Richard Dawkins Going After Faith Healers

[ZapperZ]

This took a lot of time and effort. Thank you very much for the report. It was a very entertaining report. Now we just have to wait for it to appear on YouTube. :)

Zz.

 

[TestUser12]

My views on it are very similar to that of the first one. The interviews are interesting, but the rest of it is probably nothing new to those of us actively interested in science.

Again, I feel that the general public may be given something to chew on from it, and that is almost certainly Richard's aim. He wants people to think more scientifically, and while I'm sure this is a good way to go about it, my only worry is that perhaps 2 hour long programmes may not have been enough.

Glad you enjoyed the summary, I'm too tired to type properly of a morning :)

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Well fine. Then you have just implied that spiritual and mystical experiences are nothing better than individual preferences for a favorite color. I have zero problems with that. It explains why people with religious and spiritual believes are always at odds with each other and think that only what they believe in is right.

If that is the case, then don't go around trying to convince others of the validity of such a thing when it is nothing more than a personal, subjective experience and preference. It will not work, especially when there is a glaring lack of evidence. And luckily, science isn't anywhere near that. An airplane will fly no matter if you believe if it can or cannot. And that is as clear of a difference between science and pseudoscience, something that many people obviously do not realize.

Zz.

Subjective experiences are as much a part of our daily lives, if not more, as the empirical side of things. Love, pleasure, happiness, etc. are all subjective. And after all, those are the ones we are looking for.

Speaking of subjective experiences, learning is such an experience. If you learn the facts of science, it doesn't mean that every one has. Every one needs to learn for their own. Learning being subjective, scientific thought and learning of it also come into sphere. Unfortunate that some people think "Scientific Method" is the only way to learn.

Scientific learning is enhanced(by added motivation) based on the experience of "Awe" on the part of the learner when he learns about the beauty of the universe. Yet, somehow that's not enough. We need love and other such social needs and we learn those in a variety of different ways. Not just the "scientific" way.

Science is good when two criteria are met.
1. when it is in its best attitude of inquiry and is learning more about environment and other such stuff.
2. when it is useful for the lives of others and the society and environment as a whole.

Similarly, if a study of subjective experiences and practices helps in getting the results that are helpful for the society, then by al means, one should study and try and tell everyone about it. Thats all I am saying! Any one who says "Just because its a personal, subjective,... don't go around convincing people of the validity of it" is clearly missing the point. As long as it helps, kudos to it - whether it is a study of empirical and objective phenomenon or that of a subjective experience.

Just because something is subjective, it shouldn't be denied of studies, especially if it is so prevalent in the society and if its results can help better the condition of the world as a whole. Science is but a miniscule, mostly unapplicable, part of life. Subjective experiences are the major part. Infact, the whole of life is a series of subjective experiences! It demands a study and knowledge.

DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

Subjective experiences are as much a part of our daily lives, if not more, as the empirical side of things. Love, pleasure, happiness, etc. are all subjective. And after all, those are the ones we are looking for.

Speaking of subjective experiences, learning is such an experience. If you learn the facts of science, it doesn't mean that every one has. Every one needs to learn for their own. Learning being subjective, scientific thought and learning of it also come into sphere. Unfortunate that some people think "Scientific Method" is the only way to learn.

Scientific learning is enhanced(by added motivation) based on the experience of "Awe" on the part of the learner when he learns about the beauty of the universe. Yet, somehow that's not enough. We need love and other such social needs and we learn those in a variety of different ways. Not just the "scientific" way.

Science is good when two criteria are met.
1. when it is in its best attitude of inquiry and is learning more about environment and other such stuff.
2. when it is useful for the lives of others and the society and environment as a whole.

Similarly, if a study of subjective experiences and practices helps in getting the results that are helpful for the society, then by al means, one should study and try and tell everyone about it. Thats all I am saying! Any one who says "Just because its a personal, subjective,... don't go around convincing people of the validity of it" is clearly missing the point. As long as it helps, kudos to it - whether it is a study of empirical and objective phenomenon or that of a subjective experience.

Just because something is subjective, it shouldn't be denied of studies, especially if it is so prevalent in the society and if its results can help better the condition of the world as a whole. Science is but a miniscule, mostly unapplicable, part of life. Subjective experiences are the major part. Infact, the whole of life is a series of subjective experiences! It demands a study and knowledge.

DJ

What makes you an authority on science?

You just said that "... it demands a study and knowledge..". Can you claim to have both to be able to say that you just said in this post? I would claim that you haven't a clue what 'science' is and how it is practiced. Thus, you have no foundation to make those statements, even based on your own assertion. You seem to want others to apply these standards, while you trample all over them yourself.

If science is subjective, then there's no reason to expect an airplane would fly if you don't believe in it, or that your modern electronics such as your PC would work if you don't believe in quantum mechanics. Can you show me evidence of those?

