Why don't non-skeptics care?

[Andy L]

In Hastur's thread, he wrote this about psychics:

I think some of them have an authentic gift which allows them to see a glimpse into the past, present, and future.

I wrote (somewhat paraphrased):
Hastur, I'd expect that someone who believed in psychic powers would feel strongly that the fake ones be driven out of the marketplace, because every fake makes the real ones harder to find.

The way I look at the issue is this: If psychic powers that can produce valuable results exist, they are very very important. By trying their best to distinguish between real and fake "psychics" skeptics are taking the whole issue seriously, just as it is building inspectors who take the issue of building safety seriously. No one asks why building inspectors are so negative about buildings that turn out to be unsafe - but the difference between a valid psychic prediction and a fradulent one is at least as important as the distinction between a safe building and a dangerous one - real psychic predictions would lead to a revolution in science, health (mental and physical), business, etc. producing great benefits for society. With all that at stake, how can someone not support investigations of whether a particular claimed psychic is faking it or not? Or have I misinterpreted?

Since no one replied to my post (due to other aspects of the OP being chatted about), I thought I'd open my own thread about the issue I'm concerned about which in summary is "If this is true, it's very important; if it's false, it's trivial - so who is taking the claim more seriously - those who check whether it's true or those who assume it is"

Andy L

[ultrafilter]

This is a very good question, and one that deserves an answer. Unfortunately, I am a skeptic, and will not attempt to speak for the motives of others. I hadn't heard the building inspector analogy yet, though, and I will use that one.

[Jodi]

But it's the only one I personally have.

As a Christian, I believe in the supra-natural (or supernatural, a term more accurate but which I don't like to use since it implies ghosts and ESP and all that nonsense). I believe that God exists and that He works through humanity in this world, though He generally lets us experience the consequences of our own free will, even when those consequences are terrible. My religion is based on faith -- a requirement that I must believe something that I cannot prove through science or rational means or through any of the myriad tools we have at our disposal in this world.

But God, at least as I believe in Him, is entirely beyond proof. Being beyond the natural world and not bound by its laws, he can be neither proven nor disproven, at least insofar as we understand the objective term "proof." Most sceptics understand this and don't concern themselves with the subject much; being entirely beyond the scope of provability or probability, it's not a subject worth their attention.

In contrast, psychic powers, ESP, astrology, etc., are subjects that are often claimed to be amenable to proof. For example, the assertion that the stars in a particular alignment lead to given personality characteristics, or the assertion that one person can read another's mind -- those are things that can be proven or disproven through objective testing. They are amenable to the challenges of proof. And all the evidence that I have personally seen to date indicates that they are all basically bullshit. So I don't believe in them.

If there was a way to prove or disprove God, I would certainly put Him to that test. But there isn't, which is why I had to decide whether or not to take Him on faith, or by "proof" that is obviously subjective, not objective, and therefore not really "proof" at all.

So that's the distinction I personally draw.

[tracer]

It is true that many believers in paranormal phenomena -- and I use the term "believers" here intentionally -- treat the subject with a quasi-religious kind of faith.

Although astrology, psychic powers, etc., do make testable predictions and are thus amenable to scientific scrutiny, non-skeptics tend overwhelmingly to take the stance that "unless it's disproven, it must be true" -- exactly the opposite of how scientific understanding is supposed to progress. And when challenged, or presented with evidence that threatens to disprove their pet pseudoscience, such believers tend to react with the same kind of indignance a religious person displays when somebody tells him there is no God.

Note that many non-skeptics are only believers in one particular branch of pseudoscience. There are plenty of UFOlogists who do not believe in the existence of psychic powers or in the predictive power of astrology, for example. When Martin Gardner's book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science was published, Martin Gardner received a lot of letters that ran along the lines of, "I'm glad you did such a good job debunking all those other nonsensical pseudosciences, but you're wrong about {bigfoot, orgone, telepathy, pyramid power, etc.}. That's for real."

[glee]

Jodi,

I agree with your dismissal of psychic powers, since whenever tested, they fail to materialise.

[mini-hijack]
I understand that your religion is based on faith, and that an omnipotent Being could, by definition, conceal himself from us. But then what makes you have faith in God?
[end mini-hijack]

[Jodi]

Jeez, glee, that's a big question, but I will try to answer it briefly. My answer is not an invitation for anyone to challenge that faith, but I will answer because you have asked. The over-simplified version is that I believe in God because I see too much of order and goodness in the world to be just a product of randomness; I see much in the world that is not explainable by scientific theory (like why we should be self-aware, or why we should appreciate or even understand or even appreciate abstract beauty); and because when I ask myself, in the depths of my self, whether God exists, the answer I recieve is "yes."

[glee]

Jodi,
I appreciate your answer (I knew it was a big question!).
I'm sure this would be interesting to discuss further, but also that it would be a big hijack to do it here.

Reverting back to the thread:
Where's hastur?

[David B]

Tracer said:
Martin Gardner received a lot of letters that ran along the lines of, "I'm glad you did such a good job debunking all those other nonsensical pseudosciences, but you're wrong about {bigfoot, orgone, telepathy, pyramid power, etc.}. That's for real."I get this all the time.

I've had creationists tell me that they are "skeptical" of all that other New Age stuff, but creationism is real. I've had others tell me that creationism is bunk but alternative medicine (or at least a certain form) is real. Etc.

The most common, however, is a particular "psychic" telling me how all those other "psychics" are bogus, but they are the Real Thing. :rolleyes:

[pldennison]

Originally posted by Jodi
I see much in the world that is not explainable by scientific theory (like why we should be self-aware, or why we should appreciate or even understand or even appreciate abstract beauty)

I want to make clear that I am not questioning your faith here--that is a decision you and I and everyone else has to make for ourselves. I do think it's prudent however, to note that because something is unexplained does not mean it is unexplainable. It's a not-insignificant difference.

[Dinsdale]

Not really on topic, but I found this amusing and tangentially relevant:

Driving along a road near my house, I regularly pass a parked vehicle with a sign, "Reliable Psychic Readings about the Future."

