Where do you draw the line?

[Ed]

Whether you are a sceptic or the wooieist of believers you must make some simplifying assumptions in order to get thru life. My question is, in the world of the paranormal, what kinds of claims do you rule out, out of hand? I can't believe that even Lucianarchy would give creedence to the loon that told Randi that he could control everything that happened with his mind (it was something along those lines). So, where do you draw the line, where you won't waste your time to do any reading/investigation?

For myself, I assume that the "powers" of highly public and compensated mediums (JE, SB etc) are bogus. Won't listen, won't engage. I've seen enough. I will say that the psy-chick that Stevve Grenard went to has picqued my interest and I'd be very curious to know more.

Psychic fowl are right out, as are people that can "read" while blindfolded. I have read enough about PEAR and RNG stuff to be fairly certain that they are incompetant and delusional.

Anything Schwartz is associated with is not worth my time, likewise Targ (RIP).

Things like reincarnation are easily disproved if "memories" allegedly persist. The problem is that these are selective, yielding a phenomenon that is untestable.

Generally, there are too many "rules" that are invoked with psychics, and too many holes in their performance for me to give their claims much creedence. I am still waiting for a "contact" conducted in Farsi on national TV. Won't happen.

Any experiment with wilful holes in the design or execution are BS, IMHO. Too much time has gone by, and the techniques of good experimental are too commonly known to assume anything but fraud in those cases. To the extent that the Gansfeld stuff uses subjective measures, they fall into this catagory.

So, what do you rule out a priori and what is worthy of a second look? There are a lot of nuts out there so please don't say "to be a true sceptic you have to keep an open mind ... etc.". Nice thought but not practical.

Edit: I'd be particularly interested to see how T'ai, Ian and other from the more credulous camp would answer this. I think that the "why" is the most interesting part.

 

[Luke T.]

Well, I've been working on isolating the natural precognitive chemical compound in tea leaves, but so far have only managed to synthesize a particularly virulent laxative which has shown to have enormous benefit to the paranormal community as they are so full of crap.

Other than that, I'm open.

 

[uneasy]

This is an interesting topic, Ted. It simply gets tiring to keep an open mind ALL the time. How many dowsers can you see fail the million dollar challenge before just getting sick of seeing dowsers try?

I am suspicious of people who claim to be 100% open minded. If that really were someone's point of view, the world would devolve into "factual relativism" where nothing can be certain because maybe just maybe things have changed in some mysteriosu way. Example: Should I check if my stove is on for the tenth time today, because maybe just maybe some fairies turned it on? If I were 100% open minded to everything, I think I should.

Here are some areas where I draw the line and just don't care to hear about it.

Someone who has special powers, but they are such lame powers even if they were actually valid, they still wouldn't mean squat. Example: "Your granddaddy from the great beyond says he loves you and you should beware of something starting with the letter T."

Someone claims special powers have been around for thousands of years. Example: If there really were a supernatural way to heal people that really worked, it would have quickly crowded out this silly thing called "medicine", but it hasn't. How can something so wonderful be claimed for thousands of years and have almost zero effect on society?

 

[jcon96]

Uneasy, as far as many of the claims for the prize that I am aware of, most people honestly think they are doing something! Be it ideomotor response,placebo effects or self delusion, they really do feel they are doing something unusual. I myself do not feel sorry for them when there illusion bubble is burst, casue it usually makes for fun reading (or hearing) their response!

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

So, what do you rule out a priori and what is worthy of a second look? There are a lot of nuts out there so please don't say "to be a true sceptic you have to keep an open mind ... etc.". Nice thought but not practical.

If you really think that, then you understand neither practicality nor skepticism.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Where do you draw the line?

If you really think that, then you understand neither practicality nor skepticism.

Nice bumper sticker. Is there an explination that goes with that?

 

[Yahweh]

Well, Ed God, my personal thoughts are a bit like this:

As long as the claim is testable and the procedures are safe, scientifically valid, and realistic (because I wouldnt want some nut to say "I bet I can change this cup of water into solid gold using only the power of my mind... but it will take a little over 2000 years"), I'll happily test any claim regardless of what I consider its absurdity to be.