Your post is full of self-contradictions. If everything is based on subjective interpretations, then what's the point in having any kind of rational discussion whatsoever? That's like trying to convince someone that your favorite color is better. It's pointless. The very fact that a large part of science involves experimental work, and that results must be reproducible, clearly shows that there are many aspect of our physical work that are not subjective. Our emotional and subjective view of things are a miniscule aspect of our world. We are NOT that significant.

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

I never said that there was conclusive or even convincing evidence to all, but there is evidence. Also, I wasn't aware of anyone claiming proof. It seems to me that many scientists are so quick to dismiss these claims as nonsense that they lose perspective.

If I am able to recover a long lost object, and claim that the object was personally handed to me by a troupe of yodeling gnomes, do gnomes then deserve the kind of legitimacy that psychic visions have gained from Etta Smith?

Besides, Ivan, among your repeated mentions of the Etta Smith case, you failed to mention one vital piece of evidence: that her psychic vision story (which she has subsequently changed into a psychic non-vision story) failed the police department's polygraph test.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

What makes you an authority on science?

You just said that "... it demands a study and knowledge..". Can you claim to have both to be able to say that you just said in this post? I would claim that you haven't a clue what 'science' is and how it is practiced. Thus, you have no foundation to make those statements, even based on your own assertion. You seem to want others to apply these standards, while you trample all over them yourself.

If science is subjective, then there's no reason to expect an airplane would fly if you don't believe in it, or that your modern electronics such as your PC would work if you don't believe in quantum mechanics. Can you show me evidence of those?

Your post is full of self-contradictions. If everything is based on subjective interpretations, then what's the point in having any kind of rational discussion whatsoever? That's like trying to convince someone that your favorite color is better. It's pointless. The very fact that a large part of science involves experimental work, and that results must be reproducible, clearly shows that there are many aspect of our physical work that are not subjective. Our emotional and subjective view of things are a miniscule aspect of our world. We are NOT that significant.

Zz.

I don't need to be an authority on science to say what i said.

You seem to have mis-understood me. Most human lives, almost one third of them goes in sleep and dreams. Some more in pursuit of subjective experiences like happiness, satisfaction, etc. Only a part of it, if at all, is spent on pursuing Science. Some scientists may spend most of their lives for the pursuit of science. But most humans dont. Most humans spend most of their time in pursuit of subjective experiences. if our lives, the conditions of the world and other such things are so full of and dependent on subjective experiences, don't the subjective experiences deserve study? Dont they DEMAND study?

I would claim that you haven't a clue what 'science' is and how it is practiced.

Sir, you can claim all you want. Although I might know only a little bit about how science works, I know just as much about living as anybody else does. I am talking about life.

If science is subjective, then there's no reason to expect an airplane would fly if you don't believe in it, or that your modern electronics such as your PC would work if you don't believe in quantum mechanics. Can you show me evidence of those?

Science, coming from latin "Scientia" (source - wikipedia) meaning "knowledge". Airplanes flying is a phenomenon. Knowledge of it is science. Knowledge, definitely is subjective in most part. A confirmed lunatic cannot be a scientist, atleast for the most part.
If science is considered purely non-subjective, then it has no meaning, in the sense that it is knowledge without a knower?
Unless science is subjective, one has no reason to expect airplanes to fly. Because i "know" that they can fly because of such and such rules as discovered by scientist have been taught to me(learning is also a collection of subjective experiences), for instance. So, science is essentially subjective, but since humans have similar physiological and psychological structures, their subjective experiences tend to be similar and from that, science gets its universality. This is how you and I agree on what an airplane is. If its not so, then there's no point in us discussing. Science gets its greatness because it solves the questions that the subjective minds of humans get, and also since all humans have similar subjective experiences, it starts to become applicable universally.

DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

Then you have a rather strange, personal definition of "subjective".

But then again, since you consider everything to be subjective in the first place, I suppose that is consistent that you can make up your own definitions. If that is the case, I no longer see any point in any kind of discussion, because we cannot have any kind of objective experiences. You are trying to convince me of your favorite color.

Please continue such line of discussion in the Philosophy forum.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The only difference here is the question of the nature of the evidence, and is the evidence convincing? You are ready to grant them the benefit of the doubt. I don't.

Not accurate; I am willing to consider the claim and recognize it for what it is without instantly dismissing as nonsense. There is a big difference.

The issue here isn't some scientist suddenly coming out of nowhere and claiming something to not exist. This has never been the case. The issue here is MANY people claim that these things (i) are real (ii) are as valid as other physical phenomena (iii) should be treated as valid as other physical phenomena. Now that is bogus.

True. There are some who make dramatic claims. In the case of people who claim to have direct experience with such things, they may know for a fact what we can only guess at, but there is certainly no scientific proof that psychic phenomena exists, yet.