Which I suppose is to distinguish their business from those offering the ever-valuable "Psychic Readings about the Past."

[Acco40]

Jodi:

I'd love it if everyone thought their religion through as well as you have. In my experience, too many people who "believe" never question those beliefs.

[Andy L]

Originally posted by Jodi
But it's the only one I personally have.

As a Christian, I believe in the supra-natural (or supernatural, a term more accurate but which I don't like to use since it implies ghosts and ESP and all that nonsense). I believe that God exists and that He works through humanity in this world, though He generally lets us experience the consequences of our own free will, even when those consequences are terrible. My religion is based on faith -- a requirement that I must believe something that I cannot prove through science or rational means or through any of the myriad tools we have at our disposal in this world.

Jodi, I agree completely (with the whole post, not just the quoted part) - I am a Christian as well, and thus believe miracles to be possible. I continue to apply skepticism to current claims of miracles, though, which seems to be the distinction between Hastur and us - he apparently believes there there are currently people who can perform feats of psychic power which are useful and repeatable. I'd really like his answer to my question

Andy

[stolichnaya]

This is a great question, and it is answerable. The reason why all psychics object to investigation of "bad psychics" is because deep in their heart of hearts, even if they do really believe they have special powers, they are afraid that they will not hold up to scrutiny. Therefore, any such activity is a threat to their livelihood.

Also tangential, but I don't understand the TV phone psychics. In the commercials, you call on the phone and they tell you things [i]you already know[/i. What a waste of money! Even if you believe in psychics, why would you let them waste $2.00 a minute telling you things you already know? Jeezum crow!

[stolichnaya]

Whereas you could ask them useful questions, like, am I going to screw up the code in my next message board post?

[dlb]

Originally posted by Andy L
With all that at stake, how can someone not support investigations of whether a particular claimed psychic is faking it or not? Or have I misinterpreted?

OK, come up with a test that:

a) Is not identical to the test of skeptics (i.e., that is not "debunking" in nature);

b) Is objective enough that everyone can agree that it is fair.

c) That one psychic cannot use against another (this is just as likely to help the fake ones as the real ones, if there is a distinction).

I submit that such a test does not exist. Even if you take out (a), which some will feel an unfair restriction, I submit that there is still not a test that fits (b) and (c).

In other words, your test (a license based on the test, perhaps?) would simply convict all psychics, or be useless to detect fake ones. If you can come up with a test for which this is not true, I would be happy to listen.

[Podkayne]

dlb, can you explain what you mean by a "test of skeptics" or a test that is "'debunking' in nature"?

[Podkayne]

Whoops, hit submit too soon. Also, why would any good test help fake psychics? That's supposed to be the point of a test, right, to tell who's real and who's fake?

And here is some an example of a test:

Protocols agreed to by Sylvia Browne (http://www.randi.org/jr/090701.html). (Sorry, you'll have to scroll down to the section that begins, "For the record, as promised, here's the test I offered to Sylvia Browne on the King show. . .") Both she and Randi agreed that this was a fair test--on Larry King Live, anyway. She has not yet accepted in writing. Which of your conditions does this test not meet?

[gigi]

Originally posted by stolichnaya
Also tangential, but I don't understand the TV phone psychics. In the commercials, you call on the phone and they tell you things you already know.

[Reality Bites]

Phone Psychic: I'm getting a really strong letter "N"...
Lelaina: Newsstand! He used to work at a newsstand! This is amazing!

[/Reality Bites]

Jeezum crow!

...I'm sensing the leaves changing, it's starting to get colder... ;)

[tracer]

dlb wrote:

OK, come up with a test that:

a) Is not identical to the test of skeptics (i.e., that is not "debunking" in nature);
In other words, a test that would not show that someone who doesn't have real psychic powers does not, in fact, have real psychic powers?

That wouldn't be much of a test, would it?

[jab1]

Originally posted by Jodi
The over-simplified version is that I believe in God because I see too much of order and goodness in the world to be just a product of randomness;Why can't order come from randomness?

[Mockingbird]

Originally posted by glee
Jodi,
I appreciate your answer (I knew it was a big question!).
I'm sure this would be interesting to discuss further, but also that it would be a big hijack to do it here.

Reverting back to the thread:
Where's hastur?

You rang?

[Urban Ranger]

Suppose some of them have real powers that operate according to principles unknown to science. Logically they would have been campaigning to form an organisation to perform tests and issuing certificates to weed out the phonies.

The absence of such an organisation is an indication of the nonexistence of such powers.

[Czarcasm]

Have you ever been to a "Psychic" Fair? Dozens of tables and booths set up by people, some of whose abilities and/or theories directly contradict others within yelling distance.
No one complains of psychic "interference", and no one says "My astrological charts are correct, and Madame Zelda's charts are hooey!"
The reason for this is that most of them realize that it is all hooey, and that thse fairs bring in the marks like there's no tomorrow.

[yelmalio]

If some psychics are indeed real and can see the future then they should start a professional certification scheme. As you can not be taught to be a psychic a different approach is offered. First you have to prove your ability, skill or talent by accurately freseeing an event. Nothing wishy washy and vague, a hard and fast falsifiable prediction along the lines of 'next weeks score will be 5-1 to England'. This to be done say, 10 times, with an average score of over 7 gaining you certificate.

Once awarded the certificate the psychic can now ply their trade with everyone aware they have tried and tested skills. To be fair to all they would then have to periodically resit the test and publicly publish the average score. Then, when a potential client comes in they are aware of the success rate and can base a decision to act on advice knowing the chance of failure.

Why the elaboration? If some one claimed to be a 'true' psychic and massively got a prediction wrong, you should be free to sue them for loss of income or whatever. That is, if a financial consultant, trader or dealer operates a scam or misadvises they can be sued and loose the right to work. If you buy a service from any supplier you have statutory rights if the product is dangreous, mis-sold or does not perform the advertised function. The same should apply to psychics and their ilk.

[dlb]

Well, let's see if I can actually quote from two messages.

