What Should the Default Skeptical Position on Telepathy Be?

[Fudbucker]

So take the claim "telepathy exists". I imagine most skeptics here would consider that an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence, and the basis of that would be the complete lack of any success of anyone actually demonstrating anything like telepathy in controlled circumstances. Fair enough. That would disconfirm the claim that telepathy that can be performed in controlled settings most likely doesn't exist.

But what about the idea that telepathy might happen occasionally and very rarely at that (call it "intermittent telepathy)"? If two people live together for a long time, you'll often hear stories about how they've "read" each other's minds, that the experience goes beyond just coincidence. Even some skeptics here have talked about some uncanny experiences (I forget the particular posters). I've been married for 20 years. I've had maybe a couple dozen experiences like that.

How would you test for the above? It would be almost impossible to demonstrate anything like intermittent telepathy in a controlled setting. Biologically, we would have no idea how a brain could do that, but we pretty much have no idea how brains produce consciousness, so lack of a biological explanation doesn't seem like it should be a knock on anything. So what should the skeptical position be about intermittent telepathy? Should it be considered extraordinary?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Consciousness is what brains do. The issue that arises with questions like this, first off, is that while we have good functional descriptions of behavior and excellent images of physical workings of the brain, the two have only begun to be mapped to each other. Would something more complex than "apple," or even "apple" itself, even have the same physical expression in two brains? When, in that case, could we say to have physically imaged an idea that has been transferred and received? Reliance on behavior alone (eliciting verbal responses) gets you the frequency with which guesses are made.

Coincidences among those who know each other intimately, in my view, is more likely due to exposure to similar stimuli coupled with a delayed response that acts to disassociate the one from the other, or things of that nature.

ETA: Default position: I'd bother when its a claim that can be falsified/tested, and meanwhile it seems very highly unlikely.

 

[Thermal]

It should only be given consideration if things like just knowing each other well enough to accurately surmise what they might be thinking about can be ruled out. Of course, just as hard to prove or disprove

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jesus another "Okay so please explain to me why burden of proof applies to this one specific type of Woo..." discussion.

 

[theprestige]

So take the claim "telepathy exists".

The default skeptical position for a claim should be the null hypothesis for that claim. In this case, "telepathy does not exist."

Then it's on the claimant to falsify the null hypothesis.

Presumably the claimant has already done so, and is already armed with the necessary evidence.

/thread

 

[Fudbucker]

The default skeptical position for a claim should be the null hypothesis for that claim. In this case, "telepathy does not exist."

Then it's on the claimant to falsify the null hypothesis.

Presumably the claimant has already done so, and is already armed with the necessary evidence.

/thread

That's not how it works when people report anecdotal accounts. If someone claims to have gone to China, is the null position, "No you didn't"? You don't go around doubting everything everyone says.

 

[Fudbucker]

Consciousness is what brains do. The issue that arises with questions like this, first off, is that while we have good functional descriptions of behavior and excellent images of physical workings of the brain, the two have only begun to be mapped to each other. Would something more complex than "apple," or even "apple" itself, even have the same physical expression in two brains? When, in that case, could we say to have physically imaged an idea that has been transferred and received? Reliance on behavior alone (eliciting verbal responses) gets you the frequency with which guesses are made.

Coincidences among those who know each other intimately, in my view, is more likely due to exposure to similar stimuli coupled with a delayed response that acts to disassociate the one from the other, or things of that nature.

ETA: Default position: I'd bother when its a claim that can be falsified/tested, and meanwhile it seems very highly unlikely.

Brains do a lot of things besides consciousness. But the point was the answer to the question "how brains produce consciousness" is hotly debated. We don't know the mechanics behind it. The current en vogue theory is Integrated Information Theory.

 

[kellyb]

Something outlandish like that should not be assumed to be real based on what's likely to be pure coincidence.

If it wasn't coincidence, there would almost definitely be at least a hint of some effect that was scientifically testable and demonstrated by this point.

 

[Fudbucker]

Something outlandish like that should not be assumed to be real based on what's likely to be pure coincidence.

If it wasn't coincidence, there would almost definitely be at least a hint of some effect that was scientifically testable and demonstrated by this point.

I think you get some hint of it by the fact that we've all hears stories (or experienced) "reading" someone's mind. By that I mean you consider the possibility of coincidence and reject it because it's so outlandish, and what's said is so spot on. Like I said, that happens to my wife and I every once and awhile. Coincidence is a possible explanation, but I'm not sure it's a probable one. Yes, humans are terrible at probability, and yes we see patterns that often aren't there, but that doesn't mean we do it all the time.

But yes, I agree. If it could happen, we should have seen some evidence now, besides anecdotal, that it does happen. I don't think that lack of lab evidence is very significant, but I can see how someone would think it was.

 

[This is The End]

No.

NO.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's not how it works when people report anecdotal accounts. If someone claims to have gone to China, is the null position, "No you didn't"? You don't go around doubting everything everyone says.

And this is the part where you pretend like "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" isn't a concept that's been explained a billion times.

