What is "paranormal"? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Peter Morris

10-17-2004, 12:20 AM

In this thread, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5376570#post5376570) Peter Morris claims that some phenomena, once considered paranormal, are no longer, but have become mainstream science. I challenged that statement, and it appears that we may have a different definition of "paranormal."

Peter Morris offers up three examples of things once considered paranormal: polio, meteorites, and ulcers.

Polio, at least in the Middle Ages, was considered unexplainable, and the work of demons or worse. We now know it is caused by a virus and is preventable.

That is a pretty big distortion. I never said that "polio" was paranormal. What I said was that a particular medical treatment for polio was condemned as quackery for 30 years, then became mainstream medicine. That medical treatment was "paranormal" or "quackery" through those 30 years. At no time did I suggest that polio was paranormal.

Meteorites (rocks falling from the sky) were pooh-poohed by mainstream science ("impossible!") but are now considered "normal" celestial objects.

True enough. That's what I said. Meteorites were "paranormal" 200 years ago, but are normal today.

Ulcers, once assumed to be caused by stress, are now often cured by treating them as a bacterial infection.

And he's back to the distortions.

It's not "ulcers" that were paranormal. Its the treatment for ulcers. When medical science knew that ulcers were caused by stress, this guy came up with the strange theory that they were actually caused by bacteria, and could be cured by simple antibiotics. Strangely, for years after he made his claim, no other doctors could detect their presence. But after facing 10 years of hostility and riducule, his claims were vindicated.

During those 10 years, the medical treatment he offered was "paranormal" or "quackery" or "fringe science." Now that it's vindicated, its mainstream medicine.

My claim is that none of these were ever truly "paranormal."

yeah, that's the problem. Anything you can't disprove you word-game away.

This claim fails - its paranormal, and false.
This claim fails - it's paranormal, and false.
This claim fails - it's paranormal, and false.
This claim fails - it's paranormal, and false.
This claim .... my god, it succeeds. It's true but IT ISN'T PARANORMAL. It not. It can't be. I'm still right. No paranormal claim has sever suceeded.
This claim fails - it's paranormal, and false.
This claim fails - it's paranormal, and false.

Peter Morris seems to consider anything unknown as paranormal. So we may have a definition problem.

since you seem to be a mind-reader, why don't you go for Randi's prize?

The "unknown" is NOT paranormal in my definition. Nor is the "unexplained" There are plenty of things iin science that are unknown and unexplained, yet nobody would call them paranormal. For example, gravity. We can predict the effects of gravity, but we can't (yet) explain the mechanism. What gravity does, we can predict. How it works, we don't know. Being unknown does not make gravity "paranormal"

There are two features of a "paranormal" claim:
1) An ability, discovery, theory or event that is ouside of ordinary experience.
2) It is widely doubted.

Very few of us have ever walked on the Moon. It is outside normal experience, but it's not paranormal. It meets the first criterion, but fails the second. Most people don't doubt the truth of the Moon landings. It is believed by the majority, and therefore not paranormal.

The three example I cited ARE paranormal because they meet both tests.

Meteorites were paranormal 200 years ago. Few people had ever seen one, and those that had were treated as cranks. Science did not believe in them. They did not fit into orthadox scientific theory of the time.

Today, the theory has changed. Meteorites are no longer doubted, hence no longer are paranormal.

The paranormal is mainly defined by doubt. Any wild and crazy idea attacked by science IS paranormal. These people like Randi and Lavoisier who set themselves up as guardians of logic and rationality make things paranormal by attacking them. Any claim that the skeptics attack is paranormal, by virtue of the fact that they are attacking it. Anything they try to debunk is paranormal.

Bryan Ekers

10-17-2004, 01:41 AM

Bryan Ekers

10-17-2004, 02:10 AM

The "unknown" is NOT paranormal in my definition. Nor is the "unexplained" There are plenty of things iin science that are unknown and unexplained, yet nobody would call them paranormal. For example, gravity. We can predict the effects of gravity, but we can't (yet) explain the mechanism. What gravity does, we can predict. How it works, we don't know. Being unknown does not make gravity "paranormal"

Well, the existence of meteoroids within the solar system (some of which fall to Earth) was unknown 200 years ago, so why was meteor theory "paranormal" while gravity isn't?

There are two features of a "paranormal" claim:
1) An ability, discovery, theory or event that is ouside of ordinary experience.
2) It is widely doubted.

Very few of us have ever walked on the Moon. It is outside normal experience, but it's not paranormal. It meets the first criterion, but fails the second. Most people don't doubt the truth of the Moon landings. It is believed by the majority, and therefore not paranormal.
From what I've seen, you're fond of acusing people (including me, by the way) of using slippery semantics. I'm afraid I'll have to return the favour. You are using "normal" in an improper manner. In physics terms, "normal" should mean anything permissable by the laws of physics, not something an ordinary person would experience during an ordinary lifetime. That anyone doubts or doesn't doubt the moon landings is completely irrelevant to whether or not the moon landings are "normal" (i.e. within the laws of physics).

The paranormal is mainly defined by doubt. Any wild and crazy idea attacked by science IS paranormal. These people like Randi and Lavoisier who set themselves up as guardians of logic and rationality make things paranormal by attacking them. Any claim that the skeptics attack is paranormal, by virtue of the fact that they are attacking it. Anything they try to debunk is paranormal.

Well, if that's how YOU define it, okay. I'd personally say that the paranormal is mainly defined by contradiction, not doubt or attack, and contradition to established and well-tested laws of phsyics, not the beliefs of Randi or Lavoisier or anyone else.

From what I've seen, you're claiming to be defending logic (or at least accusing others of doing a poor job of it) and you're attacking Randi. Does that make you a skeptic and Randi paranormal? Just curious.

SnakeSpirit

10-17-2004, 02:32 AM

Snake, I don't buy it. You selected the one definition that doesn't match the others and doesn't jibe with science. Just because you can't immediately explain it doesn't mean it is ultimately unexplainable. And the unexplained does not necessarily require a out-of-the-normal explanation. Occam's Razor and all that, y'know.
Oh, come on, Cat. You know by now (I'm sure) that I believe the "paranormal" is quite 'normal' - ... as soon as we find the explanation. Our science is just in its (relative) infancy! Are you looking for an argument? You won't find it here.

It's the closesest definition that matched my own. If you want opinions, you got mine. If you want "scientific truths" I think you're asking the wrong question!

Sssssssnake

t-keela

10-17-2004, 02:46 AM

Well, according to my Webster's dictionary, paranormal in the strictest definition is, " that which is not explainable by science." However, it is also listed as being synonymous with things that are considered supernatural.
To me this implie that many things that were "paranormal" in the past would no longer be due to the advances made scientifically over the years.
Supernatural (to me) implies things which may NEVER be explained scientifically simply because there is NO PROOF that they exist at all.
This is where you get into the existence of things which people believe exist and witnesses claim they know. But since there is no measurable evidence of their existence they aren't subject to scientific method. Therefore the term supernatural and paranormal (IMHO) should NOT be synonymous.
"Nothing unreal exists". It seems like I heard that somewhere before. Does it sound familiar to anyone here or is it just something I imagined? ;)

t-keela

10-17-2004, 02:47 AM

Oh, hey Bryan good to see you. :)

Bryan Ekers

10-17-2004, 03:03 AM

Oh, hey Bryan good to see you. :)

Are you sure you can see me? Because any doubt means I am.... PARANORMAL!

"Nothing unreal exists" was the answer to a trivia question presented to Spock (along with chess problems, mathematical equations and whatnot) during his hopped-up "retraining" at the beginning of Star Trek IV.

t-keela

10-17-2004, 03:20 AM

Are you sure you can see me? Because any doubt means I am.... PARANORMAL!
Here you go again, taking everything I say literally. ;)

"Nothing unreal exists" was the answer to a trivia question presented to Spock (along with chess problems, mathematical equations and whatnot) during his hopped-up "retraining" at the beginning of Star Trek IV.

Yeah, wasn't that the one that asked him, "How do you feel?"
Followed by the infamous line..."Captain, there be whales here."
Now that's gotta be paranormal. :D

So, where did the line originate or was that its origin? :confused:

Bryan Ekers

10-17-2004, 03:29 AM

Here you go again, taking everything I say literally. ;)

Yeah, wasn't that the one that asked him, "How do you feel?"
Followed by the infamous line..."Captain, there be whales here."
Now that's gotta be paranormal. :D

So, where did the line originate or was that its origin? :confused:

The test ended with all three computers asking "How do you feel?" "Nothing unreal exists" was the answer to "What is Kiri-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics?" A search on the phrase doesn't turn up any pre-1986 references though, interestingly, a number of "inspirational" websites have included it, without attribution.

t-keela

10-17-2004, 03:33 AM

"Inspirational websites" heh... I won't even go there dude! :D

t-keela

10-17-2004, 03:36 AM

Wait a minute...Bryan...did you say "laws of metaphysics?" Okay, now we've got something to debate. Would you mind quoting some of these laws, please?

Peter Morris

10-17-2004, 08:32 AM

Well, if one chooses (as I do) to define "paranormal" as "describing a phenomenon which is in violation of known laws of physics", then citing examples which occured before the relevant law of physics was known is moot. Meteorites weren't "paranormal" 200 years ago, because the relevant aspect of "normal" (i.e. that outer space is teeming with meteoroids, some of which get pulled into Earth's gravity well) was unknown.

Sigh.

First of all, your definition: "describing a phenomenon which is in violation of known laws of physics". I can agree with that.

But the rest is absurd. Not paranormal because it was before the law of physics? Ridiculous. The fact that it was before the law of pjhysics was discovered is what makes it paranormal. Meteorites were paranormal 200 years ago because they were in violation of the laws of physics as they were known at the time.

According to your usage, ieven if a claim is true, you will never agree that it's paranormal.

Consider ESP. At science stands at the moment, ESP violates the known laws of physics, thus is paranormal. But just suppose for a moment it could be demonstrated in the Lab. What would be the result of that? According to you: all we've done is demonstrate a new law of physics, one that was unknown previously. ESP doesn't break the laws of physics, it obeys the newly discovered law. Calling it paranormal is moot because it was before the law was discovered.

You might as well argue that sunburn was "paranormal" before the discovery of ultraviolet radiation. Using the word "paranormal" in this way weakens it to the point of uselessness.

Ridiculous analogy. Sunburn was a known, observable phenomenon, even if the precise cause wasn't known. Nobody doubted the existence of sunburn. It didn't fit my definition of paranormal.

Peter Morris

10-17-2004, 08:41 AM

Well, the existence of meteoroids within the solar system (some of which fall to Earth) was unknown 200 years ago, so why was meteor theory "paranormal" while gravity isn't?

Precisely BECAUSE it was "unknown." Gravity has never been "unknown"

I'm using your word, though I think it's the wrong one. Rather than "unknown" say "outside orthadox scientific theory."

Polycarp

10-17-2004, 08:44 AM

I think the assertion here is a pretty good one -- phenomena regarded as "paranormal" either have a "natural" explanation or are pure coincidence. If we were to start an IMHO thread asking members to make ten specific predictions on events that will happen during 2005, and eighty people answer, a dozen or so of those 800 predictions will actually happen, not because the members in question are precognitive, but because the laws of chance call for that sort of coincidental "hit" rate.

My son-in-spirit and I are telepathic -- put the two of us in the same place, and we will know what each other is thinking. This is not a claim of psychic powers -- we simply know and understand each other's reactions to the degree that body language and the flow of conversation will clue us each in to the other's thinking to the extent that we can in fact "read the other's mind." We had one long "conversation" one night in 1991 that consisted of nothing more than sitting next to a stereo mute and playing the particular song(s) that said what we needed to say in response to what the other had "said" in his selection -- mostly because we both have the sort of quirky sense of humor that made doing that little exercise something we both enjoyed.

Aeschines

10-17-2004, 09:14 AM

I don't like the word "paranormal" and put it in quotes or say "so-called" unless I'm being careless. So for me the question is rather moot. Whatever is is normal.

So sad but so unsurprising to see Peter Morris's reply getting trashed here in such a dull manner, as it is spot-on in terms of the psychology of the thing. After all, "paranormal" is a label, basically a pejorative label, for a certain group of phenomena that are considered reprobate. "Paranormal" phenomena are what those damn believers believe without proof, nay! without any evidence whatsoever.

I think there are two conflicting perceptions of the state of science that inform one's take on "paranormal" phenomena. It would seem that the skeptics belive that our science has reached a high degree of completion: We've figured out most of what is knowable, and now we're just filling in the details. Sure, there might be a major discovery or two left, and a lot of new applied science, but our basic vision of the universe won't be overtuned.

I and New Agers in general, however see science as only having begun. We probably know only 10% or so of the major truths of the universe, and our technology at this point is purely Hasbro and Fisher Price stuff. To me the skeptics seem to eager to rebuff anything that might challenge their overconfident worldview: "It can't be true, dammit, because we've got all the major truths down already!" My feeling is, "Bring it on." The sooner our ignorance rudely bumps into the next thing it does not understand, the sooner it can be worn away and more of truth's core exposed.

I seem ludicrous, worthy of mockery, to the skeptics, who feel they know most of what will ever be known. I, on the other hand, think they will go down as the greatest anal retentives of history.

Nice post, Pete.

Peter Morris

10-17-2004, 09:17 AM

[quote]I think the assertion here is a pretty good one [quote]

Which of the contradictory assertions are you agreeing with?

That meteorites were paranormal 200 years ago, since they broke the laws of science known at the time?

Or that meteorites weren't paranormal 200 years ago, since they are explained by laws of physics known today?

Musicat

10-17-2004, 09:34 AM

I have only a short time to contribute to this discussion today, so I will pick out just a few small items from your posts.I never said that "polio" was paranormal. What I said was that a particular medical treatment for polio was condemned as quackery for 30 years, then became mainstream medicine. That medical treatment was "paranormal" or "quackery" through those 30 years. At no time did I suggest that polio was paranormal.OK. We are talking about the treatment or prevention, not the cause. Fair enough. She said that it's not a disease of the nervous system, its actually a disease of the muscles. It could be treated by rubbing with damp wool. Oh, how the medical community roared. For 30 years she was called crank, liar, chrlatan, quack.... then medical science realised she was right all along.IANAD, but I have a friend who contracted polio long ago. I doubt that rubbing his legs with damp wool will make him walk again. Please give a cite for your claim that rubbing a limb with damp wool will cure or prevent polio.It's not "ulcers" that were paranormal. Its the treatment for ulcers. When medical science knew that ulcers were caused by stress, this guy came up with the strange theory that they were actually caused by bacteria, and could be cured by simple antibiotics. Strangely, for years after he made his claim, no other doctors could detect their presence. But after facing 10 years of hostility and riducule, his claims were vindicated.If the definition of paranormal is "anything unknown or different from common knowledge," you're right, and that def is quite broad. If the def only includes "what contradicts common knowledge, often invoking unknown or unlikely forces," the ulcer claim is not paranormal. A bacterial cause of ulcers, while thought unlikely at one time, did not require the postulation of unknown, supernatural or paranormal forces. It just required some careful testing.

I could postulate that cataracts are caused by too much green light and not enough broccoli. I might be ridiculed at first, but thru careful testing, I could theoretically be proved right. I would not call this a paranormal claim at any stage.

I could postulate that cataracts are caused by C-rays that cannot be detected and are controlled by the thoughts of your monster-in-law, and this would be a paranormal claim. If I am eventually proved right, it would still be a paranormal claim, and the paranormal will have been proven. So far, I am not aware of any such claim that has been proven beyond a doubt.

RE: meteorites

I guess if, 200 years ago, the claim was made that the rocks that fell from the sky were put there by supernatural forces, it would be a paranormal claim. If some scientists were saying, "Hmmm...could there be some space fragments that sometimes fall to earth?" then it would not be. I don't know enough about such history to make this determination.

Remember, we are still working on a definition here -- what you have been calling "word games."

Peter Morris

10-17-2004, 12:25 PM

I have only a short time to contribute to this discussion today, so I will pick out just a few small items from your posts.OK. We are talking about the treatment or prevention, not the cause. Fair enough. IANAD, but I have a friend who contracted polio long ago. I doubt that rubbing his legs with damp wool will make him walk again. Please give a cite for your claim that rubbing a limb with damp wool will cure or prevent polio.

Lets be clear on this. I never said it would "cure or prevent polio." What it doesw is relieve the SYMPTOMS of polio. It can "re-educate" the muscles and restore mobility to a paralysed limb.

cite: http://www.skally.net/ppsc/swaim.html

If the definition of paranormal is "anything unknown or different from common knowledge," you're right, and that def is quite broad.

But that's not the definition.

try this: "Something is paranormal if it seems impossible according to the laws of science as they are currently known."

I could postulate that cataracts are caused by too much green light and not enough broccoli. I might be ridiculed at first, but thru careful testing, I could theoretically be proved right. I would not call this a paranormal claim at any stage.

Maybe YOU wouldn't call YOURSELF paranormal, if you really believed your theory and were trying to show it to the World. But other people, who reject your theory, would call you a quack, a crank and a woo-woo.

Look, you don't think that's paranormal? Randi might disagree with you. If you tried to sell your cure for cataracts, you's no doubt get a little note from him inviting you to apply for the million dollar prize. Just have a look in his archived commentries for magnetic shoes sold as a medical treatment. Perhaps you would explain what makes them paranormal, and your cataract cure NOT paranormal.

Also, if magnetic shoes were proven effective in double blind mediccal trials, and became accepted as legitimate medicine, would you still call them "paranormal?"

I could postulate that cataracts are caused by C-rays that cannot be detected and are controlled by the thoughts of your monster-in-law, and this would be a paranormal claim. If I am eventually proved right, it would still be a paranormal claim, and the paranormal will have been proven. So far, I am not aware of any such claim that has been proven beyond a doubt.

I don't understand the distinction. If you were proved right, the known laws of physics will be re-written. But that happens all the time.

What makes THIS re-writing of the laws of physics "paranormal" and other re-writings of the laws of physics "normal?"

BrainGlutton

10-17-2004, 12:33 PM

From the "Ghosts" thread, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5376603)Remote Viewing, Astral Projection, Psychic Surgery, Aromatherapy, Bach Flower Therapy, Reflexology, Iridology, Astrology, Bioharmonics, Therapeutic Touch, Channelling, Crop Circles, Ectoplasm, Facilitated Communication...

Shall I go on? I'm only up to the "F's", and I skipped a lot.

Nothing paranormal about crop circles, if real flesh-and-blood (or whatever they use) aliens were making them.

Here's a good definition: "Paranormal" is using a feather. "Abnormal" is using the whole chicken. :)

Bryan Ekers

10-17-2004, 01:55 PM

Well, because the laws of physics do not react to doubt (someone may doubt the existence of Newton's Third Law, but that won't protect them from beng hit by a train), doubt should not have a place in defining what is paranormal, i.e. in violation of the laws of physics. Consider someone giving a demonstration of a heavy object floating in midair:

Audience: WOW! That must be the work of something paranormal!
Exhibitor: No, it's just an application of superconductivity combined with magnetism.

Does the fact that the audience was unfamiliar with the relevant laws of physics justify the "paranormal" label? Suppose the Exhibitor never explained the actual science involved, letting each audience member continue to believe they'd witnessed a paranormal event. Does that unshattered belief make the event paranormal? Suppose some time later, an audience member describes the event to a nonwitness, who doubts the veracity of the account. Does that doubt make the event paranormal? Exactly when does the paranormal label attach, anyway?

Now suppose the Exhibitor isn't a flesh-and-blood person, but just the randomness of the universe, which one day gives a spectacular display to a bunch of witnesses, with the same (unexplained) results. Does it only become "paranormal" as soon as someone who didn't see it, doubts it? By that logic, anything that was ever doubted by anyone could qualify as paranormal. Your definition seems restricted to scientists, though, so is something only paranormal if it is doubted by someone with a university degree in a scientific discipline?

But that's not the definition.

try this: "Something is paranormal if it seems impossible according to the laws of science as they are currently known."

Actually, that sounds bang-on to me (and nearly identical to the definition I offered earlier in the thread) except you're putting too much weight on "currently known" to justify too broad a use of the word, in places where "unexplained" would do nicely. Heck, Columbus had no knowledge of the Americas when he set sail for Asia. That doesn't make the Americas paranormal by European standards. Even when Columbus returned, describing all the wierd things he'd seen, some scientists of the day might have thought such things impossible. That doesn't make the Americas paranormal, either.

Incidentally, do reputable scientists ever actually use the word "paranormal"? Seems to me if they saw something the violated known laws of physics, the first thing to do would be to check their instruments, then test again, then make a note of the event (if it recurs) and continue analysis, on the assumption that every effect has a cause, even if the cause is currently unclear or generally assumed to not exist.

Bryan Ekers

10-17-2004, 02:04 PM

If you were proved right, the known laws of physics will be re-written. But that happens all the time.

Actually, it doesn't, in the sense that the laws are completely trashed and redrawn. There has been gradual refinement, but major paradigm shifts do not occur "all the time". That attitude is used to justify all kinds of nonsense, by claiming that scientists never get things straight.

Bryan Ekers

10-17-2004, 02:20 PM

Well, because the laws of physics do not react to doubt (someone may doubt the existence of Newton's Third Law, but that won't protect them from beng hit by a train)

How embarassing. I meant the first law, natch.

Incidentally:

Wait a minute...Bryan...did you say "laws of metaphysics?" Okay, now we've got something to debate. Would you mind quoting some of these laws, please?

The movie only cited the first law, and on reflection I find it rather amusing that a first law of metaphysics essentially trashes metaphysics. I bet the second law is: "Weren't you listening?! It's all CRAP!"

SnakeSpirit

10-17-2004, 05:42 PM

Consider ESP. At science stands at the moment, ESP violates the known laws of physics, thus is paranormal.
Nonsense! ESP can exist within the laws of physics, it has not been shown to be outside or within the laws.

ESP may be nothing more than a radio-wave type transmission from one bioelectrical computer (brain) to another. If so, it operates within the laws of physics. So why don't we all have ESP? All our other senses vary in ability from one person to another, and who knows what is involved in sensing those electrical patterns? (if that's what they are) And do we have the necessary ability to decode them?

Interesting that Uri Geller scored hits when someone who knew the right answers was in his presence, but he scored no hits when isolated by a faraday cage.

SnakeSpirit

10-17-2004, 06:05 PM

I don't like the word "paranormal" and put it in quotes or say "so-called" unless I'm being careless. So for me the question is rather moot. Whatever is is normal.
Just checking in here to give you some validation. I get the same feeling from the so-called "sceptics" here: arrogance. "We already know it all, and anything else just doesn't fit. Perhaps not only "paranormal" but "sceptic" should always be put in quotes.

Precise communication has always been a troublesome issue on this board. Terms like "believer," "true believer," "sceptic, skeptic and skeptik" all should have precise meanings if we are to communicate in a meaningful manner. Instead they are mis-applied, used as pejoratives, or even titles!

I don't consider myself a "believer," I consider myself an explorer. Some of those who call themselves "skeptics" do not fit the dictionary-definition.

Change makes people very insecure. History always shows strong resistance to new ideas or to different ideas, things that don't fit into a comfort zone. Insecurity breeds fear, which breeds belligerance. We have seen it throughout history, and history is repeating itself on this board.

Unfortunately there are also real sceptics on this board, who do fit the dictionary definition of "suspending judgement" rather than "rejecting unproven ideas" that the self-named "skeptics" here exhibit.

Actually, it is fortunate we have real sceptics here. I have an immense amount of respect for them; it's just unfortunate they get lumped in with the "pseudo-skeptics" when the term is brought up.

Wish we could call a spade a spade.

Peter Morris

10-17-2004, 07:20 PM

Nonsense! ESP can exist within the laws of physics, it has not been shown to be outside or within the laws.

ESP may be nothing more than a radio-wave type transmission from one bioelectrical computer (brain) to another. If so, it operates within the laws of physics.

I disagree. There may be a structure in the brain that can transmit and receive signals like a radio. But science as it stands at the moment does not know of any such structure. Therefore the suggestion lies outside what is currently known.

The phrase "laws of physics" is too restrictive, anyway. Maybe "currently accepted scientific knowledge" would be better.

Aeschines

10-17-2004, 08:07 PM

Bryan Ekers

10-17-2004, 08:23 PM

The phrase "laws of physics" is too restrictive, anyway. Maybe "currently accepted scientific knowledge" would be better.

Nah. If you're going to hold Lavoisier up as an example of the failings of science, it's important to note that while he may have said meterorites were a violation of the laws of physics, it's pretty obvious that he didn't know the heck he was talking about.

Snake: I asked earlier in another thread what a "pseudo-skeptic" was; now I'm going to have to ask what the difference is between a "sceptic" and a "skeptic".

Change makes people very insecure. History always shows strong resistance to new ideas or to different ideas, things that don't fit into a comfort zone. Insecurity breeds fear, which breeds belligerance. We have seen it throughout history, and history is repeating itself on this board.

I can say quite calmly that this is a serious load of paranoid bullshit. If a phenomena is observed and someone proposes a surprising explanation, it could easily be rejected becuase existing proven explanations are adequate. If, for example, a psychic gives a detailed reading of a visitor, you could propose it is due to telepathic or spiritual abilities (which are unproven) while a more mundane (and well-established) cause involves cold reading. To eliminate cold reading as a possible explanation, stringent controls need to be put in place and the "reading" repeated with a new subject.

There. I explained the flaw without feeling resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance, though I'll admit to eye-rolling contempt.

Bryan Ekers

10-17-2004, 08:26 PM

To the contrary, labeling something "paranormal" is not about the thing itself but how we feel about the thing. It is about our psychology, not physics.

Well, in that case, the word "paranormal" has no place in a thread titled "Can ghosts be scientifically proved to exist?" which suggests a search for objective evidence "about the thing". You can't have it both ways, where "paranormal" applies to science when science is wrong, and to psychology when science is right.

Peter Morris

10-17-2004, 08:59 PM

Nah. If you're going to hold Lavoisier up as an example of the failings of science, it's important to note that while he may have said meterorites were a violation of the laws of physics, it's pretty obvious that he didn't know the heck he was talking about.

That would be true of ANY validated paranormal claim. Sceptics may currently say that dowsing violates the known laws of physics. What if dowsing were later proved true, and a new law of physics described to explain it. Then you could say that the doubters didn't know what the heck they were talking about, and that it doesn't violate the laws of physics. It would be the same thing.

Snake: I asked earlier in another thread what a "pseudo-skeptic" was; now I'm going to have to ask what the difference is between a "sceptic" and a "skeptic".

The distinction is a subtle one. Those who use the 'k' spelling tend to be hardliners, and those using the 'c'-spelling are more moderate and open-minded. But this is confusing for many readers. Hence the use of 'pseudo-skeptic' for the more extreme ones.

I can say quite calmly that this is a serious load of paranoid bullshit. If a phenomena is observed and someone proposes a surprising explanation, it could easily be rejected becuase existing proven explanations are adequate. If, for example, a psychic gives a detailed reading of a visitor, you could propose it is due to telepathic or spiritual abilities (which are unproven) while a more mundane (and well-established) cause involves cold reading. To eliminate cold reading as a possible explanation, stringent controls need to be put in place and the "reading" repeated with a new subject.

There. I explained the flaw without feeling resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance, though I'll admit to eye-rolling contempt.

Bryan Ekers

10-17-2004, 09:29 PM

That would be true of ANY validated paranormal claim. Sceptics may currently say that dowsing violates the known laws of physics. What if dowsing were later proved true, and a new law of physics described to explain it. Then you could say that the doubters didn't know what the heck they were talking about, and that it doesn't violate the laws of physics. It would be the same thing.

Okay, when dowsing is validated, I'll take that as evidence that people who currently discount dowsing don't know what the heck they were taking about. Not before.

Those who use the 'k' spelling tend to be hardliners, and those using the 'c'-spelling are more moderate and open-minded. But this is confusing for many readers. Hence the use of 'pseudo-skeptic' for the more extreme ones.

Yeah, made-up terminology about other people sometimes has that effect. A check of fifteen online dictionaries (http://www.onelook.com/?w=sceptic&ls=a) shows all of them listing "sceptic" and "skeptic" merely as variant spellings of the same concept, with no indication of relative degree (i.e. I'd like a reputable cite for your definition, preferebly not one coming from a person firmly enmeshed in study of the paranormal). Rather than try to seperate "good" sceptics from "bad" skeptics (and apparantly "really bad" pseudo-skeptics), why not just used the existing terms skeptic/sceptic (good), cynic (bad) and naysayer (really bad)?

Or would that be too confusing?

SnakeSpirit

10-17-2004, 11:34 PM

Rather than try to seperate "good" sceptics from "bad" skeptics (and apparantly "really bad" pseudo-skeptics), why not just used the existing terms skeptic/sceptic (good), cynic (bad) and naysayer (really bad)?
I'd like that, but I just see too many pseudo-skeptics saying they are sceptics but in actuality they are cynics and "naysayers."

Gee, we can really have fun with spelling:

sceptics = suspend judgement on the unproven.
skeptics = think they're sceptics but tend toward cynicism.
skeptiks = deluded cynics who want to be sceptics but can't, cause they reject it all
pseudo-skeptics = pretend to be sceptics, but function as cynics.
sckepticks = not only bad, but EVIL!

This is truly a two-edged sword:

believers = those who believe that the paranormal is worth investigating.
true believers = fuck investigation, it's all true!
beeleievers = the sckepticks are out to get us!
beeleavers = if I believe than you must believe as well! Or... (insert current retribution)

and

paranormal = things that occur that seem to fall outside the current definitions of science.
paraknowrmal = things we are sure are true even though we have no evidence and which others reject.
parrotnormal = I know it's real cause I heard it from a true believer! Awk!

and so on....

Maybe we need an Official SDMB List Of Acceptable Definitions (LOAD) for Hot Topics Often Vehemently Argued Beyond Acceptable Standards of Reason.
HOT LOAD for short....

All we need is an unbiased moderator/administrator and an unbiased doper to work together to create it. :D

Sssssss

Bryan Ekers

10-18-2004, 12:02 AM

Gee, we can really have fun with spelling:

Uh, call me a sceptic/skeptic/pseudo-skeptic/cynic/naysayer if you must, but let's not have fun with spelling, okay? Creative labeling is a superficial tactic and does absolutely nothing to help your claims, which remain unproven.

Aeschines

10-18-2004, 02:41 AM

There. I explained the flaw without feeling resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance, though I'll admit to eye-rolling contempt.
Four down, one to go.

Bryan Ekers

10-18-2004, 03:09 AM

Four down, one to go.

Well, it's unclear to me what your statement means, but I don't think rejecting a complex unproven explanation when adequate simple proven explanations exist qualifies as resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance. The "flaw" is in how you claim to perceive reaction to paranormal ideas. It is not true that a negative reaction proves the existence of resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance. You claim that it does is what causes me to roll my eyes and hold your misuse of logic (as well as a self-serving martyr complex i.e. "I'm being victimized, therefore there is some truth in what I am saying") in contempt. I don't recognize that you are being victimized. Rather, I recognize that if you attempt to advance pseudoscience among people who recognize it as such, you risk ridicule, and deservedly so.

Aeschines

10-18-2004, 03:24 AM

Gee, we can really have fun with spelling:

Dude, this was hilarious! "Parrotnormal"--a riot! :)

Aeschines

10-18-2004, 03:26 AM

Well, it's unclear to me what your statement means, but I don't think rejecting a complex unproven explanation when adequate simple proven explanations exist qualifies as resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance. The "flaw" is in how you claim to perceive reaction to paranormal ideas. It is not true that a negative reaction proves the existence of resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance. You claim that it does is what causes me to roll my eyes and hold your misuse of logic (as well as a self-serving martyr complex i.e. "I'm being victimized, therefore there is some truth in what I am saying") in contempt.
I think you're arguing with the wrong person here. This doesn't seem to follow any dialog we've had.

Aeschines

10-18-2004, 03:36 AM

Well, in that case, the word "paranormal" has no place in a thread titled "Can ghosts be scientifically proved to exist?" which suggests a search for objective evidence "about the thing". You can't have it both ways, where "paranormal" applies to science when science is wrong, and to psychology when science is right.
I don't want it both ways. I think "paranormal" is a term that carries virtually no information at all. Hence, it is unneeded. Arguments about what the term ought to mean are a good indication it means nothing in the first place.