Originally posted by Podkayne
dlb, can you explain what you mean by a "test of skeptics" or a test that is "'debunking' in nature"?

Couldn't say, my dear; however, if I accept the premise of the OP --- that some psychics are real, some are not, and the debunkers are out to get them all regardless --- then I have to make a distinction between the "debunking to get them all test" and the "distinguish between the real and true psychics test". The only problem is, the impossibility of such a test completes a "reductio ad absurdum" proof --- not that psychic powers as such do not exist, but that they can readily be distinguished from "false" ones. The further step is left as an exercise for the student.

Originally posted by Podkayne
Whoops, hit submit too soon. Also, why would any good test help fake psychics? That's supposed to be the point of a test, right, to tell who's real and who's fake?

I submit that any test that is not "debunking" in nature can be faked, and therefore used by fake psychics against real ones. In other words, I am identifying "debunking" and "objective" tests for psychic powers. I invite anyone to disprove me by coming up with one that is not.

And here is some an example of a test:

Protocols agreed to by Sylvia Browne (http://www.randi.org/jr/090701.html). (Sorry, you'll have to scroll down to the section that begins, "For the record, as promised, here's the test I offered to Sylvia Browne on the King show. . .") Both she and Randi agreed that this was a fair test--on Larry King Live, anyway. She has not yet accepted in writing. Which of your conditions does this test not meet?

Saw the interview, and saw the protocols. If "real" psychics will agree this test meets my (a) through (c) above, I'm happy; however, I suspect they would not. I think Browne backpeddled afterwards, but I am open to correction. If the test is going forward, I will await the results with great anticipation.

Several other posts asked similar questions; I hope this answers them all.

[Podkayne]

I think that you are utterly wrong about skeptics and "debunking" tests. If a skeptic designed a test that would disprove real as well as fake psychics, a) it's a crappy test and b) the "real" psychic would be a fool to submit to it.

That's why James Randi's Million-Dollar challenge requires the participation and approval of the test subjects in designing the protocol of the test. They must agree ahead of time that they believe that they will succeed at the test. That's the only proper way to do it.

If you can give any examples of such tests which were actually conducted, and explain why a real psychic would fail at it, and why any psychic ever agreed to it in the first place, that might be helpful. Otherwise, I think you're just making a strawman argument, and/or leaving pschics an out for any test that wasn't successful. "Oh, they may still be real psychics," you can always say, "but that was a debunking test." And what's a debunking test? You won't tell us ahead of time, but presumably you know one when you see one?

[dlb]

Originally posted by Podkayne
I think that you are utterly wrong about skeptics and "debunking" tests. If a skeptic designed a test that would disprove real as well as fake psychics, a) it's a crappy test and b) the "real" psychic would be a fool to submit to it.

That's why James Randi's Million-Dollar challenge requires the participation and approval of the test subjects in designing the protocol of the test. They must agree ahead of time that they believe that they will succeed at the test. That's the only proper way to do it.

If you can give any examples of such tests which were actually conducted, and explain why a real psychic would fail at it, and why any psychic ever agreed to it in the first place, that might be helpful. Otherwise, I think you're just making a strawman argument, and/or leaving pschics an out for any test that wasn't successful. "Oh, they may still be real psychics," you can always say, "but that was a debunking test." And what's a debunking test? You won't tell us ahead of time, but presumably you know one when you see one?

Podkayne, Podkayne, Podkayne. Read the OP. Read what I wrote.

I am saying to Andy that unless the existence of real psychics is proven first, there is no use trying to devise a test to distinguish between psychics.

I am saying that attempting to devise a test when you have already decided on the result (that "real" psychics exist, and despise the "false" ones) is a fool's errand.

I am saying that if you go into things with that mindset, then you quickly trip on your own inconsistencies. I pointed out the inconsistencies. One of the main ones is the belief that the skeptics are somehow being unfair, "debunking" rather than seriously addressing the issue, and that there is a difference between a "skeptical debunking" test and a test that detects "real psychics". I am saying that this is a distinction that does not exist, and if you try to apply it you run into trouble.

And I am saying all this without making any judgement at all whether "real" psychics exist or not.

I am agreeing with you, albeit in an indirect way to slither under mental blocks.

Got it? Good.

[Podkayne]

Well, yer slitherin' somewhere. ;) I don't know whose mental blocks you're trying to outmaneuver, but I think you've managed to avoid my entire brain. :) I'm rereading what you've said and realized that I've misconstrued about every bit of it so far--well, the bits that I feel I understand now, anyway, which ain't much of it.

You say,

I am saying to Andy that unless the existence of real psychics is proven first, there is no use trying to devise a test to distinguish between psychics.

Unless you have devised a test, how can you prove that there are real psychics? The evidence isn't going to fall into your lap--or even if it did, the evidence would be suspect unless you devise a test to show that it's repeatable under controlled conditions. In other words, the existence of psychics can only be ascertained by testing the claims of psychics. And once such a test has been concocted, why can't the same test (perhaps with modifications according to the claims of the subject) be applied to each subject who claims to be a psychic, thus determining which subjects are real and which are fake?

Or do you contend that no possible test could prove the existence of psychics (if they exist)?

I'm still confused about why you say that any possible test would either prove that all psychics are fake, or would not detect fake psychics--unless you mean that there are no real psychics, and thus any test would either be faulty (and not detect any fakes) or correct (and detect only fakes, since there are no real psychics)--though you say that you're not making any assumptions about the existence or non-existence of psychics. :confused:

[list][list][list][list][list][list][list]Most discombobulated,
but yours, truly,
Pod. :)

[Andy L]

Originally posted by dlb

...
I am saying that attempting to devise a test when you have already decided on the result (that "real" psychics exist, and despise the "false" ones) is a fool's errand.

