Mysterious Britain Forums for the open discussion of all things paranormal.   Home  Mysterious Britain mainpage  Mailing List  Calendar  FAQ  Search  Register  Log in       Mysterious Britain Forums :: Investigation :: Investigating the Paranormal  Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...     Goto page :   1, 2, 3   Author Message matt.h Joined : 30 Jan 2008 Posts : 135 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Thu 07 Feb 2008, 9:00 am I think that'd be pretty difficult, given the amount of variables out in the "wilds"! It'd be a case of limiting variables as much as possible, but then as the French experiment shows, you can take that too far and end up with something that only studies a narrow aspect of the subject.   mysteryshopper Joined : 05 Feb 2008 Posts : 158 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Thu 07 Feb 2008, 11:06 am Pity! Regarding skeptics and believers, I think the extreme versions of both are really unhelpful. There are believers, for instance, who simply ignore evidence. There are still people out there, for instance, who think orbs are paranormal! Some skeptics have a real attitude problem. How they hope to convince people of anything by being patronising, dismissive and arrogant beats me. Some also have a real problem with understanding anything that they don't already know. They have lots of knowledge but an inability to apply it to new situations. Give them a novel problem and you tend to get stock answers to OTHER questions! They are very inflexible sometimes.   matt.h Joined : 30 Jan 2008 Posts : 135 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Thu 07 Feb 2008, 12:36 pm mysteryshopper wrote: Some skeptics have a real attitude problem. How they hope to convince people of anything by being patronising, dismissive and arrogant beats me. Some also have a real problem with understanding anything that they don't already know. They have lots of knowledge but an inability to apply it to new situations. Give them a novel problem and you tend to get stock answers to OTHER questions! They are very inflexible sometimes. I know exactly what you mean! Of course, a rational approach (in it's purest sense of appraising all evidence as fairly as possible) is the best way to go. However, there are those who claim to uphold this rationalism yet are in reality as dogmatic and blinkered as the legions of orb-botherers. At the end of the day, everyone sees what they want to see to a large extent. Whilst that doesn't mean we should give up investigating at all, we need to be aware that our own views and preconceptions regularly colour our opinions and actions. I think this is never more true than for those with a great vested interest in the paranormal, whether that be crystal healers or parapsychologists.   Ophiel Joined : 01 Feb 2008 Posts : 69 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Thu 07 Feb 2008, 12:55 pm matt.h wrote: Suffice to say I don't agree about Randi and his sort, an opnion I feel is easily evidenced by a read through his writing for Prometheus books - so let's not start another argument I know what you mean - but your opinion is certainly not evidence by reading through his stuff. Let us be clear - Randi is right about psychic claimants. Across all his testing people have been found to be frauds and / or deluded about their abilities. This is also true for others who have tested claimants using sound methodology (Blackmore / French / Wiseman / Hyman). I think this is a very important contribution. What is interesting is that Randi says nothing, absoultely nothing, about strange experiences (i.e., ghosts / hauntings / OBEs / NDEs) - simply because this is really outside of his skills range and knowledge base. So his contribution in this respect is minimal. He is at his best only when dealing with psychic claimants (in my opinion) Quote: I'm sure the French experiment was a very rigorous exercise in testing people's inability to detect water in plastic boxes on a village green. Yet the tone of the programme seemed to me to be an attempt to expound apparent "myths" such as dowsing conclusively, and in that spirit the French experiment was shown to be proof that dowsing didn't exist and was founded on misconceptions. I don't see how any of this makes the experiment unsound - like you claimed earlier. I agree that Dawkins himself can be a bit abrasive - but as i said much earlier - concentrate on the content of what they say, not how they say it. I think you will find it hard to disagree with them. What are these misconceptions you talk of? Could you explain those? The experiment required volunteers (dowsers) to take part and all said they were happy with the protocol beforehand - so what's the problem? If you look at all the double-blind tests - NONE of them have produced results to support dowsing. Why do you think that is? How would you explain that? Let us be clear - dowsers make certain types of claims and these appear to be easily testable. When they are tested the so-called 'effects' dissapear. Why? Quote: Yes, the experiment showed up the people tested as the kooks they quite possibly were. I disagree totally - I dont think anyone on that programme in this experiment was 'shown up'. It was done with sincerity on the part of French. Quote: Yes, perhaps dowsing is a complete misconception. The evidence would suggest so - but i agree much more research would be helpful. Quote: However, the format of the experiment failed to recreate the conditions in which dowsing phenomena appear to occur, and as such should not be taken as providing conclusive evidence for or against these apparent phenonema. Utterly false. What evidence do you have for this type of statement? Like I said above - they make a simple claim - in this case that they can locate water via paranormal means. The test was simple - find the water in a bucket where neither you nor the experimenter knows where it is. They failed to do so. What is wrong with these conditions? Dont forget, all the dowsers said they were totally happy with the test before the results were known - so how can people claim afterwards that they are not happy? Seems like the fallacy of special pleading to me Quote: Of course, such study is flawed because there are so many variables, but this doesn't mean abstracted experiments like French's should be taken as any more authoritative. They are not taken as strong evidence because they are not controlled as much for sensory leakage (i.e., not double-blind). This means you cannot rule out simple non-paranormal alternative explanations. Quote: Hell, even Dawkins himself (see the current copy of Fortean Times) admitted that the programme was an exercise in promulgating his own vew rather than to make new findings! No he never.....but that is tangential to the main points here..... The programme was about Dawkins exploring his theory about belief systems - but that had nothing to do with the experiment on dowsers (which was run by Chris French - NOT Dawkins).   matt.h Joined : 30 Jan 2008 Posts : 135 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Thu 07 Feb 2008, 6:07 pm Again, this is my last post as otherwise I feel we're simply going to go around in circles again.... My problem is the context of the experiment within the programme. Dawkins wanted to explore his theory on how many belief systems are unfounded, and included dowsing amongst these. The gist appeared to me to be that he wanted to show that dowsing had no basis in fact. Dowsing, as far as I'm aware, is practiced out in fields, gardens and suchlike to "look" for underground water. It is not often practiced on village greens with plysu boxes. Regardless of whether people are happy to go on TV and wave their rods over some sand, if we are to judge the absolute veracity of dowsing claims, surely we need to assess all aspects of claims, not simply refine it to the detection of water regardless of aspects such as geology. I make no claims as to the existence of dowsing abilities. However, in ignoring the context of many dowsing claims the French experiment cannot provide the absolute proof against a belief system - dowsing- that Dawkins' programme endeavoured to provide.   Mauro Age : 31 Joined : 12 Oct 2007 Posts : 233 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Fri 08 Feb 2008, 9:35 am Ophiel wrote: Mauro wrote: The problem is that nobody has yet developed a "standard procedure" to investigate paranormal happenings. . I think they have - the scientific method is more than suited for investigating the paranormal. To claim anything else would be to make a special plead for the paranormal and one would immediately find oneself on thin ice - so to speak. Quote: I've also a couple of words to say about "American school" skeptics. They mainly fall into two categories: the first one was basically generated by Scientism (in the modern sense). There's nothing outside (Goddess) Science, the present day knowledge is the most perfect ever, we can explain everything using it etc. Personally, I dont recognise this form of skepticism and have yet to encounter it. It sounds like cynicism to me - but science and skepticism can be something quite different. Quote: It's very similar in approach and mental frameset to those Fundamental Christians who assume that ghosts are either the work of Satan or trickery since all souls are judged and sent to the Afterlife (usually Hell). Real skepticism and science is nothing like this at all. Do you have an example? Yes I will give an example. Margerite Hack is one of Europe's most experienced and respected astrophisicists. I cannot stress highly enough her deep knowledge and grasp of such a difficult field. Yet for most of her life and professional career she have been a "scientist skeptic" of the type I described before. This skepticism seemed to often cloud her judgment and to bring here to confound "UFO" (that are just what they are, Unidentified Flying Objects, until they are identified as comets, burning space junk etc) and "alien" (meaning the Little Grey Men). Recently she somehow retracted her position and laid the worst part of her skepticism to rest following a "personal experience". If you ever heard here talking during her heydays she sounded almost exactly as a Fundamental Christian when the word "UFO" was said. It was a most radical change from the serious, bright and immensely learned astrophysicist talking about pulsars and dying stars. Here's another example of another kind. I have a dear friend, a biologist by trade, who took the charge of investigating a bronze statue in Medjugorje (Bosnia) which is alleged to "sweat". He went there in person and conducted whichever investigation he was allowed by the local clergy. I helped him out with the theoretical part and we found (of course this is a very short resumé) that the "most likely" cause was poor casting, which allowed moisture to enter the hollow statue through invisible (to the human eye) cracks and to exist the same way. Of course we'll never be able to tell with certainty because they won't allow more detailed investigations. You would expect him to be a true scientist, also given his immense knowledge of primatology and human origins. Yet he fell completely and unquestioningly for a most likely fake photograph showing an alleged "cryptozoological mystery". _________________ Fas: Ite, Maledicti, In Ignem Aeternum.   