A case of psi right here on the Skeptiko forum?

[Arouet]

Well, there's truth in every joke I suppose. Why should we believe the story from Randi's crook partner if it's just an anecdote without evidence?

Not sure what you mean by "anecdote without evidence?" An anecdote is evidence - just not very reliable evidence. I'm referring to the broad definition of evidence not the specific scientific definition. Certainly any anecdote told by Randi's partner (I'm forgetting the guy's name) would have many unreliable aspects to it. Of course we're not evaluating such a tale to a scientific standard but I think we can quite confidently say the guy purchased and used a false identity to a pretty high standard of confidence. As for the nitty gritty of the story it would be subject to a rather wide margin of error due to a number of factors including errors of memory and possibility of deception. Whether we care about the margin of error depends on the question being asked. The more important the details are accurate the less risk of error we should be prepared to accept.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Apologies, I meant "anecdotes without corroborating evidence".

But you did mention a story where Randi's crook partner claims he didn't know the stolen ID belonged to a living person.

Why did you believe that story despite it coming from a criminal who has hoaxed people as part of a JREF media stunt, and who is partnered with Randi - a man who has been criticized for "debunking" that relies on poor -if not conjured up -data?

 

[Arouet]

Apologies, I meant "anecdotes without corroborating evidence".

But you did mention a story where Randi's crook partner claims he didn't know the stolen ID belonged to a living person.

Why did you believe that story despite it coming from a criminal who has hoaxed people as part of a JREF media stunt, and who is partnered with Randi - a man who has been criticized for "debunking" that relies on poor -if not conjured up -data?

Keeping in mind that we're not dealing with a scientific standard of evidence while the statement has a wide margin of error I give it the edge since it is the wise thing to do. The guy was an illegal alien seeking to buy a legitimate (ie: real, that would actually be usable) ID so that he could stay in the country. Buying an ID based on someone deceased would carry with it a much lower chance of getting caught so it would make sense to ask for that. It is also plausible that a seller of such IDs would tell the buyer that it was from a deceased person whether it was or not. It's certainly also plausible that the issue never came up or that he knew that it was from a living person - this would be less wise, but I'm sure people do it. My guess is those people are much more likely to be caught.

So it could go either way, given that the guy seems to be relatively smart and that the smart move would be to favour an ID of someone deceased I give the edge to that. accepting a wide margin of error along with it. Certainly for conversation sake I'm prepared to take it both ways.

The issue of illegal immigration is certainly a serious one though I'm not sure that I'd label such people "criminals" just because they committed some crimes in the illegal migration process. I don't know the reasons that led for him to take such measures but I know people who do so often do so because they are escaping bad situations. The issues are complicated and I imagine this guy's reasons were probably also serious (ie: people don't tend to do such things on whims, though I guess its possible.) People sometimes do unpleasant things when they consider themselves to be desperate and do things I'm sure they are not proud of. On a morality scale such acts certainly fall in a grey area. I'd certainly prefer people go through proper channels but I can imagine the terror at going through such channels and being rejected and concluded that they should go through less licit means.

As for Randi's role: I ask myself what I would do if I found out that my wife had done something similar. Would I have turned her in or divorced her? Well, I ended up splitting with her anyway but it wouldn't have been for a reason like that. Even if I found this out now when I'm no longer in love with her I still wouldn't.

Is it hypocritical of Randi? sure, but I get it. I find his general rudeness and lack of respect to people he doesn't agree with far more objectionable than his standing by the man he loves.

 

[Iyace]

Keeping in mind that we're not dealing with a scientific standard of evidence while the statement has a wide margin of error I give it the edge since it is the wise thing to do. The guy was an illegal alien seeking to buy a legitimate (ie: real, that would actually be usable) ID so that he could stay in the country. Buying an ID based on someone deceased would carry with it a much lower chance of getting caught so it would make sense to ask for that. It is also plausible that a seller of such IDs would tell the buyer that it was from a deceased person whether it was or not. It's certainly also plausible that the issue never came up or that he knew that it was from a living person - this would be less wise, but I'm sure people do it. My guess is those people are much more likely to be caught.

So it could go either way, given that the guy seems to be relatively smart and that the smart move would be to favour an ID of someone deceased I give the edge to that. accepting a wide margin of error along with it. Certainly for conversation sake I'm prepared to take it both ways.

The issue of illegal immigration is certainly a serious one though I'm not sure that I'd label such people "criminals" just because they committed some crimes in the illegal migration process. I don't know the reasons that led for him to take such measures but I know people who do so often do so because they are escaping bad situations. The issues are complicated and I imagine this guy's reasons were probably also serious (ie: people don't tend to do such things on whims, though I guess its possible.) People sometimes do unpleasant things when they consider themselves to be desperate and do things I'm sure they are not proud of. On a morality scale such acts certainly fall in a grey area. I'd certainly prefer people go through proper channels but I can imagine the terror at going through such channels and being rejected and concluded that they should go through less licit means.