I am saying that if you go into things with that mindset, then you quickly trip on your own inconsistencies. I pointed out the inconsistencies. One of the main ones is the belief that the skeptics are somehow being unfair, "debunking" rather than seriously addressing the issue, and that there is a difference between a "skeptical debunking" test and a test that detects "real psychics". I am saying that this is a distinction that does not exist, and if you try to apply it you run into trouble.
...

dlb,

I never said I believe that real psychics exist - Hastur did. In fact, I don't believe they exist, but I find the "thought experiment" of considering that they might exist interesting. It is exactly my point that anyone who believes psychics do exist should demand a test to distinguish the real from the fake, and that the lack of any effort to find such a test indicates that a) so-called "psychics" don't have faith in their own "abilities" and b) even those people who claim to believe in psychic powers haven't really thought through the implications of that belief. In that sense, James Randi is the one of the few persons willing to take the question seriously - he recognizes that if there were psychic powers it would be important and is willing to do the work (One might argue that Randi is overly credulous in even wasting the time bothering to investigate something so unlikely). At any rate, I had hoped by my OP to lead some non-skeptics to take their purported beliefs seriously; instead I have apparently confused some people - Sorry

[Irishman]

Still no non-skeptics yet? Shame.

My brother claims he's clairvoyant. I've gone back and forth with him a number of times to understand what he does and why. I fully accept that he is sincere in his belief. He does give readings for money, but it is in the nature of using his "gift" to help people. He truly thinks he's helping people. The money is to make it a trade - he would love to quit his day job and be a full time spiritualist, but it's not financially viable for him right now.

Anyway, RE the OP. From my discussions with him, I have some insight into the position of the psychic crowd. They feel that psychic powers tend not to be consistent. Just because he feels his powers are real that doesn't mean they will work every time he wants them to. He argues for "other ways of knowing" besides scientific testing, and states with a straight face that there are three equivalent planes of existence - the physical, the spiritual, and the mythological. That's right - Santa Claus is real. Trust me, getting a straight answer on that is impossible.

The thing is, having his description of what he does for his readings is not a cold reading, it's not overtly trying to generate something that sounds good. But it is completely subjective. It is providing whatever stimulus comes to his mind, and then letting the client interpret it. That is exactly the method, it is what he advocates as the only possible method for it to be meaningful to the person - and it is them fishing for connections between what is said and their own lives. But I can't convince him about that.

dlb, I still don't think I understand you.

I am saying that attempting to devise a test when you have already decided on the result (that "real" psychics exist, and despise the "false" ones) is a fool's errand.

I am saying that if you go into things with that mindset, then you quickly trip on your own inconsistencies. I pointed out the inconsistencies. One of the main ones is the belief that the skeptics are somehow being unfair, "debunking" rather than seriously addressing the issue, and that there is a difference between a "skeptical debunking" test and a test that detects "real psychics". I am saying that this is a distinction that does not exist, and if you try to apply it you run into trouble.

One does not have to assume real psychics exist, one just has to assume it is possible for real psychics to exist. But I still don't see how that leads to the inconsistency you claim. Is it likely that some "psychics" will claim the tests were "debunking" tests and not fair tests? Certainly. Does that mean a fair test cannot be designed? Of course not.

It seems to me the way the JREF runs things is exactly appropriate. First, the test begins with the psychic's claims of what he/she can do. If they don't claim they can levitate, you don't include as part of the test a requirement that they levitate. If they claim they can find water by dowsing, for instance, then the test must include water in some hidden manner. If they say it only works if the water is running, then the test must have the water running. The JREF does this. Every claimant has direct input on the test design, and is allowed practice runs without controls to verify they feel they can do the test under those conditions. How can the test be debunking if the psychic gets a direct say in how the test is conducted? The conditions for pass or fail are never subjective - they are clear delineations. And the determination of pass or fail is spelled out in full before testing begins. How is that a debunking test?

Second, the test requires that the claimant can only do what they say with psychic powers, and not some other way. "Proper observing conditions" is the phrase Randi uses. That means that all known magicians' tricks like sleight of hand are eliminated in the test protocol. If strings are suspected for levitation, the test precludes strings. If magnets are suspected, the test finds a way to eliminate magnets. How is this counter to a fair test?

I don't understand what inconsistencies you mean. Please explain further/again.

[tracer]

Urban Ranger wrote:

Suppose some of them have real powers that operate according to principles unknown to science. Logically they would have been campaigning to form an organisation to perform tests and issuing certificates to weed out the phonies.

The absence of such an organisation is an indication of the nonexistence of such powers.
Sadly, this reminds me of a light bulb joke:


Q. How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?

A. None. If the light bulb needed changing, market forces would have already caused it to happen by now.

[dlb]

Let me try to reply to three people at once without triple-quoting (which is a pain). I'll choose Andy as the quote:

Originally posted by Andy L
I never said I believe that real psychics exist - Hastur did. In fact, I don't believe they exist, but I find the "thought experiment" of considering that they might exist interesting. It is exactly my point that anyone who believes psychics do exist should demand a test to distinguish the real from the fake, and that the lack of any effort to find such a test indicates that a) so-called "psychics" don't have faith in their own "abilities" and b) even those people who claim to believe in psychic powers haven't really thought through the implications of that belief. In that sense, James Randi is the one of the few persons willing to take the question seriously - he recognizes that if there were psychic powers it would be important and is willing to do the work (One might argue that Randi is overly credulous in even wasting the time bothering to investigate something so unlikely). At any rate, I had hoped by my OP to lead some non-skeptics to take their purported beliefs seriously; instead I have apparently confused some people - Sorry

And I was trying to establish that anything under the postulates of the thought experiment was self-defeating. Moreover, that any attempt to do engage in the thought experiment seriously dissolves into nonsense. Unfortunately, the nonsense came out to be (or was perceived as, which is the same thing in writing) my nonsense, which means I have failed badly as a writer. When this many people misunderstand what I meant to do, I have done a pretty piss poor job. I was trying to "show, not tell" (a writer's dictum), and I blew it.

Sorry about that folks, to all. I tried to do a "direct demonstration" and failed. Since I am just plain failing to communicate what I hoped to do, I suggest that we just ignore what I was trying to do.