If you want to know what it does mean currently, however, Peter Morris was on the right track. A bunch of phenomena having nothing to do with each other are lumped together as if they have something in common. Whether bigfoot exists is a question for zoologists. Whether psi exists is a questions for psychologists, neurologists, physicists, etc. Cold fusion is a matter for phsicists to investigate. The only common thread is that people claim the phenomena are true and people of influence in the scientific community doubt that they are true (in varying numbers and with varying degrees of intensity).

In short, "paranormal" is a pejorative term. Then again, people who investigate the paranormal also use it, sometimes with enthusiasm. So I guess the situation could be termed complete chaos, with everyone involved getting something different out of using the term, and some like myself getting nothing.

Bryan Ekers

10-18-2004, 03:36 AM

I think you're arguing with the wrong person here. This doesn't seem to follow any dialog we've had.

I know; the original dialog was with SnakeSpirit and I will admit I made the assumption that your "Four down, one to go" statement (as well as your other posts in this thread) was more in support of his views than mine. In any case, nothing you've said in this thread inspires resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance in me, but some of your statements easily qualify for eye-rolling contempt.

Now, it's possible I have misinterpreted your rather cryptic "Four down" statement. I request a clarification.

Bryan Ekers

10-18-2004, 03:49 AM

I think "paranormal" is a term that carries virtually no information at all. Hence, it is unneeded. Arguments about what the term ought to mean are a good indication it means nothing in the first place.

If you want to know what it does mean currently, however, Peter Morris was on the right track. A bunch of phenomena having nothing to do with each other are lumped together as if they have something in common. Whether bigfoot exists is a question for zoologists. Whether psi exists is a questions for psychologists, neurologists, physicists, etc. Cold fusion is a matter for phsicists to investigate. The only common thread is that people claim the phenomena are true and people of influence in the scientific community doubt that they are true (in varying numbers and with varying degrees of intensity).

In short, "paranormal" is a pejorative term. Then again, people who investigate the paranormal also use it, sometimes with enthusiasm. So I guess the situation could be termed complete chaos, with everyone involved getting something different out of using the term, and some like myself getting nothing.

I'll fully agree with you on almost every point, with the largest exception being the part about Peter Morris being on the right track. He's mixing in an unfortunate paranoia (and a truly bizarre fixation on James Randi) to come up with the notion that doubt consitutes proof, and presumably the greater the amount of doubt, the stronger the proof.

I don't think I'd ever consider cold fusion as "paranormal," though. When Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann made their (wildly premature, it turned out) announcement in 1989, they added theories on the mechanism of cold fusion. In constrast, claims involving ghosts or dowsing or the powers of crystals or other psychic phenomena are rarely if ever accompanied by even an attempt at plausible explanation, because if something measurable were involved, like electromagnetism or whatnot, it should be fairly easy to test for. It is the claim without provable explanation that cries "paranormal" to me and yes, it is a pejorative term.

SentientMeat

10-18-2004, 03:52 AM

All good points so far. From my reading of the thread the definition for debate is this:

Paranormal - A demonstrable ability or phenomenon which cannot be explained by the current scientific paradigm.

This is useful enough in many situations but here we are, like good scientists, specifically trying to falsify it by considering certain cases, such as medical treatments or meteorites, which I would simply label erroneous hypotheses which were subsequently easily falsified themselves. Heck, right now we could just appeal to black holes, quantum entanglement or even certain aspects of consciousness itself to satisfy that definition. A paranormal phenomenon or ability is not simply an "interesting" or "poorly understood" one. Something must surely be added to the definition.

And so I would strengthen the definition thus:

Paranormal - A clearly demonstrable ability or phenomenon which the current scientific paradigm asserts cannot happen.

We must therefore have some justification for considering that this ability or phenomenon runs counter to the current consensus rather than simply being an example of where science is currently uncertain. It must be an example of the current laws of physics (ie. those laws which have undergone a rigorous test of falsifiability and are based on criteria such as results which show significance at 1% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance)) being broken rather than hypothesised laws in some or other "cutting edge" discipline.

In this way I would also suggest that historical wrong guesses do not conform to such a definition, since they didnot undergo rigorous testing and were based on a far lower "quality threshold" results-wise.

Finally, the word "clearly" aids us in finding genuine abilities or phenomenon which contravene the current paradigm: it must peek above the statistical noise just like any of those results which form the basis of the current paradigm. If, after years of testing, somebody shows an ability to call a coin-flip correctly 50.0001% of the time, is this really so Earth-shattering? One could surely chase such shadows for centuries: the non-existence of paranormal abilities is a reasonable null hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis) to begin from.

Any thoughts?

Aeschines

10-18-2004, 03:55 AM

I know; the original dialog was with SnakeSpirit and I will admit I made the assumption that your "Four down, one to go" statement (as well as your other posts in this thread) was more in support of his views than mine. In any case, nothing you've said in this thread inspires resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance in me, but some of your statements easily qualify for eye-rolling contempt.
My statements? I've hardly posted in this thread yet.
[/quote]
Now, it's possible I have misinterpreted your rather cryptic "Four down" statement. I request a clarification.[/QUOTE]
Get rid of the eye-rolling contempt and you'll be stronger. But contempt can also be a fun emotion to experience, in which we feel better than others. Still, it is not virtuous to feel so.

I find the pyschology of the skeptics curious. As though they were the last bastion against the irrational: every last sin of belief must be prevented or punished, lest we revert to a past species-wide psychosis. This is odd in that most people, from the skeptics' perspective, are not rational: the religious, those who believe in "paranormal" phenomena, etc. Even a sizable percentage of respected physicists and other hard-core types (7% IIRC) believe in God: that is, they have faith, the most irrational behavior of all.

I have my beliefs and belive, of course, that they are best. I don't believe in a monotheistic God and feel that Catholocism is basically a bunch of tripe (I was raised Catholic, i.e., tortured Catholic-wise in my youth). I think priests are weird in that they deny their sexuality or practice it and lie about it. But I went to a Catholic college and was taught by brilliant Jesuit priests all kinds of great things. They were the farthest thing from "idiot" I can imagine, and the last thing I would do is sneer at them in the way that the skeptics in these threads sneer at (=eye-rolling contempt, etc.) the believers that participate here, and those who do not.

What's up with that? I really don't understand the contumely. It seems to spring from thinking that those who don't agree with you 100% are worthy of "eye-rolling contempt."

Bryan Ekers

10-18-2004, 04:16 AM

Get rid of the eye-rolling contempt and you'll be stronger. But contempt can also be a fun emotion to experience, in which we feel better than others. Still, it is not virtuous to feel so.

Okaaaaaay, care to explain in what way I will be "stronger" or more "virtuous"?

I find the pyschology of the skeptics curious....

What follows is a gross generalization about skeptics. I don't recognize any valid descriptions of me personally in it, so it doesn't compel me to respond. Not being Catholic or Christian, I'll withold comment on that part, too.

What's up with that? I really don't understand the contumely. It seems to spring from thinking that those who don't agree with you 100% are worthy of "eye-rolling contempt."

I'll admit that I had to look up "contumely", so I've actually learned something new from this thread, even if I don't agree that anything I've said in this thread even remotely approaches a lie. And it's your statements that prompt my contempt, not some trivial variation from me in your opinions. I casually post to numerous other threads and discuss things with people who disagree with me, but they only get eye-roling contempt when they say things that are patently absurd (if not outright insulting to my intelligence), and not just in simple disagreement. You can't shift the burden to me so easily by trying to make me look intolerant, and even if you could this does not constitute support for anything you have said.

Aeschines

10-18-2004, 05:17 AM

Okaaaaaay, care to explain in what way I will be "stronger" or more "virtuous"?
You will seem steadier and surer. Magnanimous. Mature. Adult.

It is the teenager or person in his/her early 20s that usually thinks s/he's got the world figured out and anyone who disagrees is wrong and dangerous. As one matures, one sees that the world is full of ambiguity, dim corners, and seeming contradictions.

Also, the true adult realizes that a point of view is better transmitted through a kind, tolerant approach, rather than a mocking, condescending approach. This is why Randi seems immature to those who don't agree with him.

SentientMeat

10-18-2004, 05:27 AM

a point of view is better transmitted through a kind, tolerant approach, rather than a mocking, condescending approach. This is why Randi seems immature to those who don't agree with him.This approach will also get a kind, tolerant person a new arsehole torn on television by people whose livelihoods depend on suppressing all discussion of what constitutes a fair cheatproof and luckproof test of their claimed abilities. His books and lectures are rather more rigorous and reasonable (even if he is arguably wrong in a few details) - I'd suggest these are better guides than his appearances on Letterman and the like, where he must fight blatant showmanship with the same.

t-keela

10-18-2004, 05:49 AM

Hey guys, I'm just curious which one of you it was that used to frequent "Randi's" website and got into a big ass debate with him about divining rods? I don't post or even visit other boards. I found this one first and figured, why bother? I've read (lurked) a bit on other message boards and found them ALL to be pretty biased or the staff just really sucked, so I said f~it and stayed home.
ANYWAY...who was it? I think I know but I'm not gonna mistakenly claim somebody that it wasn't.

SentientMeat

10-18-2004, 05:55 AM

I'm just curious which one of you it was that used to frequent "Randi's" website and got into a big ass debate with him about divining rods?That would be Peter. He still rather obsesses about that subject (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5361676&postcount=16).

t-keela

10-18-2004, 06:00 AM

You sure? I was thing Roger... but hey man, I ain't really doubting you. I just had somebody else in mind.

Peter Morris

10-18-2004, 08:12 AM

I'd like that, but I just see too many pseudo-skeptics saying they are sceptics but in actuality they are cynics and "naysayers."

Gee, we can really have fun with spelling:

sceptics = suspend judgement on the unproven.
skeptics = think they're sceptics but tend toward cynicism.
skeptiks = deluded cynics who want to be sceptics but can't, cause they reject it all
pseudo-skeptics = pretend to be sceptics, but function as cynics.
sckepticks = not only bad, but EVIL!

sKKKeptic - Randi fan. :D

Peter Morris

10-18-2004, 08:34 AM

All good points so far. From my reading of the thread the definition for debate is this:

And so I would strengthen the definition thus:

Paranormal - A clearly demonstrable ability or phenomenon which the current scientific paradigm asserts cannot happen.

I think that's the best definition I've heard.

By that definition:

In Lavoisier's day, the current scientific paradigm asserted that meteorites could not happen. So, at the time they were paranormal.

Today, the current scientific paradigm asserts that meteorites can happen (and do). So today, they are not paranormal.

Musicat

10-18-2004, 08:39 AM

ESP may be nothing more than a radio-wave type transmission from one bioelectrical computer (brain) to another. If so, it operates within the laws of physics.One of the characteristics of ESP seems to be that action at a distance is just as strong as action close by. I know of no well-established scientific phenomena that shares this characteristic. From gravity to magnetism to light, the force diminishes with the distance. ESP, as generally defined, violates this law of physics.Interesting that Uri Geller scored hits when someone who knew the right answers was in his presence, but he scored no hits when isolated by a faraday cage.You have just changed at least two parameters at once. Changing more than one at a time makes it impossible to tell which one is the influencing factor. From your statement, we cannot draw any useful conclusion except the example is fatally flawed.

SentientMeat

10-18-2004, 08:48 AM

In Lavoisier's day, the current scientific paradigm asserted that meteorites could not happen. So, at the time they were paranormal.Well, my suggestion was also to focus on the word "scientific" (ie. subject to rigorous tests of falsifiability based on results showing significance at 1% and the like). By that reading, the paradigm was not really "scientific" since nobody was trying very hard to falsify it, and it was based on rather baseless conjecture rather than good, solid results. This is why I suggested that "cutting edge" science was not really relevant to a discussion of the "paranormal", since the paranormal is rather more about what the established, rigorously falsified paradigm says cannot happen rather than the hypothesised "educated guess" in eg. cosmology journals.

Science has tried as hard as it can for centuries to come up with candidates: I'd strongly recommend the autobiography of Susan Blackmore (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/) as an example of a lifelong career of trying really really hard to find something, anything, to get her a Nobel Prize in physics. How many careers like hers must end in failure before we conclude that our null hypothesis should not be discarded?

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-18-2004, 09:22 AM

I'm willing to stipulate that meteorites were paranormal at one time; indeed, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that other phenomena currently considered paranormal will at some point be proven otherwise.

However, and especially for phenomena that have undergone strict testing, there is a strong case for skepticism. I do not believe in telepathy, in psychokinesis, in clairvoyance, in precognition, in spiritualism. These phenomena have all undergone strenuous testing, by scientists who would dearly love to see the phenomena be real; nobody has been able to come up with a way to demonstrate them reliably.

Compare this to other areas of science. Folks who study quasars have come up with ways to observe them reliably. People who discover new species can show them off reliably. Meteorologists can test their predictions against weather patterns, and show themselves to be reliably accurate. Chemists create new chemicals with reliable properties.

Paranormalists, however, are so far outside of this tradition that they're almost something else entirely. The only paranormalists who are within the scientific tradition--who can demonstrate anything reliably--are the ones who can demonstrate, reliably, under controlled conditions, that paranormal claims are not coming true.

It's worth considering that spiritualism was also considered paranormal 200 years ago, as was telepathy, psychokinesis, clairvoyance, precognition. It's extremely rare for a claim to progress from paranormal to normal, and with good reason: the laws of physics, while not perfect, are pretty darn good, and it's rare for there to be major flaws in them at a level dealt with by humans on a regular basis.

Daniel

Contrapuntal

10-18-2004, 10:03 AM

[QUOTE=SnakeSpirit]Nonsense! ESP can exist within the laws of physics, it has not been shown to be outside or within the laws.

Has it in fact been shown to be anything at all?

MaxTheVool

10-18-2004, 03:05 PM

In Lavoisier's day, the current scientific paradigm asserted that meteorites could not happen. So, at the time they were paranormal.

As others have pointed out, there's a big difference between a statement that many scientists, even prominent scientists, believe to be true, and a statement that has been thoroughly tested.

For instance, most scientists do not believe that the Yeti exists. The Yeti is often lumped in with various paranormal claims. And yet if an expedition went into the himalayas, captured a yeti, and brought it back, everyone would happily change their minds, the primate-specialists would study that Yeti like there was no tomorrow, and no one would be particularly embarassed, nor have reason to be. Individual characteristics of the Yeti might shatter orthodoxy... for instance, someone might have published a paper arguing that no primate could be over 8 feet tall due to bone configurations, and if the Yeti was over 8 feet tall, that person would be proven wrong. But the Yeti does not (assuming he's just a big non-supernatural ape) Violate The Laws Of Science.

The Yeti is not "paranormal" in any meaningful sense.

On the other hand, a strongly held belief of modern science is that genetic information is passed from generation to generation through DNA. That is something that has been tested, studied, used to detect disease, etc. If it turns out that genetic information is passed via K-rays, and DNA is irrelevant to the process, that would be a HUGE blow to the reputation of science, as a process. That really would be an example that future generations could use to point out that science can be wrong about just about anything.

And in the middle, somewhere, are things like ESP and dowsing. Any rational skeptic will not say "ESP has been 100% proven to not exist". Rather, they'll say "repeated testing has failed to demonstrate the existence of ESP, and as extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I find its existence very unlikely". If ESP finally is proven to exist, that will obviously be a lot of egg on the face of science, but that's not Breaking any Laws of Science, per se. It's not like Newton's 4th law states "ESP does not exist".

My point being, whatever the hell Lavoisier said about meteors, it was a lot more like Yeti and a lot less like ESP, and even less like genetic K-rays. A "law of science" is not something that Lavoisier says or believes, or even something that most of the leading scientists say and believe. It's something that has been tested, retested, studied, analyzed, and something which has a foundation of good, solid, reproducible results built up on top of it.

Lavoisier and his contemporaries may all have believed that meteorites didn't exist, much as modern scientists typically believe that ESP doesn't exist. But (and I'm repeating myself here), the existence of ESP doesn't Violate the Laws of Science (unless ESP-speed communication is faster than the speed of light).

SnakeSpirit

10-18-2004, 03:08 PM

Uh, call me a sceptic/skeptic/pseudo-skeptic/cynic/naysayer if you must, but let's not have fun with spelling, okay? Creative labeling is a superficial tactic and does absolutely nothing to help your claims, which remain unproven.
What claims?

SnakeSpirit

10-18-2004, 03:27 PM

Whether bigfoot exists is a question for zoologists.
As we speak, there is a group of primatologists/zoologists in Northern Zaire tracking down what appears to be a new type of ape.

Current reports are that it is more like a chimpanzee than a gorilla, but it is six feet tall, is strong enough to kill a lion (without weapons), but instead of attacking perceived threats it quietly slips away into the jungle when confronted.

Goes to show that we still have a lot to learn and need to tone down our arrogance somewhat.

What?
What's that you say???
Cite????

OK.

cite 1 (http://cooltech.iafrica.com/science/352611.htm)

cite 2 (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/31622.htm)

cites 3-7 (http://science.slashdot.org/science/04/10/11/0429255.shtml?tid=134&tid=14)

Of course, until this thing is proven, I know, as a good skeptick, that the simplest explanation is the most likely, and that it is probably just a short, fat, hairy Watusi Warrior who has forgone the use of weapons and retired to the bush due to a broken heart.

SnakeSpirit

MaxTheVool

10-18-2004, 03:41 PM

Goes to show that we still have a lot to learn and need to tone down our arrogance somewhat.

Who is "we"? And what arrogance? What the hell are you talking about? Go back and read the post I just posted... a new species of ape (whether bigfoot or Yeti or zaire-ape) does not violate any laws of science. Cryptozoology is not really "paranormal" in any way.

SnakeSpirit

10-18-2004, 03:43 PM

I disagree. There may be a structure in the brain that can transmit and receive signals like a radio. But science as it stands at the moment does not know of any such structure. Therefore the suggestion lies outside what is currently known.
Why do we need a "structure in the brain?" We already know, within "currently accepted scientific knowledge" that the electrical impulses emitted by the firing of brain cells are detectable with currently utilized equipment outside of the structure of the skull!

Now then, we merely have to postulate whether it is possible to decipher those electrical emanations, and frankly (thanks to Occam's razor), the most likely 'equipment' to decipher those impulses would be... a human brain!

Maybe we've been asking the wrong question. Perhaps instead of "does ESP exist?" we should be asking, "Why doesn't everyone experience it?

Ok, ok, slight sarcasm....

The phrase "laws of physics" is too restrictive, anyway. Maybe "currently accepted scientific knowledge" would be better.
That would certainly make it easier to ignore.

SnakeSpirit

10-18-2004, 03:52 PM

Paranormal - A clearly demonstrable ability or phenomenon which the current scientific paradigm asserts cannot happen.
Any thoughts?
I think this is closer to the original intent of the term "paranormal," which is still a catch-all term, as Aeschines says, for something that is perported to happen which isn't supposed to happen.

The "clearly demonstrable" cuts out a lot of stuff that is currently caught in the term, and I think we have to ask:

"What do we want to use this term for?"

How will it serve us?

SnakeSpirit

10-18-2004, 04:01 PM

sKKKeptic - Randi fan. :D
Oh, Peter, how naughty!!

(And ROTFL funny!) :lol

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-18-2004, 04:05 PM

Maybe we've been asking the wrong question. Perhaps instead of "does ESP exist?" we should be asking, "Why doesn't everyone experience it?

This is inductive reasoning: instead of taking facts and using reason to come up with an explanation for the set of facts, you're taking reason and using it to come up with a set of facts.

Your question, "why doesn't everyone experience ESP?" would be a better question if we had strong evidence that ANYONE experiences it. All scientific tests point toward nobody's experiencing it, although many people believe they experience it.

Therefore, the interesting question becomes, 'Why do so many people falsely believe they are experiencing ESP?" Alternately, there's another interesting question: "Why are brains not able to read brainwaves coming from someone else's brain?"

These are questions consistent with the facts.

Daniel

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-18-2004, 04:09 PM

Oh, Peter, how naughty!!

(And ROTFL funny!) :lol

Yes--comparing people who dislike your belief system, with people who commit crimes against humanity! Fucking brilliant wit!

Godwin's cousin would be proud.

Daniel

SnakeSpirit

10-18-2004, 04:15 PM

One of the characteristics of ESP seems to be that action at a distance is just as strong as action close by. I know of no well-established scientific phenomena that shares this characteristic. From gravity to magnetism to light, the force diminishes with the distance.
That's not my understanding. Some forces diminish with distance, but light does not. It disperses, or may be dispersed, but it does not diminish.

ESP, as generally defined, violates this law of physics.You have just changed at least two parameters at once. Changing more than one at a time makes it impossible to tell which one is the influencing factor. From your statement, we cannot draw any useful conclusion except the example is fatally flawed.
No wonder they kept me out of the lab. Let me make a correction:

Interesting that Uri Geller scored hits when someone who knew the right answers was in his presence inside the Faraday cage, but he scored no hits when isolated from anyone who knew the right answers by a Faraday cage.

How's that?

Plus, we still do not know enough about ESP or its mechanisms to say that it violates that so-called law of physics (which I'm not so sure isn't dispersal in all cases). Some people lump all paranormal phenomenon together: is ESP (mind reading), remote viewing, psychometric detection, astral projection and the like all caused by the same principle? The only thing that's consistant is that it all operates in some unknown manner.

SnakeSpirit

10-18-2004, 04:25 PM

Science has tried as hard as it can for centuries to come up with candidates: I'd strongly recommend the autobiography of Susan Blackmore (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/) as an example of a lifelong career of trying really really hard to find something, anything, to get her a Nobel Prize in physics. How many careers like hers must end in failure before we conclude that our null hypothesis should not be discarded?
Quite the example there, meat. Hair dyed five different colors, short on one side, long on the other, a braid from nowhere....

Glad the site included her picture, I might have actually bought it.

SnakeSpirit

10-18-2004, 04:33 PM

SnakeSpirit

10-18-2004, 04:39 PM

Who is "we"? And what arrogance? What the hell are you talking about? Go back and read the post I just posted... a new species of ape (whether bigfoot or Yeti or zaire-ape) does not violate any laws of science. Cryptozoology is not really "paranormal" in any way.
Simulpost, Max, cool down, relax; it had nothing to do with your post, which, by the way, I find quite agreeable. No one's attacking you; cancel alert status.

The "arrogance" and "we" were directed at those posting to this thread who claim they already know all there is to know (by inference).

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-18-2004, 04:41 PM

Nice, rational, unemotional explanation of the basis for your decision making, Dan.

Thank you; I appreciate that. At the same time, I can understand the frustration of skeptics in many cases.

If I say to you, "the odds of rolling a 12 on two six-sided dice is one in thirty-six," and you say, "Actually, some people can influence the dice with their mind, so that the odds go up significantly," then I might be intrigued, and test this with people who claim to have that ability.

If after testing numerous people who make that claim, I find that none of their claims pan out, I'll become increasingly skeptical of any new person who makes the claim--and rightly so. If these previous people have given a proposed explanation for their powers--a hypothesis--then I'm correct to evaluate the data they've provided toward their hypothesis, and if it's relevant, to consider their hypothesis disproven.

All that's fine. Where we get the difficulty is when yet another person comes forward and supplies the same hypothesis to explain their ability to manipulate the dice. If I show them that that hypothesis has been pretty well discredited, and they still insist that it's true, then I might start to get very frustrated.

I think that's the position many scientists are in. There has been a buttload of research into specific paranormal claims, and the research has consistently failed to provide any evidence that the paranormal claims are accurate. Inasmuch as those claims included a hypothesis, these hypotheses have been disproven. It's pretty frustrating for folks to ignore all that data and put forward the disproven hypotheses over and over.

Of course not all folks making paranormal claims are doing that; some folks are putting forth novel claims, or are making claims on subjects that have not so far been subjected to testing, or are making claims that cannot be tested. It is inappropriate to treat people in these categories with the same disdain proffered to those who ignore the evidence disproving their claims.

Daniel

Musicat

10-18-2004, 04:41 PM

Interesting that Uri Geller scored hits when someone who knew the right answers was in his presence inside the Faraday cage, but he scored no hits when isolated from anyone who knew the right answers by a Faraday cage.Umm, better, but still just a tiny bit garbled. Here, let me try:

Uri Geller, in a Faraday cage, scored hits when a possible accomplice was in the cage with him.

When the accomplice was removed, he scored no hits.

If that is satisfactory, it would seem we have reduced the multiple variables to a single one, and that one (the accomplice) is the most likely reason for the scores. It also suggests that the Faraday cage was NOT a factor.
Plus, we still do not know enough about ESP or its mechanisms to say that it violates that so-called law of physics (which I'm not so sure isn't dispersal in all cases). Some people lump all paranormal phenomenon together: is ESP (mind reading), remote viewing, psychometric detection, astral projection and the like all caused by the same principle? The only thing that's consistant is that it all operates in some unknown manner.The only thing that's consistent is there has never yet been a repeatable, clear experiment showing the existence of ESP, remote viewing, or anything else of that ilk. If that ever happens, we can discuss the possible cause. Until then, you are guessing about the cause for something that has not been reliably observed.Some forces diminish with distance, but light does not. It disperses, or may be dispersed, but it does not diminish.Neither does gravity or any other force actually "diminish," in the sense you seem to be assuming. If I may be allowed a slight revision in my statement, it is the dispersion which causes the diminuation. It spreads out, and there is less force impinging on whatever detector as the detector is moved farther away. The farther away you go, the weaker the signals. ESP proponents, however, treat their "force" as one that does not become spread out or diminished regardless of distance.

SnakeSpirit

10-18-2004, 04:53 PM

Mr. Miskatonic

10-18-2004, 08:09 PM

A bit biased, don't you think? Yet that should be considered. As it was the person was one of the scientists performing the test. We do have to consider if he was an accomplice, or an unwilling accomplice (subject was able to read clues from normal means, like posture, etc.), but we also have to consider whether the Faraday cage was blocking transmission.

That's too many variables in one experiment. Quite frankly, they should never have bothered with a Faraday cage until they had eliminated all possibilities of non-ESP being the source of communication. Targ & Puthoff's work did not inspire confidence that such variables were even close to being met.

MaxTheVool

10-18-2004, 08:16 PM

The "arrogance" and "we" were directed at those posting to this thread who claim they already know all there is to know (by inference).

Who, precisely, claims that? Who in this thread (or who in the world) has said anything remotely like that? Who has even said that they are 100% certain that ESP does not exist?

Musicat

10-18-2004, 10:11 PM

Uri Geller, in a Faraday cage, scored hits when a possible accomplice was in the cage with him.A bit biased, don't you think? Yet that should be considered. As it was the person was one of the scientists performing the test. We do have to consider if he was an accomplice, or an unwilling accomplice (subject was able to read clues from normal means, like posture, etc.), but we also have to consider whether the Faraday cage was blocking transmission.
I don't know if the person was even in the view of the subject, but I'd rather consider all options than limit myself to one which is suggested by my bias.
I'd expect you to be more objective.OK, my "possible accomplice" line might not be appropriate before the test, but logical to insert after the outcome.

So how 'bout this: "Uri Geller, in a Faraday cage, scored hits when someone was in the cage with him. He did not score hits when he was alone in the cage."
It also suggests that the Faraday cage was NOT a factor. :confused: Yes. Some factors did not change, yet the outcome was different. Just like it suggests the factor that DID change was responsible, it suggests the factors that did not change are NOT responsible.

Now before you jump down my throat and say, what about the lighting system, the sound system, the rug, a receiver in Geller's ear, etc., etc., I am talking theoretical here. There may have been factors that we don't know about, and that is exactly why a magician is useful, to detect factors invisible to many otherwise intelligent scientists.

Once more, here is the concept, and the way all science needs to be done.

First, attempt to control all factors in a test. (Sometimes, not possible, I know; that's the ideal we strive for.) Next, run the test many times, and with some trials, randomly chosen ones not known to any of the participants, alter only one variable. If, after the trials are completed, the results are in, and all the "unknowns" uncovered, it is found that there is a statistically significant difference between the trials with and without the one variable, it suggests that that variable was the cause of the difference.

To apply that to a caged Geller, if you wanted to test the influence of the cage, you would have to have some trials with and some without the cage (and be sure no one giving or receiving the test knew when the cage was present or absent). The test you described tested for the influence of a person, not a cage.

Or, still theoretical here, suppose we have 3 known factors in a test. Control for 1 & 2, alter 3. If no change in the outcome, control for 1 & 3, change 2. Then if there is a significant change in the outcome, #2 is probably the reason for it.

It's the only way to arrive at the truth, or at least get darn close.

Bryan Ekers

10-18-2004, 10:15 PM

You will seem steadier and surer. Magnanimous. Mature. Adult.

To who? And actually, if I began embracing ideas without evidence, doesn't this suggest I will have lost some of my mature adult reasoning abilities? Can you desfine "steadier and surer". And "Magnanimous" ....? Is going along with baseless ideas somehow an act of charity?

It is the teenager or person in his/her early 20s that usually thinks s/he's got the world figured out and anyone who disagrees is wrong and dangerous. As one matures, one sees that the world is full of ambiguity, dim corners, and seeming contradictions.

Some of the people who were born when I was in my early twenties are now teenagers (I mention this solely becuase I like turning phrases). Doesn't the existence of ambiguity, dim corners and seeming contradictions suggest we should use our reasoning faculties as much as possible, so these ambiguities (whenever possible) are clarified, the dim corners (whenever possible) are illuminated and seeming contradictions (whenever possible) resolved? Naturally, there will be times when it isn't possible (or at least immediately possible, pending more research and better scientific instruments) but isn't it better to learn than to simply accept?

Also, the true adult realizes that a point of view is better transmitted through a kind, tolerant approach, rather than a mocking, condescending approach. This is why Randi seems immature to those who don't agree with him.

That's not Randi's problem, though. It sounds like he'd rather be truthful than popular (though I'm sure he doesn't mind a good mix of both).

What is a "true adult", anyway? Any relation to the "true Scotsman"? Can you define the characteristcs of a "true adult" and the characteristics of someone who is demonstrably not a "true adult", i.e. a positive and a negative?

Musicat

10-18-2004, 10:28 PM

Drive-by posting, are we, Bryan? ;)

SnakeSpirit

10-18-2004, 10:28 PM

It's the only way to arrive at the truth, or at least get darn close.
You description, above, sounds reasonable to me, and now I understand what you were trying to say.
I think what T&P were trying to do was to test to see if Geller had any ability at all, but I haven't read the whole experimental plan, so I'm not sure. They may have been in a narrowing down phase of testing, and others have commented that their test procedures needed a lot of refinement.

In a case like this, where a person claims to have a certain talent, it's not enough to test what they say they have; you have to consider that they mnay be misinterpreting the source of their information as well. I believe in this particular case they were trying to test for remote viewing (why the shielding, I don't know), and Geller may have believed he was doing remote viewing, but we also have to consider mental telepathy, subliminal cueing, etc., and eliminate all those things.

It's rare when we get someone like Geller, who can make as many hits under controlled conditions as he was able to do, however he was able to do it.

In any case, I have no argument with your experimental procedure; thanks!

Bryan Ekers

10-18-2004, 10:28 PM

The "arrogance" and "we" were directed at those posting to this thread who claim they already know all there is to know (by inference).

Like Max, I invite you to name names instead of just pronouns.

Bryan Ekers

10-18-2004, 10:30 PM

Drive-by posting, are we, Bryan? ;)

I guess, in a particularly big slow vehicle that lets me talk at length before disappearing around the corner.

Okay, I'll admt I don't get the joke.

Musicat

10-18-2004, 10:44 PM

Okay, I'll admt I don't get the joke.Your post, where you quoted Aeshines, who doesn't appear anywhere in this thread, had me puzzled until I thought you might have posted it in the wrong thread. It happens, no biggie. Either that, or this thread is moe paranormal than I thought.

Aeschines

10-18-2004, 10:47 PM

To who? And actually, if I began embracing ideas without evidence, doesn't this suggest I will have lost some of my mature adult reasoning abilities? Can you desfine "steadier and surer". And "Magnanimous" ....? Is going along with baseless ideas somehow an act of charity?But sir, we are distinguishing the content of statements from the form and tone of statements. One can get his/her message across, even firmly, without resorting to a contemptuous manner.

BTW, I think outright hostility and contempt are deserved at times, as when one's opponent is proposing something that is outright evil (Holocaust deniers) or willfully untruthful (i.e., they're lying and they know it).

