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:
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.
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.
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.