More directly: the thought experiment is doomed to failure from the start because any test to separate "real" from "fake" psychics must be based on a test that determines if "real" psychics exist, which is the assumption of the thought experiment. Thought experiments don't work if the experiment questions their basic assumptions; they just kind of fold up and chase their own tails.

Is the direct statement clearer? (Remember to ignore what I said before.)

[The Hamster King]

It's a bit off tangent from the original post ... but there is some experimental evidence to suggest that belief in the paranormal is correlated with poor probability skills. Here's a cite:

http://www.uwe.ac.uk/fas/staff/sb/si92.html

Basically, humans are good at discerning patterns in noisy environments. Some things that seem to be patterns are actually just coincidence. People who are particularly bad at estimating probability are more likely to discount coincidence as the source of a strange pattern they have just observed, and look to supernatural causes instead.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

I may be able to shed some light on why believers in the paranormal who aren't scam artists resist scientific inquiry. Or not, but here is my two cents anyway.

My dog is psychic. She has an amazing ability to detect people approaching even before they are on my property. She will get up and lay by the door a full five minutes before they arrive. Friends who have kept her say she will do this especially before I come to retrieve her.

I could investigate further, but I won't. I am afraid that if I set up a video camera to watch her while I am away, I will find that either she just likes to lay on the door mat or that it's only coincidence. That's no fun. I would much rather believe that Maya has super powers. I would much rather believe that when she runs out of the room for no reason she is chasing Agnus, the door slamming ghost. If I were to look on these phenomena with science and reason, I would probably find that Agnus is only air pressure differential and Maya just a goofy labrador with no special powers whatsoever. That would be a shame. A senile ghost and a dog that could be the mascot for the X-men are much more enjoyable than a drafty house and a labrador with attention deficit disorder.

I may be different from other believers of paranormal phenomena in that I know that I am putting blinders up. Because of this, my reasons for resisting scientific proof may be slightly different as well, but I think there are some comparisons to be made.

Though my belief in my dog's other-worldly and my resident ghost amounts to little more than a running joke, it brings me comfort of a sort. People WANT to believe in these things. The beliefs can restore awe and wonder in a world saturated with reason and too often mired in cynicism.


-Beeblebrox
_____________________________
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

[Irishman]

dlb said:
More directly: the thought experiment is doomed to failure from the start because any test to separate "real" from "fake" psychics must be based on a test that determines if "real" psychics exist, which is the assumption of the thought experiment. Thought experiments don't work if the experiment questions their basic assumptions; they just kind of fold up and chase their own tails.

Um, okay. What thought experiment? Someone claims to have psychic powers. Do they or don't they? Test them. How? Design a test that eliminates tricks and allows the psychic method to pass. This requires understanding what is the basis for the claim that the method is psychic. This is not a thought experiment - the JREF is doing it.

How is the experiment doomed to failure? You tailor the test based on the claim. Use statistical methods when the method is not clear but the discrepancy in the results of use method or not use method will give a clear result.

How is this any different than testing medicines or medical treatments, for example? Claim that bee stings cure Multiple Schlerosis. Does it or doesn't it? Well, establish a controlled test. Claim that angioplasty can treat heart blockages. Does it or doesn't it? Well, establish a controlled test. Claim insulin can treat diabeties. Ditto.

[Andy L]

It's been a few weeks since any reply, but I'm still really curious to hear from more non-skeptics (people who believe in phenomena like telepathy, etc.). I appreciate the replies already received from people like Beeblebrox who prefer not to investigate too closely phenomena that appear spooky but don't seem to be too important even if true. I also appreciate DLB even though I disagree with him. But what I want is a reply from someone like Hastur, who claims to believe in significant supernatural phenomena - the question remains: If you believe these phenomena exist, why don't you care enough to take action?

Andy

[Eternal]

I read that the CIA did some work investigating psychic powers. There was a Nightline about it and some PR guy claimed to have favorable results (as in > 50% accuracy, can't remember the figure).

Doesn't really seem to fit the CIA's modus operandi... Not investigating this, I mean... talking about it.

You want a cite? Go get your own cite.

[tracer]

Eternal wrote:

You want a cite? Go get your own cite.
You want the cite? You want the cite?!
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE CITE!!

[MEBuckner]

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with psychic powers."

[Princhester]

Originally posted by Andy L
It's been a few weeks since any reply, but I'm still really curious to hear from more non-skeptics (people who believe in phenomena like telepathy, etc.). I appreciate the replies already received from people like Beeblebrox who prefer not to investigate too closely phenomena that appear spooky but don't seem to be too important even if true. I also appreciate DLB even though I disagree with him. But what I want is a reply from someone like Hastur, who claims to believe in significant supernatural phenomena - the question remains: If you believe these phenomena exist, why don't you care enough to take action?

Andy

You will be waiting a long time for non-sceptics to respond to you. The gulf between sceptics and non-sceptics is wide. It often involves quite a different world view.

Your OP assumes that non-sceptics believe in a sharp difference between what is real and what is not, and in the importance of objective proof, as sceptics do. In my experience many non-sceptics do not believe these things. They may well place more importance upon subjective feeling, anecdote and what it suits them to believe as valuable tests of truth than you or I would.

Your question (which I am hopefully summarising correctly) is why don't non-sceptics want to find out objectively which psychics are "real" and which are "fakes", because that is clearly important? If you approach that question from the viewpoint that there is no such thing as objective truth and or that objective truth is unimportant, or that the type of tests that a sceptic would propose to distinguish between the real and the fake are not valid or important, then your whole question does not compute.

To illustrate further, say I am a non-sceptic and I believe (as you say Hastur does) in some psychic phenomena but also that there are fakes out there in whom I did not believe. It is very unlikely that I believe in the psychic phenomena that I do believe in because I have applied rigorous James Randi style testing. I probably believe in those psychic phenomena for a number of reasons that you or I would dismiss as illogical, contrary to the evidence, or insufficient. Against that background, what sense does it make to me to weed out using the type of tests a sceptic would apply the psychics that are fake?