Doesn't the existence of ambiguity, dim corners and seeming contradictions suggest we should use our reasoning faculties as much as possible, so these ambiguities (whenever possible) are clarified, the dim corners (whenever possible) are illuminated and seeming contradictions (whenever possible) resolved?
Yes, absolutely. The hard thing for many people, however, is accepting that a quick thinkover of a matter is not enough to resolve it. Many people cannot tolerate ambiguity, and they try to resolve things on the spot through any means necessary. I think young people do this a lot, and it is one of those things that characterizes immature thought or rhetoric.
Naturally, there will be times when it isn't possible (or at least immediately possible, pending more research and better scientific instruments) but isn't it better to learn than to simply accept?
At this point you're off the rails of our interaction, as I never suggested that a lack of contempt in one's manner equals acceptance of whatever your opponent says.
That's not Randi's problem, though. It sounds like he'd rather be truthful than popular (though I'm sure he doesn't mind a good mix of both).
I think one reason for his popularity among skeptics IS his boorishness. People enjoy a good barb at their enemies, so what about Randi's manner is not to like? Within the echo chamber, nothing. But outside the echo chamber Randi's rhetoric doesn't serve to convince people. He's gotten himself a decent gig as a person who's feisty and always ready to play the skeptic side on TV and whatnot--skeptics love him, those who don't know much about him perceive him as telegenic and clever, and those who know more about him and aren't skeptic love to hate him. But is he really winning converts to Reason? A few perhaps, but not many.

BTW, the Amazing Kreskin is a debunker/atheist/skeptic who does what Randi does but without being a huge dick about it. There is a better way.

What is a "true adult", anyway? Any relation to the "true Scotsman"? Can you define the characteristcs of a "true adult" and the characteristics of someone who is demonstrably not a "true adult", i.e. a positive and a negative?
To me the true adult is sane, integrated, reflective, responsible, compassionate, and loving. Steady in times of trouble, above petty squabbles, serene. Obviously, this is an ideal that few people can attain. I try myself and fail daily. But I try.

Bryan Ekers

10-18-2004, 10:49 PM

Your post, where you quoted Aeshines, who doesn't appear anywhere in this thread, had me puzzled until I thought you might have posted it in the wrong thread. It happens, no biggie. Either that, or this thread is moe paranormal than I thought.

:confused: (the first time I've used this particular smiley, congrats) Aeschines has posted eight times to this thread, although all on page 1 (as of this writing) while the thread is now nearing the end of page 2.

SnakeSpirit

10-18-2004, 11:10 PM

Who, precisely, claims that? Who in this thread (or who in the world) has said anything remotely like that? Who has even said that they are 100% certain that ESP does not exist?
Remember, I said by inference, which includes negative labeling of anyone who considers the reality of PSI phenomenon by calling them a variety of derisive epithets.
I was wrong about "this thread," I was thread-hopping, and just can't keep track of it all, but there's lots of skeptic posters here who contend that ESP is "bunk," "nonsense," etc. You can start with Scumpup, cause I was just there, but I don't keep a little black book of who's who in parapsychology on SDMB, so you'll have to wait for names.

"We" in my original useage referred to all of humanity, BTW. I went back to check and try to figure out how you got that wedgie. I misspoke.

Musicat

10-18-2004, 11:14 PM

You description, above, sounds reasonable to me, and now I understand what you were trying to say.Great. Now we're close to the same wavelength! :)
I think what T&P were trying to do was to test to see if Geller had any ability at all, but I haven't read the whole experimental plan, so I'm not sure. They may have been in a narrowing down phase of testing, and others have commented that their test procedures needed a lot of refinement.I'll say! "A lot of refinement" is an understatement. As someone once said about P & T's Geller testing, "The mice were running the test."

Have you ever seen a Geller "performance" up close? It's a madhouse. He tries some things, quickly moves on to others, moves across the room, leaves & comes back, goes to a faucet ("sometimes it works better under water"), then finds some more stuff to work with, drops one thing, picks up another, distracts the audience in a dozen different ways, and hours later, look! A spoon has bent! All by itself! A miracle!

No, just conjuring. It's been done before. And better. {Yawn.}
In a case like this, where a person claims to have a certain talent, it's not enough to test what they say they have; you have to consider that they mnay be misinterpreting the source of their information as well. I believe in this particular case they were trying to test for remote viewing (why the shielding, I don't know), and Geller may have believed he was doing remote viewing, but we also have to consider mental telepathy, subliminal cueing, etc., and eliminate all those things.Sure, we can consider those things. And the only reason the shielding was used was probably due to the ignorance of the testers. Ever listen to someone who thinks he knows how magic is done describing a magic performance? "He must have used a concealed chemical to soften the metal!..." when the real reason was more likely misdirection, prop swapping and a little psychology. Misdirection is used a lot more often than real smoke and real mirrors. Geller knew a Faraday cage would have no effect on his performance, since he doesn't emit or receive any radio waves. He even might have suggested it.

As far as "considering all those things," don't lose sight of one thing that needs to be considered as well: that NO supernatural or paranormal forces are involved at all and the lab dudes are being fooled royally.

It's rare when we get someone like Geller, who can make as many hits under controlled conditions as he was able to do, however he was able to do it.Now I have to call you on this one. I cannot claim to have been personally present at any Geller test, but the "controlled conditions" you are referring to are controlled only by the rat. The lab technicians are totally ignorant of what's really happening. To a magician trained in these matters, it's just another performance of a colleague, not mysterious, and not terribly good, either.

Is Geller "rare"? Only if you consider his claims that he is not a magician, but a paranormalist. Magicians have been doing the same tricks he does for centuries if not longer. His tricks are not new or original. His claim of supernatural powers or forces harks back to the middle ages, and it requires a credulous audience.

A characteristic of pseudo-science is, "when the controls are tightened, the phenomena disappears." Remember when Geller went on Johnny Carson? Carson followed Randi's advice, tightened the controls, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED! Geller was a total dud.

Musicat

10-18-2004, 11:20 PM

:confused: (the first time I've used this particular smiley, congrats) Aeschines has posted eight times to this thread, although all on page 1 (as of this writing) while the thread is now nearing the end of page 2.Then you will have to forgive me. I couldn't see what you were driving at, did a search for Aeschines' name (maybe I misspelled it) on both pages, didn't find it, and thought you might have mis-cross-posted. It's happened to me. :)

[Emily Litella] Never mind! [/Emily Litella]

Aeschines

10-18-2004, 11:57 PM

Have you ever seen a Geller "performance" up close? It's a madhouse. He tries some things, quickly moves on to others, moves across the room, leaves & comes back, goes to a faucet ("sometimes it works better under water"), then finds some more stuff to work with, drops one thing, picks up another, distracts the audience in a dozen different ways, and hours later, look! A spoon has bent! All by itself! A miracle!
I have no trouble believing that Geller is a fraud a lot of the time. None.

But I do have trouble believing that he is a fraud all of the time. On his website (a big, kitschy, garish, embarrassing mess, I will readily admit), he has quotes from many people, one of them Werner von Braun, who said that Geller bent metal in their own hands without even touching it.

The page. (http://www.uri-geller.com/margrev.htm)

The quote:"Geller has bent my ring in the palm of my hand without ever touching it. Personally, I have no scientific explanation for the phenomenon."
- Werner Von Braun

On another page (http://www.uri-geller.com/aftereffect.htm), Financial Times reporter Julia Llewellyn Smith wrote this (in a 17/08/2002 article):
He started rubbing the spoon telling us to keep watching it. It bent,
but not only that -- he put it down and it continued bending.

But if these events happened, then they happened, and our understanding of physics must change.

If you want to talk about misdirection, let's indeed talk about the people who have investigated Uri in the lab. The skeptical stance, implied but never directly stated, that if one or more of the experimental conditions were not acceptable, then all the experiments were worthless. But intellectually honest will ask this: Was any evidence gotten that Uri has the powers he claims he has? Was anything documented that could not have been faked? And the answer seems to be yes. They took a bunch of movies, after all, and Geller was able to make needles move (voltmeter, etc., IIRC) without touching the machinery. And so on.

So when the skeptics talk about Uri, their argument is, Well, there has been some stuff that looks like fraud and the experimental conditions were less than ideal, so Uri is a charlatan and has never provided any evidence of psychic ability.

The supporters say, Is there just one undeniable documented instance of psychic ability?

The skeptics are using poor, disingenous logic, as they know that one documented display of the ability is a sufficient condition for proving that psi is real. (No, a phenomenon does not have to be repeatable under lab conditions to prove that it is possible. If one instance is documented, then we know that it is possible.)

What do I see in Uri? A guy with poor taste, a poor spokesman for psi, disorganized in how he presents himself (website, frenetic displays of his powers), and for all I know he cheats all the time. But looking at the overall pattern and having read what both sides have said about him, and considering the lab evidence (including lots of movie footage), I am inclined to believe that he is able, at least on occasion to do what he says he can do.

Bryan Ekers

10-19-2004, 12:13 AM

Statements from Von Braun and Smith are interesting, but I'd rather hear an account from a witness who was a professional magician, and thus experienced at slight-of-hand and other possible cheats, making it likely that he could spot them if they were being used. This is not to say I know for a fact Geller is cheating but simple Occam's Razor says it is more likely that he is cheating than that he has some unusual power over metal.

Frankly, if I was seeking evidence of Geller's power, I wouldn't take the word of a rocket scientist or a financial rerporter. I'd want testimony from people who are experts in fields that might provide alternate explanations, in this case, magicians. If a professional magician watches Geller's work and can't explain it, then I'll start to be impressed.

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 12:40 AM

Brian, I purposely chose examples of metal bending without Uri touching it (or, in the second example, continuing to bend after he touched it) because I don't think it would be possible to fake that.

Also, about Occam's Razor. Skeptics misuse this principle all the time here on SDMB and elsewhere, thinking, "If it doesn't fit my atheist-materialist worldview," then it's probably not true. Sometimes the more parsimonious explanation for a phenomenon is that psi is real, not that an elaborate hoax is being perpetrated on the world. I think the more parsimonious and simple explanation of Uri's constant success in getting people to believe that he has psi powers is that he does, in fact, have psi powers.

Musicat

10-19-2004, 12:45 AM

I have no trouble believing that Geller is a fraud a lot of the time. None.

But I do have trouble believing that he is a fraud all of the time.That's a frequent claim of such people. "I only cheat when I have to. All other times, I was honest. Honest." Sure, Dude.On his website (a big, kitschy, garish, embarrassing mess, I will readily admit), he has quotes from many people, one of them Werner von Braun, who said that Geller bent metal in their own hands without even touching it.Oh, that Werner! What a magician he is!

Do you really think that knowledge of rocket science qualifies Mr. Von Braun to detect a magic trick?

Do you seriously think a Financial Times reporter is qualified to discourse on magic? Especially when a claim is made that would upset physics as we know it? And anecdotes like this should be taken seriously? Not how science works, my friend.Was any evidence gotten that Uri has the powers he claims he has? Was anything documented that could not have been faked? And the answer seems to be yes. They took a bunch of movies, after all, and Geller was able to make needles move (voltmeter, etc., IIRC) without touching the machinery. And so on. I can make a needle move, too, without touching it. It's an old magician's trick to palm a magnet. It can be hidden in clothing, in the toe of a shoe, almost anywhere. A good magician can fool a lot of people this way.
The supporters say, Is there just one undeniable documented instance of psychic ability?Haven't seen one, and I'm getting bored waiting for it.The skeptics are using poor, disingenous logic, as they know that one documented display of the ability is a sufficient condition for proving that psi is real. (No, a phenomenon does not have to be repeatable under lab conditions to prove that it is possible. If one instance is documented, then we know that it is possible.)Not if the laws of the universe need to be rewritten. Could there have been a flaw in the test? In the document? We do not know that is possible until it can be reliably replicated under diverse conditions and by diverse parties.

If someone showed you solid, documented evidence that he had built a perpetual motion machine, would you require physics books to be rewritten? Or would you say, "Hmmm... let's check into this some more first. After all, the claimant is a well-known trickster. I wonder if he has a battery hidden somewhere."
What do I see in Uri? A guy with poor taste, a poor spokesman for psi, disorganized in how he presents himself (website, frenetic displays of his powers), and for all I know he cheats all the time. But looking at the overall pattern and having read what both sides have said about him, and considering the lab evidence (including lots of movie footage), I am inclined to believe that he is able, at least on occasion to do what he says he can do.Aeschines, I say this not to be a smart-ass or to insult you, but your last post, where you express surprise at some very common magic tricks indicates to me that you haven't studied up on how conjuring works. I urge you to read some material and research basic conjuring. Practice fooling your friends. Hang around magicians. Look up these tricks that you find mystifying. While many tricks are truly kept secret, Geller-style tricks are so old and so simple that they are in many magic books available at libraries and Amazon. Do some research, and you may be amazed at what you find. Seriously. And enjoy. Fooling others can be fun!

To wrap up, I would like to quote from a Randi speech (http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.randi-paranormal.html) I frequently link to:I appear on stages around the world as a conjurer. Now the American term for it is magician. It's not a good expression because if you look in the dictionary the strict definition of a magician is one who uses magic. And magic, at least by the definition I prefer from a leading dictionary, is the attempt to control nature by means of spells and incantations. Now, ladies and gentlemen, in my time, as you might have guessed, I have tried spells and incantations. No good. You can spell and incant all you want; the lady will still be on the couch, waiting patiently to float into the air or will be imprisoned in the box with the saw blade descending upon her unprotected midriff, and in some danger of being severely scratched, if not worse! Spells and incantations don't work. You have to use skulduggery. And let me make it very clear what the magical trade - the conjuring trade - is with a precise definition. It is the approximation of the effect of a true magician using means of subterfuge and trickery.That's what Geller does -- he approximates breaking the laws of the universe using subterfuge and trickery. All it takes is some practice and a little skill. Doing it the supernatural way is a lot harder.

Musicat

10-19-2004, 01:03 AM

Brian, I purposely chose examples of metal bending without Uri touching it (or, in the second example, continuing to bend after he touched it) because I don't think it would be possible to fake that.Here's one way to "fake that." Bend your object (key, spoon, whatever) sureptitiously, say under the table or against a chair leg while your audience is distracted just a tiny bit (after all, they've been waiting for your paranormal powers to surface; it's been several minutes, and they're not watching too carefully anymore).

Now don't show the bent object entirely. Conceal the bend in your hand. You may have to tilt the object so the exposed part is "normal," that is, doesn't look bent. Then, excitedly, say, "Look, look -- it's bending," as you reveal the rest of the object. Tilt it slightly so the bend is not edge-on and doesn't look very bent, then say, "it's still bending, all by itself!!" and as you rotate it slightly, it will look like it is. Say it convincingly, and most of the audience will believe you. After all, they saw it with their own eyes!

And they will go home and tell all their friends, "He didn't even touch it! Really! Just like Werner Von Braun said! Scientists are baffled!"

Here's another description of the same trick, from this site (http://www.ultimatemagic.com/library/read.php?trick=214):Hand out the spoon. When you take it back turn to your side to tap it against something saying "see its a nice solid spoon." When your turning to your side bend the spoon downwards, so its not quite a right angle, but close. When you tap it keep it moving while holding it in the middle, hiding the bend. Imediatley hold it in front of them right in front of where their nose is. If done correctley the spoon should appear to be straight still. Concentrate then slowly start to rotate the spoon towards you. The key point here is keeping the bend of the spoon at the same height the entire time you turn it. When done right it looks like the spoon visably bends!This is a very simple yet strong illusion...Trust me, it's simple.You have just learned some basic principles of magic -- 1. the trick may be done way in advance of the "reveal," and 2. your patter helps to convince people of what they think they're seeing. After all, would a magician lie?

Bryan Ekers

10-19-2004, 01:11 AM

Brian, I purposely chose examples of metal bending without Uri touching it (or, in the second example, continuing to bend after he touched it) because I don't think it would be possible to fake that.

I think it's rather easy to fake, actually, or at least convince witnesses that you have managed the feat without touching the object, when you've actually switched objects using misdirection and slight-of-hand, or were using an accomplice, or any numer of conventional magician techniques. Hence my wish for a magician witness, who can spot these techniques if they are occuring. If the magician can't spot these techniques, a major alternate explanation (that Geller is using basic trickery) can be eliminated. Until this possibility is eliminated, it is a more plausible explanation than the notion of Geller possessing paranormal abilities.

Also, about Occam's Razor. Skeptics misuse this principle all the time here on SDMB and elsewhere, thinking, "If it doesn't fit my atheist-materialist worldview," then it's probably not true.

And again, instead of addressing my specific points, you make some broad generalization about skeptics. This does not refute my points in the slightest, it's not an accurate assessment of how I personally view Occam's Razor, and I doubt it's an accurate assessment of how skeptics in general view Occam's Razor.

Sometimes the more parsimonious explanation for a phenomenon is that psi is real, not that an elaborate hoax is being perpetrated on the world. I think the more parsimonious and simple explanation of Uri's constant success in getting people to believe that he has psi powers is that he does, in fact, have psi powers.

Then we differ, because to me the more parsimonious explanation is that Geller is faking. Fakery is a well-established phenomena, while the ability to change the shape of metal through some form of telekinesis is not. For you to assume Geller has such an ability, you'd have to postulate some mechanism by which it operates, which involves having to make additional assumptions, which violates Occam's Razor because an adequate alternate explanation that requires no additional assumptions already exists (trickery) and has not been eliminated, despite testimonails from selected witnesses.

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 01:17 AM

Do you really think that knowledge of rocket science qualifies Mr. Von Braun to detect a magic trick?
If you think that a magic trick exists whereby a metal ring can be bent in someone's hand without the "magician" apparently touching it at all, then that is a claim on your part for which you need to provide cites or other evidence.

You are assuming a priori that everything Geller has ever done was through stage magic. Assumption does not equal science.

Do you seriously think a Financial Times reporter is qualified to discourse on magic?
It's your assertion that it is stage magic. Can a spoon lie on a table and continue to bend? Does such a trick exist in the books you mentioned? If so, please provide a cite for that assertion.
I can make a needle move, too, without touching it. It's an old magician's trick to palm a magnet. It can be hidden in clothing, in the toe of a shoe, almost anywhere. A good magician can fool a lot of people this way.
So, are you asserting that is how Uri did what he did? If so, that is a positive claim on your part and requires evidence.
Haven't seen one, and I'm getting bored waiting for it.Not if the laws of the universe need to be rewritten.
Added to.
Could there have been a flaw in the test? In the document? We do not know that is possible until it can be reliably replicated under diverse conditions and by diverse parties.
Many psi experiments have been replicated. You still deny them.
Aeschines, I say this not to be a smart-ass or to insult you, but your last post, where you express surprise at some very common magic tricks indicates to me that you haven't studied up on how conjuring works.
Causing a metal ring to bend in someone's hand without touching it is a "common" magic trick? Is that your assertion? I think you're just straw-grasping.
I urge you to read some material and research basic conjuring. Practice fooling your friends. Hang around magicians. Look up these tricks that you find mystifying. While many tricks are truly kept secret, Geller-style tricks are so old and so simple that they are in many magic books available at libraries and Amazon. Do some research, and you may be amazed at what you find. Seriously. And enjoy. Fooling others can be fun!
You're not thinking well here. If someone did something in front of me that looked like stage magic, I would think it to be stage magic: coins disappearing between fingers, that kind of thing. There is a certain class of tricks that fall under that label, and even if it were done with demonic power it would still look just like a trick.

Obviously, at least part of what Geller does does not fall in that class, and people can not, and do not, put it in that category.

To wrap up, I would like to quote from a Randi speech (http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.randi-paranormal.html) I frequently link to:That's what Geller does -- he approximates breaking the laws of the universe using subterfuge and trickery. All it takes is some practice and a little skill. Doing it the supernatural way is a lot harder.

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 01:20 AM

Here's one way to "fake that." Bend your object (key, spoon, whatever) sureptitiously, say under the table or against a chair leg while your audience is distracted just a tiny bit (after all, they've been waiting for your paranormal powers to surface; it's been several minutes, and they're not watching too carefully anymore).

Ooh! Nice try!

But the method you describe did not explain how to:

1. Make an object bend in someone's hand without appearing to touch it at all.

2. Lay an object on the table and have it look like it's still bending--without your continuing to touch it.

'Splain that!

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 01:36 AM

I think it's rather easy to fake, actually, or at least convince witnesses that you have managed the feat without touching the object, when you've actually switched objects using misdirection and slight-of-hand, or were using an accomplice, or any numer of conventional magician techniques. Hence my wish for a magician witness, who can spot these techniques if they are occuring. If the magician can't spot these techniques, a major alternate explanation (that Geller is using basic trickery) can be eliminated. Until this possibility is eliminated, it is a more plausible explanation than the notion of Geller possessing paranormal abilities.
Overall the above is reasonable, except this: People feel they have eliminated the possiblity of trickery on Geller's part, at least in specific instances, and they've documented these cases.
And again, instead of addressing my specific points, you make some broad generalization about skeptics. This does not refute my points in the slightest, it's not an accurate assessment of how I personally view Occam's Razor, and I doubt it's an accurate assessment of how skeptics in general view Occam's Razor.Of course, when skeptics invoke Occam's Razor they most assuredly feel they are doing so correctly. Often they seem incorrect to me.
Then we differ, because to me the more parsimonious explanation is that Geller is faking. Fakery is a well-established phenomena, while the ability to change the shape of metal through some form of telekinesis is not.
Fakery may be well-established phenomenon in the general, but it is a positive claim and must be proved in each instance. Geller has done too many highly impressive things in front of too many people.

Here's another. The page (http://www.uri-geller.com/map.htm).

While I am blowing my own trumpet, I'd just like to mention an item that appeared in the November 16th edition of Autosport. It's columnist "Pit Bull" had come across the account of how I bent a chrome vanadium spanner in the pit at Silverstone in 1998 in Guy Lyon Playfair's excellent book MindForce (available from Tesco).

Obviously he didn't believe it and asked readers if any of them had seen me doing it. One of them had indeed and described what he saw in the November 23rd issue : "he bent the spanner", he wrote. "It came straight from one of the mechanics' cabinets, and Uri had no way of having touched or even seen the spanner before he made it droop over to one side."

A similar spanner was bent recently on a strain gauge at Imperial College, London, and needed a force of more than 6 kilonewtons to get it to the same angle, about 30 degrees. That's the equivalent of more than half a ton, and whatever bent it was definitely not any physical powers.

Again, I can't personally attest to whether such an event took place. But there are witnesses, etc. If it happened, it sure doesn't sound like "stage magic."

For you to assume Geller has such an ability, you'd have to postulate some mechanism by which it operates, which involves having to make additional assumptions, which violates Occam's Razor because an adequate alternate explanation that requires no additional assumptions already exists (trickery) and has not been eliminated, despite testimonails from selected witnesses.
First, I don't "assume" Geller to have psi powers, I believe that he has them based on the kind of quotes I've given in this thread. And no, there is no requirement for me to hypothesize a mechanism of action. Your logic is rotten here. Suppose that Geller were tested in the lab and unambigously and to the satisfaction of James Randi and Susan Blackmore was able to bend huge metal bars right and left without laying a finger on them. Would his powers still be in doubt because the mechanism of action was unknown? Of course not.

Further, the mechanism of action of gravity is unknown, but there is no doubt that it exists.

Czarcasm

10-19-2004, 01:43 AM

Ooh! Nice try!

But the method you describe did not explain how to:

1. Make an object bend in someone's hand without appearing to touch it at all.

2. Lay an object on the table and have it look like it's still bending--without your continuing to touch it.

'Splain that!

Sure thing.
1. It never happened.
2. It never happened.
Next?

Bryan Ekers

10-19-2004, 01:53 AM

I realize the comments were directed as Musicat. I hope it won't seem too presumptuous of me to jump right in.

If you think that a magic trick exists whereby a metal ring can be bent in someone's hand without the "magician" apparantly touching it at all, then that is a claim on your part for which you need to provide cites or other evidence.

Emphasis, needless to say, added. If Geller's power doesn't require touching, then there should be no "apparantly" about it. It should always be absolutely clear, though observant witnesses (preferably familiar with slight-of-hand) and careful video recording that Geller (or any of his staff, as they may be accomplices) absolutely never touches or has a chance to touch the metallic object.

You are assuming a priori that everything Geller has ever done was through stage magic. Assumption does not equal science.

Unfortunately, assuming that Geller sometimes accomplished feats without stage magic does not equal proof. Heck, I've read comic books. I'd love the idea of using superpowers to alter metallic objects. I just don't see any evidence such powers exist, and lots of evidence that fakery from a skilled magician is hard for a nonmagician to spot.

It's your assertion that it is stage magic. Can a spoon lie on a table and continue to bend? Does such a trick exist in the books you mentioned? If so, please provide a cite for that assertion.

You're begging the question by assuming the spoon did, in fact, continue to bend. There are witnesses who say it continued, but the power of suggestion is powerful and proven. The best test for this would be for Geller to put the spoon on the table and not say anything, letting the witnesses decide without prompting if the spoon is still bending or not.

So, are you asserting that is how Uri did what he did? If so, that is a positive claim on your part and requires evidence.

What Geller did could be adequately explained by simple magic tricks. He is the one making the extraordinary claim that it is not trickery, so if anyone is required to show evidence, it's him.

Causing a metal ring to bend in someone's hand without touching it is a "common" magic trick? Is that your assertion? I think you're just straw-grasping.

Well, if you've got £29.99 to spend, I'm sure this guy can shed some light on the subject. (http://www.magictricks.co.uk/prodshow.asp?code=451)

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 02:23 AM

Great. Now we're close to the same wavelength! :)
These "wavelengths" you propose.....

Now I have to call you on this one. I cannot claim to have been personally present at any Geller test, but the "controlled conditions" you are referring to are controlled only by the rat.
This sounds self-contradictory.... how can you not be present and make this claim?

The lab technicians are totally ignorant of what's really happening.
ibid.

Is Geller "rare"? Only if you consider his claims that he is not a magician, but a paranormalist.
So, "where's the beef?"

Magicians have been doing the same tricks he does for centuries if not longer. His tricks are not new or original. His claim of supernatural powers or forces harks back to the middle ages, and it requires a credulous audience.
People also claimed to travel to the moon. Are the astronauts therefore liars?

Remember when Geller went on Johnny Carson? Carson followed Randi's advice, tightened the controls, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED! Geller was a total dud.
No. I missed it. I'd love to hear versions from two sides, though.

Bryan Ekers

10-19-2004, 02:34 AM

Of course, when skeptics invoke Occam's Razor they most assuredly feel they are doing so correctly. Often they seem incorrect to me.

And again, instead of addressing my specific points, you make some broad generalization about skeptics. I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing with these repeated statements on what you believe skeptics do. It's certainly not proving your case.

Fakery may be well-established phenomenon in the general, but it is a positive claim and must be proved in each instance. Geller has done too many highly impressive things in front of too many people.

Here's another. The page (http://www.uri-geller.com/map.htm).

The stumbling block with that account is that Geller is admittedly blowing his own trumpet, and his account might not be accurate. I'd like to see the original article Geller is referencing. I'd love to see video footage of the event itself. Does video footage exist of Geller doing something equally impressive?

And no, there is no requirement for me to hypothesize a mechanism of action. Your logic is rotten here. Suppose that Geller were tested in the lab and unambigously and to the satisfaction of James Randi and Susan Blackmore was able to bend huge metal bars right and left without laying a finger on them. Would his powers still be in doubt because the mechanism of action was unknown? Of course not.

Well, what's stopping Geller from giving such a demonstration? And are you making any kind of guess (even a wildly speculative one) as to how Geller would accomplish this feat, and why, if he can do such things, would he ever have to resort to stage magic?

Further, the mechanism of action of gravity is unknown, but there is no doubt that it exists.

There are some good theories about gravity, though, which is something lacking in Geller's case. My stance has always been that an explanation exists, and it is more likely to be an explanation involving trickery than telekinesis. Being a comic-book reader, as stated, I can imagine Geller is a mutant with the superhuman ability to reshape metal. I'd have to ask, though, why he seems to prefer trivial stunts like bending spoons and keys (which anybody with strong hands, psychic or not, can easily do) instead of something really cool, like taking a large block of cold steel and sculpting it into a recognizable statue with his bare hands (if metal becomes soft at his touch, this should be as easy for him as working wet clay), or bending an I-beam into a large circle. So long as he limits himself to actions any competent stage magician could fake (I'll await an independent account of the spanner-bending incident), he'll always be suspect.

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 02:40 AM

Do you really think that knowledge of rocket science qualifies Mr. Von Braun to detect a magic trick?

That's what Geller does -- he approximates breaking the laws of the universe using subterfuge and trickery. All it takes is some practice and a little skill. Doing it the supernatural way is a lot harder.
So, cat, you are saying that with a little skill and practice you can get my ring to bend in my hand without touching it? After all, I'm just an Anthropologist, and should be easier to fool than a rocket scientist.

I accept your challenge!

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 02:44 AM

I'd have to ask, though, why he seems to prefer trivial stunts like bending spoons and keys (which anybody with strong hands, psychic or not, can easily do) instead of something really cool, like taking a large block of cold steel and sculpting it into a recognizable statue with his bare hands (if metal becomes soft at his touch, this should be as easy for him as working wet clay), or bending an I-beam into a large circle. So long as he limits himself to actions any competent stage magician could fake (I'll await an independent account of the spanner-bending incident), he'll always be suspect.
Since you admit you do not know the principles involved, how can you so arrogantly assume that such things would be easy?

You're doing the "grasping at straws" routine here, Bryan.

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 02:49 AM

For you to assume Geller has such an ability, you'd have to postulate some mechanism by which it operates, which involves having to make additional assumptions, which violates Occam's Razor because an adequate alternate explanation that requires no additional assumptions already exists (trickery) and has not been eliminated, despite testimonails from selected witnesses.
Bull. If something happens, it happens. Occam's razor is not a magic tool that makes things go away just cause you can't explain them other than through your narrow world-view.
Oh, BTW, the moon landings were said by some skeptics to be fakeries, also. Are you in their camp as well?

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 02:55 AM

Sure thing.
1. It never happened.
2. It never happened.
Next?

Oh, I see. Famous scientists and news reporters saying it did happen means nothing when the great Czarcasm is in town.

You make life so simple, sir!

Bryan Ekers

10-19-2004, 03:05 AM

So, cat, you are saying that with a little skill and practice you can get my ring to bend in my hand without touching it? After all, I'm just an Anthropologist, and should be easier to fool than a rocket scientist.

I accept your challenge!

Heck, I'm willing to bet that if Cat was willing to go through the training and practice to develop the skills and the patter, he could bend someone's ring and yet convince them that he'd never actually touched it.

You don't seem eager to believe that Musicat has such powers, so you'd likely spot the trickery if he tried it on you. In Geller's case, though, there are numerous people who are eager to believe he has such power, so I'm sure they're quite easy to fool.

Since you admit you do not know the principles involved, how can you so arrogantly assume that such things would be easy?

You're doing the "grasping at straws" routine here, Bryan.

Geller claims it's easy. Heck, if he can bend a chrome-vanadium spanner (as he claims), why can't he mold steel? If the metal is soft enough in his touch to bend, why can't he casually poke a finger-hole in a lump of steel? Why doesn't he do something a little more impressive and harder to fake than bending spoons?

And I can only grasp what you offer me, so straws it is.

Bull. If something happens, it happens. Occam's razor is not a magic tool that makes things go away just cause you can't explain them other than through your narrow world-view.

You're exactly right that Occam's Razor is not a magic tool and exactly wrong that my world-view is narrow. Occam simply states that if several explanations are possible, the best choice is the simplest one. Hence, the best explanation for Geller's feats is that he is using trickery. Strict testing could eliminate trickery as a possible explanation, but as far as I know Geller has never displayed his abilities while being subjected to such testing.

Besides, "if something happens, it happens" is a weak standard. More accurately, if something happens and someone claims it is because of explanation X, it's possible that in fact it's due to explanation Y. A spoon gets bent. Was it trickery or telekinesis? Without careful observation, who knows?

Oh, BTW, the moon landings were said by some skeptics to be fakeries, also. Are you in their camp as well?

This qustion is sufficiently stupid to not require a response.

