Cold Reading at The Straight Dope?

[some_random_guy]

Reference article...
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcoldreading.html

It seems rather intriguing to me that you posted an article about cold reading as a means of gathering psychic information. I'm not going to agree or disagree with that idea. What I'm posting about is that it seems there may be a little "sleight of hand" going on behind the scenes at The Straight Dope!

I found the article interesting but by the end of the article, I was perplexed. The final sentence of the article reads, "But you'd do well to maintain your skepticism – and keep one hand on your wallet." And in the references section immediately following, there's an invitation to buy a book from Ian Rowland!

It seems to me that the SD editors got together with Mr. Rowland and said, "Hey, I think we have a great marketing opportunity here. Let's post an article about cold reading then invite readers to buy a book on cold reading. We'll split the profits -- whaddya say?"

So basically, this was just a marketing campaign.

In the future, please provide references but don't make it sound like it's all innocuous. Just admit that you want to make money off your readers, the same way that cold readers want to make money off their viewers!

[C K Dexter Haven]

Welcome to the Straight Dope, guy, I think, but I find your analogy a bit stretched. I don't think rubber bands can stretch that much.

(1) If we sell a book, or a coffee mug, or a t-shirt, you know what you're getting. You know how much you're paying for it. And you know what the expected service is.

When it comes to cold reading techniques, we have no problem if you want to pay for a show. We said, "Enjoy the entertainment." You can pay money to see a magician perform, and he doesn't try to convince you that it's "real" magic, you know it's a trick. We've got no problem with such performers.

Our problem (and the warning to keep your hand on your wallet) was because there are plenty of unscrupulous performers, con-artists, where you DON'T know what you're getting -- you think you're getting some sort of psychic insight or communication with a dear departed, and they pretend that's what you're getting, but what you're really getting for your money is a cold reading. That's where you don't know what you're paying for, and you often don't know how much it will ultimately cost you.

That's the main difference.

(2) We used Ian for a reference because he has researched the topic heavily. Staff Reports are written by the volunteers of the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board. We usually don't have the time to do original research, so we rely on secondary sources. That's pretty much true of all Staff Reports -- we quote or paraphrase those who have done the original research, and we tell you what those sources are, so that you can find them if you want more information. We quoted and cited Ian's book the same we we quoted and cited other sources -- like the Skeptical Inquirer article in this particular report. That's been our standard practice for a long time.

(3) Normally, when we cite a great source, we are content with telling you what the source is, so you can get more information if you want it. In this case, the author was willing to offer a pretty massive discount for a limited time, and we thought that was worth passing on. The Straight Dope does not get any revenue from those sales, in any form whatsoever -- there's no kickback.

When the discount period has ended, that paragraph will disappear from the Staff Report, and it will be just like any other reference that we cite.

[some_random_guy]

'Nuff said!
Stretchy, stretchy :)
Keep up the good work.

[ianzin]

Geez... you try to do something nice and all people can see is collusion and sharp practice.

I wasn't asked to provide any discount. There was no collusion. There was no discussion of marketing tactics. Dex notified me that he would be mentioning my book. I said 'Thanks'. Then, because I very much enjoy being part of this community, and because SD posters have given me so many hours of pleasure, fun, entertainment, advice and information, I emailed Dex and said 'Listen, if SD readers want the book, I'll give it them cut price.'

That's it. Nothing evil. Just niceness. The Straight Dope don't get any kickback from me. I don't get any from them, even though I've provided a highlighted link to the site for a couple of years now and recommend it as the best forum of its kind. If you check out my website, I provide free adverts for other goods and services I believe in.

The discount has to run for a limited time because otherwise word gets around, people pass on the code and before you know it EVERy order comes in with a discount code, from people who've never even heard of Cecil!

Just setting the record straight...

[some_random_guy]

Yeah, I know.
I'm an asshole.
Sorry for the trouble I've cause.
:smack:

[rfs001]

Well, Ian and Dex, since you are doing such nice things for one another, I might suggest that you perhaps will take this post as a nice thing someone is doing for YOU.

The claim that "(1) To date there's no scientific proof of the existence of "real" psychics" is simply not accurate. I suggest you take a little time to dig a little deeper into the research that IS there. I completely agree that "A stage or TV performance or a personal reading doesn't prove anything. " However, the topic of psychic powers has been seriously studied, numerous times, by numerous people, at places as diverse as Cornell University and the DOD's Aberdeen Proving Grounds, by serious researchers.