A good practice of the scientific method is neither open-minded nor close-minded, its objectively neutral. This is good, it prevents the tests from being biased toward either side of gullibility or disbelief.

 

[AlienX]

How many dowsers can you see fail the million dollar challenge before just getting sick of seeing dowsers try?

Personally one aspect of testing I never get bored of seeing is firewalkers. To see them line up Vs a 200 foot long fire pit (normally they are about 10-20 or so) focusing their Chi and all sorts of other energies is awesome. Off they go and the further they get is directly proportional to the Degree level of burns they receive (its not much further than 20 feet max btw;-). All of them are 100% convinced they can't get burned before they start and use all the same techno gobldegook you see woowoos on here use to explain how they do it - arura projection yada yada yada.
The similarities between how these people speak and the woowoos you see on here and various places around the net is stunning. These people learn the hard way as after it they have no excuse and it's hard to convince yourself you didn't get burned when you cant walk for a few days afterwards.

It's just a shame that the telepathy people are not wired up to high voltages during testing - get it wrong and bzzzzt.. ohh man now that I would watch.

Imagine John Edwards.. I'm getting the name billy.. Bzzzt! .. bobby Bzzzt! a B sounding name BZZZZZT!!! .. err a male.. BZZZZZT!!!......... eerr .... err im not palying anymore.


Woowoo's don't wan't to know (well seemingly most of them), they constantly hold up very suspect evidence of what they believe in and ignore any failure. The common get out clause is when they fail with no other way out they claim the testing stops them or the negative vibes of a skeptic etc etc.
Simple they use science as a reason until science shows their claims to be unfounded then they turn on it and claim its big bad science stopping it working ffs!

There is money to be made and these people take it, fair enough some of them genuinely think they are "special" etc.

Have you ever noticed how lots of these so called "special" people can never just have one "power" they always have lots <sign>.

I suppose to be a true woowoo you simply believe what people tell you is the case as they often ignore any negative data and it's simply belief. So your right where do they draw the line.. the answer for many is nowhere, how can they justify one unvalidated belief vs another.. to do so would mean being closed minded and thus not a woowoo. My personal opinion is being a woowoo is the ultimate closed minded person as they are not open to the possibility that their belief is incorrect at least skeptics are open minded enough to say "well show me i'm really interested".

ohh well thats my 2p worth of a moan ;-)

AX

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Where do you draw the line?

Well, Ed God, my personal thoughts are a bit like this:

As long as the claim is testable and the procedures are safe, scientifically valid, and realistic (because I wouldnt want some nut to say "I bet I can change this cup of water into solid gold using only the power of my mind... but it will take a little over 2000 years"), I'll happily test any claim regardless of what I consider its absurdity to be.

A good practice of the scientific method is neither open-minded nor close-minded, its objectively neutral. This is good, it prevents the tests from being biased toward either side of gullibility or disbelief.

I understand and agree in principle. But what do you do when the umpteenth person claims that the picture of a person with gauze coming out of their nose is demonstrating ectoplasm? At what point are you able to generalize really bogus stuff from things with merit? I guess the question is what are the principles of paranormal triage?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Well, Ed, you don't seem to understand what having an "open mind" means. It does NOT mean accepting each and every idea. Not only is that grossly impractical, it's logically impossible, because you would have to accept the idea that having an open mind means rejecting each and every idea, and that's incompatible with accepting it all.

Having an open mind means that the person in question is always willing to reconsider their conclusions and re-evaluate hypotheses. Deciding not to even look at claims of perpetual motion isn't open-minded.

Now, deciding not to look at claims of perpetual motion unless the claimants can produce meaningful evidence of said phenomenon can still be open-minded, particularly since all of the available evidence suggests conservation laws apply and claims of perpetual motion usually contain elementary mistakes in logic.

 

[Ed]

Well, Ed, you don't seem to understand what having an "open mind" means. It does NOT mean accepting each and every idea. Not only is that grossly impractical, it's logically impossible, because you would have to accept the idea that having an open mind means rejecting each and every idea, and that's incompatible with accepting it all.

Having an open mind means that the person in question is always willing to reconsider their conclusions and re-evaluate hypotheses. Deciding not to even look at claims of perpetual motion isn't open-minded.