As for Randi's role: I ask myself what I would do if I found out that my wife had done something similar. Would I have turned her in or divorced her? Well, I ended up splitting with her anyway but it wouldn't have been for a reason like that. Even if I found this out now when I'm no longer in love with her I still wouldn't.

Is it hypocritical of Randi? sure, but I get it. I find his general rudeness and lack of respect to people he doesn't agree with far more objectionable than his standing by the man he loves.

A smart guy would have done his research and not taken a criminal's word for face value.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

A smart guy would have done his research and not taken a criminal's word for face value.

I'd also say our opinions on illegal immigration in general are irrelevant. Things are different when you're part of an organization that browbeats people for not being down with the materialist paradigm, where your partner's own capacity for deception in the name of materialist evangelism deserves scrutiny.

If we take the word of a ID thief associated with Randi, who himself has been accused of massaging if not fabricating the truth*, why not take the word of upstanding & reliable persons who witness paranormal events?

If it comes down to memories being overwritten/altered, then what does this say about reliability of witnesses to crimes of abuse/assault against their own persons? Or really about the role memory plays in our society overall?

*1) Randi's "Broomhilda" info on SRI

2) Randi's claims about debunking Sheldrake

3) Randi attempting to talk about controversial science and distorting reality

4) Randi potentially avoiding the investigation of paranormal claims that might be true.

5) Problems with CSICOP that might be systemic given Randi is a founder

 

[Arouet]

If we take the word of a ID thief associated with Randi, who himself has been accused of massaging if not fabricating the truth*, why not take the word of upstanding & reliable persons who witnesses paranormal events?

We're talking about apples and oranges here. There are completely different questions being asked.

Also: when you say reliable persons you are referring to their general honesty I think. That's not what we mean by reliable in science. I tend to think most - not all - accounts of the paranormal are honest. That is: the people relating the account are being honest in their accounting. In these cases though we're generally not trying to assess whether they are forthright but whether they are able to reliably interpret what they witnessed.

The solution? Take the unreliable undocumented accounts as the basis for investigation, and try and devise reliable ways to document these types of experiences. That is what parapsychologists do.

If it comes down to memories being overwritten/altered, then what does this say about reliability of witnesses to crimes of abuse/assault against their own persons? Or really about the role memory plays in our society overall?

Witness testimony in trials is replete with error. We accept such a high degree of error because we need to make a decision in terms of dispute resolution/crime punishment. We have elaborate appeals processes in place to attempt to correct errors. No one pretends the process produces reliable results in the way we expect the scientific method to. The justice system balances the desire to be accurate with the desire to be pragmatic.

As for the role that memory plays in our society it can play a big role!


*1) Randi's "Broomhilda" info on SRI

2) Randi's claims about debunking Sheldrake

3) Randi attempting to talk about cold fusion

4) Randi potentially avoiding the investigation of paranormal claims that might be true.

5) Problems with CSICOP that might be systemic given Randi is a founder[/quote]

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

We accept such a high degree of error because we need to make a decision in terms of dispute resolution/crime punishment. We have elaborate appeals processes in place to attempt to correct errors. No one pretends the process produces reliable results in the way we expect the scientific method to. The justice system balances the desire to be accurate with the desire to be pragmatic.

In Canada, people can receive life sentences based on witness testimony? (And in the US they can even get the death penalty IIRC.)

And individuals/companies can be forced to part with large sums?

 

[Arouet]

In Canada, people can receive life sentences based on witness testimony? (And in the US they can even get the death penalty IIRC.)

And individuals/companies can be forced to part with large sums?

Yes.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Yes.

But isn't it at least a little weird that we trust witnesses enough to lock up - if not kill - people accused of crimes, and use testimony to transfer millions (billions?) of dollars from one party to another, yet when the paranormal comes up the reliability - both in terms of character & capacity - of witnesses is held in low regard?

I'm not suggesting witness testimony can suddenly be used to definitively tell the consensus what's real, but it does seem that the position of anecdotal evidence is rather context dependent.

Is it crazy to think the standard for justice should conceivably be higher than the standard for what is allowed to be considered possible/plausible in the scientific community? No one has seen one of Everett's branching multiverses after all...

 

[billw]

I tend to think most - not all - accounts of the paranormal are honest. That is: the people relating the account are being honest in their accounting. In these cases though we're generally not trying to assess whether they are forthright but whether they are able to reliably interpret what they witnessed.

Well, in that case, according to the unreliability studies, we have reason to believe that 20 percent of the honest ones got their reporting right. Even if it's 1 percent, we've definitely got something to explain, and not dismiss as noise.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Arouet]

But isn't it at least a little weird that we trust witnesses enough to lock up - if not kill - people accused of crimes, and use testimony to transfer millions (billions?) of dollars from one party to another, yet when the paranormal comes up the reliability - both in terms of character & capacity - of witnesses is held in low regard?