You make no mention of J.B. Rhyne's pioneering studies at Duke University, yet he studied psychic phenomena for years in blind trials. His experimental technique and the volumes of data he compiled are above reproach. He demonstrated that the results in his trials were statistically significant and that they were beyond (considerably) what would be predicted by chance.

Of course lots of "entertainer" style psychics are fakes. This does not suggest that no genuine psychics exist. A educated mind SHOULD Be a skeptical one. But it should not be a closed one.

[rowrrbazzle]

ianzin - I for one appreciate your generous offer and will probably be ordering your book soon.

rfs001 - you said, "A educated mind SHOULD Be a skeptical one. But it should not be a closed one." So you yourself would be willing to examine criticism of Rhine, correct? Many people think his work is not above reproach. You could start with books and articles by Martin Gardner and back issues of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.

This has been debated on this board many times, so I'll try to be brief. The evidence for psychic powers that has been presented so far is marginal and contaminated with poorly controlled experiments and cheating. This being the case, few serious people will examine any new evidence unless the effect is unquestionable, produced under the most rigorous conditions by reputable researchers, and reproducible by other independent researchers.

[rowrrbazzle]

BTW, here's one recent thread discussing psychic stuff - Psychic studies in college. Is liberal Europe more "enlightened" or less scientific? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=210202)

[ianzin]

I'm more than a little surprised at the way casual near-slander is an apparently accepted feature of posts to the Boards these days. In the Pit, maybe... but elsewhere?

Why do some people feel entitled to first of all post fact-lite nonsense, which might be on show here for a day or two before I can reply, and only after the event, when the truth is gently explained, disappear with some half-baked apology? Whatever happened to asking a question first to get the facts straight?

We had the guy telling the world that ordering stuff via my site wasn't secure (it's about as secure as modern technology knows how to make it), then the guy alleging there was some sort of split-profit marketing scam going on between myself and Dex (utter horse spit), and now we have our friend rfs100 implying that I don't know my stuff.

I thought these Boards are about fighting ignorance, not spreading it around?

My friend rfs100, I know that you meant no harm and were trying to make a positive contribution. And I do respect that.

Since you raise the point, let me explain. I've lectured on the history of psychic phenomena and scientific investigation of same at Oxford university, at Cambridge unviersity and at UCLA, to name but three. I don't think these places are in the habit of hiring dunkwits who don't know their stuff. I am very familiar with the work of J.B. Rhine, and I have most of the works he and his wife, Louisa, ever published. As an incidental side note, I even have an original hard back copy of 'ESP in Life and Lab' signed by Louisa Rhine herself.

I have a huge collection of books and related research materials pertaining to the history of scientific research in this field, including many original research papers which are or were hard to get hold of. And yes, I've actually read them and studied them. They aren't just there to fill the bookshelves.

I've had the opportunity to discuss these matters with many key players on both sides of the issue, examples: Brian Josephson, Richard Wiseman, Russell Targ, Gary Schwarz, Susan Blackmore, Rupert Sheldrake and so on.

In short, I think I know my stuff.

Rhine's work was historically significant in that he was among the very first to attempt a scientifically controlled study of psychic ability, and to devise a protocal to do so. He got the psychic debate out of murky Victorian candlelit rooms and into the lab. He applied statistical analysis of data to the problem. For all of this and more, he and his wife are rightly recognised as a pioneers of scientific research into ESP.

But I think you will be hard pressed to find any reputable person working in this field to day who believes that Rhine's results constitute sound evidence of any psychic ability at all. If you want to know why, then you need to do more than just read a few cites I could post here. You'll have to read the appropriate literature, with Terence Hines being a good author to start with.

If you want the short and simple answer, then here goes...

Question #1. Some people contend that when it comes to testing for psychic ability, the scientists should employ the services of someone well-qualified in deception as applied to the faking of psychic phenomena, both to help design the tests and administer them, to preclude the chance of fakery and cheating. Do you believe that this is a good idea?

If NO, then you need to study more of the available data, especially what Randi refers to as Project Alpha, and read Richard Wiseman and Peter Lamont's excellent book on testing psychic claimants.

If YES, then we get to question 2.