mysteryshopper Joined : 05 Feb 2008 Posts : 158 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Fri 08 Feb 2008, 9:53 am Interesting post Mauro. Skeptics, including scientists, frequently lack flexibility and imagination in their thinking. They tend to try to make everything fit into pre-existing 'standard problems' for which they naturally have 'standard answers'. Skepticism is an important part of science but so is creativity. If skepticism predominates, it stifles scientific progress.   Ophiel Joined : 01 Feb 2008 Posts : 69 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Fri 08 Feb 2008, 11:43 am matt.h wrote: My problem is the context of the experiment within the programme. Dawkins wanted to explore his theory on how many belief systems are unfounded, and included dowsing amongst these. The gist appeared to me to be that he wanted to show that dowsing had no basis in fact. He did and I agree. Dawkins was right to do this. Remember he had an hypothesis - that dowsing does not work. It was tested and found to be true in that instance. I cannot see the problem. It is of course, only one experiment - but what it showed is that people believe in stuff that simply does not work. That is interesting. Quote: Dowsing, as far as I'm aware, is practiced out in fields, gardens and suchlike to "look" for underground water. It is not often practiced on village greens with plysu boxes. This for me is where your reasoning breaks down. Why should this make a difference? Dowsers make simple claims - that they can find material (water / gold / oil) via paranormal means. its simple enough. Why should finding water in a bucket be any different to finding it in fields? How do you explain that? Via what plausible mechanism should these be different? The dowsers were happy - and they themselves claimed they could do it - so what's the problem? Interestingly, the dowsers were providing different responses to different buckets - picking lots of different empty ones as containing the water. Why do you think that is? There were no trends, not even close ones - why? Detection of the bucket was at chance - what one would expect by guessing alone. Why? Quote: Regardless of whether people are happy to go on TV and wave their rods over some sand, if we are to judge the absolute veracity of dowsing claims, surely we need to assess all aspects of claims, not simply refine it to the detection of water regardless of aspects such as geology. This has been done and you are now taking the experiment way out of context in order to try to make your point. Randi did a wonderful experiment in Australia years ago - out in fields with burried water pipes - some empty and some carrying water - same results - chance! Why should geology make a difference? Could you explain to me how the geology impacts on the dowsing and why those experienced dowsers were happy with the test? Quote: However, in ignoring the context of many dowsing claims the French experiment cannot provide the absolute proof against a belief system - dowsing- that Dawkins' programme endeavoured to provide. I fear it is you ignoring the context. Dowsing has been investigated for about 25 years by serious scientists. The best controlled studies - even ones out in the field - produce chance results. My own studies (which have been small in number but well controlled) concur - its just guessing. Dowsing is a belief - not a reality. That was the point. Unless of course, you have sound evidence to the contrary?   Ophiel Joined : 01 Feb 2008 Posts : 69 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Fri 08 Feb 2008, 11:54 am Mauro wrote: Yes I will give an example. Margerite Hack is one of Europe's most experienced and respected astrophisicists. I cannot stress highly enough her deep knowledge and grasp of such a difficult field. Yet for most of her life and professional career she have been a "scientist skeptic" of the type I described before. This skepticism seemed to often cloud her judgment and to bring here to confound "UFO" (that are just what they are, Unidentified Flying Objects, until they are identified as comets, burning space junk etc) and "alien" (meaning the Little Grey Men). Recently she somehow retracted her position and laid the worst part of her skepticism to rest following a "personal experience". But this is not an example of your claim at all. All this is, is a person who, quite wrongly has now placed too much emphasis on.........an anecdotal experience!!!! To her this out weighs scientific evidence. This is not showing anything to do with skepticism 'blinkering' views and more to do with creduality influencing the new views (based purely on anecdotal experiences). Basically you are saying she