I've commented on this before: the purpose is different. In society we have disputes and crimes. A functioning society must have a system to resolve them. We have a forced decision. We accept that the benefit of forcing a resolution is worth the uncertainty. Uncertainty is explicitly recognised in the system. We do the best we can with the resources we have. The standards are significantly lower than science because imposing the standards of science would result in a system where no dispute was resolved and few people were convicted of crimes. There would be little balance.

With science the question is different. It's not about dispute resolution but about trying to figure out how things work. There is no need to come to a conclusion if the evidence is not reliable enough. We provide much less margin of error and for good reason.

I'm not suggesting witness testimony can suddenly be used to definitively tell the consensus what's real, but it does seem that the position of anecdotal evidence is rather context dependent.

Oh! It absolutely is context dependant! Context is everything in fact!

Is it crazy to think the standard for justice should conceivably be higher than the standard for what is allowed to be considered possible/plausible in the scientific community?

Yes. If we used the evidential burden of proof of science for criminal justice the jails would be sparsely populated and crime would become much less risky of legal consequence.

Hold on though - just noticed you referred to what is considered plausible/possible. I'm referring to when we should consider an experiment to have confirmed a hypothesis. All sorts of hypotheses are possible or plausible and yet are dead-wrong. That's not where the focus should lie. I don't think the threshold for what is possible is pretty low.

 

[Arouet]

Well, in that case, according to the unreliability studies, we have reason to believe that 20 percent of the honest ones got their reporting right. Even if it's 1 percent, we've definitely got something to explain, and not dismiss as noise.

Cheers,
Bill

I disagree with your reasoning re: the 20% (ie: the fact that we can state overall that there is a percentage of observations that have higher degrees of accuracy than others doesn't let us say that a certain subcategory of observations must be correct). That said: I certainly believe that we've definitely got something to explain - hence my support for parapsychology.

 

[billw]

I disagree with your reasoning re: the 20% (ie: the fact that we can state overall that there is a percentage of observations that have higher degrees of accuracy than others doesn't let us say that a certain subcategory of observations must be correct). That said: I certainly believe that we've definitely got something to explain - hence my support for parapsychology.

You can disagree all you like, but examining and analyzing those cases as objectively as possible without continually throwing out the blanket statement that they're unreliable is also part of parapsychology.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[billw]

Also: when you say reliable persons you are referring to their general honesty I think. That's not what we mean by reliable in science. I tend to think most - not all - accounts of the paranormal are honest.

Call it what you like, but a witness' character and possible motives are part of the equation when objectively analyzing testimony. If you're read any of Ian Stevenson's research this would be evident to you.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Arouet]

You can disagree all you like, but examining and analyzing those cases as objectively as possible without continually throwing out the blanket statement that they're unreliable is also part of parapsychology.

Cheers,
Bill

I'm not sure what blanket statements you're referring to: I've discussed in detail over the years the particular issues I have re-garding eye-witness testimony and why I consider it to be of a high risk of error.

I'd love to have a discussion where people explain why they consider such testimony to be sufficiently reliable to base scientific conclusions on - including what they base it on and how we can test it. Unfortunately anytime I've asked this I've never received a response. That doesn't mean there isn't one just that no-one has taken the time to share it or to site their sources.

 

[Arouet]

You can disagree all you like, but examining and analyzing those cases as objectively as possible without continually throwing out the blanket statement that they're unreliable is also part of parapsychology.

Cheers,
Bill

Well, parapsychology from what I can tell is about moving from the accounts to controlled circumstances where they can try and capture the experience. I see them using the anecdotal accounts as useful tools in identifying areas to study.

 

[billw]

Unfortunately anytime I've asked this I've never received a response. That doesn't mean there isn't one just that no-one has taken the time to share it or to site their sources.

That sounds familiar.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Arouet]

That sounds familiar.

Cheers,
Bill

Yes, I've said it several times because I've asked several times. I can't think of a way to reliably assess such accounts. People tell me there is a way but don't elaborate - discussion ends.

 

[billw]

Yes, I've said it several times because I've asked several times. I can't think of a way to reliably assess such accounts. People tell me there is a way but don't elaborate - discussion ends.

And I've said many times--the way Stevenson approached them. And I still hear the crickets on your Eye for an Eye thread.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Arouet]

And I've said many times--the way Stevenson approached them. And I still hear the crickets on your Eye for an Eye thread.

Cheers,
Bill

I think Stevenson seems to have done his best. I'm still making my way through the new book and will be able to discuss in more detail when I'm done. How high a risk of error do you think we should attribute to Stevenson's methods? How should we go about coming up with this evaluation? How do we confirm it?

Again: I think Stevenson was earnest and did his best- same with his successors, but these are not easy difficulties to overcome simply by the nature of the beast: that is: they are generally coming in well after the fact. They can't go back and approach the case under the most reliable conditions.

Remember: the best we can do may be, due to the circumstances, filled with high risk of error. The entire field of history is dominated by this - and no historian would say a good historian would have an extremely low risk of error - it is the nature of historical research that it will contain high error bars, even using the best known methods.