 

[sadhatter]

That's not how it works when people report anecdotal accounts. If someone claims to have gone to China, is the null position, "No you didn't"? You don't go around doubting everything everyone says.

It would be depending on the person.

If a friend of mine who has no money and lost his wallet said that, I'd question it immediately.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So what should the skeptical position be about intermittent telepathy? Should it be considered extraordinary?

What do you think it should be?

 

[sadhatter]

I think you get some hint of it by the fact that we've all hears stories (or experienced) "reading" someone's mind. By that I mean you consider the possibility of coincidence and reject it because it's so outlandish, and what's said is so spot on. Like I said, that happens to my wife and I every once and awhile. Coincidence is a possible explanation, but I'm not sure it's a probable one. Yes, humans are terrible at probability, and yes we see patterns that often aren't there, but that doesn't mean we do it all the time.

But yes, I agree. If it could happen, we should have seen some evidence now, besides anecdotal, that it does happen. I don't think that lack of lab evidence is very significant, but I can see how someone would think it was.

Give me your theory and let me decide which I find more probable. Otherwise the conversation can go no where.

 

[Fudbucker]

It would be depending on the person.

If a friend of mine who has no money and lost his wallet said that, I'd question it immediately.

Yes, my point was the default position regarding anecdotal claims is not always to question the claim, as ThePrestige was arguing. That's ridiculous. In our lives, we probably accept 99% of what is told to us at face value.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, my point was the default position regarding anecdotal claims is not always to question the claim, as ThePrestige was arguing. That's ridiculous. In our lives, we probably accept 99% of what is told to us at face value.

This is correct.

Do you think telepathy belongs in the 99% camp or the 1% camp?

 

[kellyb]

I think you get some hint of it by the fact that we've all hears stories (or experienced) "reading" someone's mind. By that I mean you consider the possibility of coincidence and reject it because it's so outlandish, and what's said is so spot on. Like I said, that happens to my wife and I every once and awhile. Coincidence is a possible explanation, but I'm not sure it's a probable one. Yes, humans are terrible at probability, and yes we see patterns that often aren't there, but that doesn't mean we do it all the time.

Crazy-seeming coincidences always seem too coincidental to be coincidence.
Also, in the case of "mind-reading" with someone you know well, there are going to be external factors which cause the both of you to have the same thought at once, even if it's impossible to figure out what they are.

 

[Loss Leader]

It would be almost impossible to demonstrate anything like intermittent telepathy in a controlled setting.

Then it would be almost impossible to treat it as though it exists.

I see no problem here.

 

[JayUtah]

That's not how it works when people report anecdotal accounts.

"How it works" in the way you're referring to here is more a matter of what standard of proof should apply situationally. Anecdotally, there's usually no need for the claim to be believed as a matter of knowledge, and no desire on the part of the listener to challenge it. If it's a casual anecdote casually reported and casually received, then a low standard of proof applies. The default position is still the null hypothesis, but the null may be easily overcome, or the question simply set aside in favor of other concerns such as avoiding unnecessary arguments.

If someone claims to have gone to China, is the null position, "No you didn't"?

Yes, that is the null position. If someone claims to have gone to China in the context of a cocktail party, the null hypothesis is still the same, but the other intervening circumstances make contention ill-advised. Wheaton's Law seems to be a good yardstick here. The claim is prima facie plausible (travel to China is reasonably common) and the consequences of either belief or disbelief are negligible. Hence under those circumstances a skeptic could be persuaded to accept a lower standard of proof.

If on the other hand someone claims to have gone to China as an alibi against the accusation of a crime, then there indeed arises a much higher standard of proof. It becomes more important to establish that visit as a matter of objective fact, hence we apply a higher standard of proof. Skeptics tend toward the latter approach in all cases of propositional knowledge, but it seems like you're trying to conflate the propriety of a skeptical approach in all cases with the philosophical justification for rational skepticism. those are applies and oranges.

None of this erases the condition that the null hypothesis was the same in each case, applied in each case, and was required to be overcome in each case. Don't confuse the propriety of skepticism with the practice of skepticism.

You don't go around doubting everything everyone says.

The null hypothesis is not doubt per se. It simply arises naturally from any affirmative claim. When you say "default position," this to me says the position that is most rationally presumed before we turn to the question of evidence. That said, prima facie plausibility enters the picture. A claim that is implausible on its face tends to suggest a higher standard of proof. "I went to China" is not at all implausible on its face. "I can read minds" is. The question doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, my point was the default position regarding anecdotal claims is not always to question the claim...

The decision whether to question some particular claim depends on factors that often don't have much to do with the philosophy of knowledge. That an informal approach is sometimes best does not negate that a formal approach is, at other times, required.

In our lives, we probably accept 99% of what is told to us at face value.

Most of what we're told is inconsequential, and other factors dictate how closely we question it. And what "most of us" do is not the question you asked. The question you asked was what should skeptics consider the default position on a controversial proposition. The default position is the null hypothesis in all cases, and the nature of the claim and the purpose for which it is made dictate the appropriate standard of proof for overcoming it. The question of what skepticism is, is not the same as the question of when a strenuous skeptical approach is indicated.