It is perfectly valid, in my opinion, to challenge such claims and then ask for convincing evidence. When that doesn't exist, after hundreds of years, then something isn't right here.

Sure it is valid to challenge claims and ask for evidence, but absense of evidence of evidence of absence. Again I suggest that we simply may have no way to study such things yet. I don't demand that science progress at a rate that satsifies me personally in order to justifiy keepingan open mind. And a good thing considering how often our facts seem to change: The expansion of the universe is slowing down.. no, its speeding up. Whoops, we just noticed that we missed 90% of the universe. And the speed of light limit only applies to local space. Something must be wrong here.

Again, we need to look back at all the things that we know now very well and the issue that REAL things evolve from one aspect to another and to another. We know this for sure. This is how valid and real phenomena evolve. We know more and more about it beyond just establishing that it is real. This is not what has occurred with these pseudosciences, and this fact is undisputed.

First of all, pseudosciences have nothing to do with the discussion. Real phenonema can be studied scientificially or not. The methodology has no bearing on the credibility of the claim. Next, phenomena don't evolve, our understanding does. I have no idea what your point is here.

Even after that length of time, there are people who either accept them, or still want to give them the benefit of the doubt by claiming there are "evidence" just doesn't make any sense to me.

That is a personal point of view and not a scientific one. I point to a compelling case and you argue that we should ignore it based on what? It seems to me that your position is that nothing yet proven will be ever be proven.

How long does one needs to keep an open mind before flies fall into it?

There are plenty of real phenomena that were dismissed by most scientists, but are real nonetheless. We have a napster full of them.

The difference here is that Richard Hoagland hasn't produced anything, while the rest of the scientists have. Can you say the same for that group of people you're defending?

I am talking about cherry picking the cases that are easy to dismiss instead of considering the compelling cases. What is often refuted by debunkers are cases that interest only the zealots. If we want to be fair about it, then we have to consider the more interesting cases.

When one does work based on physically-testable and measurable phenomena, it really doesn't matter whether people believe you or not. Various institutions throughout history have tried to suppress such things to no success. So why do you think "real" psychics are so special that the typical process of being accepted does apply to them, after all these years? Even poor Galileo and his model of the universe got accepted and verified even with such irrational religious opposition. Yet, psychics could not convince what I perceive to be generally rational, intelligent people, and could not do it for such a long time. Why are they so special?

I am not defending psychics. I am defending the possibility that there are genuine psychic experiences. I spoke to this point earilier when I specified that it may not be something that anyone can control. Smith doesn't claim to be a psychic, nor does she claim to have had any other psychic experiences. She claims to have had one psychic experience, and she produced the body to back up her claim.

If something can't be tested under controlled conditions then there isn't much that we can do to address the issue for now. That doesn't make the claim bogus. And if one gives any credence to human experience, as we do in a court of law, for example, then we have to leave the door open that these things may actually happen. You seem to argue that we should ignore all but what we can already prove, and that effectively closes the door to discovery.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If I am able to recover a long lost object, and claim that the object was personally handed to me by a troupe of yodeling gnomes, do gnomes then deserve the kind of legitimacy that psychic visions have gained from Etta Smith?

She was released from jail and the charges were dropped when others confessed to the crime. It was deteremined that she had no involvement. How did she produce the body? We can ignore her explanation, and we might assume that she had access to information, and that connection was never discovered, but that is an assumption without any basis in evidence.

Besides, Ivan, among your repeated mentions of the Etta Smith case, you failed to mention one vital piece of evidence: that her psychic vision story (which she has subsequently changed into a psychic non-vision story) failed the police department's polygraph test.

Lie detector tests are not considered to be realiable. But if they are, then I guess Travis Walton really was abducted by aliens. Have it your way. I'll write off Etta if you accept Walton.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Spooky or flukey? When I logged off the other day, having just posted in this thread, I looked up, and I swear to God, some program on the TV was talking about Etta Smith.

 

[Gokul43201]

She was released from jail and the charges were dropped when others confessed to the crime. It was deteremined that she had no involvement. How did she produce the body? We can ignore her explanation, and we might assume that she had access to information that was never discovered, but that is an assumption without any basis in evidence.

The same argument should apply to me any my gnomes. Why should the fact that I found the object lend any credibility to my fantastic report of how I found it (especially, if there are other rational explanations for the finding)?

Lie detector tests are not considered to be realiable. But if they are, then I guess Travis Walton really was abducted by aliens. Have it your way. I'll write off Etta if you accept Walton.

They are much more often right than they are wrong. Claims of psychic activity are overwhelmingly more often wrong than they are right. Do you actually believe Etta's story has a greater likelihood of being right than the lie detector test? (Besides, Walton actually failed his first polygraph test.)

