in them is related to their perceptions. However, that one, single example of a relationship you have in yourself would be laughed at by any respectable scientific journal if you were claiming to have found a definite link between the two phenomena. Talk about untestable, other people's conscious minds you claim to know so much about are untestable.

Originally posted by PixyMisa
No.

First, despite your pathetic denials, the evidence that other people are self-aware is unavoidable. It's why you don't apply your "weak solipsism" in everyday life.

It's not direct proof, but it's evidence. Everyone outwardly acts exactly the same way you do, and you claim to be self aware. If you want to communicate with anyone, you have to assume that you are wrong and that the are self-aware. Either that, or assume that you are insane.

Second, not only can you not falsify solipsism, you can't prove it or even support it. It's so self-contained that no observation makes any difference at all.

That's why it's useless. It doesn't say anything about anything. You can't prove it is wrong, but it cannot possibly lead you anywhere, so you have to assume that one way or another, the evidence of your observations has meaning. That leads you to materialism, or if you were dropped on your head as a child, to idealism or dualism.

I'm sorry you think my denials are pathetic, but they are quite right. I guess I'll just have to start working on my denying skills until I can consistently deliver to my fellow interlocutors "awesome denials" in all of the necessary situations.

I don't apply solipsism because I can either choose between the one indirect inference I can possibly make based on me or I can go against that one inference. I am, in effect, going with the odds. They are nebulous odds, but they are the best I have.

 

[Batman Jr.]

There can be compelling evidence that fails to be "proof"; when I see a puppy standing next to a newspaper and looking guilty, and there's a pile of poo in the wrong corner, I don't usually consider the possibility that a troupe of invisible dung-flinging monkeys wandered into my house. No sensible person would. You could all be robots programmed to annoy me, but that ranks up there with invisible dung-flinging monkeys on the credibility scale. (For one thing, I've programmed robots. No one is that good.)

This is a faulty analogy because you know that it has been witnessed over and over again that puppies have to defecate. If only one puppy in the history of puppies was known to have ever defecated, would you be so sure that the puppy was responsible for the mess? You also pervert the analogy by making it sound like the only alternative explanation is a far-fetched, surreal sounding one. Couldn't a squirrel have gotten into the house and done their business too?

 

[Vikram]

Batman Jr.,

Admittedly, one can never refute the claim that the rest of the universe is not real and is just a dream. One can never refute the claim that every other seemingly conscious entity around us is actually not conscious and is simply behaving conscious. One can never refute the claim that one is the only conscious entity in the universe.

In that sense, solipsism cannot be refuted.

That said, simply the fact that solipsism cannot be refuted does not in any way make it a reasonable interpretation of the world around us. You can't refute the claim that this is actually the year 3500 and we are all in a Matrix-like situation right now with our bodies floating in a pink gelatinous goo while every perception of the world around us is electronically fed into our brains via cables plugged into the backs of our heads by ruthless tentacled machine overlords. But to think that that's the way the world actually is is to be a few lettuce leaves short of a side-salad.

Solipsism is no more valid than the claim that there's a pink unicorn tap-dancing on an asteroid somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy. We can neither prove not disprove either. But that doesn't in the slightest mean that either of them is real or reasonable. Both claims are just simply far-out and useless, and actually believing in them would be beyond silly.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Batman Jr.,

Admittedly, one can never refute the claim that the rest of the universe is not real and is just a dream. One can never refute the claim that every other seemingly conscious entity around us is actually not conscious and is simply behaving conscious. One can never refute the claim that one is the only conscious entity in the universe.

In that sense, solipsism cannot be refuted.

That said, simply the fact that solipsism cannot be refuted does not in any way make it a reasonable interpretation of the world around us. You can't refute the claim that this is actually the year 3500 and we are all in a Matrix-like situation right now with our bodies floating in a pink gelatinous goo while every perception of the world around us is electronically fed into our brains via cables plugged into the backs of our heads by ruthless tentacled machine overlords. But to think that that's the way the world actually is is to be a few lettuce leaves short of a side-salad.

Solipsism is no more valid than the claim that there's a pink unicorn tap-dancing on an asteroid somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy. We can neither prove not disprove either. But that doesn't in the slightest mean that either of them is real or reasonable. Both claims are just simply far-out and useless, and actually believing in them would be beyond silly.

