Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 05-07-2016, 06:41 PM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ___\o/___(\___
Posts: 11,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Dismissing your pet term "pseudo-skeptic"(or "pseudo-sceptic"), I am going to quote directly from the link you just provided:
Sounds like a damn good reason to throw those two out of the group to me.
Possibly, but the point is, he didn't apply the same standards to the ones he accepted. Had he interviewed all of them, he might have found equally compelling reasons for rejecting them.

But he only looked for reasons to reject one, and not the other. He should have been consistent in the methodology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
That said, that "demonstration" was so uncontrolled I wouldn't consider it much more than anecdotal myself.
exactly.

Last edited by Peter Morris; 05-07-2016 at 06:42 PM.
Advertisements  
  #302  
Old 05-07-2016, 06:55 PM
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 36,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
Possibly, but the point is, he didn't apply the same standards to the ones he accepted. Had he interviewed all of them, he might have found equally compelling reasons for rejecting them.

But he only looked for reasons to reject one, and not the other. He should have been consistent in the methodology.
He applied the standards in the second controlled demonstration.

Quote:
exactly.
Even if the first one is ignored, there's the second (which you are ignoring).
  #303  
Old 05-07-2016, 07:20 PM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ___\o/___(\___
Posts: 11,476
I'm not ignoring anything.

Do you perhaps imagine that I believe in the starer effect? I don't.

My point is, paranormal testing is plagued by sloppy methodology, and people who adjust the results to fit their beliefs. Both sides do it, if their result doesn't match expectation. Both sides deserve criticism for doing this.

I simply listed the first test as an example of this.
  #304  
Old 05-07-2016, 07:48 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
I'm not ignoring anything.

Do you perhaps imagine that I believe in the starer effect? I don't.

My point is, paranormal testing is plagued by sloppy methodology, and people who adjust the results to fit their beliefs. Both sides do it, if their result doesn't match expectation. Both sides deserve criticism for doing this.

I simply listed the first test as an example of this.
Can you show how Truzzi's definition of "pseudoskepticism" applies to the first test?
  #305  
Old 05-07-2016, 08:16 PM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ___\o/___(\___
Posts: 11,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Can you show how Truzzi's definition of "pseudoskepticism" applies to the first test?

"Double standards in the application of criticism"
- he looks for reasons to dismiss people who say yes, but doesn't do so for people who say no.


"The tendency to discredit rather than investigate"
- which is the entire point of his test. He starts with the assumption that it doesn't work. He looks for data that meets his own expectations. He's only interested in showing "it doesn't work" rather than testing the claim.


"Presenting insufficient evidence or proof"

As Collibri says, it's just anecdotal.

Last edited by Peter Morris; 05-07-2016 at 08:18 PM.
  #306  
Old 05-08-2016, 12:10 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
"Double standards in the application of criticism"
- he looks for reasons to dismiss people who say yes, but doesn't do so for people who say no.


"The tendency to discredit rather than investigate"
- which is the entire point of his test. He starts with the assumption that it doesn't work. He looks for data that meets his own expectations. He's only interested in showing "it doesn't work" rather than testing the claim.


"Presenting insufficient evidence or proof"

As Collibri says, it's just anecdotal.
Those are either unsubstantiated guesses on your part, or a mind-reading demonstration gone wrong.
  #307  
Old 05-08-2016, 12:39 AM
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 36,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
As Collibri says, it's just anecdotal.
I said that only about the first demonstration, not the second, which you are ignoring.

Ironically enough, you're showing exactly the preferential ignoring of data that you are complaining about.

Last edited by Colibri; 05-08-2016 at 12:40 AM.
  #308  
Old 05-08-2016, 12:47 AM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ___\o/___(\___
Posts: 11,476
I'm not ignoring anything.

Do you perhaps imagine that I believe in the starer effect? I don't.

My point is, paranormal testing is plagued by sloppy methodology, and people who adjust the results to fit their beliefs. Both sides do it, if their result doesn't match expectation. Both sides deserve criticism for doing this.

I simply listed the first test as an example of this.
  #309  
Old 05-08-2016, 01:03 AM
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 36,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
I'm not ignoring anything.

Do you perhaps imagine that I believe in the starer effect? I don't.

My point is, paranormal testing is plagued by sloppy methodology, and people who adjust the results to fit their beliefs. Both sides do it, if their result doesn't match expectation. Both sides deserve criticism for doing this.

I simply listed the first test as an example of this.
You're cherry-picking one example that fits your preconceptions, while ignoring one that doesn't.
  #310  
Old 05-08-2016, 01:29 AM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ___\o/___(\___
Posts: 11,476
And I am not ignoring the second test. If the second test were perfect, it would not change the problems in the first test.

And frankly, the second test has it's own problems, as follows.

When testing any claim there are at least three possibilities to consider:

1) That it does not work at all

2) That it works through normal ways

3) that it works through as-yet unidentified ways.

The test design specifically ignores possibility 2 and only tests for 1 and 3. If we accept that it has disproved no 3, then it does not prove no 1. No 2 still remains a possibility.
  #311  
Old 05-08-2016, 06:11 AM
kayaker kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 26,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
I'm using the correct definition, of course. The "definition" you linked to is a hateful piece written by pseudosceptics.
Quote:
The correct, though less common, use of the term refers to those who declare themselves merely "skeptical" of a concept, but in reality would not be convinced by any evidence.
Hateful?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017