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 03:25 AM

If Geller's power doesn't require touching, then there should be no "apparantly" about it. It should always be absolutely clear, though observant witnesses (preferably familiar with slight-of-hand) and careful video recording that Geller (or any of his staff, as they may be accomplices) absolutely never touches or has a chance to touch the metallic object.
That's what the witnesses say. My "apparently" was in there because I'm getting the information 2nd-hand. "It appears that..." etc. Sorry for the confusion.
Unfortunately, assuming that Geller sometimes accomplished feats without stage magic does not equal proof.
Sure it does. He does it without stage magic, ergo he has psi powers. It's pretty simple.
Heck, I've read comic books. I'd love the idea of using superpowers to alter metallic objects. I just don't see any evidence such powers exist, and lots of evidence that fakery from a skilled magician is hard for a nonmagician to spot.Sure you see evidence: the evidence that I'm quoting to you in this thread. You may not accept it, but it's there.
You're begging the question by assuming the spoon did, in fact, continue to bend.
No, I'm not assuming, I'm taking credence in the accounts. Not 100% stake-my-life-on-it credence, but just I'll believe what these people said until someone prooves that the accounts are fake or that cheating occurred.
There are witnesses who say it continued, but the power of suggestion is powerful and proven.And you assume a priori that it must be suggestion, fakery--anything but what the actual witnesses say it was.
The best test for this would be for Geller to put the spoon on the table and not say anything, letting the witnesses decide without prompting if the spoon is still bending or not.
Be careful what you wish for. The spanner episode quoted in this thread seems to be just this type of event.
What Geller did could be adequately explained by simple magic tricks. He is the one making the extraordinary claim that it is not trickery, so if anyone is required to show evidence, it's him.
Man, your logic is mixed up. Geller is providing evidence for his claims in the form of demonstrations. It is your contention that what the witnesses saw can be explained by tickery and sleight of hand. That is a separate claim that itself requires proof.

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 03:34 AM

Heck, if he can bend a chrome-vanadium spanner (as he claims), why can't he mold steel? If the metal is soft enough in his touch to bend, why can't he casually poke a finger-hole in a lump of steel? Why doesn't he do something a little more impressive and harder to fake than bending spoons?
If you don;'t know the principles by which it operates, how can you claim it's easy?

An atcetylene torch can make a chrome vanadium spanner soft enough to bend, but can't poke a finger hole in a block of steel. You're a phoney, using phoney assumptions. You don't know what you are talking about and you're not debating in good faith.

You're exactly right that Occam's Razor is not a magic tool and exactly wrong that my world-view is narrow. Occam simply states that if several explanations are possible, the best choice is the simplest one.
But you're saying it's the ONLY one. There's a difference.

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 03:37 AM

And again, instead of addressing my specific points, you make some broad generalization about skeptics. I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing with these repeated statements on what you believe skeptics do. It's certainly not proving your case.
Interesting. I make one generalization (in an appropriate fashion), and you seem to think I am ignoring all of your specific claims? I repeat: I think skeptics often invoke Occam's Razor in an incorrect fashion. If this does not apply to you, please ignore.
The stumbling block with that account is that Geller is admittedly blowing his own trumpet, and his account might not be accurate. I'd like to see the original article Geller is referencing. I'd love to see video footage of the event itself. Does video footage exist of Geller doing something equally impressive?
Yeah, there exists lots of footage from his lab experiments. I could not find the financial times article on line.
Well, what's stopping Geller from giving such a demonstration? And are you making any kind of guess (even a wildly speculative one) as to how Geller would accomplish this feat, and why, if he can do such things, would he ever have to resort to stage magic?
Geller probably isn't capable of giving such a demonstration. I don't know if Geller ever uses stage magic or not. I'm saying simply that what he has done over the years is enough to prove that he has psi powers and that therefore psi is real.
There are some good theories about gravity, though, which is something lacking in Geller's case.Regardless, a lack of an explanation for a phenomena does not mean that the phenomena itself does not exist.
My stance has always been that an explanation exists, and it is more likely to be an explanation involving trickery than telekinesis.This is based on your view of how Reality itself works, not on a careful examination of the evidence itself. You are arguing a priori.
Being a comic-book reader, as stated, I can imagine Geller is a mutant with the superhuman ability to reshape metal. I'd have to ask, though, why he seems to prefer trivial stunts like bending spoons and keys (which anybody with strong hands, psychic or not, can easily do) instead of something really cool, like taking a large block of cold steel and sculpting it into a recognizable statue with his bare hands (if metal becomes soft at his touch, this should be as easy for him as working wet clay), or bending an I-beam into a large circle. So long as he limits himself to actions any competent stage magician could fake (I'll await an independent account of the spanner-bending incident), he'll always be suspect.Be careful of what you wish for. Did you read the spanner episode I quoted? Superhuman strength was required to bend the wrench.

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 03:44 AM

So, cat, you are saying that with a little skill and practice you can get my ring to bend in my hand without touching it? After all, I'm just an Anthropologist, and should be easier to fool than a rocket scientist.

I accept your challenge!

The irony is that, if in another thread I claimed it were possible to bend a ring supplied by the owner in the owner's hand without touching simply by means of stage magic and no psi whatsoever, the same skeptics (or different skeptics) would jeer me for making the claim, even though they are willing to concede that such a trick is possible in this thread.

This is quite a common and sophisticated way of attacking the opposing side, and I call it the "layered approach." For example, if a medium seems to be doing well, Skeptic A will say it's just telepathy at best, which would seem to halfway concede that at least psi is real, while Skeptic B at other times will deny any evidence exists for telepathy. Since it's a different person each time, voila, no contradiction.

This is done in politics, too. The Swift Boat Vets impugn Kerry's war record outright lies, while those closer to Bush mildly praise Kerry for his "service." Different attackers, no contradiction, and mission accomplished.

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 03:47 AM

Czarcasm and Ekers are making valid questions and assertions go away by using subterfuge and trickery!

(Weren't they the gay guys that used to train lions and tigers?)

Czarcasm uses ancient Egyptian magic known as The Nile (or is that denial?)

Eckers uses the "magic razor of Occam" to pretend he knows the principles of actions he denies exist!

(Rumors have it they are trying to unseat "The Amazing Randi" as boor of the Universe.)

You two are pathetic!

SentientMeat

10-19-2004, 03:50 AM

Snake: We already know, within "currently accepted scientific knowledge" that the electrical impulses emitted by the firing of brain cells are detectable with currently utilized equipment outside of the structure of the skull!This is only like detecting that certain chips were active in a desktop computer. What program or information that activity represents, according to the current neuropsychological paradigm, cannot be transmitted.
Now then, we merely have to postulate whether it is possible to decipher those electrical emanations, and frankly (thanks to Occam's razor), the most likely 'equipment' to decipher those impulses would be... a human brain!No, human brains are not pigeon brains: they are not sensitive to electromagnetic fields. Ockham’s razor tells us not to multiply entities unnecessarily. If you believe that it says “always choose the simplest explanation”, you have fallen for a widespread fallacy (Bryan, take note also).
Some forces diminish with distance, but light does not. It disperses, or may be dispersed, but it does not diminish.Light is not a force, but its intensity most certainly does diminish very rapidly with distance: like gravity and countless other phenomenon, it obeys an inverse square law. ESP would have to run directly counter to all of these instances.
Quite the example there, meat. Hair dyed five different colors, short on one side, long on the other, a braid from nowhere....Glad the site included her picture, I might have actually bought it.Susan Blackmore is one of Britain’s leading authorities on the study of consciousness, and her entire career’s worth of experiments seeking any parapsychological and paranormal phenomena are a model of rigour and soundness. Dismissing her based on what she does to her hair is grandstanding of the kind you have found so distasteful to date.
The "clearly demonstrable" cuts out a lot of stuff that is currently caught in the term, and I think we have to ask: "What do we want to use this term for?"I would suggest “making genuine attempts to actually find any candidate ability or phenomenon at all, after centuries of looking, without wasting our oh-so-short lives chasing statistical shadows.”

If these things, any of them, exist, why are they so ridiculously hard to find that they do a perfectly good impression of not being there at all? If you now understand the principle of Ockham’s Razor, you might use it to answer this question.

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 03:51 AM

Oh, BTW, the moon landings were said by some skeptics to be fakeries, also. Are you in their camp as well?

This qustion is sufficiently stupid to not require a response.

Nixon said something similar, too, when posed with a valid question.

Then he said, "I am not a crook."

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 04:03 AM

This is only like detecting that certain chips were active in a desktop computer. What program or information that activity represents, according to the current neuropsychological paradigm, cannot be transmitted.
Cite?

No, human brains are not pigeon brains: they are not sensitive to electromagnetic fields. Ockham’s razor tells us not to multiply entities unnecessarily. If you believe that it says “always choose the simplest explanation”, you have fallen for a widespread fallacy (Bryan, take note also).
How do you know this?
Oh, by assumption....

Light is not a force, but its intensity most certainly does diminish very rapidly with distance: like gravity and countless other phenomenon, it obeys an inverse square law. ESP would have to run directly counter to all of these instances.
Wrong again, it's effect diminishes, but not its force.
And what ESP are you proposing? What do you know about it, what instances are you referring to? How would it work? What principles are involved?

Susan Blackmore is one of Britain’s leading authorities on the study of consciousness, and her entire career’s worth of experiments seeking any parapsychological and paranormal phenomena are a model of rigour and soundness. Dismissing her based on what she does to her hair is grandstanding of the kind you have found so distasteful to date.
When in Rome.... whoop-te-doo! Aeschines and I have been called worse things than I said about her. All I said was if she's your model of sane science, you better get another model!

I would suggest “making genuine attempts to actually find any candidate ability or phenomenon at all, after centuries of looking, without wasting our oh-so-short lives chasing statistical shadows.”
I'm not wasting your time, you are. You don't like the program? Change the channel.

If these things, any of them, exist, why are they so ridiculously hard to find that they do a perfectly good impression of not being there at all? If you now understand the principle of Ockham’s Razor, you might use it to answer this question.
I haven't found them ridiculously hard to find, none are so blind as those who will not see!

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 04:07 AM

So, which one of you is gonna bend my ring, in my hand without touching it by using trickery and subterfuge.

If it's as easy as you say, it should be easy to demonstrate!

Or are you going to make some lame excuse?

After which "Occam's razor" tells me I should make the most likely assumption:

that you don't know what you're talking about.

SentientMeat

10-19-2004, 04:19 AM

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 04:27 AM

Heck, I'm willing to bet that if Cat was willing to go through the training and practice to develop the skills and the patter, he could bend someone's ring and yet convince them that he'd never actually touched it.
Dear me. Willing to believe anything that doesn't specifically conflict with the ol' worldview, eh Bryan? I'd love to see the ring trick performed.
You don't seem eager to believe that Musicat has such powers, so you'd likely spot the trickery if he tried it on you. In Geller's case, though, there are numerous people who are eager to believe he has such power, so I'm sure they're quite easy to fool.I repeat: if something looks like stage magic to people, they will label it as such whether it's done by "paranormal" means or not. If he really is just doing plain ol' been-around-since 1255 stage magic, then I'm curious to know why his career has gone so well for so long. Either he has powers or he's pulling some tricks that are truly amazing. You pretty much have to pick one or the other.
Geller claims it's easy.
Cite?
Heck, if he can bend a chrome-vanadium spanner (as he claims), why can't he mold steel? If the metal is soft enough in his touch to bend, why can't he casually poke a finger-hole in a lump of steel? Why doesn't he do something a little more impressive and harder to fake than bending spoons?He did. He bent a spanner, which feat was later proven to require super-human strength.
You're exactly right that Occam's Razor is not a magic tool and exactly wrong that my world-view is narrow.
Cite for where I called you "narrow-minded"? You want to know the truth? Unlike skeptics, who seem to think that "believers" are worthy of contempt, I do not think self-labeling skeptics are worthy of contempt. In fact, they are usually quite intelligent, well-read people who think for themselves and don't take a lot of BS. I also think that people who self-label as skeptics are required to hold a fairly comprehensive set of views, i.e. worldview, due to social pressure, and this leads to a dogmatic approach when it comes to what they consider "paranormal." I was an atheist myself at one point and understand where you're coming from. In fact, I am apt to give, in my mind, self-labeling skeptics an extra pat of admiration butter as a default. So if you think I think you're something negative, incorrect! If you think I think you're off the mark on this topic... correct!
Occam simply states that if several explanations are possible, the best choice is the simplest one. Hence, the best explanation for Geller's feats is that he is using trickery.Except when trickery is a poor explanation, at which point you have to go to a more advanced explanation.
Strict testing could eliminate trickery as a possible explanation, but as far as I know Geller has never displayed his abilities while being subjected to such testing.That's a matter of opinion.
Besides, "if something happens, it happens" is a weak standard. More accurately, if something happens and someone claims it is because of explanation X, it's possible that in fact it's due to explanation Y. A spoon gets bent. Was it trickery or telekinesis? Without careful observation, who knows?
What I mean by the phrase "If something happens, it happens," is that you have to deal with it if it's there, even if it doesn't fit your worldview. If Geller has done just one thing that we cannot deny happened, then our scientific worldview must take it into consideration. It's not as though you can say, "You must do that in a lab 100 times with James Z. Randi standing by and the cameras rolling before we accept that it really happened." If it happened and it's documented with sufficient rigor, then it happened.

Drawing that line is not easy. If you go too far, you get the Moon Hoax people. They view themselves as skeptics, rational doubters, but they have a strange worldview in which witnesses, video tape, and a bunch of physical evidence mean nothing. I'm sure we can agree that these people are seriously mixed. But if you would like to know the kind of frustration I feel toward skeptics on the topic of the "paranormal," consider your own frustration as regards the Moon Hoaxers. No matter what evidence is presented: lab experiments, credible witnesses, etc., it's deny--deny--deny.

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 04:50 AM

Snake, I no longer believe that you are debating in good faith.
He is, I assure you.
That may be understandable given that you and Aeschines are rather being ganged up on here...
What? I thought we two were ganging up on you guys. :)
[B]ut I must ask myself whether it is really worth engaging somebody who will not even accept that light is not a force.
Light ain't a force, OK, Snake? (Sentient admits defeat? Unheard of!)

SentientMeat

10-19-2004, 04:53 AM

Actually, Snake asked for citations and so I guess I should provide them, at least, before taking my leave:

Transmission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunication) requires coding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_coding). PET scans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_Emission_Tomography) detect emitted positrons associated with brain activity, one of many different methods of brain imaging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_imaging). This activity is no more a “transmission of information” than the radiation from an oven or a light bulb. Neuroscience thus says that telepathy cannot happen, that perception via routes other than the well-known senses runs counter to the current neuroscientific paradigm.
In any case, homing pigeons are EM sensitive, humans are not (http://digilander.libero.it/bioem/EBC.html).
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_razor): William of Ockham.
When in Rome.... (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#tuquoque)

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 04:56 AM

SentientMeat, know that I am always an admirer.

Your set of cites, though not good as an argument, was good art.

If adieu it must be, then ciao.

Ever your humble servant,

--Aeschines

SentientMeat

10-19-2004, 05:00 AM

Sentient admits defeat? Unheard of!

Your set of cites, though not good as an argument, was good art.
I am defeated whenever I fail to convince. I admit defeat here.

Au revoir.

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 05:23 AM

I am defeated whenever I fail to convince. I admit defeat here.

Au revoir.
Sir, you will be missed!

Ever obligant,

--Aeschines

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-19-2004, 08:32 AM

My father, a few months ago, was astounded by a stage magician hired to entertain folks at a party. The magician asked my father's girlfriend if she knew what time it was. She told him she hadn't worn a watch that evening, at which point he asked her to go get a small, sealed box from a table at the host's home. She found the box, and opened it, and lo and behold, her watch was inside!

Which explanation is likelier?
1) The magician used psychoportation, not to steal the Hope Diamond, but to retrieve my dad's girlfriend's watch from her bedside table.
2) The magician gave her a double-handed handshake earlier in the night, removing her watch at the same time, and put it in the box; when he asked her the time, she said she hadn't worn her watch that evening only after looking at her wrist to see what time it was and realizing she didn't have the watch on.

My dad was astounded and a little creeped out by this event: what sort of eldritch powers did this man possess? I didn't give him my theory for how it was done.

I read an account awhile ago of three magicians sitting around in a bar frequented by magicians. A girl, obviously confused about the sort of magicians that would frequent such a bar, came in to see if any of them had the kinds of powers that Uri Gellar had.

None of the magicians had ever done Uri Gellar-style stuff before, but one of them on a lark decided to prove his powers to her. He asked to see her watch to synchronize times with his watch, and then had her cup her hands over the watch so he couldn't touch it. While she was cupping her hands over the watch, he put his hands on top of hers and talked about how time itself was just an illusion, and by concentrating, those who had studied under the Gurus of the Himalayas could speed it up or slow it down. Sure enough, when she took her hand away after his short spiel, she discovered that thirty minutes had passed, according to her watch! And he'd never touched her watch once!

Except, of course, he had: when he looked at hers to synchronize the time, he'd stared her in the eyes for a couple seconds while giving her part of the Time is An Illusion spiel, and meanwhile turned her watch ahead by half an hour. He'd kept staring into her eyes as he gave her the watch back, so that she wouldn't look down to check the time. And then he had her cup the watch in her hands, convincing her that he'd never touched it. She left that bar convinced she'd just met a bona-fide mystic.

People are easy to fool. People want to be fooled. How does Uri Gellar bend a ring without ever touching it? Probably a vital part of the process is telling his mark that he never touched the ring. He may well get the mark to examine the ring "before the trick begins," bend it quickly and unobtrusively "before the trick begins," make sure the person doesn't examine it thereafter, make a huge show about how "during the trick" he's not touching the ring, and remind the person, after the ring is bent, that he never touched it. Do it fast enough, convincingly enough, frenetically enough, and the mark is pretty likely to believe that he never touched the ring.

Daniel

Musicat

10-19-2004, 09:03 AM

Forgive me for not staying up all night to continue in this thread, and my workload today prohibits me from spending too much time going point-by-point for so many posts. Besides, others have replied as well or better than I could.

So just a few brief points.

Any magicians in our audience (Ianzin, you out there?) are probably chuckling at some of the assertions made here like "the spoon bent without his touching it!" They know, from doing tricks like this in their daily lives, that people are not only easy to fool, but typically repeat the trick to others leaving out or distorting critical items. Not intentionally, they just don't have the knowledge to know what observations are significant and which ones are not.

So if someone says, "he didn't touch it!" and uses this to "prove" something happened that is unlikely to actually have happened, a clear, undoctored video recording is a must before coming to a conclusion. Eyewitnesses, especially those untrained in magic tricks, are not reliable enough to overturn the laws of nature as we know them.

I recall a woman-in-a-box trick that is pretty impressive. Here's how a typical viewer might describe it: "A blonde is encased in several boxes, one of which encloses just her head and you can see her face. The head-box is on a swivel, and as the magician turns it, her head is locked with it. He turns it around 180 degrees -- you can see the back of her head -- then 360. The girl looks a little cross-eyed, but is unharmed."

Now what really happened? Do you really think her head turned all the way around and she lived to tell about it? No? But I was a witness!

There is a very critical assumption made here. Note the line, "you can see the back of her head." Did the audience really see "the back of her head"? No, they saw some hair glued to the back of the box! Hair that matched the girl's. When the box was turned far enough, the girl held her head still while the box turned around her.

What happened here? A magician knows that people see hair and assume head, but the average theater-goer does not think that way. Makes all the difference in the world, eh?

Now I can't say for sure how this trick was done -- I'm only offering a non-paranormal suggestion. Maybe it was done paranormally, or the girl can really swivel her head like that. What do you think?

This brings up another principle of magic. Whenever part of the trick is covered up, it is done so for a reason. The concealment is critical to deceiving the audience. Were it not for the coverup, it would not appear to be magic. Think about that the next time a magician draws a curtain. There is something going on behind it that he cannot allow you to see if the illusion is to be preserved.

Maybe you recall a famous test where an audience is shown a video of a street scene, then given a questionaire afterwards. One of the questions is, "What color was the barn?" And people answered red or yellow or whatever, but there was no barn anywhere in the video. Yet people swore they saw one. Such is the power of suggestion. (Please don't ask me to find a cite for this; I hope you remember the psychological experiment -- it was described in my college Psy class.)

And RE: Geller & Carson -- Somewhere there is a video of this show, and I hope you can find it. Briefly, Geller was scheduled to appear, and Carson, an amateur magician himself, wanted to avoid fraud. Geller said he had paranormal powers, and Carson wanted him to use only those powers, not trickery. (Carson had nothing against magicians, he just didn't want to support a fraudulent claim.) He approached Randi for advice and followed it to the letter (don't let Geller or his staff near the props, don't let him pick up the film cans when guessing which are water-filled, etc.). Geller was unable to do a single trick while on camera. When the controls are tightened, the effect goes away.

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 09:08 AM

How does Uri Gellar bend a ring without ever touching it? Probably a vital part of the process is telling his mark that he never touched the ring. He may well get the mark to examine the ring "before the trick begins," bend it quickly and unobtrusively "before the trick begins," make sure the person doesn't examine it thereafter, make a huge show about how "during the trick" he's not touching the ring, and remind the person, after the ring is bent, that he never touched it. Do it fast enough, convincingly enough, frenetically enough, and the mark is pretty likely to believe that he never touched the ring.

Daniel
But did it happen that way? It is not hard to say, "Oh yeah, Uri did something to bend it and he used sleight of hand, yeah, that musta been it." But if someone says "Uri never touched it" then there is a possiblity that Uri never touched it. I mean as in Uri is standing four feet away and not getting near it.

I think the ring example is good because I think a ring would be hard to bend.. You can bend a spoon pretty easily with ordinary strength or a little leverage If I had to bend an average, decently strong ring, I don't know how I'd do it. Unless you crush it in a vice or pound it with a hammer, I think it would be quite hard.

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-19-2004, 09:19 AM

But did it happen that way?

I don't know. Maybe he used the powers of his mind to bend it. But I'll require some pretty strong evidence -- more than just an eyewitness account devoid of video backup--to convince me of this.

If you tell me that you've trained your dog to fetch your slippers, I'll have no trouble believing you. If you tell me you've trained your dog to solve diferential equations, I'll not believe you until you've provided me with extensive proof. Uri Gellar is telling me that his dog won the Nobel frickin' Prize.

It is not hard to say, "Oh yeah, Uri did something to bend it and he used sleight of hand, yeah, that musta been it." But if someone says "Uri never touched it" then there is a possiblity that Uri never touched it. I mean as in Uri is standing four feet away and not getting near it.

Sure, and that's what Uri means as well. My doubt isn't with what you mean, it's with what actually happened. It's far easier for me to believe that eyewitnesses were tricked, since I already know eyewitnesses can be tricked. If you want me to believe an alternate explanation, provide scads of proof.

I think the ring example is good because I think a ring would be hard to bend.. You can bend a spoon pretty easily with ordinary strength or a little leverage If I had to bend an average, decently strong ring, I don't know how I'd do it. Unless you crush it in a vice or pound it with a hammer, I think it would be quite hard.

Really? I'd just keep a pair of pliers in my pocket. Or maybe I'd get my assistant to make me a small, spring-loaded device that can exert a huge amount of pressure at the press of a trigger and that I could palm in my hand. Of course, I'm not a professional magician; I'm not sure how they do the "Ringu" trick previously referenced in this thread, and I'm not going to pay the thirty pounds necessary in order to find out.

Daniel

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 09:19 AM

[QUOTE=Musicat]Any magicians in our audience (Ianzin, you out there?) are probably chuckling at some of the assertions made here like "the spoon bent without his touching it!" They know, from doing tricks like this in their daily lives, that people are not only easy to fool, but typically repeat the trick to others leaving out or distorting critical items. Not intentionally, they just don't have the knowledge to know what observations are significant and which ones are not.[QUOTE]
Nice treatise on magic. But I have yet to see any cite that says Geller has been caught cheating.

Skepdic (http://skepdic.com/geller.html)--I'm disappointed that it doesn't have any concrete accusations. It says read Randi's works but doesn't even quote them.

It mentions Johnny Carson and says what everyone is saying here: That since magicians can do the same sort of thing, sort of, Geller must be cheating.

Surely one of the more pious skeptics here has Randi's books and can quote a line or two? A concrete accusation, please...?

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 09:28 AM

Here, I'll do you a favor:

http://www.simon-jones.org.uk/articles/uri_geller_interview.htm

FTR, I don't find Uri to be a very attractive character.

Musicat

10-19-2004, 09:31 AM

Surely one of the more pious skeptics here has Randi's books and can quote a line or two? A concrete accusation, please...?How about the entire book?

The truth about Uri Geller (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879751991/qid=1098196439/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2920806-7748629?v=glance&s=books)

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 09:39 AM

Here is a quote from Puthoff and Tarq. They hardly seem like credulous bumblers:

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/g5.html

Musicat

10-19-2004, 09:47 AM

I think the ring example is good because I think a ring would be hard to bend.. You can bend a spoon pretty easily with ordinary strength or a little leverage If I had to bend an average, decently strong ring, I don't know how I'd do it. Unless you crush it in a vice or pound it with a hammer, I think it would be quite hard.Rings, I'm not sure about. Keys, spoons -- they're easy. I have a "gaff" gadget in my personal bag of tricks that no self-respecting magician would admit to using, but I don't put myself in that class :) -- it's a tiny, brass, square cross section tube that you can fit a key into. It makes bending the key much easier. When done, the tube retracts into my sleeve on a rubber band. You'll never see it, and I won't show you the finished "product" until much later, when I can reveal it and exclaim, "look -- it's bending!" Or I can leave it on the desk when no one's looking. Some time later, someone will find it and claim that I hadn't touched it for hours -- which may be true, and of course that's what I'll say -- and I'll get the credit for the bend.

A better magician than I would be constantly checking the room for available leverages -- a metal chair leg, a filing cabinet, etc. Given enough time, distraction, confusion and ignorance, that key is gonna get bent, and you will not be looking when it happens.It is not hard to say, "Oh yeah, Uri did something to bend it and he used sleight of hand, yeah, that musta been it." But if someone says "Uri never touched it" then there is a possiblity that Uri never touched it. I mean as in Uri is standing four feet away and not getting near it.There is also the possibility that he DID touch it. Tricks are easy. We know they can be done; they have been repeatedly demonstrated. Why would a magician waste his time trying to do it the hard way with paranormal powers?

You have yet to show us an undoctored video of a spoon sitting all by its lonesome on a table, self-bending without anyone near it or touching it in any way. Until that comes forward, permit me to be just a little skeptical.

Musicat

10-19-2004, 10:00 AM

Here is a quote from Puthoff and Tarq. They hardly seem like credulous bumblers:

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/g5.htmlRead that report carefully. It includes such gems asThere are a number of unconfirmed physical effects that need further investigation. One of Geller's main attributes that had been reported to us was that he was able to bend metal from a distance without touching it. In the laboratory we did not find him able to do so. In a more relaxed protocol, he was permitted to touch the metal, in which case the metal did indeed bend."In the laboratory we did not find him able to [bend metal from a distance]."

Textbook case. When the controls are tightened, the effect disappears. In this particular experiment, we found later that the type of compass needle deflections we observed could be produced by a small piece of metal, so small, in fact, that it could not be detected by the magnetometer. Therefore, even though we had no evidence that Geller might have employed this means, we still considered the experiment inconclusive and an unsatisfactory type of experiment altogether. Even P&T admit that some experiments were flawed. They were up against a magician and they had no defense. They were ignorant of simple tricks and took few precautions. They were snowed by greater knowledge than theirs, in a field they knew nothing about. Even then, they recognized some of the flaws, albeit a little too late.In the laboratory, these spoon-bending experiments were continually filmed and video-taped. It is evident that some time during the photographic period a stainless steel spoon became bent. However, unlike what we had heard about Geller, it was always necessary for him in the experimental situation to have physical contact with the spoon or, for that matter, any other object that he bends....

A number of the spoons were bent by one means or another during the course of our experiments. There is no doubt that the spoons were bent. The only doubt remains as to the manner of their bending.They may be puzzled, but there is very little doubt in my mind. I've done it.

Aeschines

10-19-2004, 10:56 AM

Even P&T admit that some experiments were flawed. They were up against a magician and they had no defense. They were ignorant of simple tricks and took few precautions. They were snowed by greater knowledge than theirs, in a field they knew nothing about. Even then, they recognized some of the flaws, albeit a little too late.They may be puzzled, but there is very little doubt in my mind. I've done it.

Why is that, when I "reply" to your posts, there is always an italic code before each chunk in your post? Just curious.

At any rate, your interpretation above doesn't jibe with the link I posted. The experiments sound OK, and they talk about how they took measures to prevent cheating. Etc. etc. And they weren't all spoon-bending experiments, either.

Abe

10-19-2004, 11:25 AM

Oh, BTW, the moon landings were said by some skeptics to be fakeries, also. Are you in their camp as well?

Nixon said something similar, too, when posed with a valid question.

Then he said, "I am not a crook."

This is a dishonest argument, one where the illogical thrust is implied to boot.

In case you actually did want an answer to the moon landing question (I can't tell):

It generally wasn't sceptics who trumpeted that the moon landings were faked; it was nutjobs (of multiple falvours -- religious nuts as well as conspiracy freaks) or greedy folk without any scruples or respect for the facts. Scepticism is a method that simply requires a provisional approach to all claims. A real sceptic would have questioned the Moon landings (all of them!), but rather than leave it at that and make any claims on the subject he would have got to the bottom of the matter by understanding some of the science involved, examining the arguments for and against, and above all scrutinizing the available evidence before reaching a conclusion.

The available evidence is overwhlemingly in favour of the claim that we did land on the Moon; the people who thought otherwise otherwise were chiefly the uninformed, those who have a burning ideological need to "believe", or the hapless folk who get their information from FOX documentaries and similar poor quality sources.

The proponents of the Moon landing hoax weren't sceptics by any definition. They presented incredibly sloppy evidence in support of their claim, ignored vastly superior evidence against it, and manipulated the argument to try to prove their claim in a manner that is, intellectually, as low as you can go. SentientMeat (along with I) thought that you knew as much, which is why he left the discussion in dismay when you tried to tar the name of scepticism with your totally inconclusive (and inappropriate) allusions to the Moon landing hoax and Nixon.

Sceptics do not support wacky conspiracy theories (or anything else) unless there is good evidence and reason to do so; they may hold beliefs that are undemonstrable or even wrong, but they couldn't honestly use the sceptical method to pronounce the false as fact, and still be called sceptics. Since anyone with a reasonably good science education could see right through the foolish Moon landing hoax claims presented by, for example, FOX TV, the proponents of this hoax were clearly not sceptics, they were pathetic impostors at best or simply not sufficiently informed to make a judgement on the matter. Here's The Bad Astronomer's page on the Moon landing hoax (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html).

It would appear you are confusing the words cynic and sceptic here.

I would suggest meeting the challenges posed by the cites that you dismissed with the comment "Your set of cites, though not good as an argument, was good art." That's not a fair response in a debate.

It reminds me of the time I systematically addressed an entire set of your arguments (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=253512&page=8&pp=50) on the paranormal and you told me I was a skilled debater, but still no sale. Thank you, but (like your structurally identical response to SentientMeat) that's not a rebuttal, it's an evasion!

MaxTheVool

10-19-2004, 12:37 PM

Thought experiment: You wake up one morning and realize that you have very real, if slightly undependable, psychic powers. You can read minds and bend metal with your thoughts. How do you proceed:

(1) Submit yourself to rigorous public testing, clearly videotaped, overseen by impartial and fair people, realizing that studying your gift could lead to the most important advancements in human knowledge, well, ever, and the attendent fame and celebrity should make you plenty rich and famous

(2) Use your psychic powers and metal-bending abilities to become fabulously wealthy through a variety of underhanded criminal enterprises

(3) Become a publicity whore who spends a lot of time bending keys and spoons, but who somehow never quite manages to produce the "silver bullet" videotape that clearly and indisputably shows you doing something paranormal

On the other hand, suppose you're a middling sleight of hand artist with a huge amount of charisma, lust for power and fame, and ability to confuse the hell out of dumb people, and no shame whatsoever. Then it seems that your only choice is to:

(1) Become a publicity whore who spends a lot of time bending keys and spoons

I'm just saying, is all...

Abe

10-19-2004, 12:48 PM

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 12:59 PM

Snake, I no longer believe that you are debating in good faith. That may be understandable given that you and Aeschines are rather being ganged up on here, but I must ask myself whether it is really worth engaging somebody who will not even accept that light is not a force.

