Back and forth with skeptic

This guy is really annoying me anyone got a good response for him?

SKEPTIC: Anything can be influenced by beliefs though. A person being an atheist or theist could influence scientists, but for the most part it just determines what areas attract them more. The internet is dodgy when it comes to validity, it would have to come from an appropriate source. I still don't see ESP or PSI as valid areas for research. Things that have been researched for almost 100 years, yet are treated as if they are something new. And I can guarantee you that there has been no proven evidence produced by in a controlled laboratory. State it otherwise. Why would we research an area that has almost had a century to be researched and yielded no positive results? The general public are really out of touch with experts. You never see reputable psychologists on tv, it's always bullshit Dr Phil or Oprah Winfrey shit. But the people discovering these things have also been experts, not everyone is going to immediately agree, but when evidence appears and be replicated then the people stop scoffing. Also the biggest contributors on those subjects are actual scientists who have proven them to be false after trying to see if the could be true like the amazing randi who offered 1 million dollars to anyone who could come to him and prove claims of things they lay outside science. He's still waiting.That money is also being held by JREF in a New York investment account lol. You said as well 'from personal experience' but science does not use personal experience as evidence only as indication of an area which may be interesting to investigate further, that's it. Case studies and testimonials are useless as evidence. And more more thing Randi has contributed a lot to critical thinking and how science should be approached. To just call him a glorified atheist is a bit unfair. He is a prime example of someone who shows the skewed public perception when it comes to science. I did not say he was a scientist. What I've read of him is actually very good. And he comes at things from a different perspective. I have read the rules. All the things you are stating are hypothetical and just speculation. He is not a fraud though, give evidence for that. Science does not say that about gay men. I still hold my point, I'd like to see evidence which supports PSI because I have not heard of any in all the decades of research. I think you give in to easily to public perception. PSI is a field which has produced no positive results in a controlled experiment agreed by two opposing parties. It should be considered as something not worth wasting more time on like alchemy, astrology, theurgy etc. I think by stating otherwise, you are being won over by something which is detrimental to scientific progress. And its a shame that many members of the public believe this ESP and PSI nonesense. The rules are not questionable. All that its asking for is a controlled experiment, which PSI advocates hate. And doesn't state they have all rights to the results, its just that they can freely use the material. Science is meant to be free knowledge, and for god sake he's giving away a million dollars.I haven't read up on 'one side of the argument', I've read up on parapsychology and there is absolutely no basis for belief in it. At least do me the courtesy of linking me some accurate information or give me some books to read on it, which prove otherwise. To think that all scientists have some sort of vendetta is a preposterous idea. I'm not being arrogant by saying pseudoscience, it's a common belief. If something does not fall within the realm of science what should you call it if not non science or pseudoscience. I'm just saying that things like parapsychology are attractive to the public, whereas real science can seem stale. Yes, but science deals with what evidence we have, a lack of evidence can't be used. If something is studied for 90 years without producing any real evidence, it isn't a good sign. That's all I'm saying. When do we decide that something is not worth studying? We don't believe in pseudoscience or non science like alchemy now, as I said previous. And I've studied a lot about it as well, and as much as I like the idea of the philosophers stone, it's a romanticized notion.
 
- First, tell said skeptic to go read Kuhn and get hip to paradigms, or a basic understanding of culture.
- 100 years of research doesn't amount to much with only a handful of researchers, as Lyace has eloquently pointed out previously somewhere.
- Give a link to Radin's 'Show Me The Evidence' page.
- Tell him/her to stop being such a mindless idiot
- Throw a little Kastrup in the mix to spice things up: http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/arti...erialism-how-fundamentalists-hijacked-science
 
1) Materialism is just one more religion out there with its own beliefs.

2) Clifton's Empirical Case Against Materialism.

Also, Chalmer's work on the same subject for further reading.

3) I'm rather skeptical of mechanistic closure (the world is reducible to base level structure & dynamics) for reasons I note here & here.

4) So some time ago I came upon this article about Krippner in the SF weekly.

The part that piqued my interest was:

The knock on parapsychology studies has long been that any so-called evidence of ESP is usually limited to negligible effects only detectable after scouring massive bodies of data. "Those to whom this criticism has any appeal should be aware that the Maimonides experiments are clearly exempt from it," wrote Irvin Child, Yale's former psychology department chair, in American Psychologist, the APA's flagship journal. "I believe many psychologists would, like myself, consider the ESP hypothesis to merit serious consideration and continued research if they read the Maimonides reports for themselves."

With an addendum from Krippner on replication:

First of all, our original dream telepathy results were repeated several times in our own laboratory. We published both the successful replications and the unsuccessful replications. All of these articles are referenced at the end of our book DREAM TELEPATHY (by Ullman, Krippner, and Vaughan). A meta-analysis of all the studies produced high significant results and was published in a 1985 article by Irvin Child in The American Psychologist, flagship journal of the American Psychological Association..

Several other researchers attempted to replicate our work. Both the successful replications and the unsuccessful replications have been published in the chapter by Roe and Sherwood in ADVANCES IN PARAPSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH, VOLUME 9 (edited by Krippner and Friedman). A meta-analysis of all these studies produced highly significant results. They were not as strong as the Maimonides data, probably because they used "home dreams" instead of "laboratory dreams," the latter involving psychophysiological recordings. In the lab, participants can be awakened once they have been in REM sleep for a while. For home dreams, participants are usually awakened randomly by telephone, hence many dreams are lost.
 