As I said, it is also an unfalsifiable claim that other people are conscious. So by the same virtue, anti-solipsistic sentiment is just as stupid as solipsism itself. And I am a weak solipsist, not a solipsist. There is a big difference.

 

[Vikram]

As I said, it is also an unfalsifiable claim that other people are conscious. So by the same virtue, anti-solipsistic sentiment is just as stupid as solipsism itself.

No it isn't. That's like saying that the person who claims that there are no unicorns is as stupid as the person who claims that there is a pink unicorn tap-dancing on an asteroid in the Andromeda Galaxy. Or that the person who claims that there is no Santa Claus is as stupid as the person who claims that Santa Claus exists.

It's fallacious to state that both positions are equal. One of them is a reasonable conclusion based on observation and study of the world. The other is a far-out fictional construct. Granted you can't disprove solipsism, but that certainly doesn't make it reasonable in any way. Anti-solipsism, on the other hand, is very reasonable.

And I am a weak solipsist, not a solipsist. There is a big difference.

I regret I don't know what a weak solipsist is. Did you post the definition in this thread before? If you didn't, could you do it now?

 

[Batman Jr.]

No it isn't. That's like saying that the person who claims that there are no unicorns is as stupid as the person who claims that there is a pink unicorn tap-dancing on an asteroid in the Andromeda Galaxy. Or that the person who claims that there is no Santa Claus is as stupid as the person who claims that Santa Claus exists.

I'm afraid that Santa Claus and the pink unicorn are both falsifiable, so these aren't good examples. Try again.

Repeating, anti-solipsist claims are unfalsifiable and therefore equally just as stupid as solipsist claims. They both require you to assess the situations of other's conscious minds which cannot be observed by any stretch of the imagination. They are both moronic viewpoints. Being a weak solipsist, so you don't have to go sifting through the thread, means you attempt to take no sides and simply express the fact that such ontological questions as consciousness in others and external reality are unanswerable.

 

[P.S.A.]

Why are you guys still entertaining these two buffoons?

Open Mind is still just striking "cute" poses and trying to copy the tactics of other people to get a rise out of them... And Interesting Ian hardly ever even reads the stuff he demands you discredit, or doesn't agree with most of it even if he has... because he's special, you see? But if he can snow you under with 300 page articles from which he's taken a one sentance understanding that reaffirms his specialness, that's winning for him.

I mean really, why bother? Neither one has any true interest in honest, intelligent debate. You might as well just turn the tables on them and get them to try and prove they aren't sock puppets of each other rather than address them seriously.

 

[Vikram]

I'm afraid that Santa Claus and the pink unicorn are both falsifiable, so these aren't good examples. Try again.

Actually, they are NOT falsifiable. They are both non-disprovable. Could you explain how they are falsifiable?

In any case, if those examples don't appeal to you, how about Carl Sagan's 'Dragon in the garage'. That one is unprovable and undisprovable, just like solipism. That certainly does not mean we should start giving credence to the claim that there are dragons in our garages.

Repeating, anti-solipsist claims are unfalsifiable and therefore equally just as stupid as solipsist claims. They both require you to assess the situations of other's conscious minds which cannot be observed by any stretch of the imagination. They are both moronic viewpoints. Being a weak solipsist, so you don't have to go sifting through the thread, means you attempt to take no sides and simply express the fact that such ontological questions as consciousness in others and external reality are unanswerable.

Would a weak-dragonist be a person who basically says, "I take no sides and simply express the fact that such ontological questions as the existence of dragons in garages are unanswerable."?

I wonder how such a position would affect one's approach to the world. For example, Sagan's dragon, though unprovable and undisprovable, is claimed to be able to set things on fire. It can never be proven that the dragon actually did it or that the dragon didn't do it. But one is still left with the fear that fires can be started by dragons in garages.

As a philosophical construct, solipsism is fine. But what would it mean to even begin considering that it could be real. Does one live one's life with the sneaking suspicion that one's loving mother is a Turing test? Or that Witty uncle Jack is a complex software created by an evil computer?

 

[Vikram]

And Interesting Ian hardly ever even reads the stuff he demands you discredit, or doesn't agree with most of it even if he has... because he's special, you see?

And when one counters him with the fact that he hasn't read the articles he posts, he says - Why should I read them? I AGREE with what they have to say. YOU should read them.