Cheerio.
Quite obviously you misunderstood my answer, Meat, of course light is a force! We don't know if it's a particle or a wave or something else we don't understand yet, but what else would it be, if not a force?

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 01:06 PM

Quite obviously you misunderstood my answer, Meat, of course light is a force! We don't know if it's a particle or a wave or something else we don't understand yet, but what else would it be, if not a force?
And on top of it, I misunderstood you, too, and me. Let's skip the double negatives:
The effect of light diminishes (disperses) over distance; call it what you will; I'm not a physicist and don't claim to be one.

If this is somehow relevent to "What is 'paranormal'?" Please clue me in on that, too.

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 01:26 PM

I don't know. Maybe he used the powers of his mind to bend it. But I'll require some pretty strong evidence -- more than just an eyewitness account devoid of video backup--to convince me of this.
And maybe he used trickery. If he had been discovered using trickery I think the point would be moot.

Daniel, I think you and I have no argument!

Contrapuntal

10-19-2004, 01:46 PM

[QUOTE=Aeschines]Did you read the spanner episode I quoted? Superhuman strength was required to bend the wrench

Right. "A force of more than 6 kilonewtons"

Aeschines, if you truly believe that Geller is capable of exerting such a force using only psi power please answer this. Why do you suppose he would ever have to touch a key or spoon in order to bend it? With such power he could rip keys in half. He could deform rings and spoons willy nilly. Is it not just the least bit suspicious to you that a man who can bend a spanner from across a room using only his mind would need to caress a dinner spoon for several minutes before it begins to bend?

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-19-2004, 01:50 PM

And maybe he used trickery. If he had been discovered using trickery I think the point would be moot.

Daniel, I think you and I have no argument!

If I'm walking down the street and see someone running a three-card-monte scheme, and they tell me that they're consistently winning because they've got the magical ability to change the appearance of a face-down card through the sheer power of their mind, I'm not going to withhold judgment until I've proven that they're lying. I'm going to assume they're lying until they've proven otherwise.

Same thing here. Geller is accomplishing a feat that is commonly accomplished through chicanery. Only he's telling me he's accomplishing it through paranormal powers. I'm going to assume he's lying until he shows me otherwise, because other people who do the same thing do it through chicanery, and "he's lying" is a simpler explanation.

I'm open to changing my mind, but the onus is on him to get me to do so. Until he does, I'll figure it's three-card-monte all over again.

Daniel

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 01:51 PM

You have yet to show us an undoctored video of a spoon sitting all by its lonesome on a table, self-bending without anyone near it or touching it in any way. Until that comes forward, permit me to be just a little skeptical.
I saw one on the web about a year ago. Actually it was a fork, but frankly, Cat, that doesn't prove anything! Because, how could you tell if it was undoctored? With the state of the art today, you could produce a film like that which could not be falsified.
Permit me to be even more skeptical.

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-19-2004, 02:06 PM

I saw one on the web about a year ago. Actually it was a fork, but frankly, Cat, that doesn't prove anything! Because, how could you tell if it was undoctored? With the state of the art today, you could produce a film like that which could not be falsified.

That's why I want a metric scad of evidence.

Imagine I've got a dog who can solve differential equations, not always, but pretty darn often. Here's what I'll do to prove this to the world, assuming it's worth my time and not too stressful on the dog:
-I'll issue an open invitation to animal trainers and magicians to watch my dog at work.
-I'll ask skeptics to videotape the demonstrations.
-I'll let both myself and my dog be searched before, during, and after the demonstration.
-I'll get mathematicians, including math education professionals, involved.
-I'll get animal cognitive scientists involved.
-I'll apply for the million dollar Randi prize.
-I'll repeat these steps as often as necessary.

In other words, I'll acknowledge folks' doubts, and to allay them, I'll get multiple professionals involved in the process. The result will be a metric scad of evidence: testimonials from folks with relevant expertise, videotapes, photographs, and so forth.

Geller is putting forth an even more remarkable claim. I expect two metric scads of evidence from him, therefore. Yet he fails to provide much evidence at all to distinguish his claim from the claim of a charlatan.

It may be that he has honest reasons for doing so. If so, I'm doomed forever to misunderstand his awesome powers. I can live with that.

Daniel

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 02:07 PM

Doh! I apologize for confusing Aeschines and Snakespirit in my previous post. It wasn't Snake who provided that evasion in the linked thread, it was Aeschines. But I must say, you guys do seem to work like a tag team, and you do make rather similar points, so please excuse my confusion.
Accepted. Don't worry about it; I get the same feeling and confusion all the time with a few of the other posters here, often more than just two at a time, but I don't think you were ever among them.

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 02:22 PM

It would appear you are confusing the words cynic and sceptic here.
I'm well aware of the difference, but from the postings and actions I have seen here I have come to believe that there are many cynics here who are either misrepresenting themselves as skeptics or who are fooling themselves or who are ignorant of the difference.

A skeptic, by definition, is one who suspends judgement in the absence of proof.

A cynic is one who denies the possibility of a thing due to a lack of proof.

How could a true skeptic say that something does not exist? That requires making a judgement, coming to a final conclusion.

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 02:37 PM

Aeschines, if you truly believe that Geller is capable of exerting such a force using only psi power please answer this. Why do you suppose he would ever have to touch a key or spoon in order to bend it? With such power he could rip keys in half. He could deform rings and spoons willy nilly. Is it not just the least bit suspicious to you that a man who can bend a spanner from across a room using only his mind would need to caress a dinner spoon for several minutes before it begins to bend?
It's strange that people who deny the existance of a force or power know so much about its operation, while we skeptics sit back and allow that there may be some things we don't know.

From one day to the next I can't even bench press the same weight the same number of times.

When I use my torch on the same type and size of metal, sometimes it takes longer to achieve the desired results than others.

And these are well-understood physical effects!

Your debating technique is flawed. I believe it's called an irrelevent conclusion.

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 02:39 PM

I'm going to assume he's lying until he shows me otherwise,
Like I said, we have no argument.

Contrapuntal

10-19-2004, 03:00 PM

It's strange that people who deny the existance of a force or power know so much about its operation, while we skeptics sit back and allow that there may be some things we don't know.

From one day to the next I can't even bench press the same weight the same number of times.

When I use my torch on the same type and size of metal, sometimes it takes longer to achieve the desired results than others.

And these are well-understood physical effects!

Your debating technique is flawed. I believe it's called an irrelevent conclusion.
My debating technique may well be flawed. I am always open to constructive criticism. Praytell what conclusion did I reach? I made no statements of affirmation. I merely referenced assertions made by Aechines and asked if this did not seem incogruent to him.

From day to day does your ability to lift weights vary from "childlike" to "superhuman" ?Does the time required to affect metal vary by several orders of magnitude? if not I believe you are equivocating.

Please show me where I have denied the existence of a force, or claimed to know "so much" about its operation. If you cannot I suggest you are guilty of a straw man argument.

Regards,

TRT

Early Out

10-19-2004, 03:31 PM

A cynic is one who denies the possibility of a thing due to a lack of proof.No it's not. Look it up.

Bryan Ekers

10-19-2004, 03:44 PM

Right. "A force of more than 6 kilonewtons"

Aeschines, if you truly believe that Geller is capable of exerting such a force using only psi power please answer this. Why do you suppose he would ever have to touch a key or spoon in order to bend it? With such power he could rip keys in half. He could deform rings and spoons willy nilly. Is it not just the least bit suspicious to you that a man who can bend a spanner from across a room using only his mind would need to caress a dinner spoon for several minutes before it begins to bend?

I asked the same question myself and got a similary evasive answer. Apparantly Geller's powers work in mysterious (and mysteriously inconsistant) ways, and if Geller is rigourously tested and fails, the fault is that of the tester. If Geller can make metal soft enough to bend, why can't he make it soft enough to sculpt? And if his powers are limited to bending, but all he needs is a light touch (or even no touch), why not let him display the ability while wearing mittens, so there is no chance he could be bending a spoon just by gripping it and applying force? I picture a test where Geller's hands are taped up into fists, with him only able to extend his index fingers. If he can do what he claims, simply touching metal with one finger should be enough to produce a measurable effect.

I can't claim for sure that Geller doesn't have special powers. I can only point out that he chooses to display them in ways that magicians (who make no such claim) can easily replicate. Given the choice between assuming Geller is a fake and assuming Geller has paranormal abilities, the more logical choice is the former.

And I realize I sound repetitive in this thread. I just can't think of any better argument I could make.

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 03:58 PM

Praytell what conclusion did I reach?

Please show me where I have denied the existence of a force, or claimed to know "so much" about its operation. If you cannot I suggest you are guilty of a straw man argument.

Aeschines, if you truly believe that Geller is capable of exerting such a force using only psi power please answer this. Why do you suppose he would ever have to touch a key or spoon in order to bend it?
You are concluding that psi power operates without physical contact. Although some researchers and proponents claim that, it has not been proven true.

With such power he could rip keys in half.
You are concluding that a force capable of bending is also capable of ripping. No evidence for this exists in PSI.

From day to day does your ability to lift weights vary from "childlike" to "superhuman"? Does the time required to affect metal vary by several orders of magnitude? if not I believe you are equivocating.
You're assuming the rules that apply to physical strength apply to any 'psychic strength.' Fact is, we know what factors affect heating metals and muscular strength (and no, I'm never "superhuman," but some days quite "childlike" in my physical strength, while other days I approach "normal.") but we have no idea what factors affect instances of PSI. It may be inconsistant for reasons we have not yet determined, or, it may not.

Honestly, this is getting tedious. I expect people debating or even just making suppositions here to at least adhere to logic.

Bryan Ekers

10-19-2004, 04:23 PM

You are concluding that psi power operates without physical contact. Although some researchers and proponents claim that, it has not been proven true.

Hasn't Geller claimed the ability to use his powers on objects without touching them?

You are concluding that a force capable of bending is also capable of ripping. No evidence for this exists in PSI.

How about bending versus sculpting? Presumably metal soft enough to bend can also be shaped. Or can't it? If Geller can make a spoon soft enough to collapse under his own weight, why not spread the metal out like a pancake? That'd be cool.

You're assuming the rules that apply to physical strength apply to any 'psychic strength.' Fact is, we know what factors affect heating metals and muscular strength (and no, I'm never "superhuman," but some days quite "childlike" in my physical strength, while other days I approach "normal.") but we have no idea what factors affect instances of PSI. It may be inconsistant for reasons we have not yet determined, or, it may not.

Then you've conveniently argued for something that cannot be proven or disproven.

Honestly, this is getting tedious. I expect people debating or even just making suppositions here to at least adhere to logic.

That's rather comical. At heart of all of your statements regarding Geller is the unproven assumption that he has special abilities. If we then follow your lead and assume such abilties exist and then question their limitations (i.e. why can Geller do some things but not others? Why can't Geller perform consistantly?), you can only make additional assumptions to protect the initial claim.

Bryan Ekers

10-19-2004, 04:44 PM

If Geller can make a spoon soft enough to collapse under his own weight

Heh, purely unintentional typo. It should read "soft enough to collapse under its own weight". I don't doubt that Geller has made many spoons collapse under his own weight, but that's what this discussion seems to be all about.

SnakeSpirit

10-19-2004, 05:07 PM

That's rather comical. At heart of all of your statements regarding Geller is the unproven assumption that he has special abilities. If we then follow your lead and assume such abilties exist and then question their limitations (i.e. why can Geller do some things but not others? Why can't Geller perform consistantly?), you can only make additional assumptions to protect the initial claim.
Where do you get this?

I never alleged or assumed Geller has any special abilities.

Please don't make up falsehoods just to make yourself appear viable.

Czarcasm

10-19-2004, 05:54 PM

Bryan Ekers

10-20-2004, 12:59 AM

Where do you get this?

I never alleged or assumed Geller has any special abilities.

Please don't make up falsehoods just to make yourself appear viable.

I "get" this from two of your earlier posts in this thread, in reponse to my questions about how Geller's claimed power:

Since you admit you do not know the principles involved, how can you so arrogantly assume that such things would be easy?

and

If you don;'t know the principles by which it operates, how can you claim it's easy?

I'll admit the possibility of you playing Devil's Advocate. If not, the implication is that you are trying to explain away flaws in Geller's presentations by saying his power relies on mysterious and inconsistent factors, i.e. he's not a showman who occasionally can't fake a stunt, but a telekinetic who sometimes isn't in tune with the universe, or the force wasn't with him that day, or something equally unprovable.

Abe

10-20-2004, 01:50 AM

I'm well aware of the difference, but from the postings and actions I have seen here I have come to believe that there are many cynics here who are either misrepresenting themselves as skeptics or who are fooling themselves or who are ignorant of the difference.

Sure, but you seem on the verge of confusing poor application of a methodology with the method itself. There are sloppy scientists, but that doesn't make science sloppy.

A skeptic, by definition, is one who suspends judgement in the absence of proof.

Not exactly. A sceptic is simply inclined to doubt all propositions. From this doubt comes the requirement to verify and confirm, analyze evidence, etc. A sceptic may provide provisional judgement, see below.

A cynic is one who denies the possibility of a thing due to a lack of proof.

Not really. A cynic is one who has no faith in human sincerity and integrity, and therefore has no problems dismissing a priori any claims, assertion, and even hard evidence provided. This is done from an ideological basis rather than a methodological one.

How could a true skeptic say that something does not exist? That requires making a judgement, coming to a final conclusion.

I think I explained how in great detail in the thread I linked in my previous message.

Very simply summarized, it involves provisional agreement. Any sceptic worth his salt is preared to provide provisional agreement that faeries do not exist, on the basis that to date no such creatures have ever been found and no reliable evidence in support of their existence has ever been provided, though they have often been claimed to exist.

So, when another claim about faeries comes along, the provisional agreement is clearly a well-established negative, which of course is entirely open to modification based on analysis of the evidence. If the claim has behind it a level of evidence commensurate with the extraordinariness of the claim, then it's another matter entirely and a paradigm shift may occur.

But Geller and his various supporters have never provided such evidence for their claims.

Also, there is the problem that to date not one single reliable piece of evidence exists to indicate the existence of any paranormal effect at all -- from spoon-bending to telepathy to ghosts. Therefore the informed sceptic -- while always ready to consider any evidence presented -- nonetheless operates under the provisional agreement that the supernatural in general is a collection of many unsubstantiated claims.

I must say I am also a bit unhappy with the demonizations thrown at Dr. Susan Blackmore in this thread, who I also discussed at length in the previous discussion. The colour and style of her hair is an ad hominem argumentum, irrelevant to the high quality of her remarkable decades-long work. Although now retired, she enjoys a reputation as one of the greatest paranormal experimenters of all time; the beef that proponents of the paranormal have with her is that she failed to prove any of the effects she was investigating.

It's worth noting that she wasn't trying to disprove anything throughout her career -- she actually wanted to verify various paranormal claims and confirm paranormal effects! The difference between her and some others involved in the same goal is that she applied rigorous science and consistently made the attempt to eschew methodology that would be considered suspect. It is only after decades of research that she accepted to provide provisional agreement for the position that the paranormal is an imaginary set of phenomena.

SnakeSpirit

10-20-2004, 02:49 AM

I "get" this from two of your earlier posts in this thread, in reponse to my questions about how Geller's claimed power:
Bryan, I'm a skeptic. I don't make assumptions. I suspend judgement.

What is so difficult to understand about this?????

You, too, are getting tedious! Do you have problems with English language? Do you have problems with logic?

Let me know. I can help you.

S

Abe

10-20-2004, 03:36 AM

Actually, Snakespirit, as far as I can see you have made some unwarranted assumptions, most recently I cite these indirect ones (bear with me while I get to the conclusion):

You are concluding that psi power operates without physical contact. Although some researchers and proponents claim that, it has not been proven true.

This is very true, but does not address the fact that no one has ever proved psi effects, at contact, at a distance, or otherwise.

Besides, the question Bryan asked was "Hasn't Geller claimed the ability to use his powers on objects without touching them?"

This is not the same as concluding that psi power operates at distance.

You are concluding that a force capable of bending is also capable of ripping. No evidence for this exists in PSI.

True, but ultimately meaningless, because psi itself is without evidential support. Besides, a force is a force, and results in tearing or deformation depending on the magnitude of the force, the material the force is exerted on, and the angle at which the force is applied, among other things. The exact same magnitude force exerted at different angles could push, pull, deform, or rip an object, if it had the necessary newtons behind it.

You're assuming the rules that apply to physical strength apply to any 'psychic strength.' ... we have no idea what factors affect instances of PSI. It may be inconsistant for reasons we have not yet determined, or, it may not.

But, again, there isn't a demonstrable psi factor in sight; there are only claims that rely on highly particular experimental settings, unfalsifiable hypotheses, questionable statistical manipulation, and frequently desperate argumentation. So the logical thing to do is give provisional agreement that this is all a bunch of hogwash until that extraordinary evidence required is provided.

Now, the thrust I think Bryan was attempting is in fact a valid one in science. An experiment seeks to identify and measure an effect. The results of an experiment are then interpreted. One of the important things to do is attempt to explain mechanisms of an effect or phenomenon, in order to try to square newly obtained information with our existing model of the universe. What Bryan was doing was pointing out that even among psi proponents -- supposedly the experts on this subject -- there is a most unscientific lack of consistency as regards their claims, and a lack of proposals to explain the mechanisms involved, two serious deficiencies that raise sceptics' and scientists' alarms.

Bryan Ekers

10-20-2004, 03:41 AM

Bryan, I'm a skeptic. I don't make assumptions. I suspend judgement.

What is so difficult to understand about this?????

I'm just trying to keep up with the nonstandard definitions. Let me check my crib notes *flipflipflip*

Ah, "skeptic": people who "think they're sceptics but tend toward cynicism". Or is it: "A skeptic, by definition, is one who suspends judgement in the absence of proof."

Hmm, we have a snag.

Do you have problems with English language?

If I do, I'm not alone. Are you a fan of George Orwell? He described a concept in his novel "1984" that some Newspeak words meant abuse when applied to an enemy, but praise when applied to a loyal Party member.

Let me know. I can help you.

I'm pretty sure I can help you, but you have to want it.

Contrapuntal

10-20-2004, 08:45 AM

[QUOTE]You are concluding that psi power operates without physical contact. Although some researchers and proponents claim that, it has not been proven true. Wrong, actually. It was stated in the linked article that Geller was not in contact with the wrench. Aeschines also states that a ring was bent without contact. These are his assertions, not mine.

You are concluding that a force capable of bending is also capable of ripping. No evidence for this exists in PSI. Aeschines referred to the force required to bend the titanium-vanadium wrench as "superhuman." It seems reasonable to assume that someone capable of bending a wrench 30 degrees could bend a key until it breaks, or even rip it. Unless you are asserting that Geller possesses a force that works one way on wrenches and another way on keys. is that your claim?

You're assuming the rules that apply to physical strength apply to any 'psychic strength.' Fact is, we know what factors affect heating metals and muscular strength (and no, I'm never "superhuman," but some days quite "childlike" in my physical strength, while other days I approach "normal.") but we have no idea what factors affect instances of PSI. It may be inconsistant for reasons we have not yet determined, or, it may not.The weigtht lifting analogy was yours, not mine. If it has no application here why bring it up?

Honestly, this is getting tedious. I expect people debating or even just making suppositions here to at least adhere to logic.
you have not shown where I have made any claims about the operation of a force that I deny exists, you have confused Aeschines' assertions with mine, and mistaken your analogies for mine. Is this your idea of logic?

SnakeSpirit

10-20-2004, 09:59 PM

So the logical thing to do is give provisional agreement that this is all a bunch of hogwash until that extraordinary evidence required is provided.
I disagree, Abe. If we all, even provosionally, agree that it's all a bunch of hogwash, we are assuring that the extraordinary evidence will never be presented. Some brave souls must, as long as anecdotal evidence continues to remain unexplained, swim against the tide and do research, however they can, to determine what if anything, is causing this phenomenon. To do otherwise is irresponsible. To ridicule those who do research is ignorant bigotry. However, to refine their research techniques (without rejecting their attempts at research) is good science.

Now, the thrust I think Bryan was attempting is in fact a valid one in science. An experiment seeks to identify and measure an effect. The results of an experiment are then interpreted. One of the important things to do is attempt to explain mechanisms of an effect or phenomenon, in order to try to square newly obtained information with our existing model of the universe. What Bryan was doing was pointing out that even among psi proponents -- supposedly the experts on this subject -- there is a most unscientific lack of consistency as regards their claims, and a lack of proposals to explain the mechanisms involved, two serious deficiencies that raise sceptics' and scientists' alarms.
Fine. But nuclear energy and electrical energy operate differently, and to assume PSI energy will follow the straits of other forces assumes more than is reasonable.

Like someone once said, after their sleeping position was described through other than physical means: "Why can't you tell me what my room looked like?" They assumed that if consciousness was there, "eyes" were there, and that's not the case.

Similarly, "if psychokinesis can bend a spanner, it should be able to sculpt iron" is poor logic. People assume they can predict the mechanisms actions without knowing what the mechanisms are.

Understand?

SnakeSpirit

10-20-2004, 10:05 PM

It seems reasonable to assume that someone capable of bending a wrench 30 degrees could bend a key until it breaks, or even rip it.
With physical means, perhaps. But we can't assume that about other means until we have evidence.

Still, I can take a vise and a pipe and bend a wrench using leverage.
Using the same technique, I could only bend a key, not break it or rip it.

I foret which error in logic his is, and I'm too tired to look it up, but still, it's an error in logic.

devilsknew

10-20-2004, 11:48 PM

I believe the defintition is simple. Anything outside or apart from the current normative view that humanity has adopted and beyond the explanation of the current normative understanding of said humanity.
All you witchhunt bastids are just normatives. Open up your mind, quit letting prejudice define your words.

Hey, who was crazier, the witches or the people who burnt witches?
Hey, who was crazier, Frankenstein's Monster or the angry villagers?
::Nightmares of Scientific Idealogues chasing me with their Bunsen burners::

devilsknew

10-21-2004, 12:00 AM

A statement of controversy...
I suggest blackholes are both paranormal and supernatural.

Bryan Ekers

10-21-2004, 01:46 AM

Similarly, "if psychokinesis can bend a spanner, it should be able to sculpt iron" is poor logic. People assume they can predict the mechanisms actions without knowing what the mechanisms are.

Understand?

No, I don't. Assuming the Geller can do as he claims and bend a chrome-vanadium spanner, what exactly is happening to the metal during this process? From the biography on Geller's own website (http://www.uri-geller.com/uri-biography/uribiog.htm), he "became well known for a few scientifically unexplained phenomena" including "Bending, breaking and softening metal and other solids with the power of the mind, e.g. spoons, keys etc, more rarely plastic and glass." (emphasis added) If he is capable of softening metal as he claims, why doesn't he sculpt it in a manner that is clearly not replicable by mere sleight-of-hand, i.e. taking a metal spoon and smearing it out in a flat pancake shape?

A statement of controversy...
I suggest blackholes are both paranormal and supernatural.

The simplest response to your statment is that you don't seem to know very much about black holes.

And who exactly are you adressing when you say "All you witchhunt bastids" ? If you're going to say something like that in GD, I suggest you add a smiley to make your humourous intent (if that's what it is) crystal clear.

SnakeSpirit

10-21-2004, 01:49 AM

I believe the defintition is simple. Anything outside or apart from the current normative view that humanity has adopted and beyond the explanation of the current normative understanding of said humanity.
Quite literal!
And since we are talking literally (i.e., concerning words and their meanings), I think you are on to something here.
The rest of us have been immersed in scientific models of "paranormal."
You bring us back to literality. (maybe even literacy?)

Thanks! Your perspective is enlightening, and a bit humbling.

SnakeSpirit

SnakeSpirit

10-21-2004, 02:32 AM

No, I don't. Assuming the Geller can do as he claims and bend a chrome-vanadium spanner, what exactly is happening to the metal during this process?
My point exactly, BE, glad you finally got it.

If he is capable of softening metal as he claims, why doesn't he sculpt it in a manner that is clearly not replicable by mere sleight-of-hand, i.e. taking a metal spoon and smearing it out in a flat pancake shape?
Guess you didn't get it after all.
Back to kindergarten.
Examples:
If you are capable of deductive reasoning as you claim, why don't you just determine Unified Field Theory once and for all?
If these pilots are capable of flying, as they claim, why don't they go up to the moon and bring us back some moon rocks?
Since clay is malleable, and can be formed freely, then you should be able to make string out of clay.
If a torch can melt metal, then why don't we just make a puddle of metal that will form a disk?

I can speak to that last one personally. I can heat metal with my torch enough so that it will bend extremely easily! However, the air is constantly also cooling the metal, so I cannot heat the metal to the degree that it will form a platter, or disk, or that it will form a "pancake shape." My torch also cannot "rip or tear" the metal, or any of the other ridiculous effects you expect.

You are assuming results without having any basis for assumption.
If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid.

If "A" is capable of softening metal in the form of "B"
Then "A" should be able to also form metal, like "C"

Also, PSI ≠ metallurgy!

If we don't know how PSI can do what it does, how can you assume it must be able to do things as you propose?

Illogical conclusions are what you are throwing at us, and you're saying that if reality doesn't meet your illogical conclusions, then it must not exist.

If you don't get this, then you really need to finish high school before you continue to debate in this thread. I'm done with you. You are talking nonsense. You are also making skepticism look very bad, no, I take that back, you are making yourself look very stupid and you are making me look overly patient.

The simplest response to your statment is that you don't seem to know very much about black holes.
To which I must say, Bryan, your deductive reasoning puts you in a poor position to make judgements about what anyone else knows.

Bryan Ekers

10-21-2004, 03:03 AM

Guess you didn't get it after all.
Back to kindergarten.

You've never displayed any evidence of an ability to condescend to me, so I'm not offended but rather slightly puzzled as to why you'd think it would be an effective debating technique.

Examples:

Are you even thinking about before you post them? They're uniformly ridiculous and irrelevant (but occasionally humourous, so maybe it's worthwhile)

I can heat metal with my torch enough so that it will bend extremely easily! However, the air is constantly also cooling the metal, so I cannot heat the metal to the degree that it will form a platter, or disk, or that it will form a "pancake shape." My torch also cannot "rip or tear" the metal, or any of the other ridiculous effects you expect.

By your own claim, there's no evidence Geller's power (assuming has has one) works in a manner comparable to any known physical process, so your torch analogy is completely irrelevant. Geller claims the ability to soften metal with his touch. I'd like to see him use that claimed ability for something other than spoon-bending, which can be casually faked by a skilled magician.

And I don't believe I ever actually used the phrases "rip" or "tear" (that was trandallt). I said "sculpt". If the metal is softened in Geller's hands (as he claims), then why can't he sculpt it, instead of just bending it? For that matter, if you wanted to sculpt the metal using your irrelevant torch, what's stopping you? If you softened the metal with your torch and then pushed on the soft metal while wearing an asbestos glove, you should be able to shape the metal into a pancake shape or anything else. Geller seems to have this ability without needing the torch or the glove. Let him show it.

If we don't know how PSI can do what it does, how can you assume it must be able to do things as you propose?

Exactly, we don't know what PSI can do, except apparantly only things that magicians can do. I'd like to see PSI do something a magician can't do, and at that point I'll consider the possibility that PSI is really PSI and not simply dressed-up magic.

you are making yourself look very stupid and you are making me look overly patient.
I'm prepared to put that question to a poll, actually. I'd like to see ten or more people evaluate my apparant stupidity and your apparant patience. If the poll doesn't support your statement, will you apologize?

Abe

10-21-2004, 03:29 AM

I disagree, Abe. If we all, even provosionally, agree that it's all a bunch of hogwash, we are assuring that the extraordinary evidence will never be presented.

We are preventing a veritable horde of unsubstantiated claims and publicity stunts from flooding the information pathways (something people like Geller routinely attempt to do in their quest for more exposure and money) and ensuring that information that reaches us is qualified. We remain completely open to good, reliable evidence pointing any way at all, and good reliable evidence always trumps provisional agreement.

This is why I focused so much on the axiom that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" in our previous discussion. It is senseless to reinvent the wheel every time some bizarre claim is put forward by some paranormalist. I'll elaborate on why in the rest of the message, but the short version is: do you test every single perpetual motion machine, or do you apply logic and knowledge to conclude that perpetual motion machinery is a sham?

Some brave souls must, as long as anecdotal evidence continues to remain unexplained, swim against the tide and do research, however they can, to determine what if anything, is causing this phenomenon.

First of all, I am not sure what you mean by "as long as anecdotal evidence continues to remain unexplained". Anecdotal evidence, when genuine, is normally easily explainable, though I can't give a catch-all explanation because each depends on the situation (e.g. UFO anecdotes, OBE anecdotes, ghost anecdotes, alien abduction anectodes, etc.). Anecdotal evidence is also frequently false. It's worthless.

Paranormal researchers come in two basic categories: responsible, and irresponsible. I brought up one of the leading "responsible" paranormal researchers in the last discussion on this topic we had (when I discussed and linked to Blackmore, whose work was derided in this thread on the basis of her hair style). There are many other researchers who are irresponsible, and who (as I already said) rely on fraudulent, dishonest, or at the very least irresponsibly manipulative methods in order to demonstrate an effect.

I feel completely free to treat this latter category with all the derision I want. However it is easy enough to invalidate irresponsible claims in science without recourse to derision. This is done routinely. No scientific journal or forum uses the technique of derision (or other logical fallacy) to invalidate research results.

To do otherwise is irresponsible. To ridicule those who do research is ignorant bigotry. However, to refine their research techniques (without rejecting their attempts at research) is good science.

The thing is we may ridicule anyone at all, and often with good cause. We don't however (and this is where I agree with you), attempt to invalidate their arguments by using ridicule. Well, sometimes we do, when it is clear that a particular source of claims has given us more than sufficient cause (in the form of consistently poor methodology, manipulated results, sloppy analysis, illogical reasoning, etc.) to provide provisional agreement on his or her lack of credibility; but this is done for practical reasons to prevent scientific forums from being overrun by kooky claims, and can never substitute for reasoned, scientific evaluation.

It is not "ignorant bigotry" to ridicule ridiculous claims. Bigotry is an unreasonable prejudice. In the case of a ridiculous claim, our prejudice is, as I am about to explain, in fact quite reasonable -- and the precise opposite of ignorant, since we have informed ourselves on the matter.

Fine. But nuclear energy and electrical energy operate differently, and to assume PSI energy will follow the straits of other forces assumes more than is reasonable.

Well, here you seem to be assuming the existence of psi, which is a poor assumption to make given the lack of solid evidence for it. There is no theoretical basis that points to the existence of psi, nor is there physical evidential support for it. All we have is questionable experiments, manipulated results, and anecdotal evidence, which is worth precisely squat in science. Why then do we have to consider psi at all until better support is provided?

The problem is also that everything with psi is vague, and the term "energy" in new age or paranormal topics is left undefined. Energy is energy no matter how it is produced: simply put, energy is a physical measure of how much work a system can do, or how much heat it can exchange. The two main forms of energy are kinetic and potential (electrical energy is the movement of electrical charges, nuclear energy is the energy stored in the nucleus of an atom that holds it together, heat is the vibration and movement of particles in a substance, etc.).

Psi -- aside from being a mere unsubstantiated claim -- doesn't fit anywhere in a worldview that otherwise works rather well.

Force and energy are not the same thing. A force is the net effect on a system that causes the system to accelerate (or deform, or whatever, depending on the system in question), and is measured in newtons. The effect of a force may also depend on pressure, which is force over area (this is why you can drive a nail into a wall with a hammer, but not the hammer itself).

Energy and force are fundamental quantities that may arise from a variety of means, but can be measured with standard units and calculated or otherwise handled with standard formulae depending on the situation. I wouldn't say the energy itself operates any differently, it still remains the same concept: potential for work or heat exchange, whether it is kinetic or potential. (we don't need to go into the three/four fundamental forces of the universe)

As such it ought to be a simple matter to measure consistently the energy and/or the force applied by whatever alleged psi means one chooses; the problem is this is not the case. The results, barring trickery (and there is a lot of trickery involved, which is why people like Randi are extremely valuable resources), simply do not support the claims that force or energy may be transferred by these undefined alleged paranormal methods.

Like someone once said, after their sleeping position was described through other than physical means: "Why can't you tell me what my room looked like?" They assumed that if consciousness was there, "eyes" were there, and that's not the case.