Question #2. Tell me which person, well-qualified in the field of deception applied to the faking of psychic phenomena, was involved in desgining Rhine's tests and supervising the way they were administered?

The correct answer is: no such person was ever involved by Rhine or his wife, Louisa.

In other words, they took no steps to preclude the fakery' hypothesis. And in the field of psychic research, this is essential.

I repeat that this is the short'n'sweet, superficial version. The details are there to be read about, if you want to take the time and trouble to read about them.

I stand by my original statement about there being no scientific evidence to date supporting the 'psychic' hypothesis. I know about Rhine, I know about Targ & Puthoff, I know about Jahn, I know about most of the examples you can throw in my direction.

The opposite of a closed mind is not 'an open mind', it is 'an informed mind'. I have one. I know about the stuff I write about and lecture about. It might be nice, and a bit more friendly, if you didn't casually imply otherwise in a public forum.

[John W. Kennedy]

It is an unfortunate fact that scientists tend to be very vulnerable to fraud. They are trained to study Nature, and Nature, unlike Man, never tells lies.

[rfs001]

Ian & friends:
I admit to being woefully ignorant on the current status of periodicals and books written by skeptical researchers concerning psychic phenomena. Since I do not know what their objections to Rhine's methodology might be, I would be hard-pressed to really seriously address that. But I certainly hope that their objections concern valid scientific points regarding the design of the experiments or the evidence. You write: "Tell me which person, well-qualified in the field of deception applied to the faking of psychic phenomena, was involved in desgining Rhine's tests and supervising the way they were administered." If one is to start (as you do) with the premise that the only valid investigators into psychic phenomena are those who are well-qailified in the field of deception regarding the faking of psychic phenomena, then it seems to me that your argument is a bit circular: i.e., only those who are already biased against the existence of psychic phenomena are qualified to study it. But then, I have not read the authors you cited nor lectured at UCLA on the topic, so I do not claim to possess any special knowledge. I am not by trade a professional debunker nor a professional promoter of psychic phenomena. And in all honesty, while I am curious enough about it to say that I would like to someday read Wiseman and Lamont, I am also of the strong belief that this particular type of phenomena is in a different class of element than other items found in nature. Simply put, I do not believe it is reproducible at will in a laboratory and hence, will never be an appropriate candidate for study using the traditional rigors of Western science. Having said that, I recognize that there are those will will suggest that irreproducible phenomena simply do not exist. Using standard methodology, that would be true. However, to cite one example, there are lots of apparent contradictions in particle physics with respect to traditional scientific beliefs and methodology; this does not prevent us from studying it, nor should it. I've had sufficient experiential evidence in my own life to conclude that we are dealing with a very different form of energy here and that psychic phenomena does indeed exist. It is not a question of "fakery" for me (or hiring professional debunkers to design elaborate experiments) but belief based on actual experience. Since I have evidence of it in my own life, and the evidence is such that I can rule out fakery, I do not need to "prove" it exists (or doesn't exist).

If one is to view all attempts to study this phenomena as intentional fraud, then one is likely to find fraud. Let's use a social science as an example--psychology. The vast majority of psychology experiments are done on college freshmen. College freshman are not at all a representative sample of the population as a whole. The argument could certainly be made that psychology is invalid, because the group being studied in most of the experiments is not representative of the population as a whole. This does not prevent millions of people and professionals from practicing what has been learned in these studies and applying it in their lives on a daily basis. Psychology has credibility as a field of study because some of the data are valid, in spite of the serious flaws in the experimental design.

[SlowMindThinking]

As a physicists, I have to ask. What about particle physics violates traditional methodology? It seems to me that quantum mechanics helps validate the traditional methodology. Well designed experiments indicated that the prevailing paradigm, or model set, is wrong. New theories are constructed, experiments demonstrate their weaknesses, etc, until you get to the current state. That science has led to surprising results is an indication of the power of traditional Western science to discover the unexpected.

Which is precisely the problem with your claims about psychic powers. I say this, despite having a good friend, whom I trust, who had what can only be described as a religious visitation. One can "theorize" that he experienced a psychological phenomonem, or take his experience at face value. The circumstances, however, can not be reproduced and so neither kind of explanation is scienticially testable. That does not mean that "something" didn't happen, because otherwise he would be lying, and he is not a liar. (Certainly, if there are beings similar to those of our religious beliefs, they have not decided to be tested!)