Now, deciding not to look at claims of perpetual motion unless the claimants can produce meaningful evidence of said phenomenon can still be open-minded, particularly since all of the available evidence suggests conservation laws apply and claims of perpetual motion usually contain elementary mistakes in logic.

I meant being so open minded that each and every thing has to be evaluated on it's individual merits. I don't really understand what you wrote. In any event you have begun to answer my question. You appear to be suggesting that dismissing any claims, even those that violate the basic laws of physics, is inappropriate. Right?

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: Where do you draw the line?

I understand and agree in principle. But what do you do when the umpteenth person claims that the picture of a person with gauze coming out of their nose is demonstrating ectoplasm? At what point are you able to generalize really bogus stuff from things with merit? I guess the question is what are the principles of paranormal triage?

Outside of the lab setting, I will probably let my own commonsense (which is grounded by reason and proper education) tell me what to think.

Sometimes, with experience, the rather inescapable feeling of human pessimism will decide that the claim is completely bogus, and this pessimism tends to be on the right track (the scientific scrutiny makes for proper verification). Its almost intuitive to judge the veracity of a claim. Here is two scenarios:

<blockquote>Scenario 1

A: I can build a perpetual motion device.

B: To believe in perpetual motion devices is irrational.

A: Oh? How so?

B: Its not up to me to tell you how its irrational, its up to you to explain to me how belief in perpetual motion devices is not[/i] irrational.

A: Well, why a perpetual motion device work?

B: It would violate the the First Law of Thermodynamics which is nutshelled as "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed".

A: Why cant matter be created or destroyed?


Scenario 2

A: I am going to use my psycho-tachion powers to revert this apple core back into a complete apple.

B: WTF?

A: Then I'm going to morph into a dragon and fly away into the sky!

B: Oh really?</blockquote>
While its not good form to dismiss things out of hand, there is some level of commonsense that goes into decided that Scenario 2 is one that has the lesser credence though by a technicality they are in the same ballfield. The claim may still be tested if the guy really wants it to be tested, but I'll probably be inclined to disbelieve this claim until I see a legitimate reason to believe it.

Unfortunately, I dont have a list of criteria and checkboxes I could go down to properly catergorize the "total bullschivtz" from the "hey, lets give it a try". All the claims should be of equal merit before they are tested.

Sure, if anyone wants to go through the testing procedure, they themselves have conducted the proper double blind procedures and become convinced of their own paranormal powers. I hope they are disappointed in the end.

 

[scribble]

The answer to this question can be summed up by the cliche you so often hear:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

If you come up to me and say you've just invented a method that's going to allow perpetual-motion devices to be realized, I'll say show me the proof before we talk.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wrath said:
Now, deciding not to look at claims of perpetual motion unless the claimants can produce meaningful evidence of said phenomenon can still be open-minded, particularly since all of the available evidence suggests conservation laws apply and claims of perpetual motion usually contain elementary mistakes in logic.

Yes, this is fine, because a perpetual motion machine is an actual device with a reasonably well-defined function. Ed may be thinking more of alien abductions or crop circles or dowsing or psi. What does it mean to keep an open mind about those things? Do I have to test every dowser? Do I have to interview every abductee? Do I have to walk around every crop circle with a magnetometer? These people think they are producing meaningful evidence. Can't I draw a line in the sand somewhere without being accused of being close-minded?

~~ Paul

 

[Ratman_tf]

Can't I draw a line in the sand somewhere without being accused of being close-minded?

~~ Paul

That would be rude. Everyone's opinion is valid. Every idea is true. La la la... (I should reactivate Xx-Credulous-xX )

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The U.S. Patent Office will not examine any patent requests involving perpetual motion machines. This is not wholly unreasonable, in that the stuff they get is junk. But if someone were able to produce a device that somehow did produce energy out of (at least seeming) nothingness, they would be unable to patent it.

The Patent Office can get away with its position because there are other entities that would verify or debunk such a claim.

Being open-minded requires the realizations that:

1) even if you follow the requirements of logic and reason, your conclusion can still be wrong, and

2) unless you go through the process of examining the claim and submitting its components to logical analysis, you're not entitled to regard your opinions about it to be objective in the least.