This unclear statement seems to refer to the equivocation of one's claims in a scientific setting through the use of the unfalsifiable hypothesis, which can provide favourable results for paranormalists because it essentially asks for the lifting of controls. And what is "other than physical means" in this case? Imaginary?

Similarly, "if psychokinesis can bend a spanner, it should be able to sculpt iron" is poor logic. People assume they can predict the mechanisms actions without knowing what the mechanisms are.

If the force involved is, say, 6 kilonewtons over a small area like a spanner, you can make at least some predictions about what it may and may not do (and, of course, it has never been demonstrated that psychokinesis exists, let alone that it can bend a spanner). In your above quote you are keeping the force constant but changing the system to which it is applied, which is what I was discussing earlier. We can't say that the force required to bend the spanner will necessarily sculpt iron (because of other variables involved, including angle of incidence and pressure) but we know that 6 KN is a very large force (for a human) and that it could easily sculpt iron under the right circumstances.

A newton is the force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one metre per second squared. 6 Kn is roughly equivalent to the gravitational pull between a heavy horse or bull and our planet.

Could you even stand up if you weighed 6 Kn, which here is a mass of over 600 Kg? I don't know any person who can apply or withstand that kind of force, much less apply it in a small area like a spanner (a bull uses four legs and considerable musculature just to stand upright). And I don't know of any instances where Newton's third law isn't relevant: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, which is why if you tried really hard to lift a bull you would probably snap your back. Similarly, if you somehow managed to apply a high pressure force of 6 Kn to deform a resilient object, physics indicates that whatever body part you used to generate that force would be seriously damaged (fingers, skull, or brain as the case may be, wherever the force originated). Even the force required to bend a spoon -- much less than the massive 6 Kn -- is still enough to cut through our brains, which are little more than fat and water.

So, in order to believe in these kinds of effects, we are forced to ignore fundamental tenets of science that we know are established and accurate. We must: introduce mysterious undefined forces from unknown inscrutable sources for which zero corroboration exists; assume hypothetical "psi leverage" or whatever; and suspend our entire understanding of the universe. In other words, we have to resort to magic, not science.

Or we can more easily, given our previously established and well supported provisional agreement, say that people like Geller are illusionists and tricksters hungry for publicity, and, excepting rigorous and extraordinary evidence, safely dismiss such claims.

devilsknew

10-21-2004, 03:30 AM

The simplest response to your statment is that you don't seem to know very much about black holes.
I know a little, I believe they are analogous to the strangeness of "earthly" paranormalities. Sure, we hypothesize and theorize about them based on our limited ability to study them and current physical understanding. From light years distant, and seeing only the ghost of a black hole from hundreds or thousands of years ago, we conclude many things and explain them, perhaps correctly, perhaps erroneously....we don't really know do we? Bryan, I conclude from your statement that you know much more than me about black holes or perhaps have some special knowledge. I ask you to verify one thng- Where does all of the matter a black hole 'engulfs' go to? I mean where is it? Can you tell me? (Oh, and none of that woo-woo about singularities or event horizons- I want an address....someplace I can go....give me some proof!)

Abe

10-21-2004, 03:36 AM

Oh and come on folks, devilsknew's recent assertions on the nature of science and on black holes are completely asinine. Let's not get bogged down in this nonsense when there is already serious work to be done here.

Where do you think the matter goes?? In the black hole, where else?
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae262.cfm

devilsknew

10-21-2004, 04:07 AM

Bryan Ekers

10-21-2004, 05:52 AM

Where do you think the matter goes??

According to Cecil, it might be Mattoon, Illinois, last Tuesday night.

He was probably being facetious, though.

And "asinine" and "nonsense" are perfect descriptors.

Abe

10-21-2004, 05:56 AM

Absurd to wonder about a singularity- the invisible repository of a black hole in defiance of and outside of everything that is physically normal? How can you possibly refer to it in anything but paranormal terms? An infinite and unknown place it seems. Hmmm....why would anyone even wonder about such a thing, let alone believe in it, without proof of its existence.

Black holes are not paranormal: they and their properties are predicted by mathematics and physics, and are confirmed to varying degrees by various observations (some of which are mentioned in the cite I provided).

Which is not at all the case for telepathy, psychokinetic spoon-bending, ghosts, and the various other unconfirmed claims invariably based on anecdotal evidence that are commonly lumped together under the term "paranormal".

Just because someone cannot understand the physics and properties of black holes does not make black holes paranormal phenomena. On the other scalar end of physics we have quantum mechanics, where common sense and intuition break down completely -- but these are still not paranormal phenomena; quantum mechanics may be bizarre (possibly more bizarre than black holes) and poorly uderstod by almost everyone, but principles of QM are observed, studied, predicted, and confirmed, just like black holes.

devilsknew

10-21-2004, 06:52 AM

Black holes are not paranormal: they and their properties are predicted by mathematics and physics, and are confirmed to varying degrees by various observations (some of which are mentioned in the cite I provided).

Which is not at all the case for telepathy, psychokinetic spoon-bending, ghosts, and the various other unconfirmed claims invariably based on anecdotal evidence that are commonly lumped together under the term "paranormal".

Just because someone cannot understand the physics and properties of black holes does not make black holes paranormal phenomena. On the other scalar end of physics we have quantum mechanics, where common sense and intuition break down completely -- but these are still not paranormal phenomena; quantum mechanics may be bizarre (possibly more bizarre than black holes) and poorly uderstod by almost everyone, but principles of QM are observed, studied, predicted, and confirmed, just like black holes.

Nobody has ever observed a black hole directly...the most one can do is infer data based on anecdotal evidence from surrounding phenomenon. That a singularity exists cannot be confirmed nor denied. I don't vouche for psychokinesis, telepathy or ghosts and don't commonly lump them together as the definitives of the paranormal, or even half of the definition of paranormal. I do believe that these are all phenomenon well within physical possibility and deserving of study, legitimate study. Hell, if a singularity is possible, why not these much more mundane posssibilities. Maybe they exist within a singularity? Who knows? But if we left it to you guys we would never get past the part of your mind that would dismiss it autonomically based on it's definition as paranormal woo-woo! b.t.w -Geller is a bad magician and a fraud. You don't think I'm going to argue for him, do you?

Bryan Ekers

10-21-2004, 07:17 AM

the most one can do is infer data based on anecdotal evidence from surrounding phenomenon.

Yeah, my cousin's friend's case worker lived near a black hole and man, could he tell stories about it. He'd just go on and on.

"Anecdotal evidence" isn't quite what astronomers use. And you've jumped to conclusions regarding skeptics. It would not be appropriate for a skeptic to say telepathy, etc. is impossible, but it's perfectly reasonable to state that anyone who claims to have telepathy is extremely likely to be either faking or deluded. If you know of a case that can be verified, and not due to fakery or delusion, feel free to share.

But if we left it to you guys we would never get past the part of your mind that would dismiss it autonomically based on it's definition as paranormal woo-woo!

It's worth pointing out that the kinds of people who built the various telescopes that discovered black holes in the first place were by and large a fairly skeptical bunch, who tested ideas rigourously and relied on logic and empirical evidence. They made mistakes, to be sure, and they have competing theories, but the notion that we need to suspend our bullshit filter to accomplish something is nonsense. What verifiable discoveries of scientific merit have been made by self-proclaimed psychics, anyway? Did they invent computers using the guidance of ghosts? Has psychokinesis ever been shown to be an improvement on the six ancient machines? Are extrasolar planets being located through astral projection?

There are plenty of people conducting honest research into these things. I personally hope they find something, simply because it would be cool; a new branch of science and the possibility of an evolutionary leap. I'm not holding my breath, though. The point you're ignoring is that if "psychokinesis, telepathy or ghosts" really exist, our belief or disbelief in them will make no difference. Psychics frequelty claim that their powers may not work if an observer is doubting too strongly. If the psychic's ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant. Does the fact that we may be skeptical of the existence of ghosts somehow make ghosts not exist? Why would it? And if it doesn't, please stop trying to lay some kind of guilt trip on us becuase we're less credulous than you.

Musicat

10-21-2004, 10:18 AM

With regards to the paranormal spanner melting/sculpting/bending discussion, I feel a need to be Devil's Advocate here. Please keep this in mind in this post.

It seems less than useful, logic-wise, for someone to say, "If he could bend a big wrench, why couldn't he bend a small one?" or "If he can melt one metal part, why doesn't he get employment in a blast furnace"? because the phenomena under discussion has not been sufficiently narrowly defined.

Let me elaborate with a similar situation. Years ago, Kenneth Roberts asserted that Henry Gross' dowsing powers worked reliably only on flowing, underground water. He based this claim on many, many trials to find everything from lost dogs to gold rings. He felt that Henry's powers had some validity in many cases, but not all, and his primary strength was finding the best place to dig a well.

Let me repeat that. It must be Flowing, and Underground, and Water.Now, I'm sure we can guess how he arrived at that conclusion. When a spot for a well was chosen by the rod, and a hole dug, they almost always got water. But the lost dog was not always found. Hey, that's logic as some people know it.

But Roberts always insisted that Gross' dowsing powers worked reliably only on flowing, underground water. Therefore, any test of static water in buckets, or garden hoses under a porch would not be testing the true dowsing "force." He even argued that if the water in the hose was turned off, it might slosh around for a while and still be detected by a dowser even though the valve said "off" -- "Only a dowser can tell this, not a scientist!" said Roberts. :rolleyes:

He arrived at this remarkable conclusion when Gross failed to detect water greater than chance in covered buckets and couldn't trace the outline of a hidden garden hose under a wooden porch. Many of us would say that was because there is no force as claimed, but Roberts conveniently changed the primary assertion instead.

So a test of the presence of an underground lake would not be fair, as it isn't flowing water. A test of underground oil is not water. A test of water in pipes or hoses is not underground.

(Side note: Roberts even argued that the rod detected past evidence of water, so the dowser had to ask it if the water was still present. You know those crazy rods -- like computers, they're sticklers for the literal!)

Back to the spanner melting. If the force is claimed to work only to melt a large spanner on days that begin with "M", it will be a straw man argument to suggest a test of a small wrench on a Tuesday. If the test fails, the claimant can always say the test wasn't testing his actual claim.

So to test the claim that a large spanner can be melted without touching it, we need to see a demonstration of exactly that, and only that unless all parties agree to different parameters. It shows just how important the design of the $1Mil Challenge is.

SnakeSpirit

10-21-2004, 01:14 PM

By your own claim, there's no evidence Geller's power (assuming has has one) works in a manner comparable to any known physical process, so your torch analogy is completely irrelevant. Geller claims the ability to soften metal with his touch. I'd like to see him use that claimed ability for something other than spoon-bending, which can be casually faked by a skilled magician.
Anything can be faked by a skilled magician. They can even do things PSI cannot (as far as we know).

And since we're just covering the same irrelevant ground, over and over, and since this has nothing to do with the OP, you can continue to rant, hijack and make irrelevant assumptions all by yourself. I see everyone else has stopped listening to you (except Peter), so I will join them.

Contrapuntal

10-21-2004, 02:11 PM

[QUOTE]It seems less than useful, logic-wise, for someone to say, "If he could bend a big wrench, why couldn't he bend a small one?"

I take your point. I feel I need to make mine one more time.

Aeschines asserted that Geller bent a spanner without touching it. The force required was said to be the equivalent of six kilonewtons. I asked Aeschines if he could explain why Geller needed to touch a spoon in order to bend it if he could bring 6 kilkonewtons to bear upon a spanner from across a room. I also made a remark about ripping a key in half which Snakespirit has focused on while refusing to respond to my arguments, and impugning my debating technique. I retract the remark about ripping the key. I accept for the sake of the argument that Geller bent the spanner. My question has to do with how he does it, rather than what he does. Why is touching required sometimes and not others? So far, all Snakespirit has managed to come up with is along the lines of "wow, that psi is some pretty wacky stuff, huh?" Aeschines has left the thread.

As for the Challenge, absent Geller agreeing to be tested, this sort of back and forth is all we have.

Contrapuntal

10-21-2004, 02:17 PM

Anything can be faked by a skilled magician. They can even do things PSI cannot (as far as we know).

And since we're just covering the same irrelevant ground, over and over, and since this has nothing to do with the OP, you can continue to rant, hijack and make irrelevant assumptions all by yourself. I see everyone else has stopped listening to you (except Peter), so I will join them.

What can psi do, as far as we know? Just answer that simple question. What do we know that psi can do?

And Bryan, I have never failed to find your posts interesting and intelligent. If Snakespirit is using psi to "see" that I am no longer listening to you, then someone must be jamming the frequency.

SnakeSpirit

10-21-2004, 02:20 PM

Although we're still miles apart, Abe, I think we are actually making some progress.

We are preventing a veritable horde of unsubstantiated claims and publicity stunts from flooding the information pathways
That's fine, as long as you don't keep out genuine claims as well.

We remain completely open to good, reliable evidence pointing any way at all, and good reliable evidence always trumps provisional agreement.
Don't know who you mean by "we," but if you're talking university-level researchers I agree. If you're talking magicians and debunkers, I disagree.

First of all, I am not sure what you mean by "as long as anecdotal evidence continues to remain unexplained". Anecdotal evidence, when genuine, is normally easily explainable, though I can't give a catch-all explanation because each depends on the situation (e.g. UFO anecdotes, OBE anecdotes, ghost anecdotes, alien abduction anectodes, etc.). Anecdotal evidence is also frequently false. It's worthless.
Almost every principle we have come to accept as "science" began somewhere as anecdotal evidence. It was thereafter, usually through lots of trial and error and subsequent rigerous research, that the principles became accepted.
Some anecdotal evidence is more easily explained than others. Anything can be "explained away" by pointing to a similar situation which proved false. But that proves nothing.

We don't however (and this is where I agree with you), attempt to invalidate their arguments by using ridicule. Well, sometimes we do, when it is clear that a particular source of claims has given us more than sufficient cause (in the form of consistently poor methodology, manipulated results, sloppy analysis, illogical reasoning, etc.) to provide provisional agreement on his or her lack of credibility; but this is done for practical reasons to prevent scientific forums from being overrun by kooky claims, and can never substitute for reasoned, scientific evaluation.
Prove someone a fraud and ridicule them, because that is what they deserve. Show flaws in research methodology so the flaws can be eliminated. I have no problem wih that.

Well, here you seem to be assuming the existence of psi, which is a poor assumption to make given the lack of solid evidence for it. There is no theoretical basis that points to the existence of psi, nor is there physical evidential support for it. All we have is questionable experiments, manipulated results, and anecdotal evidence, which is worth precisely squat in science. Why then do we have to consider psi at all until better support is provided?
In general, I use the term PSI so we understand the type of phenomenon we are talking about. It is unknown. Undiscovered country. Scientists have a hard time even trying to formulate experiments which demonstrate it, but they do.

There's a truckload of published results out there which show results that consistantly perform significantly beyond chance. It's not enough to get all science jumping on the PSI bandwagon, but enough to warrant continued research. Granted, I don't know of any reliable research which positively demonstrates any of the proposed theories of PSI, but that's putting the cart before the horse; we have evidence that things happen which are unexplainable in our current scientific model. Many of the claims can be attributed to understandable factors. Many can not. If you don't want to sort them out, no problem, no one is asking you to. There are already plenty of folk working on it. Let them be. If they come up with something, subject it to rigerous scrutiny, if you wish. I will.

As such it ought to be a simple matter to measure consistently the energy and/or the force applied by whatever alleged psi means one chooses; the problem is this is not the case. The results, barring trickery (and there is a lot of trickery involved, which is why people like Randi are extremely valuable resources), simply do not support the claims that force or energy may be transferred by these undefined alleged paranormal methods.
Another problem is that there's a lot of greatly disparate phenomenon that is tossed into the "PSI" catchall. Your allegation of it being a "simple matter" to measure only applies to a few instances.

This unclear statement seems to refer to the equivocation of one's claims in a scientific setting through the use of the unfalsifiable hypothesis, which can provide favourable results for paranormalists because it essentially asks for the lifting of controls. And what is "other than physical means" in this case? Imaginary?
Perceiving information through other than the five senses. I was just using this as an example to show that instead of taking note of valid 'hits' many 'debunkers' immediately come up with an additional 'test' that has nothing to do with the original claim in order to invalidate the results. Let me give a more clear example:

A subject claims to be able to determine the current emotional state of a person at a distance. Subject relays information to skeptical researcher, who makes a phone call to the person, and finds the description accurate. Since this is an extraordinary claim, the researcher demands extraordinary evidence, and then asks, "OK, then tell me what *target* is wearing." Subject says, "I can't do that," and researcher thereby invalidates the results. This is what I mean by making irrelevant assumptions. This is what I see people doing. Expecting that if one piece of information can be perceived by other than the five senses then everything can. It's expecting too much. Stick with the original assumption, then if that is proven to your satisfaction, then go on to new experiments. Don't use new experimental tests to invalidate good results based on what you think the subject should be able to do.

That's what I'm talking about in the Gellar discussion: Saying, "Oh, if he can do this then he should be able to do this as well," is dismissal of results via smoke and mirrors. A distraction. It has no place in science. Test the original hypothesis until you can either prove the results or disprove the results; then move on to something else. In the case of Gellar, that has not been done. Consequently, I suspend judgement on what he can or can't do.

If the force involved is, say, 6 kilonewtons over a small area like a spanner, you can make at least some predictions about what it may and may not do
Unless, of course, something other than physical force is used. Is it being bent? (Yes/no). Is it being bent by force? Is is being bent by heat? Is it being bent by sub-atomic ion charge negation? Is it being bent by trickery? Determine that first, before you go making predictions about what will happen.

We can't say that the force required to bend the spanner will necessarily sculpt iron (because of other variables involved, including angle of incidence and pressure) but we know that 6 KN is a very large force (for a human) and that it could easily sculpt iron under the right circumstances.
Agreed! (In principle, at least) And this illustrates my point. Wish we could have gotten to this agreement much earlier; I think we talk different languages. ;)

You lecture on force and action/reaction was nice, but I think irrelevent here.

So, in order to believe in these kinds of effects, we are forced to ignore fundamental tenets of science that we know are established and accurate. We must: introduce mysterious undefined forces from unknown inscrutable sources for which zero corroboration exists; assume hypothetical "psi leverage" or whatever; and suspend our entire understanding of the universe. In other words, we have to resort to magic, not science.
Oh well. I disagree. We merely have to do rigerous research. That paragraph is merely derision, and consequently irrelevant.

Or we can more easily, given our previously established and well supported provisional agreement, say that people like Geller are illusionists and tricksters hungry for publicity, and, excepting rigorous and extraordinary evidence, safely dismiss such claims.
Or we can do research.
If you want to close your eyes and dismiss claims, you go right ahead, it's your right to believe or disbelieve. But don't call your opinion science, please.

Contrapuntal

10-21-2004, 02:26 PM

Dang, I wish I'd read Abe's post (#170) before I restated my question. I am at his feet in my ability to present an argument.

Bryan Ekers

10-21-2004, 03:15 PM

Anything can be faked by a skilled magician. They can even do things PSI cannot (as far as we know).

Well, then how would we ever know we were in the presence of geniune PSI? If a sufficiently skilled magician could simulate anything, then any claimed demonstration of PSI could be faked.

I think you've just argued yourself out of a premise, there.

And Bryan, I have never failed to find your posts interesting and intelligent. If Snakespirit is using psi to "see" that I am no longer listening to you, then someone must be jamming the frequency.

I blame Kenneth, and I thank you for your support.

MaxTheVool

10-21-2004, 03:33 PM

Contrapuntal

10-21-2004, 03:37 PM

I thought this post was worth repeating, as everyone seems to have ignored it the first time.
O come on Max. The only ones who ignored it were the ones to whom it caused discomfort. It made perfect sense to me.

SnakeSpirit

10-21-2004, 05:42 PM

I'll make this short and to the point I've been demonstrating all along:

The point you're ignoring is that if "psychokinesis, telepathy or ghosts" really exist, our belief or disbelief in them will make no difference. Psychics frequelty claim that their powers may not work if an observer is doubting too strongly. If the psychic's ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant.
The effect of "suggestion" upon a subject is well known in psychology. Even magicians are well aware how powerful suggestion can be.

"Doubt" can even affect athletic performance.

How can you claim that doubt, a form of suggestion, could not affect PSI performance? :dubious:

Is it ignorance? Arrogance? Or do you have some smoke and mirrors to pull out of your hat?

SnakeSpirit

10-21-2004, 05:45 PM

Well, then how would we ever know we were in the presence of geniune PSI? If a sufficiently skilled magician could simulate anything, then any claimed demonstration of PSI could be faked.
So what? :confused:

SnakeSpirit

10-21-2004, 05:49 PM

So to test the claim that a large spanner can be melted without touching it, we need to see a demonstration of exactly that, and only that unless all parties agree to different parameters.
Thank you for your wonderful clarification, Cat. Hopefully this will put us back on the road to the OP.

SnakeSpirit

SnakeSpirit

10-21-2004, 05:52 PM

What can psi do, as far as we know? Just answer that simple question. What do we know that psi can do?
I don't know, ask Bryan, he seems to think he has all the answers. All I have is questions.

Bryan Ekers

10-21-2004, 08:19 PM

The effect of "suggestion" upon a subject is well known in psychology. Even magicians are well aware how powerful suggestion can be.

"Doubt" can even affect athletic performance.

How can you claim that doubt, a form of suggestion, could not affect PSI performance? :dubious:

If I watch a Geller performance, doubting heavily that any genuine PSI ability is being manifested and looking for sleight-of-hand, but I keep quiet about it, would that have the potential of affecting Geller's performance?

If someone belives firmly in ghosts and tries to convince me that they are real, and I express doubt, has my doubt somehow made them less real? Is there any independent verifiable existence to these concepts, or is it all "psychology" ?

And truth be told, I'm not sure why my analogies (i.e. to sculpting) apparantly betray naïvite while yours (i.e. to athletic performance) do not. Can you please supply a list of valid analogies to PSI ability? More specifically, why is athletic performance apparantly now an effective analogy when earlier you said (to trandallt):

You're assuming the rules that apply to physical strength apply to any 'psychic strength.' Fact is, we know what factors affect heating metals and muscular strength (and no, I'm never "superhuman," but some days quite "childlike" in my physical strength, while other days I approach "normal.") but we have no idea what factors affect instances of PSI. It may be inconsistant for reasons we have not yet determined, or, it may not.

Your arguments are consistent only in their inconsitency.

Further:

Well, then how would we ever know we were in the presence of geniune PSI? If a sufficiently skilled magician could simulate anything, then any claimed demonstration of PSI could be faked.

So what?:confused:

So how could PSI abilities ever be proven if, as you maintain, fakery is always possible? Is it possible for Geller to do something that couldn't easily be faked by a magician (and spoon-bending is actually pretty damned easy to fake)? I suggest that if he can soften metal as he claims, he should try to press a metal spoon completely flat. Additional controls can be put in, like requiring he wear only a short-sleeved shirt; that the spoon be chained down to a tabletop; that the spoon have a ten-digit random number etched into it known only to one observer (who leaves the room during the test) so a substitute already-mashed spoon couldn't be sneaked in; that he use only one hand; that he be checked with a metal-detector before attempting the feat; that high-quality video be recording the event... There is no indication that any of these would have any effect on Geller's claimed ability to soften metal by touch, but they would seriously hamper a magician. I believe there are feats a magician can't fake, and if Geller can do one, I'll be sufficiently impressed.

At one point, you make a claim that "Anything can be faked by a skilled magician," but when the flaw in the statement is pointed out (i.e. if it was true, then no PSI test could ever be conclusive), your shrug off your claim as suddenly irrelevant.

I don't know, ask Bryan, he seems to think he has all the answers.

I don't know about "all", but the evidence of this thread suggests I have several answers and you have none.

SnakeSpirit

10-21-2004, 11:53 PM

I don't know about "all", but the evidence of this thread suggests I have several answers and you have none.
Yes, but all yours are imaginary, delusional.
You make things up as you go along, and have no consistancy, no logic, no concept of legitimate debating skills.
You assume that PSI should adhere to certain restrictions with one side of your mouth while denying the existance of PSI out the other side.

Plus, you never answered my question.

I suspect you are avoiding it cause you know you're wrong.

Or perhaps you are so deep in denial your connection with reality has been cut off due to non-payment.

How can you square saying doubt cannot have an effect on PSI?
Without scurrying away into the shadows of ghosts. let's just stick with psychology and thought transferance performance.

Bryan Ekers

10-22-2004, 12:35 AM

Yes, but all yours are imaginary, delusional.
You make things up as you go along, and have no consistancy, no logic, no concept of legitimate debating skills.

I'm waiting for the moment you reveal this is all one big WHOOOSH attempt on your part, because it's hard to believe this much irony is accidental.

You assume that PSI should adhere to certain restrictions with one side of your mouth while denying the existance of PSI out the other side.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. I'm not assuming PSI has restrictions. Rather, I'm assuming that if Geller has the powers he claims, he should be able to do things in addition to spoon- and key-bending. You claim, however, that there is no gaurantee that this is possible. It is YOU who are suggesting that restrictions exist, and that even though Geller can soften metal, he can't mold it.

Plus, you never answered my question.

I suspect you are avoiding it cause you know you're wrong.

Or perhaps you are so deep in denial your connection with reality has been cut off due to non-payment.

How can you square saying doubt cannot have an effect on PSI?

If that's the question I'm allegedly avoiding, let me take care of it forthwith. You're asking, if I understand it, how I can say doubt cannot have an effect on PSI. My response:
It's not established that PSI exists
Assuming PSI exists, it's not established what (if anything) could enable or disable it
Assuming doubt could disable PSI, it's not clear how, or to what degree.

My response that that question is that it involves so many unknowns that no answer is (or could be) meaningful. That is not "wrong" by any definition I'm aware of. If you can prove me wrong, please demonstrate how. Please note that I would consider it "wrong" to make additional assumptions i.e. that people who in a state of doubt radiate negative PSI energy that can disrupt the PSI field of the psychic, or something equally unprovable.

Or were you referring to a different allegedly unasnwered question? Please be so kind as to remind me, if this is the case.

Without scurrying away into the shadows of ghosts. let's just stick with psychology and thought transferance performance.

Nope, let's stick with demonstrable physical effects of PSI. Either Geller can do what he claims or he can't. Either a measurable task gets done or it doesn't. If you try to move the discussion to a place where there are no objective measurements, the discussion becomes meaningless.

By the way, your earlier statement that my posts in this thread have made me look stupid remains unproven. Will you withdraw this claim on the basis of lack of evidence? I specifically request an answer on this matter, as your tactic of ad hominem attacks has grown tiresome.

Abe

10-22-2004, 01:22 AM

Don't know who you mean by "we," but if you're talking university-level researchers I agree. If you're talking magicians and debunkers, I disagree.

Is that because you appear to have an unjustified antipathy towards magicians and debunkers, which you have expressed here and elsewhere? Look, a sceptic could be anything from a multiple PhD in physics to a plumber's apprentice, or a magician for that matter. Scepticism is a method that can be applied by anyone. That's why it is such a good toolbox. All it takes is a rational approach and some critical thinking skills.

The scientific method requires more in the way of training. With the scientific method we seek to accomplish objectivity (basing conclusions on external validation) and avoid mysticism (basing conclusions on personal insights that lack external validation).

Almost every principle we have come to accept as "science" began somewhere as anecdotal evidence. It was thereafter, usually through lots of trial and error and subsequent rigerous research, that the principles became accepted.

This statement is, though technically accurate, actually quite misleading. Many principles of science in the past began with humble observation. This sometimes took an anecdotal form, until a more rigorous scientific process was enabled, and formal observation, induction, deduction, and verification were carried out. These four steps is where paranormal claims fail consistently, and are forced to rely on questionable methodology and evidence (such as endless meta-analysis to prove an imaginary effect).

There is therefore an immense gulf between the initial anecdotal evidence of a real, demonstrable phenomenon, and the anecdotal evidence that is used to support paranormal claims. For one thing, no anecdotal evidence relating to the paranormal has been confirmed reliably -- not just in a scientific setting but often even to other informal observers!

Even if this weren't the case, anecdotal evidence in science is unacceptable because it is unreliable and unfalsifiable. No good scientist would dream of basing his work on anecdotal evidence. Yes, an anecdote may sometimes suggest an avenue of research (e.g., people who drink red wine and eat plenty of garlic seem to enjoy some health benefits) but it does not validate it or justify it. There has been to date, after over 150 years of formal research, a marked inability to progress anecdotal evidence to the next level. This is part of the reason why we may reach a provisional agreement that the paranormal is a bunch of bunk. And it is also part of the reason why extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Anecdotal evidence can never be classed as extraordinary for the obvious reasons.

Some anecdotal evidence is more easily explained than others. Anything can be "explained away" by pointing to a similar situation which proved false. But that proves nothing.

I said that anecdotal evidence, when genuine, is normally easily explainable. It is. Lights in the sky are investigated and turn out to be non-UFOs, as several studies have demonstrated. Impressions of alien abductions turn out most frequently to be caused by hypnagogic and hypnopompic states, if not some form of psychological disturbance. Spoon bending is an effect of trickery. Ghosts are a combination of ordinary ambient phenomena and personal factors such as suggestivity/fear. In fact, if you have ever done any ghostbusting, you already know this: that haunting scream is just a cat in heat, the hideous dragging noise is simply the old pipes acting up, and the footsteps of an invisible presence are nothing more than the floorboards creaking as they expand and contract owing to temperature shifts.

When faced with the unknown in the form of an anecdotal claim, we must always ask: what is the simplest and most likely explanation? This is how Occam's razor allows us to cut through the chaff and get to the point. Is the simple explanation that Geller has an amazing supernatural talent? Or is it that he is a trickster making as much money as possible by using abilities that anyone may learn?

So we eventually reach provisional agreement that there is no telepathy or psychokinesis or ghosts or what have you, since they have never, in over 150 years of explicitly searching for them, been scientifically demonstrated. In order to surmount this obstacle, all a paranormal claim has to do is provide evidence commensurate to its claim. This has not yet happened.

Prove someone a fraud and ridicule them, because that is what they deserve. Show flaws in research methodology so the flaws can be eliminated. I have no problem wih that.

Yep. But when a well-established pattern is painfully visible, do you really want to invest time and energy that could be spent doing valuable things? Remember, there are many, many more believers and proponents of the paranormal, constantly advancing claims of a usually sloppy nature, than there are honest scientists to test or review these claims. Sometimes you have to take a shortcut, and in the case of the paranormal it is perfectly all right to do so while waiting for that extraordinary evidence.

In general, I use the term PSI so we understand the type of phenomenon we are talking about. It is unknown. Undiscovered country. Scientists have a hard time even trying to formulate experiments which demonstrate it, but they do.

Psi is not just unknown, it is also undemonstrated. I might as well go on about gigantic pink unicorns.

Scientists do not have a hard time formulating --at least partially-- this elusive psi, mostly because the claims already exist and themselves describe the alleged effect. And I refer here to "formulate" in its proper sense of expressing something in systematic terms or concepts. It is impossible to carry out an experiment to test for some effect without first formulating to some degree the effect one is looking for. So, for telepathy we have a hosts of experiments involving several trials of double-blind thought transference card-reading and the like.

There's a truckload of published results out there which show results that consistantly perform significantly beyond chance.

There is no such truckload. You refer to some experiments with loose experimental protocols permitting either fraud or error (such as the first of their kind in 1886 by the Society of Psychical Research and many, many others since then), or results that have been manipulated in questionable manner. We reviewed this very subject starting from here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=4874334#post4874334) where I pointed out that "that 0.0001 variation from "ordinary" results is usually not enough to rattle our current understanding of science, rather it suggests experimental or analytical error and calls for close examination or dismissal of unacceptable experimental/observational errors".

If you do have reliable science that consistently shows a better than chance performance in testing a paranormal claim, by all means let's look at it.

It's not enough to get all science jumping on the PSI bandwagon, but enough to warrant continued research.

Of course, research is always welcome. But it's not always possible. Particularly if we are dealing with yet "more of the same" in the guise of the paranormal.

I also note that until that research is carried out, analyzed, verified, tested, peer-reviewed, etc., the claims it proposes might as well not exist. Think about the (largely media) error with regards to cold fusion experimental claims in the '80s: if the correct approach (einmal ist keinmal) had been adopted, there wouldn't have been a lengthy scandal, just two sloppy and dishonest scientists who would have eventually been proven wrong. You could show me a study claiming the existence of pink unicorns, and I could simply point out that it is one study that proves nothing, that we must wait for evaluation, verification, etc.