Here's a response from csicop:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-07/i-files.html

She was later questioned about her precise knowledge and was given a lie detector test, which she failed. According to a detective’s sworn testimony, “the polygraphist indicated that she was being deceptive,” even “trying to control her breathing” (Guarino 1987, 5, 10).
...
Is it not possible that an acquaintance of Smith, privy to information about the crime, sought her help in revealing the information? Could Smith not merely have been protecting her source? The possibility gains credibility from the fact that the killers were uncovered because one of them had boasted of the crime to people in his Pacoima neighborhood and, at the time, Smith lived in Pacoima! Interestingly, as Smith went searching for the nurse’s body, her psychic powers seemed to wane, and it was one of her children who actually spied the white-clad corpse (Klunder 1987; Varenchik 1987, 44–45).

That Smith could locate the canyon site on a map is revealing. She was clearly not employing a technique of divination (such as map dowsing, which usually involves the use of a pendulum) to locate something hidden (Guiley 1991; Nickell 1994, 163–164). Instead, she seemed already to know the location and was merely seeking to identify it on a map for police. Smith appears to have given conflicting accounts of her “vision.” She said on a television program, “It was as if someone had put a picture right in front of me” (Sightings 1992). Yet the book Psychic Murder Hunters assures us, “Strangely Etta didn’t have a vision of any kind—she described it as a feeling rather than a vision” (Boot 1994, 348).

Also, see this post from the other thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1130198&postcount=31

Actually I just was looking around in google Earth for the locations, and if you use what is said in the articles:
She lives in Pacoima, CA
She works at Lockheed near Burbank (I assume they mean Lockheed Martin Info & Tech at 505. W. Woodbury Rd, Altadena, CA) Due to no other lockheed properties near (other than banks). (its basically burbank)

That means that everyday for work she drives both ways down I-210 to get from home to work. I-210 is also the main road that goes through Lakeview Terrace, the area that she found the body. If it was found 400 feet from I-210 I could see her glimpsing the body on her way to work that day, not knowing what it was, and thinking about it later.
Try putting those locations in google earth. Do a Lakeview Terrace, Burbank, CA to get some idea of where the "lakeview" area is in the foothills. Its not very large, and 210 goes right over the bottom of the "canyon", which is really just an old riverbed from the looks of it, at the bottom of the valley.

I'm not saying she isn't psychic, just that sometimes people remember things and, if they're intelligent enough, put it together in their head and check it out.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The same argument should apply to me any my gnomes. Why should the fact that I found the object lend any credibility to my fantastic report of how I found it (especially, if there are other rational explanations for the finding)?

She produced evidence to support her claim. I don't know how much more simple this can be. Sure, there might be another explanation, but we have no good evidence to support this assertion.

They are much more often right than they are wrong.

They are not accepted in a court of law because they are not considered to be realiable. And if there was ever a situation where external stress might influence the results, this would certainly be a good example.

Claims of psychic activity are overwhelmingly more often wrong than they are right. Do you actually believe Etta's story has a greater likelihood of being right than the lie detector test?

Lie detectors are not considered to be reliable, so the point is moot.

(Besides, Walton actually failed his first polygraph test.)

And passed two more, IIRC. Also, I thought that two [of six?] people failed the first one and Walton passed. I will have to check.

It is intersting that we now default to unrealible technologies in order to support a "scientific position".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For years I have waited for trustworthy lie detectors, for cases just like this. When this techology becomes available, then maybe cases like this will fade into memory.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm with Ivan here. Lie detectors are themselves highly unreliable. In fact, I believe a National Academy of Sciences commissioned study has indicated that they can no more pick a liar than a psychic.

:)

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

She produced evidence to support her claim.

How does her finding the body support her claim she found the body through psychic means? This is no different than my claim that I found some object with gnomic help.

I don't know how much more simple this can be. Sure, there might be another explanation, but we have no good evidence to support this assertion.

And what about all the rest of the points quoted above?

In any case, you're failing to see that "the finding of the body" is not evidence at all, for "the finding of the body through psychic means". There is only evidence for the fact that she knew where the body was and absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she used psychic powers.

Heck, there's enough and more reason (provided in previous post) to disbelieve (purely from facts within the case) her story.

They are not accepted in a court of law because they are not considered to be realiable.

Let's forget about the polygraph results then. Far as I'm concerned they indicate a greater probability of lying. The correlation coefficient for polygraph testing is far from zero.

It is intersting that we now default to unrealible technologies in order to support a "scientific position".

And you prefer the word of the person? Besides, I've provided a handful of other reasons to disbelieve the testimony, and so far, you've ignored them.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm with Ivan here. Lie detectors are themselves highly unreliable. In fact, I believe a National Academy of Sciences commissioned study has indicated that they can no more pick a liar than a psychic.

:)

Zz.