I would argue that science has shown that people do not have psychic powers under ordinary circumstances. I suppose you could argue that some people can perform psychic feats under certain stresses, or occassionally. To be scientific, you would need some sort of mechanism for this to happen. And it could well be that the mechanism could be tested. (Theorize a racial memory, and you've theorized that people have access to it. There must then be biological mechanism that provides access to your consciousness. That biological mechanism is, in principle, findable.)

[C K Dexter Haven]

A difference: There are not lots of people running about trying to make a living by faking results in particle physics. And there are not lots and lots of people who are looking for some psychological or religious comfort from particle physics.

In an environment where there are lots of people who WANT to believe, and where there are plenty of charlatans willing to make a buck, it's harder to set the experiments and draw conclusions.

[Moderator hat on] We've been well-behaved so far, I just want to remind folks that this is NOT the forum for insults or counter-insults. This is a forum for discussing the Staff Report. So let's continue to discuss politely, right? [/Moderator hat off]

[rfs001]

SlowMind, your point is a good description of where I am coming from on this: "I suppose you could argue that some people can perform psychic feats under certain stresses, or occassionally. To be scientific, you would need some sort of mechanism for this to happen. And it could well be that the mechanism could be tested. "

Of course it can be......it's a question of experimental design in some of those cases. This is the essence of what I'm suggesting. The fact that one needs giant cyclotrons in order to design certain types of experiments in particle physics does not mean that these phenomena do not exist simply because we cannot reproduce them in a high school physics laboratory. Much of the criticism leveled at experimenters attempting to design experiments with respect to psychic phenomena (from what I've seen, at any rate) seems to fall back on the notion that the phenomena cannot be readily produced at will. As you note, your friend with the religious visitation cannot reproduce it either, but certainly he is convinced it existed. What we lack is a fundamental theory as to how and why psychic phenomena might behave in the manner that they do; this is obviously a prelude to being able to address the question of experimental design. I am far less interested in debunking (or promoting) the claims of TV psychics...as Dexter and Ian both note, that raises the bar of experimental design to a much higher level since there is strong motivation for fakery in such scenarios. What does interest me are ordinary people who are not seeking to make lots of money with their abilities but who merely possess stronger abilities in this regard than the average person. I believe that this is what J.B. Rhine was trying to do, however inadequately (in some people's view) he may have done so. As I see it, based simply on my experience, the phenomena do exist; the theoretical mechanism and an adequate and accurate experimental design to test it have eluded us thus far.

[C K Dexter Haven]

<< the theoretical mechanism and an adequate and accurate experimental design to test it have eluded us thus far. >>

Then we're agreed on the facts, although the Staff Report has phrased it somewhat differently: no scientific, controlled experiment has yet produced any evidence of psychic phenomena.

The question of interpretation is whether, (a) we have not yet designed adequate tests, as you suggest; or (b) whether psychic phenomena don't exist. Either of those underlying situations are possible.

Another fact is that there have been PLENTY of frauds, con-artists, and tricksters who have exploited fake "psychic" phenomena for their material gain, playing off people who want to believe (a), for a variety of personal reasons.

It's very hard to measure or test something that is obviously psychological, when belief and interpretation play such a strong role in gauging a "success."

[tomsalinsky]

You write: "Tell me which person, well-qualified in the field of deception applied to the faking of psychic phenomena, was involved in desgining Rhine's tests and supervising the way they were administered." If one is to start (as you do) with the premise that the only valid investigators into psychic phenomena are those who are well-qailified in the field of deception regarding the faking of psychic phenomena, then it seems to me that your argument is a bit circular: i.e., only those who are already biased against the existence of psychic phenomena are qualified to study it.


I note with interest the subtle slip from "was involved" to "only ones qualified to study".

Does your argument stand up without it?

Cheers

Tom

[sultana of slash]

This is only tangentially helpful, but I went to Ian Rowland's site, attempted to buy the book, and got an error message saying that the discount code DCSD40 was not recognized.

Anyone else tried to buy the book?

[C K Dexter Haven]

When I tried it, I got a similar error message, because I had reversed some of the letters "DSCD40" .... sigh. When I typed them in the correct order, I had no problem. You might try again, sultana, on the off-chance that you mis-typed?