In short, non-sceptics are about as likely to have much interest in your OP as a bunch of atheists would have in debating how many angels fit on the head of a pin, or what precisely heaven is like.

[Czarcasm]

But what about claimants like Hastur who repeatedly make the claim of having psychic powers or knowing someone who has psychic powers, and agree to some sort of testing, then back out, using the flimsiest excuses?

[dlb]

Originally posted by Irishman
dlb said:
More directly: the thought experiment is doomed to failure from the start because any test to separate "real" from "fake" psychics must be based on a test that determines if "real" psychics exist, which is the assumption of the thought experiment. Thought experiments don't work if the experiment questions their basic assumptions; they just kind of fold up and chase their own tails.

Um, okay. What thought experiment?

The thought experiment in the OP. You can't debate on the boards without paying attention to context.

If you want to vent polemic, be my guest; however, don't pretend to misunderstand what people say based on the context of the posts if you want to be taken seriously.

[JThunder]

Originally posted by jab1
Originally posted by Jodi
The over-simplified version is that I believe in God because I see too much of order and goodness in the world to be just a product of randomness;Why can't order come from randomness?

It can, to a limited extent. However, Jodi's belief is clearly that there is too much order to be attributed to randonmess.

[Princhester]

Originally posted by Czarcasm
But what about claimants like Hastur who repeatedly make the claim of having psychic powers or knowing someone who has psychic powers, and agree to some sort of testing, then back out, using the flimsiest excuses?

Imagine you are an atheist in a country dominated by fundies. The fundies challenge your views and propose to test them, with a panel of senior fundies sitting in judgment. At first, you think "my views are strong and correct, I can defend them against all comers and prove once and for all that my position is viable, even if I do live in a fundie dominated society". But then the more you discuss it, the more you realise that their ideas of proof and logic are the antithesis of your own, and you don't stand a chance.

Is the behaviour you attribute to Hastur surprising really?

[Czarcasm]

You're not proposing that atheists are the dominant social class in the U.S., are you?

[Princhester]

Hell no.

My example was supposed to illustrate why people with the views you attribute to Hastur might behave the way they do on these boards, given the dominant social class here of (hopefully) objectivity, logic, verifiable information etc.

Not that personally I would want them to be any other way...

[jab1]

Originally posted by JThunder
It can, to a limited extent. However, Jodi's belief is clearly that there is too much order to be attributed to randonmess. What are the limitations? How much is too much?

[Tominator2]

When Martin Gardner's book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science was published, Martin Gardner received a lot of letters that ran along the lines of, "I'm glad you did such a good job debunking all those other nonsensical pseudosciences, but you're wrong about {bigfoot, orgone, telepathy, pyramid power, etc.}. That's for real."Given that Bigfoot, orgone, telepathy, pyramid power, etc., are all separate propositions, doesn't it make sense that people would decide on their truth/falsity independently?Against that background, what sense does it make to me to weed out using the type of tests a sceptic would apply the psychics that are fake?To push this further, prove that the scientific method is the only way to knowledge. It's worked well, but past performance is no guarantee of future success.

Another thought experiment. Suppose everybody were born with the ability to sense beforehand one important event (a car crash, the death of a loved one, whatever). I'm thinking of the "I just knew the plane I was about to get on was gonna crash" type story. The ability itself is just magical (it's not some sort of extrapolation or deduction) and infallible. Accept this as a given. Now, devise a scientifically rigorous test to confirm/refute the existence of this ability.

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by Tominator2
]To push this further, prove that the scientific method is the only way to knowledge. It's worked well, but past performance is no guarantee of future success.

The scientific method itself will tell you that the scientific method obviously cannot be proven, because nothing in science is ever proven. The whole point of the scientific method is that every idea, the theory of gravity, the greenhouse model, the scientific method itself, must constantly be tested and retested. If it's working, keep using it, but discard it as soon as it is disproved, or when something better comes along.


Another thought experiment. Suppose everybody were born with the ability to sense beforehand one important event (a car crash, the death of a loved one, whatever). I'm thinking of the "I just knew the plane I was about to get on was gonna crash" type story. The ability itself is just magical (it's not some sort of extrapolation or deduction) and infallible. Accept this as a given. Now, devise a scientifically rigorous test to confirm/refute the existence of this ability.

When somebody "senses" this impending event, have them write down the prediction, have the statement notarized and sealed, and without informing anyone else, put it in a bank vault controlled by a disinterested party.

Count how many times they're right.

There's some chance for chicanery here, of course--someone predicts, "My husband will die of a heart attack," and poisons him, or predicts, "My plane will blow up," and brings a bomb on board--but if everyone has this ability, that's a large enough sample size that there should be plenty of incidences that cannot be explained by either chance or deliberate mischeif, so it should be obvious whether the ability is really infallible--presuming that "infallible" implies that no one would be under the mistakenly think that they're making their once-in-a-lifetime prediction when really they're just having a garden-variety, fallible hunch.

[SPOOFE]

Given that Bigfoot, orgone, telepathy, pyramid power, etc., are all separate propositions, doesn't it make sense that people would decide on their truth/falsity independently?
Normally, they do (except for the occasional shmoe who believes everything in the Enquirer). However, each instance of these "supernatural" events/objects/powers/etc. have consistenly - and independently - suffered from a severe lack of proof.

[dalovindj]

In contrast, psychic powers, ESP, astrology, etc., are subjects that are often claimed to be amenable to proof. For example, the assertion that the stars in a particular alignment lead to given personality characteristics, or the assertion that one person can read another's mind -- those are things that can be proven or disproven through objective testing. They are amenable to the challenges of proof. And all the evidence that I have personally seen to date indicates that they are all basically bullshit. So I don't believe in them.

But what if there is some sort of phenomenon analogous to the ones seen at the quantum level? Where when you observe something you change it. Perhaps this could be built into the system. Certain phenomenon can only occur when not directly observed. Wouldn't that be a funny little line of code for an ironic version of "god" the creator to throw into the mix. Not saying it's so. Just acknowledgeing that it could be.