Yes, they are unreliable in several circumstances, but even under those circumstances they are definitely way better at picking a liar, than through a random guess, and the degree of unreliability is known. The NAS study is published in a book called "The Polygraph and Lie Detection". The primary purpose of the study was for security and espionage purposes, and for high risk security threats the study concluded that the polygraph performed poorly. The study also found that in the case of investigating truthfulness of the recounting of a specific event, the 582 polygraph results obtained from police departments had a median accuracy index of 0.89. That's not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but it's still a pretty high score, IMO.

See: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=125
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=126

Anyway, this is a completely different discussion and probably belongs in a separate thread.

 

[Moridin]

Part 2 turned up on google video recently.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22Richard+Dawkins+-+Enemies+Of+Reason+-+Part+2+of+2%22

 

[Tony11235]

The 'alternative health methods' in that episode were all too familiar to me. My family has used a lot of them. It's frustrating when pointing out the flaws to them and dealing with their set of totally irrational, not to mention illogical, arguments. Like Richard pointed out, a lot of the fears people have with modern medicine originate from overhyped mis-interpretations from the media.

 

[TestUser12]

Tony, you're right, while he does a good job in the program, I'm fearful that people who saw it and believe in these things will just dismiss what he's saying and carry on as usual.

There was a program on recently about an irish woman who was making money from books about her childhood being corrupted by the catholic church and her father. Her family denied all of the facts that she had, and the program was about them taking a lie detector test using MRI (or maybe something else, but similar) scan to detect which parts of the brain were active while answering yes and no questions about the whole ordeal. (they concluded that the family were telling the truth and that she was lying).

This technique obviously is not routinely used as the cost must be high compared to a standard polygraph. I would assume it would be more accurate though.

Comments?

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Then you have a rather strange, personal definition of "subjective".

But then again, since you consider everything to be subjective in the first place, I suppose that is consistent that you can make up your own definitions. If that is the case, I no longer see any point in any kind of discussion, because we cannot have any kind of objective experiences. You are trying to convince me of your favorite color.

Please continue such line of discussion in the Philosophy forum.

Zz.

sure thing.. i am more of a philosopher anyways. So much for debunking.

DJ

 

[mgb_phys]

This technique obviously is not routinely used as the cost must be high compared to a standard polygraph. I would assume it would be more accurate though.

Positron Emmission Tomography can show which parts of the brain are using most oxygen = doing most work.
It has been used to show if people are inventing stories as opposed to remembering them but isn't much more accurate than experienced 'poker tell' spoting questioners.
A big problem is that if you have rehearsed the stories enough you are 'remembering' inventing them as if you were remembering them happening.
You can do this subconsiously, when you 'enhance' an annecdote in the telling and after a few goes you believe the new version yourself.

There is also a dange of assuming that big expensive machine = scientific accuracy. There was an experiment to show that some people were intrinsically racist, they were given an english name to pronounce and then an unfamilair african name with the same number of syllables - their brain naturally used different regions trying to work out how to pronounce something they had never seen before. This was evidence of their inherent racism!

 

[daveg360]

I believe the fundamental issue at work here is the mindset with which people approach something. There seems to be a large proportion of the population who believe, without question, everything that they are told. The remaining minority are destined to spend their lives banging their heads against a very, very thick, brick wall.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In the comment, he asked for evidence for a "non-physical" thing that exist.

So far, since he posted it, no one has taken him on his challenge.

Zz.

What sort of evidence would he find acceptable? The problem that I have with many such "challenges" is that for many claims, I have never been able to identify what evidence would be acceptable. In particular this is true with respect to things like ghost claims.

How does one provide evidence for a non-physical thing? If one is to make a challenge, then one is obligated to define what would be acceptable evidence.

 

[mgb_phys]

How does one provide evidence for a non-physical thing?

Like transubstantiation, the host turns into the body of Jesus H. Christ but the miracle is that it retains all the physical appearance of bread. Any scientific test that confirms that it is bread therefore validates the miracle. Jesuits - you can't beat 'em.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Like transubstantiation, the host turns into the body of Jesus H. Christ but the miracle is that it retains all the physical appearance of bread. Any scientific test that confirms that it is bread therefore validates the miracle. Jesuits - you can't beat 'em.

That is a faith issue and not a question of science. No one claims that the host is physically changed to human flesh. In fact I have probably eaten 3000 hosts, they always tasted like unleavened bread, and no one expected otherwise.

What about "ghosts". That is not a faith issue. What evidence would be acceptable?

 

[seycyrus]

...

What about "ghosts". That is not a faith issue. What evidence would be acceptable?

Am I correct in stating that your opinion is that the onus is on the skeptic to define the nature of this evidence?

If so, I disagree. This allows the claimant an infinite number of loopholes in which to retreat when faced with data(or lack thereof).

The onus is on the claimant to define what he/she is using as evidence.