[C K Dexter Haven]

<< If one is to start (as you do) with the premise that the only valid investigators into psychic phenomena are those who are well-qailified in the field of deception regarding the faking of psychic phenomena, then it seems to me that your argument is a bit circular: i.e., only those who are already biased against the existence of psychic phenomena are qualified to study it. >>

To the contrary -- being knowledgable about the tricks and fakes and deceptions does not preclude belief. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, among others, was a believer, but he was ruthless in unmasking fakes. It is possible to believe that psychic phenomena are real and yet be well-versed in the types of deceptions that are practiced.

It seems obvious to me that if you DON'T select people who are knowledgable about trickery, you run very high risk that your testers will be easily duped.

[Princhester]

Originally posted by rfs001
Of course it can be......it's a question of experimental design in some of those cases. This is the essence of what I'm suggesting. The fact that one needs giant cyclotrons in order to design certain types of experiments in particle physics does not mean that these phenomena do not exist simply because we cannot reproduce them in a high school physics laboratory. Much of the criticism leveled at experimenters attempting to design experiments with respect to psychic phenomena (from what I've seen, at any rate) seems to fall back on the notion that the phenomena cannot be readily produced at will. As you note, your friend with the religious visitation cannot reproduce it either, but certainly he is convinced it existed. What we lack is a fundamental theory as to how and why psychic phenomena might behave in the manner that they do; this is obviously a prelude to being able to address the question of experimental design.

I think you are failing to see the wood for the trees. There is in fact a perfectly good theory as to how and why "psychic phenomena" behave as they do. And there are no indications that there is any difficulty at all with the question of experimental design.

The theory to which I refer is the theory that postulates that humans are fallible and that there are certain categories of belief that people often have despite those beliefs not having any objective foundation. This theory fits all the facts and is bourne out by experiment.

What does interest me are ordinary people who are not seeking to make lots of money with their abilities but who merely possess stronger abilities in this regard than the average person.

Clearly, you perceive there to be such people. See above as to how such a perception could arise, independantly of it being objectively true.

As I see it, based simply on my experience, the phenomena do exist; the theoretical mechanism and an adequate and accurate experimental design to test it have eluded us thus far.

The phenomena may exist in the classic sense. Or the phenomena may be your perception that the phenomena exist.

I'm sure you've seen one of those little optical illusions in which two lines are drawn in a way that makes them appear to be converging, and yet if you measure their separation with a ruler, they are parallel.

One can form two theories about this. Firstly, that the lines are in fact converging: that the ruler is wrong, and what is needed is to develop "a new theoretical mechanism and an adequate and accurate experimental design" on the assumption that since the lines do converge, your current experimental design must perforce be wrong since it does not support your perceptions.

Or secondly that your perceptions are wrong.

I know which theory I'm going with.

[rfs001]

Princhester responds to my earlier post:


"I think you are failing to see the wood for the trees. There is in fact a perfectly good theory as to how and why "psychic phenomena" behave as they do. And there are no indications that there is any difficulty at all with the question of experimental design.

The theory to which I refer is the theory that postulates that humans are fallible and that there are certain categories of belief that people often have despite those beliefs not having any objective foundation. This theory fits all the facts and is bourne out by experiment......

The phenomena may exist in the classic sense. Or the phenomena may be your perception that the phenomena exist.

I'm sure you've seen one of those little optical illusions in which two lines are drawn in a way that makes them appear to be converging, and yet if you measure their separation with a ruler, they are parallel.

One can form two theories about this. Firstly, that the lines are in fact converging: that the ruler is wrong, and what is needed is to develop "a new theoretical mechanism and an adequate and accurate experimental design" on the assumption that since the lines do converge, your current experimental design must perforce be wrong since it does not support your perceptions.

Or secondly that your perceptions are wrong.

I know which theory I'm going with."

One could easily make this argument about virtually any new field of experimental study........for example, in the early 20th century, physicists relying stringly on classic Newtonian models could (and did) certainly attack theories of particle behavior and relativity as being "outside the realm" of the experimental evidence. According to the classical view, certainly all of these particle physicists might merely be deluded and seeing only optical illusions, they claimed.