Things would have been alot easier if reality didn't get so freaky at the Quantum level. But since it does, I cannot disgard fully the potential that such phenomenon are spread across the system.

DaLovin' Dj

[tracer]

But, dalovindj, if these paranormal phenomena never happen when anybody's looking, then nobody should ever be aware that any of these phenomena exist, right?

So then, if that's the case, then why did people get the idea that these paranormal phenomena exist in the first place?!

[Krispy Original]

Non-skeptic reporting for duty...

I think that some people might posess psychic abilties. I am not positive that these abilties exist, just that they might exist.

I think that there might be true psychics that are "in the closet". They don't talk about their abilties, or try to market or sell themselves. They might well just be trying to lead as normal a life as possible...blending in...with maybe only a few close family and friends knowing of their abilties, if at all...

They might have no desire to be known, or to advance "science". They may have no need for Randi's one million bucks.

They have the ability, like it or not, and they might give a flying fuck if a message board skeptic believes it or not.

:)

Krispy

[GIGObuster]

Originally posted by Krispy Original

I think that some people might posess psychic abilties. I am not positive that these abilties exist, just that they might exist....

They might have no desire to be known, or to advance "science". They may have no need for Randi's one million bucks.

They have the ability, like it or not, and they might give a flying fuck if a message board skeptic believes it or not.

:)

Krispy

Since 6000 people are dead and hundreds of thousands are losing their livelihoods and a big(?) war is coming, I think all those "true" psychics just showed how useless they are. If they might give a flying f… to a skeptic, they showed the same attitude to the world at large.

[SPOOFE]

Things would have been alot easier if reality didn't get so freaky at the Quantum level. But since it does, I cannot disgard fully the potential that such phenomenon are spread across the system.
Ah, but then they would not be manifesting themselves on a macro scale. They would be - surprise! - on a quantum scale!

You can't just claim something is possible by adding the word "quantum" to it. Life is not Star Trek.

[Krispy Original]

Since 6000 people are dead and hundreds of thousands are losing their livelihoods and a big(?) war is coming, I think all those "true" psychics just showed how useless they are. If they might give a flying f… to a skeptic, they showed the same attitude to the world at large.

Useless to who?...you? Hate to burst your bubble, but it's a cold, hard world out there and it is not incumbent upon anyone to look out for all of mankind...psychic or not.

Next.

[tracer]

SPOOFE wrote:

You can't just claim something is possible by adding the word "quantum" to it. Life is not Star Trek.
But maybe it's possible that life is quantum Star Trek. ;)

[GIGObuster]

Originally posted by Krispy Original
Useless to who?...you? Hate to burst your bubble, but it's a cold, hard world out there and it is not incumbent upon anyone to look out for all of mankind...psychic or not.

Next. [/B]

Hate to tell you this but what you said is the skeptic’s line. I am glad we agree in something. The only nit-pick is that while it is true that only one person can not look out for mankind, that is the reason why we organize to find real solutions to problems... psychics don't.

And no, psychics are not useless to me; otherwise there would be less for skeptics to deal with.

----------
“Life is a world of pain your highness, everybody who says differently is trying to sell you something.” – From the Princess bride

[Krispy Original]

I don't think you understand what I wrote Gigo.

I'm telling you that you can't assume that psychic abilities don't exist by virtue of the fact that someone with said abilities hasn't stepped forward to prove it to the world...and furthermore, you can't assume that a person with these abilities would feel responsible to try to change the world (ala your WTC example).

Hope this helps.

[SPOOFE]

I'm telling you that you can't assume that psychic abilities don't exist by virtue of the fact that someone with said abilities hasn't stepped forward to prove it to the world.
But we can make the conclusion that there is a severe lack of evidence of psychic powers.

[Andy L]

Hold on, I think we're getting off track here.

I don't demand or even request that anyone try to prove something to a skeptic - I understand why that might not be palatable.

I'm not running a thought experiment about "what if psychic powers are real" either.

What I am doing, is wondering why non-skeptics don't seem to care that anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves a psychic - it's all very open-minded, allright, but it does provoke the thought experiment "Do people who say they believe in psychic powers really believe, or are they kidding the rest of us?" This may be a rude question, but I see precious little evidence that anyone really believes this stuff. In real professions, the professionals create their own certification processes, and demand that governments only deal with properly certified folks. Why not with psychics? If it's all a game to keep yourselves entertained, fine - no one has any problem with that, though mystery-mongering can be slightly irritating. In that case, all I ask is that non-skeptics admit it and don't take the chance of deluding the people who can't tell that you're all in on a big joke.

[Big Fat Harry Deal]

I think Beeblebrox has already given as much of an answer as you'll ever get, i.e. that most people believe what they WANT to believe. Maybe it's more to the point that we believe what is convenient for us to believe, and just don't want those beliefs examined too closely (inconvenient!); this certainly would explain a lot of political and religious beliefs, and by the way (tangent alert) wasn't that why Socrates was put to death?

[Krispy Original]

I'll do my best to try to answer your specific questions Andy.

What I am doing, is wondering why non-skeptics don't seem to care that anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves a psychic - it's all very open-minded, allright, but it does provoke the thought experiment "Do people who say they believe in psychic powers really believe, or are they kidding the rest of us?"

I'm a non-skeptic and you are correct in my case...I don't care that anyone can "hang out a shingle"...

Why? Couple of reasons.

#1 This country is over-regulated as it is. I'm against excessive government involvement in any area. Besides, there are still lots of businesses and professions that have yet to be regulated...why single out the psychic industry? Can anyone demonstrate an overiding issue of public safety that demands we get control of those dammed psychics? ...Not to my satisfaction...and apparently not yet to the satisfaction of our lawmakers. BTW, DavidB and I once had a lengthy discussion here in GD about the need for psychic laws and regulations.

#2 I feel that the market will weed out the less accurate commercial psychics.

As far as the "thought experiment":

Really believe? Kidding you?

I really believe that these powers might exist. I am not kidding the rest of you...and there are other like me.