Does the claimant say that his EM meter responds to ghosts that he can also "feel"? Create a study in which this is tested.

If there is a correlation great, if not it indicates that his evidence is not supportive.

If after a great number of tests, a pattern of positive correlation is established, al lthe better. If not, the claimant must face the fact that he does not even understand what he is trying to claim.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Am I correct in stating that your opinion is that the onus is on the skeptic to define the nature of this evidence?

If so, I disagree. This allows the claimant an infinite number of loopholes in which to retreat when faced with data(or lack thereof).

The onus is on the claimant to define what he/she is using as evidence.

Most claim direct observations and experiences, and have no control over any evidence.

Does the claimant say that his EM meter responds to ghosts that he can also "feel"? Create a study in which this is tested.

People claim to do this every day. How many scientists are willing to run out and do field testing? If scientists aren't willing to show up, there is nothing the believers can do about that. The scientific position seems to be: It isn't true and I refuse to look. Nor will I accept any field data or videographic evidence.

In the rare cases where a scientist does go out and do field work in this regard and they do observe anomalies, they are relegated to the crackpot bin. So what we see is that the "scientific position" relies on circular logic. I put that in quotes because I don't think it is the scientific position; I think it is just the popular position of many scientists. To me, the scientific position is that we have never figured out a way to properly test and evaluate such claims.

If there is a correlation great, if not it indicates that his evidence is not supportive.

If after a great number of tests, a pattern of positive correlation is established, al lthe better. If not, the claimant must face the fact that he does not even understand what he is trying to claim.

You are assuming that the evidence is repeatable. What about the claims related to transient effects over which the observer has no control?

I have asked this many times and am still awaiting an answer. What sort of evidence for "ghosts" would be acceptable?

The scientist seems to demand that anything real be reproducible in the lab. There is no reason to believe this is true especially when we don't understand a phenomenon. How is one to produce something we don't understand in the first place? No one can produce ball lightning in a lab either but it is considered to be real. Why? The evidence for ball lightining is no better than the evidence for ghosts. I think the answer is that we can at least imagine an explanation for ball lightning, so it is a bias of convenience.

 

[seycyrus]

People claim to do this every day. How many scientists are willing to run out and do field testing?

Are you?

Is every scientist responsible for investigating every single claim that every made by anyone?

If scientists aren't willing to show up, there is nothing the believers can do about that. The scientific position seems to be: ?

I haven't seen any data sets in an attempt to prove correlation. Where's the data? If they make the claim that their EM detectors can detect ghosts, then they *have* to have EM detectors available, right?

It isn't true and I refuse to look. Nor will I accept any field data or videographic evidence. ?

Why should the standard scientific criteria be changed?

By its nature, photography and videography produce artifacts on a routine basis.

You are assuming that the evidence is repeatable.

if its not repeatable, what is to distinguish one's person's "ghost" from another person's "imagination"? Why should the claimant automatically get the benefit of the doubt? it isn't that way in any other aspect of science (or life).

What about the claims that related to transient effects over which the observer has no control?

If the claimant stats that "sometimes my EM reader detetcs ghosts", then I would expect for him to investigate under exactly what conditions does it function as described.

If a correlation between the EM detector and presence of ghosts can't be identified, then I would *expect* him to say. "Em detector does not seem to have the ability to detect ghosts."

I have not seen this happen.

I have asked this many times and am still awaiting an answer. What sort of evidence for "ghosts" would be acceptable.

The same evidence you would accept for the invisible pink unicorn on my wall.

The scientist seems to demand that anything real be reproducible in the lab.

Equipment can be taken to the field. Furthemore, no one is talking about requiring ghosts to appear in the university laboratory. Where is this train of thought coming from?

(Dr. Doom got expelled from university for this very offense, dontchaknow.)

There is no reason to believe this is true especially when we don't understand a phenomenon.

How is one to produce something we don't understand in the first place?

Even claimants are not postulating the ability to "create" a ghost (that I know of). Are you proposing athat a ghost would not/could not appear in a laboratory?

No one can produce ball lightning in a lab either but it is considered to be real. Why? The evidence for ball lightining is no better than the evidence for ghosts. I think the answer is that we can at least imagine an explanation for ball lightning, so it is a bias of convenience.

Your example supports my position not yours.

The phenomenon you describe was observed. It was compared to other natural phenomenon and theorized that it was a form of lightning, due to its characteristics and similarity to other aspects of electricity. Hence the term "ball lightning". Scientific studies can be done to create aspects of ball lightning. Note, we do not claim that ball lightning is really pixies zipping around. We didn't justthrow darts at a dartboard.

In a similar vein, ghost sightings can be analyzed and found to be similar in nature to other types of sighting, namely hallucinations.

To answer your question in a direct manner.

What sort of evidence would be acceptable.

