The Straight Dope On ESP.

[Peter_Morris]

@Czarcasm

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.

@Colibri

That said, that “demonstration” was so uncontrolled I wouldn’t consider it much more than anecdotal myself.

exactly.

[Colibri]

@Peter_Morris

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.

exactly.

Even if the first one is ignored, there’s the second (which you are ignoring).

[Peter_Morris]

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.

[Czarcasm]

@Peter_Morris

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?

[Peter_Morris]

@Czarcasm

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.

[Czarcasm]

@Peter_Morris

**“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.

[Colibri]

@Peter_Morris

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.

[Peter_Morris]

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.

[Colibri]

@Peter_Morris

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.

[Peter_Morris]

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.

[kayaker]

@Peter_Morris

I’m using the correct definition, of course. The “definition” you linked to is a hateful piece written *by *pseudosceptics.

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?