Now since I've been cooperating nicely with the skeptics here, I'd appreciate some dialogue about this:

"Why don't skeptics care?"

Meaning that it is my impression from hanging out here with you guys that skeptics really don't want things like psychic powers or aliens to exist. Oh, they say they do...that they'd be thrilled if it were only true, but I don't think that most are sincere when they say that.

Most "skeptics" I've met seem to have already made their final decision as to the non-existance of these things. Never mind that new reports and new data appear daily. They seem bothered to look into such things...decision already made.

I guess they must think that it is just not worth sifting through the trash to find a gold nugget. Take crop circles for example. Because it has been proven that humans can and have made them, that means that all thereafter are man-made as well. Subject closed for the skeptic.

Why don't skeptics care?

[SPOOFE]

Besides, there are still lots of businesses and professions that have yet to be regulated...why single out the psychic industry?
Nobody's calling for regulation of "psychic powers". We're just calling for evidence that it exists. Big difference, that.

I feel that the market will weed out the less accurate commercial psychics.
You can feel it all you want. Unfortunately, evidence hasn't borne this out, as there's still plenty of folks making bogus claims.

[jab1]

I see KO hasn't changed....

Originally posted by Krispy Original
I think that some people might posess psychic abilties. I am not positive that these abilties exist, just that they might exist.The Wonderful Wizard of Oz might have been based on a true story, but that doesn't mean that it was. It might be true that I had Chinese food for breakfast this morning, but that doesn't mean that it is.

There are always possibilities, but not all possibilities are equally likely to be true. And some possibilities are extremely unlikely to be true.

I think that there might be true psychics that are "in the closet". They don't talk about their abilties, or try to market or sell themselves. They might well just be trying to lead as normal a life as possible...blending in...with maybe only a few close family and friends knowing of their abilties, if at all...If so, they are cowards.

They may have no need for Randi's one million bucks.Then they could donate the million to charity. The only reason they don't take up Randi's challenge is because they know damned well that it's a fair challenge and that they would lose. Only a coward backs away from a fair fight.

[Irishman]

I said:
What thought experiment?

dlb replied:
The thought experiment in the OP. You can't debate on the boards without paying attention to context.

If you want to vent polemic, be my guest; however, don't pretend to misunderstand what people say based on the context of the posts if you want to be taken seriously.

Sorry, I still don't see a "thought experiment" in the OP. Perhaps it's a choice of terminology. I see a description of why one should want to test psychics, whether you're a skeptic or not, but I don't see a thought experiment.

As for taking out of context, you seemed to be saying that the idea of testing psychics is inherently flawed. I pointed out that testing psychics is not merely a theoretical concept, but is actually being done. If it is inherently flawed, then how is it actually being done?

I don't think I was pretending to misunderstand or ignoring context. Perhaps my phrasing was less than clear or my style not to your liking.

Eternal said:
I read that the CIA did some work investigating psychic powers. There was a Nightline about it and some PR guy claimed to have favorable results (as in > 50% accuracy, can't remember the figure).

Doesn't really seem to fit the CIA's modus operandi... Not investigating this, I mean... talking about it.

Yes, the CIA was investigating using psychic powers for spying. It went under the less obvious name of "remote viewing", but is essentially a form of clairvoyance. When this came to light, an investigation was performed at the behest of Congress, with evaluations by a skeptic and a believer (the believer having been involved in some of the studies). Needless to say the results were divided, but the remote viewing project was cancelled as being not useable even if some small positive effect was noted.

Tominator2 said:
Given that Bigfoot, orgone, telepathy, pyramid power, etc., are all separate propositions, doesn't it make sense that people would decide on their truth/falsity independently?

Of course, but Martin Gardner's point was that he received mail on every topic saying essentially the same thing that their particular cause de jeur was the one true one.

Krispy Original said:
#1 This country is over-regulated as it is. I'm against excessive government involvement in any area. [snip]

Who said the government has to be involved? Why not an independent organization of psychics who have their own liscencing system, a voluntary association that have a standard logo (like AAA). In order to join the association, you have to consent to testing by the group to ensure you are a real psychic, and not some out of work actress who can fake a Jamaican accent non-convincingly and do 1-800 line commercials. They could then promote their voluntary organization as authentic psychics with a certificate of verification that they submitted to testing, and have a regular review to ensure they are legitimate. This would weed out the fakes that rip off old people of their retirement money, for example, and could even be used to supplement police investigations of the frauds if they felt like it. As paid contractors, of course. No new laws or regulations, just a voluntary association, name-brand recognition, and aid to enforcing exiting fraud laws. How is that a bad thing?

#2 I feel that the market will weed out the less accurate commercial psychics.

That would be nice, but experience indicates that is not the case. Fraud psychics do a fine business, never mind people who legitimately think they have powers and are trying to honestly help people.

"Why don't skeptics care?"

Meaning that it is my impression from hanging out here with you guys that skeptics really don't want things like psychic powers or aliens to exist. Oh, they say they do...that they'd be thrilled if it were only true, but I don't think that most are sincere when they say that.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean they are insincere. Perhaps they've just been let down one too many times by the paranormal promoters with no evidence.

Because it has been proven that humans can and have made them [crop circles], that means that all thereafter are man-made as well. Subject closed for the skeptic.

No, but it does mean that the crop circle proponents must have more proof than yet another swirl in the grass. To be an authentic non-fake, it must have more going for it than has previously been shown to be fakable. The more is shown to be fakable, the higher the standard for the next possible authentic. See the difference?

jab1 said:
Then they could donate the million to charity. The only reason they don't take up Randi's challenge is because they know damned well that it's a fair challenge and that they would lose. Only a coward backs away from a fair fight.

Hmmm. Not necessarily. They might just wish that they were "normal", and not want anyone to know as it would give them undue attention and interrupt their lives. I agree this applies to those who promote their abilities but refuse to test them, but there are bound to be some who are not making a big deal and trying to just live their life. As for backing away from a fair fight, why is fighting a good thing? ;) Your metaphor is flawed because I would rather not fight if I don't have to, even if it is fair.