Einmal ist keinmal. Possibly the most important tenet in all of science.

Granted, I don't know of any reliable research which positively demonstrates any of the proposed theories of PSI, but that's putting the cart before the horse;

Why? If there is no evidence for a psi effect after more than a century and a half of formal investigation, why is it not safe to give provisional agreement that the psi effect does not exist as far as we know? Why must we test the same basic things over and over to look for an effect that is based wholly on anecdotal evidence? Note that I ask this from a practical, not a sceptical, point of view.

we have evidence that things happen which are unexplainable in our current scientific model. Many of the claims can be attributed to understandable factors. Many can not.

Here I have to ask: what are these unexplained claims that are not attributable to understandable factors? And should we give such anecdotes any credence?

If you don't want to sort them out, no problem, no one is asking you to. There are already plenty of folk working on it. Let them be. If they come up with something, subject it to rigerous scrutiny, if you wish. I will.

I already have! And when the next incredible claim comes out, I'll be scrutinizing it. But, unless that claim is especially solidly supported, I suspect what to expect from it before I even examine it. This is an application of pattern recognition: I can be sceptical that the sun will rise tomorrow, but in practical terms I am almost completely sure that it will because I recognize an established pattern.

Another problem is that there's a lot of greatly disparate phenomenon that is tossed into the "PSI" catchall. Your allegation of it being a "simple matter" to measure only applies to a few instances.

If an effect really exists, science can identify it and measure it.

Perceiving information through other than the five senses.

Well, there are well over a dozen senses properly speaking, the five senses approach is rather outdated, so according to that definition I for one could be engaged in some ESP right now! The ears, eyes, and nose, for example, serve dual purposes: in the case of ears in addition to hearing we have a nifty device that allows us to detect our orientation in a gravitational field; in the eyes we have sensors for light intensity as well as colour; in the nose, in addition to the well-known olfactory system, is a distinct sensory channel called the vomeronasal complex that is used in the detection of pheromones. In the skin is a collection of senses that include different sensors for high temperature, low temperature, pressure, itch, and pain. In the joints and muscles are sensors that tell us about the position of our various body parts and the tension and motion they are undergoing. Then we have hunger and thirst of course. And special sensors in the bladder that tell us it is time to urinate.

When people start waffling on about a mythical sixth sense, I usually ask them "Oh, you mean balance? I've got that too." Silly perhaps, but one has to find humour where one can in this tragically ignorant world.

We know what our senses are. There are also some senses that are not completely understood, such as pheromone detection, but that are readily studied. That is why claims regarding any extra "unknown" and undemonstrated senses are regarded with suspicion and might as well not exist until they are thoroughly and responsibly tested. Before that can happen, there has to be a set of guidelines from the claimants to establish exactly what they can sense and cannot. Which brings us to:

I was just using this as an example to show that instead of taking note of valid 'hits' many 'debunkers' immediately come up with an additional 'test' that has nothing to do with the original claim in order to invalidate the results. Let me give a more clear example:

A subject claims to be able to determine the current emotional state of a person at a distance. Subject relays information to skeptical researcher, who makes a phone call to the person, and finds the description accurate. Since this is an extraordinary claim, the researcher demands extraordinary evidence, and then asks, "OK, then tell me what *target* is wearing." Subject says, "I can't do that," and researcher thereby invalidates the results.

I challenge you to show me some instances of this, because I suspect you may be engaged in rhetorical hyperbole here. If the experiment is a double-blind one testing for detection of emotional state at a distance of a physically isolated subject, it seems extremely unlikely any experimenter or debunker worth his pay would invalidate the experiment based on the ad hoc introduction of extra criteria; at the most he or she would refine the method and improve on experimental design for the next round. A sloppy debunker or scientist may resort to ad hoc criteria, but once again you seem to be generalizing about debunkers. Bad science does not make science bad; bad debunking does not make debunking bad.

This is what I mean by making irrelevant assumptions. This is what I see people doing. Expecting that if one piece of information can be perceived by other than the five senses then everything can. It's expecting too much. Stick with the original assumption, then if that is proven to your satisfaction, then go on to new experiments. Don't use new experimental tests to invalidate good results based on what you think the subject should be able to do.

All well and good, but please show how this has happened in any sort of pattern. It has not. This is one of the excuses some paranormalists make up in their whining subsequent to their customary failures to demonstrate their claims.

That's what I'm talking about in the Gellar discussion: Saying, "Oh, if he can do this then he should be able to do this as well," is dismissal of results via smoke and mirrors.

The claim was made that Geller can exert a force of 6 Kn. I showed what a ridiculously powerful force this is, and why its effect should by no means be limited to spoon-bending tricks.

Unless, of course, something other than physical force is used. Is it being bent? (Yes/no). Is it being bent by force? Is is being bent by heat? Is it being bent by sub-atomic ion charge negation? Is it being bent by trickery? Determine that first, before you go making predictions about what will happen.

I didn't make the claim that Geller was exerting a 6 Kn force, I read it here, as it seems did Bryan... and when a force of known quantity is involved, we can and do make predictions about it. Heat is not a force, it is ultimately a measure of kinetic energy. I don't know what would involve "sub-atomic ion charge negation", nor what it is supposed to be. But I do know trickery is the established method of spoon-bending, and a few slashes from Occam's trusty shaving tool certainly clear up the confusion.

You lecture on force and action/reaction was nice, but I think irrelevent here.

Look closer; it was an analysis of what to expect given the available information. A force is a force, and it is ridiculous to equivocate on what it is. If there is a force involved, and if it has allegedly been measured, what is the problem? I was emphatically not making assumptions or introducing unknowns.

A considerable force was applied. Unless you wish to introduce the HUGE unknown that this force is somehow exempt from Newton's third law, you must explain how such a huge force could be applied in the first place without turning your brain or whatever body part the force came from to mush. Another unknown you could introduce is the "psychic lever" I quote myself mentioning below.

Oh well. I disagree. We merely have to do rigerous research. That paragraph is merely derision, and consequently irrelevant.

"Merely derision"? On what astral body is that derision?? I wasn't deriding anything. Allow me to post the paragraph again:

in order to believe in these kinds of effects, we are forced to ignore fundamental tenets of science that we know are established and accurate. We must: introduce mysterious undefined forces from unknown inscrutable sources for which zero corroboration exists; assume hypothetical "psi leverage" or whatever; and suspend our entire understanding of the universe. In other words, we have to resort to magic, not science.

This is an accurate image of the state of paranormal. It's magic, not science. Undetected magic. Check out the second paragraph of this post, on the subject of the scientific method and what its aims are.

Or we can do research.
If you want to close your eyes and dismiss claims, you go right ahead, it's your right to believe or disbelieve. But don't call your opinion science, please.

The difference in our sceptical approaches is that I issue provisional agreement based on tens of thousands of past results and our modern understanding of science, whereas you seem to issue provisional credulity with no regard for our present knowledge. Provisional credulity is not scepticism, quite the opposite. I humbly suggest you speak less authoritatively and assertively on these subjects, because it doesn't seem you have a full and proper grasp of them just yet.

SnakeSpirit

10-22-2004, 01:48 AM

This is the one, Bryan. This is the answer you've been avoiding.
This is what unwraps your allegations.

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers
The point you're ignoring is that if "psychokinesis, telepathy or ghosts" really exist, our belief or disbelief in them will make no difference. Psychics frequelty claim that their powers may not work if an observer is doubting too strongly. If the psychic's ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant.

Extreme emphasis mine, so you won't miss it this time.

The effect of "suggestion" upon a subject is well known in psychology. Even magicians are well aware how powerful suggestion can be. Randi often uses it to "debunk" demonstrated effects.

"Doubt" can even affect athletic performance. This is why coaches give "pep talks" before the big game, to overcome doubt.

How can you claim that doubt, a form of suggestion, could not affect PSI performance? You do not have a data base to conclude this; you even doubt that PSI exists. If doubt affects normal performance, how can you so arrogantly assume it cannot affect paranormal performance?

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers
The point you're ignoring is that if "psychokinesis, telepathy or ghosts" really exist, our belief or disbelief in them will make no difference. Psychics frequelty claim that their powers may not work if an observer is doubting too strongly. If the psychic's ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant.

WHY should the doubt of observers be irrelevant?

Answer that ONE question satisfactorily. Don't avoid it, don't use misdirection (smoke and mirrors). PRETEND to be a scientist, just for a minute, and rectify this BULLSHIT you been pouring on us and ignoring the challenges to.

Your posts in response to this ONE FACTOR have been diversions, illusions, misdirections, distractions, but NOT answers.

Answer this one thing. If you can. If you gave the guts. If you can face the truth. If you can be honest. If you can look in the mirror.

No more misdirection.

You say:
If the psychic's ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant.

Psychology says:
Suggestion can have an effect on the behavior of subjects.
Cite 1 (http://www.thoemmes.com/psych/ernheim.htm)
Cite 2 (http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume5/j5_2_5.htm)
Cite 3 (http://www.simonsingh.net/Derren_Brown_Article.html)
and I can go on and on and on.
Suggestion, that is the attitudes and comments of another party, can have an effect on the performance of a subject.
It's long been accepted in psychology.

So, how can you say that :
If the psychic's ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant.

What is your basis for changing the rules?

You are making a pronouncement as if you know the principles by which PSI operates.

NO MORE wiggling out of it.
NO MORE magical distraction.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

You made a statement, either substantiate it or admit you were wrong (which I believe your ego will never allow.)

And stop wasting out time with your parlour tricks.

Bryan Ekers

10-22-2004, 01:50 AM

[b]Abe[/i], you've built truly a luxurious throne of a deck chair and put it on the Titanic.

Very well stated, but I sadly expect futile.

SnakeSpirit

10-22-2004, 02:06 AM

Allow me to post the paragraph again:

in order to believe in these kinds of effects, we are forced to ignore fundamental tenets of science that we know are established and accurate. We must: introduce mysterious undefined forces from unknown inscrutable sources for which zero corroboration exists; assume hypothetical "psi leverage" or whatever; and suspend our entire understanding of the universe. In other words, we have to resort to magic, not science.
Why?
Why can't we just take what has been observed and examine science to determine if we have a 'fit' we might have missed, or if we have discovered a new scientific principle?
Why can't we examine claims and either prove they have a mundane unexpected explanation or that they have another explanation that is on the cutting edge of science?
Why do you have to resort to derisive terms like "magic" to defend your position?

There is no magic, Abe. Of that I am sure. Either that, or what we call magic has a scientific explanation.

The difference between you and I is simply that you put science in a box, and I allow it freedom. I allow for learning more about our world.

I suspend judgement based on inadequate evidence.
You draw a line in the sand and say, "Enough."

Feel free to do that, but don't expect me to stop 'cause you say so.

Bryan Ekers

10-22-2004, 02:56 AM

This is the one, Bryan. This is the answer you've been avoiding.
This is what unwraps your allegations.
I'm all a-tingle...
If the psychic's ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant. ... WHY should the doubt of observers be irrelevant?
Well, I don't believe I've ever ducked this question, but here goes in what I hope will be definitive:

There is no reason why the doubt of observers should be relevant. You have claimed that we should expect no correlation between (proven) physical strength and (unproven) psychic strength. Why, then, should we expect a correlation between the (proven) power of suggestion and (unproven) psychic ability? You're dismissing one relationship that tends to challenge your premise while embracing one that tends to support your premise, and you no objective reason for either conclusion. The reason I feel observer doubt should be irrelevant is straightforward:
We have no evidence it is relevant, and
Relevance requires making an additional unprovable assumption, i.e. that doubters somehow broadcast "negative energy" that disrupts a psychic's power. This is against the spirit of Occam's Razor.

The claim that observer doubt impairs perfomance is also a suspiciously convenient one. Just as a magician could dislike an overly observant audience (who spends more time trying to figure out how a trick is done rather than enjoying the performance) a psychic who is faking (and fakery is always a very strong possibility) might dislike an audience unwilling to suspend its disbelief, or wanting to see difficult stunts, or unwilling to cooperate with a cold reading. To summarize:

Psychics bend spoons. So can magicians.
Psychic don't like doubtful audiences. Neither do magicians.

Put simply, there is not enough of a difference between a psychic claiming that doubt is upsetting his PSI power and one who finds doubt is hampering his trickery. The types of tests Randi performs make a deliberate effort to eliminate trickery in an attempt the identify genuine psychics. As far as I know, no-one has ever passed. Is it possible for a sufficiently powerful and focused psychic to perform despite the close scrutiny of people who may harbour doubts? I can't see why not. People perform all variety of tasks despite all variety of distractions. Surely in the all the time people have been claiming psychic ability, there are some for whom observer doubt is a trivial nuisance (assuming a "doubt effect" exists).
Answer that ONE question satisfactorily.
Done, as far as I'm concerned. If you find points that need clarification, feel free to let me know. If you find the entire response unsatisfactory, there's nothing more I can do.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
I've "put up" and now I return the challenge. You made a claim alleging I had given the readers of this thread cause to think me stupid. I'll repeat the request that you support this statement or withdraw it.
You made a statement, either substantiate it or admit you were wrong (which I believe your ego will never allow.)
I've admitted being wrong numerous times but I won't in this case because as far as I know, I'm not. I've substantiated my position as much as I can (insofar as a discussion of psychic abilities can be substantiated). If that's not enough... too bad.

devilsknew

10-22-2004, 03:16 AM

Bravo, Snakespirit! Well stated and I believe the whole point in summation and truth.
Many are bound within the confining worldview of skepticism. C'mon guys, can't you see? We're just trying to get past the artificial border that science has imposed on discovery and thought (To quote Mr. Reagan, "Tear down this wall, Mr. Ekers!." :D ) .
Science must change and adapt for the next level of human discovery. It has reached its upper limits and must develop a subtler and more flexible methodology and an entirely new language to allow for the greatest mysteries it has yet been unable to explain. I believe that the language and ideas of "paranormalists" will be an important factor in the evolution of Science in the next millenium.

Bryan Ekers

10-22-2004, 03:40 AM

C'mon guys, can't you see? We're just trying to get past the artificial border that science has imposed on discovery and thought (To quote Mr. Reagan, "Tear down this wall, Mr. Ekers!." :D ) .
It sounds more like you want to casually discard the scientific method. In any case, there is nothing within the concept of science that would rule out telepathy or telekineses or any human ability. If it exists, it can be tested. If it can be tested, it can be proven. So far, though, nobody claiming psychic ability has been able to get past the test phase, let alone established credible proof.

Science must change and adapt for the next level of human discovery. It has reached its upper limits and must develop a subtler and more flexible methodology and an entirely new language to allow for the greatest mysteries it has yet been unable to explain. I believe that the language and ideas of "paranormalists" will be an important factor in the evolution of Science in the next millenium.

Your earlier-stated nonsensical views on black holes don't exactly lend you a lot of credibility when you try to discuss science or what it should do. What is a "subtler and more flexible methodology", anyway? Does it involve a lower standard of evidence? Logical leaps? Scientists writing papers on instinct or from dreams?

Abe

10-22-2004, 04:19 AM

So, Snakespirit, if I read you correctly it's no big issue that when paranormalists are tested by sceptical means, they consistently fail to produce positive results?

If an effect is demonstrable only when sympathetic testers are involved, do you not immediately suspect fraud? Because that is what scepticism instructs us to suspect, contrary to your many assertions on the subject. Here's the problem:

Sympathetic testers confirm results, but doubting ones somehow do not achieve confirmation of the claim in question. To explain this, you claim that the doubt of testers must somehow influence the effect being tested. This makes the hypothesis non-falsifiable, irrefutable, which is (scientifically speaking) worth nothing. It also helps ensure that the person being tested -- and not the testers -- is in control of the experiment.

Which is exactly how Geller's powers were "demonstrated" as real at the Stanford Research Institute by Targ & Puthoff, as detailed in Nature (1974). Additionally, thanks to the chaotic conditions involved, the results of the various experiments were reported incorrectly, making for very bad science overall.

We can avoid all these problems by adopting a double-blind experimental design, which is essentially de riguer in good science to avoid complications such as the placebo effect or the alleged "doubt" factor.

Even the double-blind approach fails to improve the chances of paranormalists when an experiment is conducted with the appropriate controls. So more excuses are forthcoming, usually something along the lines of "even though double-blind conditions apply, there is someone nearby who holds great doubt for my powers, and I find myself having a hard time summoning them" or variant thereof.

These are trademarks of pesudoscience, not science.

Let me illustrate the case in more detail using the chief example here. In 1973, Time was considering doing a story on Geller. Unbeknownst to Geller, Randi was invited as part of the audience at his demonstration, posing as a Time employee. Geller had absolutely no problems using his powers, even though one of the biggest sceptics alive was just a few metres away. In spite of claiming considerable "mental" as well as psychokinetic powers, Geller had no clue that Randi was present. He performed his usual sleight-of-hand tricks, which were readily identified by Randi, who -- being a professional magician -- is of course familiar with all sorts of these tricks.

After that dismal failure, Geller stopped performing in front of any magician, claiming that they give off "bad vibes". In truth, he performed as he always does, and only after his scam was exposed did he resort to excuses. But, regardless of his whining, he employed solely simple sleight of hand during the demonstration! To avoid a repeat of this embarrasing scenario, Geller whined about the negative influence of magicians and sceptics. This is a typical pseudoscientific irrefutable hypothesis whose sole purpose is to cover up Geller's failure and ensure that he continues to make money from his tricks.

The other hallmark of pseudoscience is the reluctance of claimants to examine closely their claims. I showed how nonsensical the 6 Kn force claim was by examining the physical principles involved in this rather laughable claim, and demonstrated how unreasonable the claim is based on established scientific knowledge. In order to overcome these difficulties that I highlighted, we must not introduce more unknowns, we simply have to demand extraordinary evidence. Double-blind, repeatable, strictly controlled, exclusive of trickery. Of course, this evidence is not forthcoming.

The problem here is not that I put science in a box; that accusation is another one typical of pseudoscientists, who go on about "closed minds" and the like. The problem is that paranormalist claimants cannot demonstrate their claims to be true, and must resort to dishonest techniques.

The only other issue you raise is in response to my explanation:

originally posted by Abe
in order to believe in these kinds of effects, we are forced to ignore fundamental tenets of science that we know are established and accurate. We must: introduce mysterious undefined forces from unknown inscrutable sources for which zero corroboration exists; assume hypothetical "psi leverage" or whatever; and suspend our entire understanding of the universe. In other words, we have to resort to magic, not science.

Why can't we just take what has been observed and examine science to determine if we have a 'fit' we might have missed, or if we have discovered a new scientific principle?

Because when a "new scientific principle" is alleged and is in direct opposition to the rather better established science that precedes it, extraordinary proof is required. When cold fusion was trumpeted in the '80s, real scientists and real sceptics knew very well what the problems were: that the claims advanced were incompatible with present scientific understanding (which enjoys extensive support). Therefore, the position to take on cold fusion (a position based on the trusty einmal ist keinmal) was that these claims were likely to be false, at least until the cold fusions experiments could be independently replicated. It's really no big deal. There are many false or inaccurate claims in science all the time, and they are filtered out by the scientific method.

It is pseudoscientists who then provide a host of excuses and non-falsifiable justifications for their claims in spite of the clear scientific evidence and understanding to the contrary.

NOTE: science is self-correcting. Should a new scientific principle actually be discovered, a paradigm shift can occur, as I mentioned already a few posts ago. However it is irresponsible and in direct contrast to available evidence to assume such a new principle or paradigm shift on the basis of a handful of shrill paranormalist claims such as those of Geller, for the reasons already provided.

Why can't we examine claims and either prove they have a mundane unexpected explanation or that they have another explanation that is on the cutting edge of science?

We do examine claims. However we also have to be sensible and assume provisionally that a claim incompatible with established models of the universe is bunk until proved otherwise.

Why do you have to resort to derisive terms like "magic" to defend your position?

Magic is simply the opposite of science, and involves unverified claims that are in opposition to scientific principles we have established and tested exhaustively. As I said before, science seeks "to accomplish objectivity (basing conclusions on external validation) and avoid mysticism (basing conclusions on personal insights that lack external validation)". This is not my invention, it is fundamental to the philosophy of science. If you prefer the term "mysticism" to "magic", feel free to substitute it; ultimately there is objective science, and subjective mysticism (or magic). It is not derision, as I already previously explained.

You may not realize it, but right now you are actually vigorously championing pseudoscience -- not science, nor scepticism.

Contrapuntal

10-22-2004, 10:59 AM

I don't know, ask Bryan, he seems to think he has all the answers. All I have is questions.
I was quoting you, Snakespirit. Do you stand behind your words?

Musicat

10-22-2004, 01:32 PM

In keeping with our dogged pursuit of a definition of "paranormal," there is a letter by Jamie Mulcahy reproduced on the randi.org (http://randi.org/jr/102204the.html) site today that includes what could be pressed into service as a definition. Long, and I'm not sure the writer meant to use OR or AND between the salient points, but I think it should seriously be considered in this thread. The writer is talking about homeopathy, but I see nothing that precludes a use as a general definition. Here it is: Supporters claim that the phenomena are real, but no real evidence exists to verify that claim. The phenomena are said to "work" by means that are not possible, based on what we already know with great certainty, about the real world. The evidence for the phenomena presented is anecdotal, not scientific, and none of the "scientific" findings made by supporters have been independently replicated. When attempted independent replications of the phenomena fail, supporters invoke special conditions and exceptions for their claims, and often state that these cannot be tested by "ordinary" science. Supporters of the claims invoke such words as, "vibrations," memory," "quantum," "spiritual," and "infinite," without knowledge of, nor respect for, the actual meanings of such terms. The claimed discovery is of such a nature and scope, that if true, it would have radically changed the face of science, our way of life, and our perception of the real world [yet] that has not happened. Good and comprehensive, but I wonder if we could condense this to something more concise?

I was about to compliment Jamie Mulcahy for his list, but further research suggests that this list is not original with him. It may have been written by James Randi himself, as he presented it first here, (http://www.randi.org/jr/051603.html) and a google search doesn't turn up fragments of that exact language anywhere else.

Musicat

10-22-2004, 03:00 PM

Let's test this 6-point definition by comparing it to something that has been suggested as a paranormal phenomenon in the past, meterorites, or rocks falling from the sky. Let's assume we are living in the 18th century C.E.

1. Supporters claim that the phenomena are real, but no real evidence exists to verify that claim. Meteorites had real evidence -- big hunks & rock chunks. Conclusion: not paranormal.

2. The phenomena are said to "work" by means that are not possible, based on what we already know with great certainty, about the real world. I guess it comes down to "what we already know with great certainty." The church was at odds with some of science and the traditional church view of a rigid celestial sphere with fixed stars, above which lived the gods, was already crumbling. Certainly the idea of a rotating planetary system did not preclude the possibility of errant rocks, and Newton's laws would suggest the earth would attract them and they would crash to earth. Conclusion: puzzling, unexplained, but not paranormal.

3. The evidence for the phenomena presented is anecdotal, not scientific, and none of the "scientific" findings made by supporters have been independently replicated. Replication of something which is primarily an observed phenomena is, of course, difficult. But more than one meteorite was found and although a streak of light across the sky would be classed as anecdotal, there was concrete evidence at the end of the streak if they were lucky enough to get there just in time. Conclusion: not paranormal.

4. When attempted independent replications of the phenomena fail, supporters invoke special conditions and exceptions for their claims, and often state that these cannot be tested by "ordinary" science. Ordinary science was indeed, testing claims of celestial observations, thru telescopes, and chemistry tested the composition of the rocks. Conslusion: not paranormal.

5.Supporters of the claims invoke such words as, "vibrations," memory," "quantum," "spiritual," and "infinite," without knowledge of, nor respect for, the actual meanings of such terms. This may be too modern an addition to the list to apply to 1700, except for "spiritual." Certainly, ascribing everyday events to the influence of gods, demons, devils, or angels was more common then. Conclusion: N/A.

6. The claimed discovery is of such a nature and scope, that if true, it would have radically changed the face of science, our way of life, and our perception of the real world [yet] that has not happened. The certainty of what meteorites mean did change the face of science over time. Yes, it took a long time for the face of science to change, but -- and this is critical -- the evidence strengthened over time. In contrast, evidence for most things that we label paranormal today is not strenthening, even over the hundreds of years it has been examined. And this is important -- the verification of what meteorites was did not cause the "paradigm" of science to change; many, many, independent astronomical observations, tests and discoveries all fell into place, all consistent with the observations of falling rocks. Conclusion: since it HAS happened, not paranormal, yet in a short time frame, the opposite conclusion could be argued. I'll be generous and call this one inconclusive.

So the score is: of 6 critereon, 4 define meterorites as not paranormal, 1 is not applicable, and 1 could be called inconclusive.

SnakeSpirit

10-22-2004, 07:36 PM

There is no reason why the doubt of observers should be relevant.
Nope. Not good enough. You're trying to change the parameters and avoid the question. Try again.

You said:
If the psychic's ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant.
In this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5393301&postcount=177)

I asked :
WHY should the doubt of observers be irrelevant?
You keep avoiding the question.

Simple doubt, not some mystic power you alledge, affects people's performance.

Why should PSI performance be any different?

Why can't you simply answer the question?

I suspect it's because you know you fucked up and don't want to admit it.

SnakeSpirit

10-22-2004, 07:41 PM

So, Snakespirit, if I read you correctly it's no big issue that when paranormalists are tested by sceptical means, they consistently fail to produce positive results?
You misunderstand me, Abe. I think psychic claims should be tested to the same degree and with the same rigerous standards as anything else.

Any other assumption and you're either taking what I say out of context or we are just not understanding one another.

RaftPeople

10-22-2004, 07:45 PM

Simple doubt, not some mystic power you alledge, affects people's performance.

I'm coming in at the tail end on this so forgive me if I got the context wrong, but it looks like you are stating that an observers doubt can affect a testee's performance.

If that is what you are saying I would say that it may or may not be true for some people, which isn't saying much.

In fact it could improve performance (some people need to feel challenged).

MaxTheVool

10-22-2004, 07:46 PM

Here's a somewhat tongue-in-cheek definition, or at least an addendum to a definition: Something is paranormal if, in its very nature, it defies rigorous scientific proof or study.

So suppose someone DID have a telephatic talent which had an empathic regulator built into it such that it would not function around skepticism. That would make it, by its very nature, hard to scientifically study. Or suppose there was a very shy Loch Ness monster who would only surface when there were no cameras present. Or suppose there was a ghostly apparition which just plain couldn't be photographed or videotaped, and which would appear differently to different people, and not show up at all to some.

Something of that sort might fairly be called "paranormal", because it would be doomed to forever exist outside the sphere of scientific knowledge.

SnakeSpirit

10-22-2004, 07:54 PM

I've "put up" and now I return the challenge. You made a claim alleging I had given the readers of this thread cause to think me stupid. I'll repeat the request that you support this statement or withdraw it.
No you haven't, you've avoided the question.

You made a statement, and so far have used only distraction to back it up.

Answering:

WHY should the doubt of observers be irrelevant?

With:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers
There is no reason why the doubt of observers should be relevant.

Is reason enough for the readers to think you stupid.

That's not debate, it's shifting the burden of proof. From this site explaining how logic works. (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting)

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

The burden of proof is still on you, and you sure look stupid.

SnakeSpirit

10-22-2004, 08:04 PM

I was quoting you, Snakespirit. Do you stand behind your words?

You quoted me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeSpirit
Anything can be faked by a skilled magician. They can even do things PSI cannot (as far as we know).
And asked:

What can psi do, as far as we know? Just answer that simple question. What do we know that psi can do?

And I said I don't know. Never said I did know.

However, to answer what it seems you intended to ask:

As far as we know, PSI cannot make an elephant disappear from a stage.

Musicat

10-22-2004, 08:25 PM

So suppose someone DID have a telephatic talent which had an empathic regulator built into it such that it would not function around skepticism. That would make it, by its very nature, hard to scientifically study. Or suppose there was a very shy Loch Ness monster who would only surface when there were no cameras present. Or suppose there was a ghostly apparition which just plain couldn't be photographed or videotaped, and which would appear differently to different people, and not show up at all to some.

Something of that sort might fairly be called "paranormal", because it would be doomed to forever exist outside the sphere of scientific knowledge.There is no such thing. Scientific testing is how we determine what exists. Something cannot exist outside of what exists. Or if you can say that, you can't prove it and we are firmly in the world of philosophical fantasy, not reality.

This is the "paradigm" argument. Absurd, my Dear Watson.

"Reality is what, when you stop believing in it, still exists."

SnakeSpirit

10-22-2004, 10:44 PM

I'm coming in at the tail end on this so forgive me if I got the context wrong, but it looks like you are stating that an observers doubt can affect a testee's performance.

If that is what you are saying I would say that it may or may not be true for some people, which isn't saying much.

In fact it could improve performance (some people need to feel challenged).
No argument, Raft. (Neat name!)
The weak opposition here is trying to deny that 'suggestion" has an effect on a subject. While on the other hand they insist that most paranormal occurances can be explained away by things like suggestion..... :rolleyes:

Depends on what's convenient for them to hold their theories together, I guess.

SnakeSpirit

10-22-2004, 10:48 PM

"Reality is what, when you stop believing in it, still exists."
Ooooh, nice, cat. Do you have an attribute for that quote? I'd like to use that sometime.

Czarcasm

10-22-2004, 10:50 PM

Bryan Ekers

10-22-2004, 10:54 PM

Peter Morris

10-22-2004, 11:09 PM

Let's test this 6-point definition by comparing it to something that has been suggested as a paranormal phenomenon in the past, meterorites, or rocks falling from the sky. Let's assume we are living in the 18th century C.E.

Yeah, lets. however, lets also assume that we are sensible.

1. Supporters claim that the phenomena are real, but no real evidence exists to verify that claim. Well, supporters occasionally produced rocks that they claimed had fallen from the sky. But they looked just like ordinary rocks. Conclusion - paranormal.

2. The phenomena are said to "work" by means that are not possible, based on what we already know with great certainty, about the real world. Lavoissier said "a stone cannot fall from the sky - there ARE no stones in the sky. Certainly this went against what science of the time knew about how the world works. Conclusion - paranormal.

3. The evidence for the phenomena presented is anecdotal, not scientific, and none of the "scientific" findings made by supporters have been independently replicated. Evidence was in the form of eyewitnesses who claimed they had seen rocks fall fromn the sky. That's what anecdotal evidence means. Conclusion - paranormal.

4. When attempted independent replications of the phenomena fail, supporters invoke special conditions and exceptions for their claims, and often state that these cannot be tested by "ordinary" science. Well of course you can't make the rocks fall at will. They fall occasionally and unpredictably. You can't replicate a sighting of a meteorite. Believers can't be expected to actually demonstrate a meteorite fall under test conditions. Conclusion - paranormal.

5.Supporters of the claims invoke such words as, "vibrations," memory," "quantum," "spiritual," and "infinite," without knowledge of, nor respect for, the actual meanings of such terms. Yup. Meterites were said by the church to be the Wrath Of God upon the sinners. Conclusion - paranormal.

6. The claimed discovery is of such a nature and scope, that if true, it would have radically changed the face of science, our way of life, and our perception of the real world [yet] that has not happened. I disagree with this anyway. Plenty of paranormal claims wouldn't fit this. Spoon bending, for example. If this were proved true, how would it radically change our way of life? It would be just a curiosity that wouldn't affect us much either way. But having said that, meteorites did change understanding of one branch of science. Conclusion - about as paranormal as spoon bending.

SnakeSpirit

10-22-2004, 11:39 PM

Seems like you're skipping a step here. Before you can determine whether or not skepticism has an effect on the paranormal, shouldn't you find out if the paranormal exists first?. I could claim that elephant dung can be used to repell gnomes, but I would certainly hope that you would demand that I prove the existence of gnomes first.
Thanks, CZ, surprised to see you agree with me, but that's what I've been trying to tell Ekers.

Stated slightly differently, but the meaning is the same. You can't logically argue that doubt or suggestion can have no effect upon PSI unless you first know what PSI is.

Czarcasm

10-22-2004, 11:41 PM

What 'psi" is? I thought we were still working on if "psi" is?

Bryan Ekers

10-22-2004, 11:53 PM

What 'psi" is? I thought we were still working on if "psi" is?