Let's take a more recent example. Thirty years ago, most U.S. doctors dismissed acupuncture as outright quackery. According to classical Chinese medicine, acupuncture works by redirecting the unseen "life-force" or ch'i, in the body. Utilizing the type of American scientific arrogance that, in my opinion, borders on racism, the AMA and Western doctors said, in effect, "you people are idiots. Even though you claim to have been successfully using these medical treatments for 3000 years, we're here to tell you that they don't work and are quackery." Why? Because we have no reference point in Western medicine to explain acupuncture. Therefore, 30 years ago, we simply dismissed it as quackery. We told the Chinese that they were mistaken; for 3000 years, in fact, they had been sadly mistaken. Now, a reasonably person might ask what would prompt Chinese doctors to practice medicine for thousands of years that didn't work.

Thirty years later, acupuncture is hardly considered radical; it's considered a adjunct to standard Western medical practice. Partly because some open-minded doctors stopped worrying about HOW it works and merely accepted the fact that it DOES work, many people have been relieved of serious, chronic and often painful conditions.

Dear Princhester, your argument succeeds on the grounds you have stated--i.e. that a more REASONABLE explanation fits the facts--only if you can tell me (with a straight face) that I am delusional, or that anyone else who has had a psychic experience is being fooled and is equally delusional. Naturally, we are not predisposed to accept this as a "reasonable" argument since we know very well that we are not delusional. For the same reason that Chinese doctors resented the fact that they were considered by Western doctors to have been delusional for thousands of years, those of us who have had personal experience with psychic phenomena find it equally appalling to be labeled as delusional fools. We might regret that you have not personally experienced such phenomena, and we recognize that those who have not experienced them can't really understand the basis for our belifs. But on the face of it, your argument could just as easily be applied to you: in other words, you could also be missing the boat here--your (understandable) lack of experience is deluding you into believing that these phenomena do not exist.

I believe that the phenomena exist. I believe that they are (under certain conditions) reproducible. I believe that they represent a type of energy that is simply outside the bounds of our current models, but which is more closely related to quantum mechanics than to, say, the action of catecholamines or various neurotransmitters (I do have some background in neurophysiology and naturally, given my interests, I have spent many years considering physiological explanations). I simply believe that we need to exert more effort in developing a reasonable theory.

So, Princhester, to be fair I suppose I should also ask if you believe that doctors who practice acupuncture are also being fooled, since I used that as an analogy. If not, can you explain how it works?

[Princhester]

Originally posted by rfs001
One could easily make this argument about virtually any new field of experimental study........for example, in the early 20th century, physicists relying stringly on classic Newtonian models could (and did) certainly attack theories of particle behavior and relativity as being "outside the realm" of the experimental evidence. According to the classical view, certainly all of these particle physicists might merely be deluded and seeing only optical illusions, they claimed.

No one couldn't because all the weird and wonderful advances in actual science can be experimentally proven, in a repeatable way.

You have accepted in earlier posts that psychic phenomena are not bourne out by reproducible objective testing.

Let's take a more recent example. Thirty years ago, most U.S. doctors dismissed acupuncture as outright quackery. According to classical Chinese medicine, acupuncture works by redirecting the unseen "life-force" or ch'i, in the body. Utilizing the type of American scientific arrogance that, in my opinion, borders on racism, the AMA and Western doctors said, in effect, "you people are idiots. Even though you claim to have been successfully using these medical treatments for 3000 years, we're here to tell you that they don't work and are quackery." Why? Because we have no reference point in Western medicine to explain acupuncture. Therefore, 30 years ago, we simply dismissed it as quackery. We told the Chinese that they were mistaken; for 3000 years, in fact, they had been sadly mistaken. Now, a reasonably person might ask what would prompt Chinese doctors to practice medicine for thousands of years that didn't work.

Thirty years later, acupuncture is hardly considered radical; it's considered a adjunct to standard Western medical practice.

The extent to which evidence based medical opinion accepts acupuncture co-incides with the extent to which it can provide repeatable objective evidence of benefit.

The extent to which acupuncturists make wild unproven claims co-incides with the extent to which evidence based medical thought regards it as a load of hooey.

Partly because some open-minded doctors stopped worrying about HOW it works and merely accepted the fact that it DOES work, many people have been relieved of serious, chronic and often painful conditions.

Right. And when someone comes up with an example of a psychic phenomenon that DOES work under controlled conditions, I'll consider myself relieved of my present serious chronic doubts about the existence of psychic phenomena.

Dear Princhester, your argument succeeds on the grounds you have stated--i.e. that a more REASONABLE explanation fits the facts--only if you can tell me (with a straight face) that I am delusional, or that anyone else who has had a psychic experience is being fooled and is equally delusional.

