And here I thought I was being quite cordial!
You make this complaint probably because you haven’t offered “good and compelling” experiments in the first place (that I have seen) and thus assume that the sceptical reaction you note must necessarily be dastardly. You choose to attack the motives and characters of those who would doubt or criticize your assertions and your cites. Behold:
You offer probably THE longest-lasting modern paper in favour of Ganzfeld existence. However you neglect mention that this paper (from 1994) was already invalidated last century, in 1999 to be exact, by Milton and Wiseman (“Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process at Information Transfer,” Psychological Bulletin 125(4): 387-391). Still, five years is a good run for a paper making paranormal claims.
Now, before you attack the honesty or competence of the researchers just cited, keep in mind that this analysis sticks to the same guidelines used previously by Honorton, and also that Milton and Wiseman wrote the book on guidelines for paranormal research (I’m not kidding – see Milton, J. & Wiseman, R. Guidelines for research into Extra-sensory perception. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. 1997.)
Now, here is the summary of the work involved:
Plenty more interesting stuff on that page on Ganzfeld back and forth. Now,
Hm, this level of pre-emptive denial just doesn’t seem very healthy, and is effectively indistinguishable from the automatic gainsaying you so readily accuse sceptics of employing. How about raising the quality of your cites and accounting for criticism? BorderInstitute.org doesn’t load, and doesn’t sound terribly impressive. Still, if it eventually loads I hope you don’t expect me to go through cite by tedious cite and debunk each? If such an incredible body of scientific knowledge as you claim really exists, then your only remaining argument here is that this is all a conspiracy by sceptical scientists to cover up the truth, since such an impressive collection of high-quality peer reviewed and replicable studies adding significantly to our understanding of physics would hardly need a champion… if it existed.
Is this conspiracy your argument?
I was asking you for specific details and claims regarding Ganzfeld experiments rather than accept hand-waving about “good experiments” and similar out of sight items. Instead you hastily took the opportunity to dismiss me.
Thus far, although not all such instances are “bullshit all the way”, they are nonetheless flawed to varying degrees. Not least for their mysterious lack of replicability.
One-word dismissal (with zero semantic content and reasoning) of rather lengthier and heavier arguments. Let me see if I can make this clearer, even though I explained this point in more detail a couple paragraphs just after the excerpt you quoted: you complain that psychology is a sloppy field of inquiry that employs sloppy methods. You rant about how methods in paranormal investigation are superior and more scientific than the methods used in psychology. I pointed out items in your personal and monolithic view of psychology that are flagrantly incorrect, and spent a bit of time sketching out experimental psychology and its subdivisions as they exist today, and their much stricter approach to the scientific method than old school pychology. I also appealed to your good sense by pointing out that observing a simple effect that is supposedly demonstrable (Ganzfeld effects) is a FAR more straightforward task than much (if not all) of what psychology is investigating at the moment. It’s the difference between detecting an effect that is allegedly there, and delving into the complexities of sentience (e.g., to observe and explain, as mentioned before, such things as memory and how it is affected by emotional states) with all the difficulties that entails.
Additionally, you are forced to use different tools for different tasks. Don’t expect the same exact procedures and methods to be used regardless when trying to observe a mysterious effect vs. an established effect, or determining mechanisms and hierarchies of cognition vs. the value of g on Earth’s surface.
Really, Aeschines, I’m being Nice Abe but the savage variant could come out at any minute if you subject me to more of this arrogant and over-hasty disregard for others’ arguments. Your results obtained in the lab: in addition to peer review, how many of them have been replicated by serious and respected researchers? For added consideration, include real scientists please, a degree in parapsychology (thus far still a hypothetical field) is not exactly impressive material.
The “extraordinary” phrase was someone’s (Carl Sagan?) pleasantly axiomatic way of saying that evidence must be commensurate to the claim advanced. You haven’t debunked anything, you have simply restated the axiom. The axiom is useful because it reminds us that that 0.0001 variation from “ordinary” results is usually not enough to rattle our current understanding of science (as the existence of Ganzfeld would, if it really were detectable), rather it suggests experimental or analytical error and calls for close examination or dismissal of unacceptable experimental/observational errors.
For the record, “extraordinary” is not an emotional term, it is a very clear term that means “unusual or remarkable; out of the usual course”. A statement such as “the value of g on the surface of the Earth is 7.33 m/s[sup]2[/sup]” is clearly extraordinary. The extraordinary evidence required to support such an extraordinary statement would need to be extensive in order to invalidate existing evidence that points to g on the surface of the Earth as being 9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup]. Such evidence, like the claim, would have to be commensurably “extraordinary” inasmuch as it must reliably trump existing evidence (i.e. it must deviate from “the usual course” such evidence has always taken in the past). Semantics? Yes. Valid? I don’t see why not.