Don't worry, he's just challenging your ability to debate the elements of something as yet completely undefined. It means he likes you.

As for me, I think invisible pink unicorns are actually fuschia.

SnakeSpirit

10-22-2004, 11:53 PM

Well, Snake, you've dismissed my explanation without addressing a single point within it. Unless this changes, I'll just assume this is simple bad-faith debating on your part. And since you have nothing else to offer but quibbling and repeated (and unfounded) ad hominem attacks, and you've never made a verifiable claim in favour of the existence of PSI powers, I'd say you've been thoroughly refuted.
Your smug self-congratulations don't further the argument, except to prove that you are persistant at sqirming your way out of an argument you have lost.

You tried to answer my argument of your allegation with an attempt to shift the burden of proof, nothing more. It's your allegation, not mine. It's wrong, and you won't admit it. If you think this is an ad hominum attack, you have a lot to learn. It's not. It's bringing to your (and everyone's) attention that your post is invalid. You are using a false assumption in your debating and ignoring the FACT that you can't support your allegation.

Add to this your allegation above that,
and you've never made a verifiable claim in favour of the existence of PSI powers,
please note that I've not made any claim for the existance of psychic powers (strawman).

And until you answer this one, simple challenge to your debating technique, you have no right to say I'm debating in bad faith (which is an ad hominum attack, by the way).

Your posts are nothing more than poor, easily seen through "tricks."

SnakeSpirit

10-22-2004, 11:58 PM

What 'psi" is? I thought we were still working on if "psi" is?
I thought PSI was the term we tossed the unexplained into until it was explained? That makes it an "is." Like UFOs, they may not be aliens, they may not be airplanes. We don't know what they are till we investigate, but we have to call them something... for convention, and understanding.

If Bryan were to say "I know "suggestion" can't have any effect on UFOs," it's the same thing. How can he know?

Bryan Ekers

10-22-2004, 11:59 PM

Spoon bending, for example. If this were proved true, how would it radically change our way of life?

Are you [i]kidding?[i] No spoon would be safe! They'd rebel with spoon riots and spoon sabotage and an underground spoon railway. The soup industry would collapse! Ice cream would only come on sticks, never in bowls, and "spooning" would go from being romantic to being sick and perverse!

Anyway, I'll concede pre-1801 meteors being paranormal, if it'll help spare us any more microanalysis on this painfully moot subject.

Bryan Ekers

10-23-2004, 12:50 AM

Your smug self-congratulations don't further the argument

I'll point out that repeatedly calling me stupid (well, that would be against GD rules; rather you've repeatedly said I look stupid, which I suppose is acceptable) doesn't, either. And actually, it's not really a victory I revel in, because arguing that science is better than pseudoscience isn't exact an Everest-level challenge.

You tried to answer my argument of your allegation with an attempt to shift the burden of proof, nothing more.

The burden of proof has always been on you, because you're making the extraordinary claim that PSI powers exist. All I've done is point out the inconsistencies within the claims made by Geller and by you on Geller's behalf.

You are using a false assumption in your debating and ignoring the FACT that you can't support your allegation.

Well, if that was true, I'd be using a false assumption (doubt doesn't affect PSI)about a false assumption (PSI exists). What I've actually done is pointed that IF PSI exists in the form that Geller claims to have, the only evidence that observer doubt affects it is Geller's claim that it does. The mechanism of the doubt-interference is unclear (as is the PSI itself) and you've used an irrelevant argument about the power of suggestion. Consider a professional basketball player at an away game (you've used athletic analogies before, though claimed they are irrelevant when it suits you, but I'll give it a shot anyway). He is fouled, and thus gets to take a free throw. Now, he is surrounded by 50,000 local fans screaming at him. They all want him to fail. They all hope he fails. If negative PSI energy exists, it surely exists in this situation (or if it doesn't, please explain why not). Even with all this, visiting NBA players can and do make free throws, far more often than failing.

Is it your claim that the presence of a doubter will disrupt a PSI demonstration? What if the doubter is sitting quietly and not screaming, as an NBA fan might be? Does it matter if the doubter doesn’t identify himself as a doubter until after the demonstration? If a PSI demonstration fails in the presence of a doubter, there is always a huge possibility (and given the evidence of history, I'd call it a high probability) that the PSI claim is fake and the doubter either spotted the sleight-of-hand (in a telekinesis demo) or would not cooperate with a cold-reading by giving the psychic visual clues to which guesses were correct (in a telepathy demo).

I've said this before: I'd love to see existence of telekinesis. I'm hoping someone in this world has reliable telekinesis. The existence of telekinesis would be cool. But I'm not interested in being lied to by a fraud. As a result, if someone wants me to believe they're a telekinetic, they first have to prove they are not a fraud (and be honest; there have been a lot of frauds throughout history, but not a whole lot of proven telekinetics). If a claimed telekinetic says "Look! I can bend spoons with my mind!", the reasoned response is something along the lines of: "Spoon bending can be faked by any competent magician; let's see you bend a crowbar made of the same type of metal as the spoons." If the psychic then claims my doubt is making a crowbar demonstration (or even further spoon demonstrations) impossible and he can't or won't explain how, then the reasoned response is that the psychic is a fake. Why would a person's abilities vanish if someone expresses doubt? You've accused me of trying to put limitations on PSI. This is ridiculous, as long as you maintain (completely without evidence, mind you) that observer doubt can put a limitation on PSI.

And until you answer this one, simple challenge to your debating technique, you have no right to say I'm debating in bad faith (which is an ad hominum attack, by the way).

Well, I've just given you a second line of reasoning. If you will answer specific points I have made (and it has to be a legitimate effort, not just vague claims of "You're wrong about this! And this! And this!"), I'll cheerfully withdraw the charge of bad faith. If you just restate your ad hominems, I'll just restate the charge, with your post as further evidence. If you don't respond at all, I'll say nothing further on the subject of your bad faith and simply let my earlier claim stand or fall on its own meritis.

SnakeSpirit

10-23-2004, 01:06 AM

The burden of proof has always been on you, because you're making the extraordinary claim that PSI powers exist.
Where? maybe in an old post in IMHO, or in an old post in GD before I understood the rules, but not here. I have made no such extraordinary claim. My only claim has been that investigating reports of PSI-type activities is a valid path.

You can't worm out of it with another attempt to shift the burden of proof and a long irrelevent post you use to perhaps "show your fans how smart you are."
Or maybe it's just more distraction, smoke and mirrors, cause it has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

The "power of suggestion" is well established as a psychological phenomenon. It's even used by your hero, "The Amazing Randi" to show how easy it is to fool people.

You're on the spot, Bryan, you're losing ground quickly. If you don't answer the question, I submit, at this point, it brings your integrity into question.

SnakeSpirit

10-23-2004, 02:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers
If you're going to speak on behalf of "we", I'll let the readers of this thread voice an opinion on whose claims have been the more extraordinary before I bother adding to the substantiation I've already provided and which you so casually and incorrectly dismiss.

Bryan Ekers has proposed a poll.

It can be found Here. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5401785#post5401785)

You perceptions are welcome.

SnakeS

Abe

10-23-2004, 02:30 AM

Yeah, lets. however, lets also assume that we are sensible.

Which does not mean mangling the history of the development of science. You are trying to force square pegs into round holes.

1. Supporters claim that the phenomena are real, but no real evidence exists to verify that claim. Well, supporters occasionally produced rocks that they claimed had fallen from the sky. But they looked just like ordinary rocks. Conclusion - paranormal.

Fortunately, in science it is possible to provide slightly more in-depth examination than the one you imply. Even in centuries past there were rudimentary tests one could carry out if one wished, such as matter analysis. Which is precisely how the Krasnojarsk meteorite of 1749 was suggested to have originated far from the Earth -- by examination of its rock and iron composition.

Real evidence existed for a real phenomenon independently of what people thought. That's why we have science. To attempt to remove the subjectivity from it all.

2. The phenomena are said to "work" by means that are not possible, based on what we already know with great certainty, about the real world. Lavoissier said "a stone cannot fall from the sky - there ARE no stones in the sky. Certainly this went against what science of the time knew about how the world works. Conclusion - paranormal.

At the time, many people didn't think that stones in the sky were a possibility, but combined with the very real evidence the meteorite claim successfully brought about a relatively small paradigm shift, and stones from the sky became a common accepted concept that squares perfectly with everything we then went on to learn about geology and astronomy.

Arguing that the case of historical meteorite studies is identical to paranormal claims today is another variation of "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (Hamlet I, v). It is an appeal to ignorance and attempts to avoid the fact that reliable evidence is very simply lacking.

Ignorance is never sufficient reason for acceptance of a claim.

3. The evidence for the phenomena presented is anecdotal, not scientific, and none of the "scientific" findings made by supporters have been independently replicated. Evidence was in the form of eyewitnesses who claimed they had seen rocks fall fromn the sky. That's what anecdotal evidence means. Conclusion - paranormal.

That was not the totality of the evidence presented. If it were left up entirely to eyewitnesses, it would have taken much longer to demonstrate that meteorites actually do occur, fortunately we had the best evidence possible: the sky rocks themselves, analysis of which confirmed the various anecdotes that they "fell from the sky".

The problem with the paranormal is there is currently no confirmation for the anecdotes provided. All there is is the anecdotes and sloppy or inconclusive science.

4. When attempted independent replications of the phenomena fail, supporters invoke special conditions and exceptions for their claims, and often state that these cannot be tested by "ordinary" science. Well of course you can't make the rocks fall at will. They fall occasionally and unpredictably. You can't replicate a sighting of a meteorite. Believers can't be expected to actually demonstrate a meteorite fall under test conditions. Conclusion - paranormal.

You can't attempt independent replications of ALL phenomena, because it is beyond our means to do so in certain cases. As you say, you can't make rocks fall from the sky; even if you could I wonder what that would achieve, since you would presumably have to provide the rock itself to begin with. Geology and stellar evolution, for example, are a little beyond our experimental control, and we therefore do not apply the criterion of independent replication as such to test their hypotheses -- but other methods exist.

In the case of paranormal claims, however, we are dealing with effects that proponents claim are testable and most often voluntary. Therefore the criterion of independent replication is not only extremely useful, but also strictly mandated.

5.Supporters of the claims invoke such words as, "vibrations," memory," "quantum," "spiritual," and "infinite," without knowledge of, nor respect for, the actual meanings of such terms. Yup. Meterites were said by the church to be the Wrath Of God upon the sinners. Conclusion - paranormal.

Yes, inasmuch as some of the Church's early claims on meteorites are involved, this is a supernatural claim essentially no difference from the waffling of pseudoscientists on topics such as mysterious powers and hidden energies. By good fortune scientists of better calibre existed even back in the 1700s and 1800s, whose work was of rather better quality than the usual unsupported hand-wave of divine attribution.

Mystical attribution is not part of the scientific method.

6. The claimed discovery is of such a nature and scope, that if true, it would have radically changed the face of science, our way of life, and our perception of the real world [yet] that has not happened. I disagree with this anyway. Plenty of paranormal claims wouldn't fit this. Spoon bending, for example. If this were proved true, how would it radically change our way of life? It would be just a curiosity that wouldn't affect us much either way. But having said that, meteorites did change understanding of one branch of science. Conclusion - about as paranormal as spoon bending.

You are missing the point entirely. Who indeed cares whether someone has the uncanny ability to bend spoons? Nobody. I can do that easily enough, it's certainly not going to change the world. But we do care about how this particular person can bend spoons, because the method claimed is entirely foreign to and incompatible with existing scientific models. Meteorites changed our understanding NOT of science, but of a specific branch of inquiry (in addition to large objects like planets and moons there are also smaller objects outside the Earth's atmosphere). Geller's spoon bending, if genuine, would change considerably more than that, it would be a complete revolution in the generation and application of force by a human body, it would seriously question a host of laws (including the conservation of energy and Newton's third). We're not talking about discovering a new exotic particle here, but a paradigm shift of vast chunks of scientific knowledge. Not to mention industry and economy.

And can you imagine the applications Geller's ability would have in our increasingly obese world? Forget cardio, sit-ups, and barbells! To lift a 10 Kg mass such as a dumbbell, you have to exert enough force to overcome a weight of 98 newtons -- that's for pussies! Now you can burn all the calories you need by exerting a massive 6,000 newtons in one go!

Geller makes extraordinary claims that lack extraordinary proof. That's why they are paranormal and pseudoscientific.

At any rate meteorites were emphatically not paranormal. When cosmic background radiation was accidentally discovered in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson tinkering with their new antenna, it wasn't paranormal, it was simply an unexplained phenomenon to explain. The unknown is not paranormal.

In 1796, the british scientist Edward Jenner was told by a milkmaid that people who contracted cowpox (a harmless disease caught from cows), never seemed to get smallpox (a deadly disease). So he injected a boy with pus from a cowpox's sufferer sores, waited a few months while the boy developed cowpox, and then injected him with the deadly smallpox. The boy didn't get smallpox, and the vaccine was invented on the basis of successfully testing anecdotal claims (even though, of course, Jenner was utterly reckless and irresponsible to experiment on a boy).

In 1895 Röntgen was studying cathode rays and noticed that some light seemed to pass easily through a light barrier and was projected on a wall over a metre away, most curious behaviour given the understanding of the time. They were X-rays, whose properties were decidedly unusual at the time. Paranormal? Of course not, neither did Röntgen think so.

Early discoveries of dinosaur fossils prompted the Greeks and Romans to make up stories about giants, ogres, and griffins, while the Chinese thought they were the bones of dragons. Finally, in 1824, William Buckland named the first genus of the first dinosaur to be examined scientifically (Megalosaurus). Two decades later the anatomist sir Richard Owen officially recognized these remains as being from an extinct suborder of reptiles that he named "dinosauria". And the march of knowledge continued until today we have photorealistic representations of animals that died out several millions of years ago.

If you wish to liken them to the current state of the paranormal --that is hammer square pegs in circular holes-- you can do so for all the above examples and thousands of other unexpected discoveries. It won't, however, prove anything other than a sloppy argument.

RaftPeople

10-23-2004, 02:48 AM

Here's a shot at recapping the situation:

1) Spoon bending, if proven to exist, will be considered a paranormal phenomena
2) Observer doubt may or may not affect the spoon bender's performance
3) It makes sense to run scientific tests on spoon bending before accepting it as a real phenomena

Note on item 2: Because an actor's state of mind (which can be influenced by many variables including the known doubt of an observer) has been shown to affect performance in almost every aspect of our lives, it would be reasonable to assume that spoon bending should be included.

Bryan Ekers

10-23-2004, 02:54 AM

Note on item 2: Because an actor's state of mind (which can be influenced by many variables including the known doubt of an observer) has been shown to affect performance in almost every aspect of our lives, it would be reasonable to assume that spoon bending should be included.

As an additional propsed statement on item 2: it has also been shown that remarkable feats can be accomplished despite major distractions, including life-threatening ones, and it would be reasonable to assume that a psychic exists who finds it easy to bend spoons under ideal conditions (and thus, for him, the bending is not in the least "remarkable") and could also do so under the mildly trying condition of having a doubter in the room carefully checking for signs of trickery.

Abe

10-23-2004, 02:55 AM

You misunderstand me, Abe. I think psychic claims should be tested to the same degree and with the same rigerous standards as anything else.

Any other assumption and you're either taking what I say out of context or we are just not understanding one another.

I take it then we are in agreement with the various other points I have brought up since my entry in this thread. I can tell you do appreciate the sceptical method, I just don't think you are applying it quite correctly, for example in your attitudes to provisional agreement based on available knowledge.

But on this particular point, let me point out that you were apparently arguing in defence of paranormal non-falsifiable nonsense with your whole blow-up on the subject of doubt and bad vibes.

As far as I can tell we were not talking about the levels of personal confidence required to provide a good athletic or mental performance, which are the examples you cited in your response to Bryan. These are internal, subjective characteristics. We were referring to the unsubstantiated claims about "bad vibes" and the like that frauds like Geller attribute to sceptics like Randi, and that they blame for the failure of their unsubstantiated powers.

It's a nonsensical argument, and I demonstrated how Geller had no problem performing in front of Randi when he didn't know Randi was present. The "bad vibes" argument is nothing more than a cheap, intellectually bankrupt attempt to explain away the failures of frauds (or their inability to fool other experts at trickery).

For the rest, I would suggest ceasing the present pissing competition. Bryan's arguments represent accepted scientific and sceptic philosophy as far as I can see, and your points are likewise -- with a few important exceptions -- also in the right direction. But you seem to have a willingness to give paranormalists the benefit of the doubt at all costs, which is why I mention that it is not exactly the position of an informed sceptic who is aware of existing scientific models and knowledge, and who must remain at top alert against trickery.

Basically you have come across as actively wanting paranormal claims to be demonstrated and arguing fiercely that they can be (something I particularly thought when you decried my criticism of magic/mysticism) which is perhaps the root cause of the current friction and misunderstanding.

Bryan Ekers

10-23-2004, 03:05 AM

I have made no such extraordinary claim.

By gum, you haven't make a direct claim to believe in ESP. You've just implied it strongly here and there. My favourite example:

In a case like this, where a person claims to have a certain talent, it's not enough to test what they say they have; you have to consider that they mnay be misinterpreting the source of their information as well. I believe in this particular case they were trying to test for remote viewing (why the shielding, I don't know), and Geller may have believed he was doing remote viewing, but we also have to consider mental telepathy, subliminal cueing, etc., and eliminate all those things.

Emphasis added. I like the idea that mental telepathy is first on the list of alternative explanations. If nothing else, it implies a belief in the existence of mental telepathy.

My only claim has been that investigating reports of PSI-type activities is a valid path.

Now that, I'm afraid, requires a call of "bullshit!" because if it were true, you'd be agreeing with me instead of throwing ad hominems. I've made several proposals on how PSI could be tested (i.e. how to distinguish it from trickery) as well as pointed out that trickery must always be suspected because it's known to be common among claimed psychics.

How exactly were you suggesting this "valid path" be followed, if not by the above means?

And, of course, this doesn't even address the other claims you've made in this thread about skeptics generally or me personally.

"show your fans how smart you are."

I have fans? Wow, I thought at best I was mildly liked or at least not widely disliked. Thanks. I'll take this as a compliment, just to balance the insults a little.

The "power of suggestion" is well established as a psychological phenomenon.

Yes, it is, and so I've stated. The connection between suggestion and PSI power is not established, however, and it can't be established until PSI is established.

If you don't answer the question, I submit, at this point, it brings your integrity into question.

If it's the same question about doubters shouldn't be able to affect psychics, it's been adequately answered and my integrity is intact (or at least not made un-intact by anything I've said or not said in this thread).

In conclusion, I stand by my "bad faith" assessment. You have not addressed a single point in either of my earlier statements on the "observer doubt" question; merely dismissed them in total.

Czarcasm

10-23-2004, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Bryan Ekers has proposed a poll.

It can be found Here. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5401785#post5401785)

You perceptions are welcome.

SnakeS
"Who's right-him or me? Provide cites!" Not in my forum, bucky. You can keep your fight here in Great Debates.

SnakeSpirit

10-23-2004, 05:59 AM

I take it then we are in agreement with the various other points I have brought up since my entry in this thread.

Abe, I don't see any disagreement between you and I. At all.

But on this particular point, let me point out that you were apparently arguing in defence of paranormal non-falsifiable nonsense with your whole blow-up on the subject of doubt and bad vibes.

AFAIK, Nonsense! If "suggestion" affects mental processes, why shouldn't it affect them all???
Why should PSI performance be different?

>As far as I can tell we were not talking about the levels of personal confidence required to provide a good athletic or mental performance, which are the examples you cited in your response to Bryan. These are internal, subjective characteristics. We were referring to the unsubstantiated claims about "bad vibes" and the like that frauds like Geller attribute to sceptics like Randi, and that they blame for the failure of their unsubstantiated powers.

No, I'm talking about the documented, proven affect that expectation has on results!

Randi is a no -issue. He hasn't proven to be tue.

>For the rest, I would suggest ceasing the present pissing competition. Bryan's arguments represent accepted scientific and sceptic philosophy as far as I can see, and your points are likewise -- with a few important exceptions -- also in the right direction. But you seem to have a willingness to give paranormalists the benefit of the doubt at all costs, which is why I mention that it is not exactly the position of an informed sceptic who is aware of existing scientific models and knowledge, and who must remain at top alert against trickery.

It's called "suspending judgement."

>Basically you have come across as actively wanting paranormal claims to be demonstrated and arguing fiercely that they can be (something I particularly thought when you decried my criticism of magic/mysticism) which is perhaps the root cause of the current friction and misunderstanding.[/QUOTE]

OK, they CAN be, if they are real.
Whether they will or not will be independent of our opinion.
It's dependent upon results.

SnakeS

SnakeSpirit

10-23-2004, 06:10 AM

"Who's right-him or me? Provide cites!" Not in my forum, bucky. You can keep your fight here in Great Debates.
How surprising.

A moderator who is actively involved in a debate denies the appropriate forum for the debate, and insists it be kept in an inappropriate forum.

Polls are no longer permitted in IMHO?

In My Humble Opinion
“What's your favorite ...?” For frank exchanges of views on less-than-cosmic topics. This is also the place for polling.

So, then, where do we take our polls?

Bryan Ekers

10-23-2004, 06:28 AM

So, then, where do we take our polls?

Poland.

Incidentally, I never wanted or requested a poll asking the questions you put in your IMHO thread. As far as I'm concerned, I come out on top for all of those. I solely wanted to examine your oft-repeated claim that my posts in this thread have made me look stupid (to the readers, I presume). I've noticed that you rather casually speak on behalf of others, using "we" a lot and, in this case, trying to claim that your opinion about me is a commonly-held one. I am essentially requesting justification for an ad hominem attack, and you never answered my question that if it became clear that the readers of this thread didn't feel that I sounded stupid , would you withdraw the statement?

Though I'd be equally satisfied if you dropped the personal attacks altogether and if you choose to respond to me at all, you do so on my specific points.

SnakeSpirit

10-23-2004, 06:33 AM

Though I'd be equally satisfied if you dropped the personal attacks altogether and if you choose to respond to me at all, you do so on my specific points.

You first. You never responded adequately to my first point. That you can't assume "suggestion" would not affect PSI.

Why do you assume that?

Bryan Ekers

10-23-2004, 06:52 AM

Why do you assume that?

Well, I could write another 500 words in reply, but would it matter? There's no indication you're even reading these posts, let alone giving them serious consideration.

SnakeSpirit

10-23-2004, 06:55 AM

There's no indication you're even reading these posts, let alone giving them serious consideration.

OH? Who's not reading these posts? Who's not giving them serious consideration?

You never responded adequately to my first point. That you can't assume "suggestion" would not affect PSI.

Why do you assume that?

Looks like you're trying to escape the question again! I consider that proof (after five challenges unmet) that MY point is proven!

You got proof otherwise ????

I didn't think so.

Bryan Ekers

10-23-2004, 07:01 AM

OH? Who's not reading these posts? Who's not giving them serious consideration?

The same guy that won't respond to the specifics of them but instead dismisses them wholesale with a shrug and a sneer, I guess.

Looks like you're trying to escape the question again! I consider that proof (after five challenges unmet) that MY point is proven!

You got proof otherwise ????

I didn't think so.

Well, congratulations. You've managed to satisfy yourself.

t-keela

10-23-2004, 07:51 AM

Bryan I think you're being paged. here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=282484)

Contrapuntal

10-23-2004, 09:01 AM

You quoted me:
Quote:

And asked:

And I said I don't know. Never said I did know.

However, to answer what it seems you intended to ask:

As far as we know, PSI cannot make an elephant disappear from a stage.

You said that as far as we know magicians can do things that psi cannot do. Two possibilities follow from that statement--

---There are some things that psi can do.
or
---The statement is essentially meaningless, along the lines of "As far as we know, there are no Grizzly bears actively involved in researching cost efficient methods of hydrogen production."

To state that psi cannot do some things strongly implies 1) that psi exists, and 2) that it can do some things. I will ask you flat out. Do you believe that psi exists? if so,do you believe that it can do things? If so, what are those things?

Abe

10-23-2004, 10:54 AM

Abe, I don't see any disagreement between you and I. At all.

Well, I tried to point out a few specific points where I think we disagree. I honestly think you are applying some important principles in an incorrect manner here, and, as I said earlier, it would appear to be because you may be actively seeking to confirm the paranormal, to give it as much of a chance to be true as possible. This is a strongly subjective position to take when arguing the merits of science and scepticism in the paranormal. It's also why I earlier brought up the point that you seem to be engaged as much in provisional credulity as in a provisional approach.

I pointed out two major pitfalls of pseudoscience, and showed how you seem to be falling into them.

The first is the introduction of ad hoc and/or non-falsifiable hypotheses after yet another paranormal claim fails a properly controlled test -- "bad vibes", or the doubt argument.

The second is the avoidance of close examination of the issues involved, in this case the readiness to accept the possibility of the application of a huge force, and referring vaguely to forces and energies and the ways in which they could be applied (unfounded assumptions). This is not a sceptical approach.

Here is the more recent problem: you are assuming that just because the mental state of a person (level of confidence, composure, etc.) may affect his or her performance, that this argument extends to sceptical testing of this person's wholly unsubstantiated abilities. First, I would again highlight the objections raised by other posters (in the Pit thread you opened, Lib correctly points out the nature of this fallacy).

Secondly, there are far too many unknowns being introduced here: not only are we assuming that psi must have some validity, but we are also assuming the bad vibes argument. After you introduce a sceptical magician (overtly or covertly, as we have seen) to the experiment and the support for the paranormal claim fails to appear (instead, trickery is exposed) then the paranormalist complains that the sceptic must somehow be influencing the results. Yet if the sceptical magician isn't there, the paranormalist simply resorts to his usual bag of tricks to fool the scientists.

So the paranormal claim is rendered unfalsifiable: the paranormalist is saying "I will demonstrate my claim only under my conditions and controls", and the experiment becomes a farce.

Randi is a no -issue. He hasn't proven to be tue.

If I could exert one newton of force for every time I have heard this claim asserted with ill-deserved confidence....

SnakeSpirit

10-23-2004, 04:17 PM

I will ask you flat out. Do you believe that psi exists? if so,do you believe that it can do things? If so, what are those things?
1. If by 'psi' you mean 'magical powers,' no.

2. If by 'psi' you mean an extension of common human abilities through discipline as is the case with martial arts abilities, yes.

3. If by 'psi' you mean things that escape current scientific explanation, yes.

Under the 'yes' definitions above there is nothing I would believe "it can do," it is instead, what we do about it.

For example, under definition # 2:
I learned how to control my brainwave frequencies and remain conscious in two brainwave frequencies which are normally only seen while asleep. Alpha and Theta. This has been demonstrated in the biofeedback lab in the department of psychology of the University of Connecticut.

By using these slower frequencies I am able to take some control over autonomic functions. The most dramatic thing I am able to do is to control pain. I have had several dental root canal operations, all without anesthesia of any kind and with no perception of pain.

There's lots of other things, but that's the one I have gotten the strongest reaction to by observers; hope that's adequate. If you want a list I can provide it, but the others are less spectacular. (Waking on time w/o an alarm clock, etc.)

I don't know all what other kinds of things we can learn to do, but I'm sure it's lots.

Under definition # 3:
We should always try to find explanations for those things we currently are unable to explain. Otherwise, what's the point?

SnakeS

Contrapuntal

10-23-2004, 04:40 PM

1. If by 'psi' you mean 'magical powers,' no.

2. If by 'psi' you mean an extension of common human abilities through discipline as is the case with martial arts abilities, yes.

3. If by 'psi' you mean things that escape current scientific explanation, yes.

Under the 'yes' definitions above there is nothing I would believe "it can do," it is instead, what we do about it.

For example, under definition # 2:
I learned how to control my brainwave frequencies and remain conscious in two brainwave frequencies which are normally only seen while asleep. Alpha and Theta. This has been demonstrated in the biofeedback lab in the department of psychology of the University of Connecticut.

By using these slower frequencies I am able to take some control over autonomic functions. The most dramatic thing I am able to do is to control pain. I have had several dental root canal operations, all without anesthesia of any kind and with no perception of pain.

There's lots of other things, but that's the one I have gotten the strongest reaction to by observers; hope that's adequate. If you want a list I can provide it, but the others are less spectacular. (Waking on time w/o an alarm clock, etc.)

I don't know all what other kinds of things we can learn to do, but I'm sure it's lots.

Under definition # 3:
We should always try to find explanations for those things we currently are unable to explain. Otherwise, what's the point?

SnakeS

I don't know if this will change your answer or not, but by "psi" I mean whatever you meant when you said that magicians can do things that psi cannot, as far as we know.

SnakeSpirit

10-23-2004, 05:20 PM

The first is the introduction of ad hoc and/or non-falsifiable hypotheses after yet another paranormal claim fails a properly controlled test -- "bad vibes", or the doubt argument.
Sorry Abe, that's not my argument, it's a negative assumption brought up by Bryan. (that the psychologically demonstrated effect known as 'suggestion' cannot have any affect on performance in PSI). I merely pointed out it's not logical to propose such a negative assumption.

The second is the avoidance of close examination of the issues involved, in this case the readiness to accept the possibility of the application of a huge force, and referring vaguely to forces and energies and the ways in which they could be applied (unfounded assumptions). This is not a sceptical approach.
I'm not sure I understand what you are refering to; can you be specific?

Here is the more recent problem: you are assuming that just because the mental state of a person (level of confidence, composure, etc.) may affect his or her performance, that this argument extends to sceptical testing of this person's wholly unsubstantiated abilities.
Not sure where you're getting this. I try to avoid assuming anything. Also, I can interpret your statement two ways. How does this extend to skeptical testing?

After you introduce a sceptical magician (overtly or covertly, as we have seen) to the experiment and the support for the paranormal claim fails to appear (instead, trickery is exposed) then the paranormalist complains that the sceptic must somehow be influencing the results. Yet if the sceptical magician isn't there, the paranormalist simply resorts to his usual bag of tricks to fool the scientists.
In those instances, trickery is exposed and the research has done its job well. And those people are not paranomalists, they are magicians, frauds.

In the case where a person genuinely believes that they have an extraordinary ability, the burden of proof is on them to operate it within acceptable experimental parameters.

I think people are reading a lot more into what I'm saying than what I'm really saying. Perhaps this is due to my not expressing myself clearly enough, but here's another thought:
I have perceived a built-in bias to "SnakeSpirit." Posters are expecting me to be a certain way due to allegations that are being made about me. It's 'suggestion" operating on perception: SnakeSpirit believes in certain things they don't, and when they read my words they interpret what I'm saying as being representitive of these strawmen.

For the record:
I do not 'believe' in magical-type PSI. I think the "paranormal" is a misnomer. I don't believe in psychokinesis, telepathy, astrology, tarot cards, angels, devils, ... what other things can we throw in there? But posters evidently believe that I believe in such stuff, and it affects the way they read what I post. It's a perceptual illusion; they see what they expect.

I do believe that there are things which escape current scientific explanation, but I feel confident that science will explain them, and this is my leaning, my goal, though I am not currently actively involved in research.

I have had several encounters in my life with things that I couldn't explain. I discussing these things I have used terminology people would understand. One example is "ghosts." I don't believe in "ghosts" according to the current definition, but I used the term to give people the idea of the experience. I've posted the experience in one of the "ghost" threads, and stressed that what I believe is my experience, and that whatever caused the experience is still in the "unknown" category.

Funny, someone asked in one of the pit threads why I didn't pit you. I think it's obvious: you debate fairly, ask reasonable questions and avoid assumptions. I think that any differences we have may be in two things:
1. A "lack of understanding" of what the other is saying, which I think we can resolve, and
2. The fact that I am unwilling to dismiss claims based on any similarity to claims which have been shown false. (One fraud does not mean that everyone is a fraud. Just because something can be faked doesn't mean it is being faked in all instances.)

For example:
I don't believe in psychokinesis. I've never see it, never done it, and I'm unaware of any experiments that have shown it to exist. However, I allow that it may be possible, so I won't reject any claims which can be proven.

I know a lot of people on this board take a different stance: they take the position that if a thing has not yet been proven to exist, then it does not exist. I won't make that assumptive jump, now or ever.

I've been accused of believing in aliens. I don't. But I believe this universe is big enough that some day I will believe in them, if they show up.

I'm getting tired of typing. I hope we can come to an understanding, though. You seem like a reasonable person.