If you think that I did not have a straight face when I made my last post, you are very much mistaken. "Delusional" is a strong word, and I did not use it. "Delusional" suggests mental illness, which I certainly am not advocating as the cause of people perceiving that they have experienced psychic phenomena. I simply think that the human brain is an imperfect instrument, and there are certain well known circumstances in which we tend to perceive things that are not true. I think that to be a more likely explanation of people's belief in psychic phenomena than that psychic phenomena exist in an objective sense.

Naturally, we are not predisposed to accept this as a "reasonable" argument since we know very well that we are not delusional.

Just as I know that the lines in my optical illusion example are converging. Rulers be damned.

But on the face of it, your argument could just as easily be applied to you: in other words, you could also be missing the boat here--your (understandable) lack of experience is deluding you into believing that these phenomena do not exist.

Both of us belief in the existence of things that can be objectively proven to be true. Only one of us believes in things that cannot. Our positions are not equal and opposite.

I believe that they are (under certain conditions) reproducible.

You should do it then. There's a Nobel waiting. What are you sitting about for? Get on with it.

I believe that they represent a type of energy that is simply outside the bounds of our current models, but which is more closely related to quantum mechanics than to, say, the action of catecholamines or various neurotransmitters (I do have some background in neurophysiology and naturally, given my interests, I have spent many years considering physiological explanations). I simply believe that we need to exert more effort in developing a reasonable theory.

Theory, schmeery. Stop worrying about HOW it works and get on with showing the fact that it DOES work, and then many people (including me) can be relieved of serious, chronic and often painful ignorance.

So, Princhester, to be fair I suppose I should also ask if you believe that doctors who practice acupuncture are also being fooled, since I used that as an analogy.

Not if their patients can be objectively proven to get better faster or more completely than those not treated with acupuncture.

When you can show likewise in relation to psychic phenomena, I will accept that you are not being fooled.

If not, can you explain how it works?

Who cares? If it does, it does. You are now going to show the world psychic phenomena working. I'm waiting with baited breath.

[C K Dexter Haven]

The mind is a marvellous thing. We know for a fact that the placebo effect does have a small impact. If the mind believes that drinking a glass of water with red food coloring in it will cure the common cold, there is a small percentage of cases in which that will actually work. It doesn't mean that water is a cure for runny noses, it means that there are physical symptoms that can (in a small percentage of cases) be relieved by mind-set.

This makes it very difficult to deal with something like acupuncture. Or psychics. All you need is a small percentage of success, and the proponents yell up and down about the narrow-minded establishment. In fact, the establishment is only narrow-minded in one way: the requirement of reproducible results under controlled conditions.

With psychics, it is very clear that people who want to believe find that a cold reading provides incredible successes. People who know how cold reading works know exactly how the process provides successes, and it has nothing to do with voices from beyond.

I suggest the following experiment: tape one of the shows of the TV psychics. Then play back the tape slowly, taking notes on exactly what the psychic says and to whom. Make a transcript. Then read Ian's book (or even our short summary) and ask yourself whether the process of cold reading can explain almost everything that happened. (And remember TV editing -- watch for cuts!)

[ianzin]

I'd just like to say how much I admired Princhester's most recent post, especially this kind of thing:

"The extent to which evidence based medical opinion accepts acupuncture co-incides with the extent to which it can provide repeatable objective evidence of benefit.

The extent to which acupuncturists make wild unproven claims co-incides with the extent to which evidence based medical thought regards it as a load of hooey."

A more succinct, fair, accurate, well-expressed summary based on familiarity with the subject matter would be hard to find. Okay, so Prin is obviously fighting far below his/her weight here, but even so posts like this are the reason I signed up to the Board in the first place.

BTW, Prin, I could be wrong but I think it's 'bated breath' not 'baited'. It's from 'abate', not from 'bait' as in lure.

[John W. Kennedy]

"Bated" is correct. Old-fashioned way of saying "holding one's breath".

[Princhester]

And "believe" rather than "belief" would have been good. Thanks Ian.

[Princhester]

I thought I should provide an example of the the type of optical illusions I am talking about (http://eluzions.com/Illusions/) just to show how powerful they are, and how hard it is to stop yourself from perceiving something that is not actually true.