It's pretty obvious that the writer of that response is a teenager. It's just a stream of consciousness. On top of that, he repeats the same mantra that has been said dozens of time, and finally, randi prize is the stereotypical, cookie cutter, intellectually devoid response.
 
I really don't understand why skeptics constantly describe studies that dot. Equate to their beliefs as pseudoscience. As for Randi do they honestly think he is going to not only give the applicant a million dollars but also sacrifice his reputation and as a knock on effect, the funding from his adoring fans so willingly?. The challenge just seems stupid. That would be like someone saying "I'm a renowned sexist and I offer money to anyone that can prove to me that women should be treated with respect, bare in mind when you inevitably fail to sway my set in stone beliefs you must release a statement admitting you were wrong. What a croc
 
Randi's Million Dollar Challenge (MBC) can be critique on at least two three grounds:

1) You can't actually win because Randi won't investigate claims that might be true.

2) The MBC doesn't take into account the studies of Psi are largely tests for abilities inherent to everyone at a low indeterminate level rather than studies of particular individuals...though the latter exist as well.

3) The MBC doesn't take into account the possibility of low invariant phenomenon - basically stuff like Psi can be context dependent, perhaps precisely because unlike non-mental processes operating via the laws of physics Psi involves consciousness which is all subjectivity.

High invariant processes/reactions don't change when brought into a lab, yet at the same time high invariant phenomenon is objective stuff that is amenable to reduction. Subjective phenomenon, basically stuff related in some way to consciousness, seems to be much more sensitive to emotional and in some cases spatio-temporal context. Kripal makes note of this in Embracing the Unexplained.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
one of the things that gets me is when they label it as a 'romanticised notion' or a 'childish fantasy' many years ago one may have thought the idea of flight or aircraft was a childish fantasy, lets face it back then it would've seemed as such given that it was beyond the realms of current possibility, but an exciting notion. The same goes for space travel, taking photos, film, sending messages to someone on the other side of the planet that will be received in an instant. yet we now have the ability to do all of these things. I also find it ridiculous when they assert that "science cannot explain consciousness via materialistic means currently, but one day it will" and thats accepted as logical even though it is based entirely on faith yet if one where to say "i believe consciousness could continue after death" well thats simply ridiculous and entirely based on faith an nothing else. seems a bit hypocritical. "everyones entitled to their own opinion but only mine is right"
 
For what it is worth, I would not have even considered a response. There are some people who don't deserve the courtesy of a response - obvious trolls and bigots come to mind - and this person would fall into that category for me.

For your own benefit, however, follow the links and satisfy yourself that the guy is just an arsehole (in american: asshole).
 
Yeah, these were all a series of comments he kept posting to me, eventually it got boring and incredibly annoying trying to reply
 
Yeah, these were all a series of comments he kept posting to me, eventually it got boring and incredibly annoying trying to reply
It sounds like someone who has been rewarded all his young life for critical thinking, and hates the idea some aspect of the syllabus is beyond his capacity to win out. JREF is the mother lode for these kind of people, and they are simply beyond hope. Maybe a few decades of wear and tear will remove the sparkle from his certainty, but in the meantime, I wouldn't waste time on the guy.
 
It sounds like someone who has been rewarded all his young life for critical thinking, and hates the idea some aspect of the syllabus is beyond his capacity to win out. JREF is the mother lode for these kind of people, and they are simply beyond hope. Maybe a few decades of wear and tear will remove the sparkle from his certainty, but in the meantime, I wouldn't waste time on the guy.

This is a very good point Gabriel. In the past I would debate with anyone, these days I don't bother unless the person seems genuinely interested. There is a lot of ego in debating with a clear objective of winning rather than learning. I'm just not interested in that any more (I don't think I ever was really).

The key to me is establishing some common basis for discussion. Unless a person is prepared to read some of the reports, literature or documentation then is is difficult to establish this common basis for discussion and progress is very difficult. People end up swapping evidence without really considering it properly and talking past each other. It's a waste of time IMHO and isn't even much use to observers most of the time.
 
Just point out materialism is a religion for reasons I mention in that link. Most people's "scientific" beliefs are just taken on faith, passed down from high priests in lab coat. As Gabriel points out, people then establish themselves to be "critical thinkers" when in truth they've simply accepted the tenets of a faith.

The two important things to remember is that mechanistic closure is not proven and at some point you have to just live a truth in your daily life and most people act as if they are immaterialist in that they enjoy freedom & believe in morality and moral responsibility.
 
I have no problem with critical thinking but there is a stark contrast between critical thinking and putting your fingers in your ear and saying "lalala I'm not listening". I dunno, he states that he's studied parapsychology and that he can guarantee there's no good evidence for it etc. it seems that today closed minded ness is seen as 'cools' even worse it's now posing itself as genuine intelligence.
 
I have no problem with critical thinking but there is a stark contrast between critical thinking and putting your fingers in your ear and saying "lalala I'm not listening". I dunno, he states that he's studied parapsychology and that he can guarantee there's no good evidence for it etc. it seems that today closed minded ness is seen as 'cools' even worse it's now posing itself as genuine intelligence.

If he's more qualified than Irvin Child, who I mentioned above as having said Krippner's dream telepathy results warrant further examination of ESP, that would be impressive given that Child was a chair of Yale's psych dept.
 
this is were its a matter of arrogance, not intelligence. if james randi says something is woo then its woo, this is how any fandom works. look at justin biers fans, they will always stand by him even when he is talking absolute crap
 
Back
Top