What Should the Default Skeptical Position on Telepathy Be?

[JayUtah]

I don't think Fud is coming at it for self-serving reasons like that. I think he'd be thrilled if parapsychology departments started getting a lot more funding to keep searching for the proof that telepathy is real. He really believes it can be found, but that it would take "searching for proof of dark matter" levels of dedication and funding.

I'll accept that that may be true and I may be mistaken, but I got the opposite impression. I got the impression he argues the effect is fundamentally unobservable under "laboratory conditions." In his model of telepathy it's a happenstance occurrence that barely if ever rises above statistical noise, hence too elusive to study.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's just the same old "How do you know magic doesn't make it happen when science isn't looking?" special pleading.

 

[kellyb]

Depends on the context. Courts admit eyewitness testimony...

In medical science, too. A "case report" is basically a fancy anecdote, and diagnosis often relies upon patients' reported symptoms.

 

[kellyb]

I'll accept that that may be true and I may be mistaken, but I got the opposite impression. I got the impression he argues the effect is fundamentally unobservable under "laboratory conditions." In his model of telepathy it's a happenstance occurrence that barely if ever rises above statistical noise, hence too elusive to study.

I'm pretty sure he thinks what we'd call "statistical noise" is all actually telepathy, and it could be proven, but it's just really, really difficult to do so.

 

[theprestige]

In medical science, too. A "case report" is basically a fancy anecdote, and diagnosis often relies upon patients' reported symptoms.

A case report is a description of observations, the methodology that produced the observations, and the conclusions that may be drawn from those observations. A case report about observations of evidence of telepathy will look very different from a naked anecdote purporting to be a telepathic experience.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm pretty sure he thinks what we'd call "statistical noise" is all actually telepathy, and it could be proven, but it's just really, really difficult to do so.

Then if we have to wait until it becomes easier to detect, supposedly because we get more money or better detection or better ideas for how it might work, then it really shouldn't be a problem that the default position right now for skeptics is that telepathy is not real. Default positions are not final positions, and skepticism insists that conclusions must be revisited when the evidence changes in a material way.

There's no reason to defer to one person's preference for one of the many possible phenomena that could be undetectably conflated with the myriad of unremarkable confounds that attend everyday life. There's no rationale for granting such privilege, so we don't.

 

[Fudbucker]

I don't think Fud is coming at it for self-serving reasons like that. I think he'd be thrilled if parapsychology departments started getting a lot more funding to keep searching for the proof that telepathy is real. He really believes it can be found, but that it would take "searching for proof of dark matter" levels of dedication and funding.

You're doing a better job arguing my position than I am.

 

[kellyb]

A case report is a description of observations, the methodology that produced the observations, and the conclusions that may be drawn from those observations.

A lot of them really are basically fancy anecdotes:
https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/jnnp/23/3/247.full.pdf

 

[Fudbucker]

Then if we have to wait until it becomes easier to detect, supposedly because we get more money or better detection or better ideas for how it might work, then it really shouldn't be a problem that the default position right now for skeptics is that telepathy is not real. Default positions are not final positions, and skepticism insists that conclusions must be revisited when the evidence changes in a material way.

There's no reason to defer to one person's preference for one of the many possible phenomena that could be undetectably conflated with the myriad of unremarkable confounds that attend everyday life. There's no rationale for granting such privilege, so we don't.

I think if we poured money into this and really studied it seriously, there would be some interesting findings, but the studies done so far have been pretty inadequate. Except for the military, which really did seem to take this stuff seriously during a part of the Cold War.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

If I went to China at the minimum I'd have:

A visa

Plane or Boat tickets/ticket stubs

Passport stamps

Hotel receipt(s)

Restaurant receipts(s)

And if I make an international phone call there would be a traceable record.

As for the intermittent nature you included to try to sneak around science I have a true story for you...

For the last two years I had what the doctors called panic attacks. Finally one put me into the hospital where they ran tests, and set me up with a cardiologist. The standard stress tests, and exotic MRI's where they have you run while they've injected you with something that makes your blood glow on their screens didn't find much.

I was given a portable heart monitor which I wore for two weeks. Every time I had one of those intermittent attacks I'd press a button on the monitor so the event was logged to be reviewed later.

Turns out I have an extra heartbeat. An extra intermittent heartbeat. When my heart skips a rhythm beat the next beat is called a Hard Start. This hard start would set off what they thought were panic attacks. Throw in a sensitivity to potassium and it was off to the races. I have medication, Licinopril, that keeps my heart from racing, and I haven't had a serious attack in ten month.

The point of the story is to get a second opinion before you write off science of any kind. That portable heart monitor I wore could be adapted to connect to a skull cap packed with sensors to monitor brain activity...in fact I'd be shocked if there isn't such a device (mine was a smart phone connected to a box the size of a smart phone).

This means that if someone claims telepathic abilities there is a way to record such activity in both the sender and receiver. That's just how it is.