A: The same sort of evidence you require for every other theory. Evidence, whose existence or nonexistence would prove a concept or theory true or false.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

late edits above.

 

[phyzmatix]

Am I correct in stating that your opinion is that the onus is on the skeptic to define the nature of this evidence?

If so, I disagree. This allows the claimant an infinite number of loopholes in which to retreat when faced with data (or lack thereof).

The onus is on the claimant to define what he/she is using as evidence.

Wouldn't you say that your reasoning closely resembles an argument of "guilty until proven innocent"? (In law, the accused doesn't have to provide evidence of his/her innocence. In fact, it's exactly the other way around).

Furthermore, your argument cuts both ways. If the onus is on the claimant to define the nature of the evidence, this allows the skeptic an infinite number of loopholes in which to retreat when faced with "proof".

 

[phyzmatix]

seycyrus, your post is littered with strawmen, so I'll limit my response to the less ridiculous attempts at reason.

The phenomenon you describe was observed. It was compared to other natural phenomenon and theorized that it was a form of lightning, due to its characteristics and similarity to other aspects of electricity. Hence the term "ball lightning". Scientific studies can be done to create aspects of ball lightning. Note, we do not claim that ball lightning is really pixies zipping around. We didn't justthrow darts at a dartboard.

Which studies can be done to create aspects of ball lightning? That was exactly Ivan's point: It can't be reproduced in a lab, so other than anecdotal evidence (I'm no ball lightning guru so I speak under correction here) there is no hard and fast evidence for the phenomenon and therefore it falls in the same category as "ghosts" (from a proven/disproven point of view).

In a similar vein, ghost sightings can be analyzed and found to be similar in nature to other types of sighting, namely hallucinations.

Oh hogwash! How do you "analyse ghost sightings"? And on what grounds do you clump this fictional analysis together as hallucinations?

To answer your question in a direct manner.

What sort of evidence would be acceptable.

A: The same sort of evidence you require for every other theory. Evidence, whose existence or nonexistence would prove a concept or theory true or false.

This is no answer, you're still side-stepping the question.

Have the cojones to state what would convince you as the skeptic of the validity of my claim if I (for the sake of this argument) had observed/experienced some non-physical phenomena.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are you?

Is every scientist responsible for investigating every single claim that every made by anyone?

No, however he is no position to say the claims aren't true either. The point of the original claim is that no one presented evidence to support claims of the so-called paranormal, so that implies there is no such thing.

As for me, I'm not the one denouncing the claims made. I'm not the one demanding evidence when even I can't define what would be acceptable.

I haven't seen any data sets in an attempt to prove correlation. Where's the data? If they make the claim that their EM detectors can detect ghosts, then they *have* to have EM detectors available, right?

Call the Ghost Busters. Watch the videos. Not acceptable? Then go out with them. I don't know if the are faking it or not. Also, there is an organization that includes many scientists that has investigated this stuff for over a century.

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
The Journal of the Society for Psychical Research has been published continuously since 1884, promoting the Society's aim of examining "without prejudice or prepossession and in a scientific spirit those faculties of man, real or supposed, which appear to be inexplicable on any generally recognised hypothesis." The Journal's contents reflect the wide range of our contributors' specialisms and interests and include reports of current laboratory and fieldwork research, as well as theoretical, methodological and historical papers with a bearing on the field of parapsychology. There are also regular book reviews and correspondence sections.

Contributions are welcome from both members and non-members of the Society. All papers submitted to the Journal are strictly peer-reviewed, and any opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. Guidelines for potential authors are published on the inside back page of each JSPR issue, or can be obtained from the SPR Editor.

The Journal is published quarterly and the annual subscription, which includes the four issues and any Proceedings (occasional volumes containing longer papers on particular themes) published, is £40/$80. Information about membership, subscriptions and availability of back copies can be obtained from the SPR Office.

Full text of all the past Journals and Proceedings is available online for SPR members. There is also a themed Abstracts Catalogue, and access to both is free to members on registration via the Online Library. JSPR abstracts since 2000 are also available on this website by clicking on the relevant entry in the list to the right.

http://www.spr.ac.uk/expcms/index.php?section=41

Not scientific enough? Of course not. What science journal would publish such things? It is circular logic at work again.

Why should the standard scientific criteria be changed?

Where did I say scientific standards should be changed?

By its nature, photography and videography produce artifacts on a routine basis.

I know that. Everyone knows that. So what evidence could be used in its place?

if its not repeatable, what is to distinguish one's person's "ghost" from another person's "imagination"? Why should the claimant automatically get the benefit of the doubt? it isn't that way in any other aspect of science (or life).

That has no bearing on whether a claim is true or not. Transient and unpredicatable phenomena do occur. It is a limitation of science that we haven't figured out what to do about that. It is certainly not the fault of the observer.