To do otherwise is to leave the path of skepticism. Skeptics doubt both sides of an argument equally until sufficient reason to be found to favor one side over another. Extraordinary claims do indeed require extraordinary proof, and it doesn't take much effort to verify whether someone has that proof or not. (At least, it is usually quite easy to conclude that they do not - concluding that they do is often much harder.)

 

[epepke]

Whether you are a sceptic or the wooieist of believers you must make some simplifying assumptions in order to get thru life. My question is, in the world of the paranormal, what kinds of claims do you rule out, out of hand? I can't believe that even Lucianarchy would give creedence to the loon that told Randi that he could control everything that happened with his mind (it was something along those lines). So, where do you draw the line, where you won't waste your time to do any reading/investigation?

That's an interesting question. I presume that what you mean by ruling out of hand is without examining the evidence or lack thereof too closely.

Generally, I rule something out of hand if it contradicts what I think I know about the universe.

I can't rule out telepathy because, if I built a robot, I'd put a radio in it, which would seem a lot like telepathy, and the human nervous system would make a hell of an antenna. I think it unlikely, because it doesn't seem that there is an organ capable of sending a signal that strong.

I can't rule out precognition because, except for a couple of annoying mesons, the laws of physics seem to work backward in time as well as forward.

I can rule out ghosts in any traditional sense because, where would they get the energy? They are supposed to hang out in dark places.

I can rule out remote viewing because there has to be a receptor for photons, and the receptor has to destroy the photons, which would make it detectable.

I can rule out telekinesis because there aren't any basic forces that work like that; at best a telekinetic could only attract things or push them away, unless he like blew air at them and used the Bernoulli principle.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Where do you draw the line?

A: I can build a perpetual motion device.

B: To believe in perpetual motion devices is irrational.

Well, with respect to perpetual motion devices, if one could build one, why isn't one simply ruling the universe?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

And even in the case of beliefs about "deep" physical properties, there's lots of evidence that led us to those beliefs. Challenging them requires evidence capable of overwhelming the existing evidence - which is quite a lot. Refusing to evaluate claims deeply when it is obvious they don't have that level of evidence is perfectly reasonable.

Refusing to evaluate counterclaims about any random thing you might believe about the universe's nature is not reasonable.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Ed, my philosophy of science is that nothing is automatically immune from being analyzed, and should be if it is making a claim, especially one that goes against how we currently know the universe.

I find it interesting that you dismiss ganzfeld and RNG experiments, when even Carl Sagan didn't.

I think that any paranormal topic that can have scientific experiments carried out and the data analyzed statistically, as these have, should be payed extra attention to. As these are the most promising, skeptical attention should be focused on these 95%! (as opposed to crop circles, Loch Ness, or Bigfoot). In addition medical claims are serious, by their nature, and should be taken 100% serious by skeptical researchers.

Things like analyzing (mathematically) medium transcripts seem OK, but I think the mathematics involved is a lot trickier (guesses in transcripts are not like radioactive decay), as it is more difficult to model. But, mathematical clairity should be strived for whenever possible. Sometimes this is not practical, and we'll have to be happy with descriptive, and not inferential, statistics. In many cases, building up data is an excellent way to say, 'hey, look what I know about this process!'

To the extent that the Gansfeld stuff uses subjective measures, they fall into this catagory.

In my opinion, ruling something out just because it uses subjective measures is somewhat nieve (read: "stupid"), because you could chuck that baby right out the window.

In fact, for example, there is Bayesian statistics which thrives on handling subjectivity in a scientific manner (incorporating prior beliefs into the models), and researchers in this field have done some truly spectacular things.

Judges rating something isn't necessarily a bad thing or unscientific. There are many psychological, medical, and social subjective measures that are quite useful when there is no way to get an objective measure. Scientists just realize there are many things we cannot measure. Luckily, smarter statisticians have realized that even non-measurable things are still data and can be analyzed.

Also, for example, there are many ways one can rate the 'agree-ness' of the judges ratings to see if their judgings are consistent and matching (the ideal) or all over the map with their ratings, and then proceed from there.