 

[Axxman300]

I know, but if it's something that you would expect to be lost at the margins, the fact that it's not showing up doesn't mean anything. Let's say I'm hypothesizing that every ten days or so someone does a bit of involuntary mind-reading. How on Earth would I test for that? Even if I gave them a Zener-card test 24/7 for a month straight, the few times they're legitimately getting the card right is going to completely be drowned out by all the other times they're guessing. So the fact that nothing shows up isn't disconfirming.

I'm a ghost hunter. I used to use this excuse all the time.

The only margins are the ones created by the imagination (which is where I currently believe ghosts and psychic powers reside).

This entire post shows a lack of understanding of how the scientific process works. Yes, the CIA and KGB had psychic programs in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. Note I used the plural form of "program". The Russians have a long history of superstition that was tracked into their laboratories by superstitious KGB officers looking for an edge in the espionage world. When the CIA got wind of it they started their own just in case there was something to it.

The KGB's work was all done in-house. The CIA contracted out to universities.

Here we are in 2018. The CIA and FSB still use satellites, still hacks trans Atlantic communication cables, still use Honey-Traps, and the CIA still has access to the U2...

...Neither agency is using psychics.

 

[Spektator]

If I've understood him correctly in the past, he believes we are not at all what we appear to be, and that only minds are real. All of the rest is an illusion.

Whereas I am beginning to suspect that, in some cases, it is the opposite.

 

[JayUtah]

I think if we poured money into this and really studied it seriously, there would be some interesting findings...

That's as may be. But my question is what's improper about the present default skeptic position? I can't seem to get an answer from you that isn't simply an admonition to ease up on the skepticism. We can name (or invent) lots of phenomena that we speculate occur only sporadically and with almost negligible effect. Should they all be exceptions to the null-hypothesis doctrine, or is only telepathy exempt?

Except for the military, which really did seem to take this stuff seriously during a part of the Cold War.

And does their apparent failure to find anything relevant bear on the prima facie plausibility today of "Telepathy is real?"

 

[Pooneil]

It doesn't because most people are honest. The default position is to assume a statement from a person is honest

What do you mean by "honest?" Because this is ambiguous.

I've had friends call a politician as "honest" because he forcefully speaks his mind, regardless of the objectively non-factual content of the speech.

So please clarify.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What do you mean by "honest?" Because this is ambiguous.

He's trying to find a new route back to the "Skeptics are mean because when they don't believe stories at face value they are calling people liars" argument.

 

[Pooneil]

Why? What makes it extraordinary?\

That there is no plausible mechanism by which it can act, there are no reliable demonstrations of it in action, and it violates much of what is known about physics.

 

[Pooneil]

He's trying to find a new route back to the "Skeptics are mean because when they don't believe stories at face value they are calling people liars" argument.

Yep. He is using ambiguity for all its worth.

 

[Fudbucker]

That's as may be. But my question is what's improper about the present default skeptic position? I can't seem to get an answer from you that isn't simply an admonition to ease up on the skepticism. We can name (or invent) lots of phenomena that we speculate occur only sporadically and with almost negligible effect. Should they all be exceptions to the null-hypothesis doctrine, or is only telepathy exempt?



And does their apparent failure to find anything relevant bear on the prima facie plausibility today of "Telepathy is real?"

For various reasons I've brought up, I would say mild skepticism is warranted. I would not say the existence of occasional telepathy is an extraordinary claim. I do agree that perhaps we should have seen something by way of solid evidence by now, but I can see how evidence that maybe was intriguing could have been discounted because of an inability to replicate the findings. It isn't something that would be valuable to the military. Once they discovered nobody could read minds at will, they probably lost interest.

I'm also not as ready to discount PEAR's conclusions. I know others have looked at their findings and not been impressed.

 

[JayUtah]

For various reasons I've brought up, I would say mild skepticism is warranted.

The degree of skepticism is a secondary issue. The skeptics' default position for all existential claims is the null hypothesis of non-existence. What makes telepathy special, that it gets a pass?

I would not say the existence of occasional telepathy is an extraordinary claim.

That's a standard-of-proof question, not a default-position question. Worth discussing, yes, but the cart's before the horse. The default position is the one presumed before evidence is looked at, not the conclusions drawn on the basis of the evidence. The default position is the null hypothesis because that's how the hypothetico-deductive method of reasoning works in science, hence how skeptics tend to think. It's the null hypothesis whether the claim is extraordinary or mundane. You haven't made a convincing case for why it should be some other hypothesis, and specifically in the case of telepathy.

I do agree that perhaps we should have seen something by way of solid evidence by now...

And I sympathize with any disappointment you may feel, but my question is why we should wholly structure our reasoning differently, as skeptics, to accommodate telepathy. The null hypothesis works as a default position in literally every other form of inquiry that is hoped to be tested via empiricism. Why not also telepathy?

I'm also not as ready to discount PEAR's conclusions.

What reasons can you give for your opinion?

I know others have looked at their findings and not been impressed.

Do you have any rebuttals to their reasons?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

No, the null hypothesis in a basic, non-extraordinary anecdote will presume that the person is honest and therefore went to China.

But telepathy isn't a claim like "I once went to China" it's when you work with someone in the morning and afternoon, and when you comment that you didn't see them in the canteen at lunch they claim to have gone to China.