Again, you are forgetting that the challenge was to post evidence for unreal things. I am simply asking how one is supposed to do that.

If the claimant stats that "sometimes my EM reader detetcs ghosts", then I would expect for him to investigate under exactly what conditions does it function as described.

They do. Try learning about the subject before jumping to conclusions.

If a correlation between the EM detector and presence of ghosts can't be identified, then I would *expect* him to say. "Em detector does not seem to have the ability to detect ghosts."

I have not seen this happen.

What have you studied wrt this subject? Did you even know that there are serious people who look at this stuff. Obviously not.

The same evidence you would accept for the invisible pink unicorn on my wall.

That is not an answer. You are being a smart *** which only shows that you have no answer.

Equipment can be taken to the field. Furthemore, no one is talking about requiring ghost to appear in the university laboratory. Where is this train of thought coming from?

Please read the thread. Dawkins was asking.

(Dr. Doom got expelled from university for this very offense, dontchaknow.)

I am saying the even if a scientists claims to have good field date, no mainstream journal is going to publish it.

Even claimants are not postulating the ability to "create" a ghost (that I know of). Are you proposing athat a ghost would not/could not appear in a laboratory?

Okay, so field data is not acceptable and no one can get published. What next?

Your example supports my position not yours.

The phenomenon you describe was observed. It was compared to other natural phenomenon and theorized that it was a form of lightning, due to its characteristics and similarity to other aspects of electricity. Hence the term "ball lightning". Scientific studies can be done to create aspects of ball lightning. Note, we do not claim that ball lightning is really pixies zipping around. We didn't justthrow darts at a dartboard.

In a similar vein, ghost sightings can be analyzed and found to be similar in nature to other types of sighting, namely hallucinations.

To answer your question in a direct manner.

What sort of evidence would be acceptable.

A: The same sort of evidence you require for every other theory. Evidence, whose existence or nonexistence would prove a concept or theory true or false.

Show me the evidence for ball lighting. Show how this differs from the evidence for ghost reports. You are making a false claim.

And by the way, we have no idea what ball lighting may be. What people have produced in the lab only vaguely resembles the phenomena reported over the centuries.

I am not arguing that science is supposed to accept anecdotal evidence, what I am saying is that challenges from people like Dawkins have no merit because no one has figured out how to test certain types of claims in a way acceptable to science. That is by no means evidence that all such claims are hallucinations or the like. One can default to the safe comfortable position and say, well, since we don't know how to explain such reports, they must not be real, but ultimately that is a statement of faith, not science.

 

[ideasrule]

I am not arguing that science is supposed to accept anecdotal evidence, what I am saying is that challenges from people like Dawkins have no merit because no one has figured out how to test certain types of claims in a way acceptable to science. That is by no means evidence that all such claims are hallucinations or the like. One can default to the safe comfortable position and say, well, since we don't know how to explain such reports, they must not be real, but ultimately that is a statement of faith, not science.

If you're not willing to dismiss any claim, even if unfalsifiable, even if made by unreliable people, and even if it has no basis in theory, observation, or experiment, you can't expect to sort out the rubbish and find the truth. Yes, I agree that it's possible, despite countless experiments suggesting otherwise, that faith healing works or that mind reading is possible. Until someone conclusively demonstrates the validity of either, the proper thing to say is: both are unproven. Since they're unproven, they fall into the same category as Russell's teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the moon base that I dreamed about the other night.

 

[daniel_i_l]

The study debunking prayer was in the American Heart Journal last year.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1072638.ece

Maybe they were praying to the wrong god?
I don't see how you can really study the "effect of prayer" considering the fact that almost no two religious people would agree on the correct prayer to say. They'd probably even think that it'd make it worse by praying to the wrong god.
So even if one of the gods is real, the positive effect of praying to it would be canceled out by the negative effect of all the people praying to the wrong one.

Though I suppose you could do a different study for every religion. Good Luck.

 

[ZapperZ]

No, however he is no position to say the claims aren't true either. The point of the original claim is that no one presented evidence to support claims of the so-called paranormal, so that implies there is no such thing.

There is a severe misunderstanding here, and it is certainly true for what I have stated and what I definitely stand for.

You have a Phenomenon A.

You also have a statement about Phenomenon A, which is "Phenomenon A is valid".

I would argue that, without valid evidence, the statement which says that "Phenomenon A is valid" is false! It is pure bunk and speculation not based on valid evidence.

You are confusing the above with the argument that "Phenomenon A is bunk".

I really couldn't care less if Phenomenon A is bunk or not. I do care, however, when people use flimsy arguments and anecdotal evidence and THEN claim "Phenomenon A is valid". That is what I'm arguing against, the validity of that statement, not the validity of A. Showing the validity of A is the primary responsibility of those who think that Phenomenon A is valid.

Zz.