I don’t doubt your reaction. I also don’t doubt you had very poor experiences with psychology overall, but it is pointless to rail against experimental psychology by citing techniques (classroom surveys and questionnaires) that are flatly rejected by it! It is also pointless to use a personal anecdote from one university experience to invalidate all psychological inquiry. But I agree that quality is often lacking. My own experiences (mostly as a subject but also as an experimenter), on the other hand, were distinctly superior to yours from the scientific point of view. I won’t trot them out though because anecdotal evidence is not adequate evidence and won’t get us anywhere.
Excuse me, “some” results in neuroscience?? Isn’t that a little understated? Anyway, you threw down a challenge asking anyone to discuss any value or quality in experimental psychology, which I did. That seems rather related to your point, although you then say that your point was:
Ah, here you restate your objections as pertaining to “classroom psychology” rather than experimental psychology. Now things become clearer. Well I agree with you, and that is why I pointed out that experimental psychology tends to avoid such an approach as passing out questionnaires to bored students. Why? Because it was found out to be a frequently shaky method. When such methods are used, all the standard caveats of said methods apply to resulting papers (and if written properly such caveats are clearly stated in the paper), and the evil, accepting scientists who read them take them into consideration. Such results are not accepted blindly – but then again it should be noted that these “classroom” exercises are not making extraordinary claims such as the existence of mysterious and undetected “fields” and energies for which no reliable evidence or indication exists in the entire field of science. The difference is obvious.
It’s the simple truth. I don’t dispute that some who call themselves sceptics use the tag as a position rather than a method, however you will simply have to accept this if no better arguments than those you have already provided are forthcoming, and this doesn’t count:
Yes it is, just as science is the noble pursuit of knowledge via the formulation and understanding of models. Your above rant is not merely anti-scepticism, it is also curiously anti-scientific. Replace “scepticism” with “science” and you have exactly the same tired tripe trotted out by hardline creationists and paranormalists complaining that they and their work are not taken seriously. Being a sceptic (as I pointed out with a few examples in my previous message) does not require a position on anything, it merely requires critical thinking skills and the ability to doubt and question any topic or claim. Mind you, it is hardly surprising that many of your reductionist-materialists should be sceptics, since the one position and the one method can mesh together fairly well (but other combinations exist too!).
This is another forceful assertion where the force and the passion seek to make up for the lack of evidence. The exact same claim above could be made of any method (science) or any position (theism) and still have the same validity – none.
Here in Hong Kong there is a political party called The Democratic Alliance For the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB). In spite of their name they have nothing whatsoever to do with democracy, but are instead a Beijing organ fiercely pro-mainland and pro-communist party. The (real) Democratic Party of Hong Kong is understandably not happy about this, since the DAB are the farthest thing from democracy you can conceivably have, but what can the DP do about it? Nothing. The DAB keeps trying (and sometimes succeeding) to win votes from the population with frequent references to democratic values, power of the people, and whatnot.
What we can all do is avoid generalizations and similar fallacies: the DAB aren’t democratic and they shouldn’t be taken as an index of democrats simply because they call themselves democrats. Those who hold a reductionist-materialist view may or may not be sceptics, but automatic nay-saying is simply not part of the sceptic’s toolbox. I couldn’t care less what people call themselves, I could call myself a poet but that wouldn’t make me one – rather it would be my methods (er… eloquence and poetic sense?) that would establish me as a poet.
Let’s also not forget that there are many, many, amateurs out there. Just as you don’t turn to the legions of uninformed amateur film critics to obtain a film review, you shouldn’t base your thunderous judgement on sloppy/biased amateurs for sceptical input.
And we can also make an effort to provide cites rather than anecdotal evidence to help reduce the noise. You really seem to have a problem with sceptics – can you support your claims with documented non-anecdotal evidence?
Cites to demonstrate this surprising claim?
What gets in may contain a modicum of truth (or it may not), but it is so mixed with quantities of ordure that you end up with an unpleasant mess. Installing a good door will allow the truth in, and keep the endemic typhus and the rest of the crap out. Although I deliberately didn’t mention the door, this was the gist of my tongue-in-cheek analogy.
Irrelevant to the discussion, although a quick search will allay your doubts. If you honestly think I’ve served you up boilerplate rhetoric I assure you you are mistaken, but I suspect that you have already (long ago?) accepted weak evidence in support of extraordinary claims, and are unwilling to consider that your evidence may be flawed – this is supported by 1) your citation of the 1994 Ganzfeld study (which stood only until 1999), and 2) the poor resort to the “they laughed at Galileo too” fallacy, which is just about the lowest one in the book. What you can do now is demonstrate that the evidence you base your judgement on is not weak as it would seem (as suggested by greater scientific evidence and consensus), but instead is as good as you keep stating it is; and if you stop attacking the character of sceptical observers and instead concentrate on the subject of discussion, I’m predicting that will help a lot too.