changed her opinion because of a 'personal experience'. This is not evidence. In addition, this does not establish that she was right to change her opinion in the first place - only that she has changed it. Some people decided at the last moment to get on the Titanic - that was not right either....merely suddenly changing ones views does not mean that this change was justified. Quote: If you ever heard here talking during her heydays she sounded almost exactly as a Fundamental Christian when the word "UFO" was said. It was a most radical change from the serious, bright and immensely learned astrophysicist talking about pulsars and dying stars. I have not heard her speak. But if she was like you say - I would counter that she was not a skeptic at all - just a cynic who became credulous. As a consequence, I remain totally unconvinced by this or that it says anything against skepticism.   Ophiel Joined : 01 Feb 2008 Posts : 69 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Fri 08 Feb 2008, 11:58 am mysteryshopper wrote: Interesting post Mauro. Skeptics, including scientists, frequently lack flexibility and imagination in their thinking. They tend to try to make everything fit into pre-existing 'standard problems' for which they naturally have 'standard answers'. Skepticism is an important part of science but so is creativity. If skepticism predominates, it stifles scientific progress. Scientists lacking imagination? Really? Its an often banded about idea - one I have never been able to pin down. It is true that certain individuals can behave like that - but exceptions do not prove rules - on the whole science and skepticism is where the real creativity is. Just my opinion of course........   mysteryshopper Joined : 05 Feb 2008 Posts : 158 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Fri 08 Feb 2008, 12:01 pm Ophiel - in your opinion, what exactly IS a skeptic? I've asked lots of people this and they all seem to differ in their views.   mysteryshopper Joined : 05 Feb 2008 Posts : 158 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Fri 08 Feb 2008, 12:04 pm [quote="Ophiel] Scientists lacking imagination? Really? Its an often banded about idea - one I have never been able to pin down.[/quote] I could have written it more clearly. I meant skeptics, including those who happen to be scientists, tend to lack imagination. Most scientists have lots of imagination. I've noticed the lack of imagination and flexibility of thought among skeptics, whether scientists or not, by hanging around with them.   mysteryshopper Joined : 05 Feb 2008 Posts : 158 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Fri 08 Feb 2008, 12:05 pm Ophiel wrote: Scientists lacking imagination? Really? Its an often banded about idea - one I have never been able to pin down. I could have written it more clearly. I meant skeptics, including those who happen to be scientists, tend to lack imagination. Most scientists have lots of imagination. I've noticed the lack of imagination and flexibility of thought among skeptics, whether scientists or not, by hanging around with them   Ophiel Joined : 01 Feb 2008 Posts : 69 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Fri 08 Feb 2008, 12:24 pm I have said it elsewhere here. Basically it is the application of a degree of constructional doubt. It is about accepting conclusions that are consistent with the highest quality reasons. It is not about (for me at least) sitting on the fence and poo-pooing the claims of others. It is about exploring them and seeing whether they stand up under closer scrutiny. To me, its really the same as being an objective scientist - when science is done properly. However, as many scientists do believe in the weird and wonderful the term 'scientist' may not always be sufficient. I totally agree with the above discussion that sometimes, some people are too skeptical - but really - when they cross that mark - to me, they become cynical for the sake of being cynical (they provide no reasoned case for their position). At that point they are no longer doing science and to a degree, no longer even being a skeptic.   mysteryshopper Joined : 05 Feb 2008 Posts : 158 Subject: Re: Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...   Fri 08 Feb 2008, 12:43 pm I have no problem with your constructive doubt. It's a good thing. The lack of flexibility and imagination thing is an empirical observation. If you ask a skeptic a question you will often find they try to re-frame your question to fit one of their existing standard answers. I've had bizarre conversations with skeptics where it gradually became obvious that they were answering a question perfectly - it just wasn't the one I asked! Also, if you say anything to a skeptic which is unexpected, it tends to throw them and can make them defensive. Typically, skeptics have lots of knowledge but rarely seem to apply it constructively to work out novel ideas or solutions. I doubt many skeptics have ever made any major discoveries.   Hardcore skeptics and diehard believers...     Page 2 of 3 Goto page :   1, 2, 3   Permissions of this forum: You cannot reply to topics in this forum Mysterious Britain Forums :: Investigation :: Investigating the Paranormal Mysterious Britain Forums :: Investigation :: Investigating the Paranormal Free forum | © phpbb | Free forum support | Report an abuse | To have a free blog