Michael Shermer has a Paranormal Experience

Be careful about common sense. Again: context matters. The reliability of our observations varies. Research confirms this. The book I mentioned, Thinking Fast and Slow goes over a good deal of research related to this issue. This research should be evaluated skeptically just like anything else - but ignoring it, simply because the conclusions sometimes go against common sense, seems unwise to me.

I'm not saying to ignore common sense - it is a useful tool. But it often provides a more useful role as a
starting point for investigation, not as an endpoint.
Click to expand...
Yes, my use of the word "common sense" is a loaded phrase, and probably not the best one to use (I couldn't think of something better. Human rationality? Human judgement?). And herein lies a great deal of the discussion regarding the evidentiary value of observations. But I also think you will find, it is discussed quite a bit at length in Ch. IV of Phantasms, including a very detailed discussion of two classes of tendencies of error in observation (narration and memory).

First of all: everyone is biased. Fls, you, me. In various ways and to varying degrees, but all of us. If we could just accept this we could move on from accusations of bias to figuring out what to do about it!
Click to expand...
True. But not everyone is so biased and caught up in their intellectual hubris they are willing to go so far as to be dishonest about their knowledge.

As for the documented cases issue: did you see what I wrote about this above? Do you know if you are thinking of the same definition of bias as she is? I can think of a relatively easy way of finding out! ;)
Click to expand...
I am willing to engage in a discussion about the nature of "documentation" with someone who has actually read in full the research in question. Not someone who has skimmed the research and made an immediate assessment of the material. Like I stated before, I disbelieve entirely fls claim that she had read the book. I simply believed it was a lie. If I believed her, perhaps I would have been willing to engage her regarding the nature of what can be considered "documented" evidentiary scientific data and what cannot be. Which I believe you and I are about to have a discussion about. fls can read the discussion, but I will no longer respond to her comments. You of course will be free to respond all you like. ;) I just don't feel like dealing with that level of dishonesty and bias!

You may have made that decision, but do you care if its justified? If you were wrong would you want to know? If there was something of value worth considering, would you want to know? If she based her views on research rather than skeptical talking points would you want to know? If there was relevant research that you were ignorant of, would you want to see that research?
Click to expand...

Yes I have made a decision based on what fls said, and many of the comments she made to me in the thread. I have no good reason to change my judgement at this time, regarding her statements or my belief that she was dishonest.

Perhaps the real question fls and you should ask Arouet, since both you and fls pretty much joined Skeptico about the same time (one day apart, which is a remarkable coincidence), is how willing is fls to admit her dishonesty, and how much scientific methodology really does depend on honesty, objectivity, and the willingness not to make blanket assumptions about scientific research you have not carefully looked at?

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
Bertha Huse said:
Perhaps the real question fls and you should ask Arouet, since both you and fls pretty much joined Skeptico about the same time (one day apart, which is a remarkable coincidence)
Click to expand...

Not such a coincidence. This is the second version of Skeptiko. The original one was here: "http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/skeptiko-podcast-forums/skeptiko-podcast". You'll find a number of regs have very close join dates.

is how willing is fls to admit her dishonesty, and how much scientific methodology really does depend on honesty, objectivity, and the willingness not to make blanket assumptions about scientific research you have not carefully looked at?
Click to expand...

I think people spend way too much time trying to evaluate people's honesty in these discussions. Usually, it reflects the evaluator's prejudices more than the evaluee's. Usually it is based on hastily made assumptions based on too little information. And the fact is, unless you are planning on just taking someone's word for it - it really doesn't matter! You should be evaluating hers - and other posters - arguments skeptically. Arguments speak for themselves. Once made, they no longer belong to the person making them. They can be evaluated on their own merits. They can - and should - be put to the test. They can - and should - be backed up.

Personally, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt in terms of sincerity.
 
Not such a coincidence. This is the second version of Skeptiko. The original one was here: "http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/skeptiko-podcast-forums/skeptiko-podcast". You'll find a number of regs have very close join dates.
Click to expand...
Ah! That resolves that little mystery. Thanks.

I think people spend way too much time trying to evaluate people's honesty in these discussions. Usually, it reflects the evaluator's prejudices more than the evaluee's. Usually it is based on hastily made assumptions based on too little information. And the fact is, unless you are planning on just taking someone's word for it - it really doesn't matter! You should be evaluating hers - and other posters - arguments skeptically. Arguments speak for themselves. Once made, they no longer belong to the person making them. They can be evaluated on their own merits. They can - and should - be put to the test. They can - and should - be backed up.

Personally, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt in terms of sincerity.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm usually more forgiving too. But I'm still pretty pissed off of many of the things she said. I'm a human being just like fls. Just like the many human beings who's biographies have been fucked over on Wikipedia by the guerilla Skeptics. So I admittedly do have a great deal of simmering anger regarding the neo-atheist skeptics, and their asinine fundamentalistic attitudes toward those who disagree with them.

I believe your assumption that fls read 500 pages in 2 days, since 3 days is not when the discussion on Phantasms actually began, and if one looks closely, it is more like 1 day, is simply absurd. ESPECIALLY given her comments after she made the claim she had read the book. Her comments were entirely dismissive and did not even establish a single case the book made, did not acknowledge anything good about the book. In addition, Phantasms is not an easy read, it is a highly didactic book of scientific research by a highly intellectual group of scholarly men.

Arouet, I hope we actually get to the discussion we agreed upon and not belabor the question of fls's dishonesty, (or my belief she was dishonest). I have pointed out to you yet a 2nd time why I believe she was dishonest, and also my judgement of her opinions regarding her biased statements.

This is not the discussion I agreed to engage with you. If you want you can have this discussion regarding fls's dishonesty with her. Or how someone makes hasty assumptions based on little information - which is exactly the kind of activity fls was engaged in.

My Best,
Bertha

ps: That will be my last post regarding fls. I think we've beaten a dead horse too many times already. And you have not convinced me my judgement is flawed.
 
Last edited:
Bertha Huse said:
Linda - this will be my final response to you since not only have you been dishonest with me,...
Click to expand...

I have not been dishonest with you. I made a small mistake which I immediately told you about, when I discovered it.

...but you still are making the incorrect assumption that Phantasms of the Living consists of undocumented stories (likely based on some unreliable skeptical author).
Click to expand...

It is not incorrect to say that the stories in Phantasms of the Living are largely undocumented. And I base this on having read the stories (since they are largely contained in the volume I read). There is even reference made to this in Chapter IV:

"Now the probability that this unusual experience has been misrepresented will be very different, according as the mention of it by the percipient precedes or follows his knowledge of what has befallen the agent. If he gives his account in ignorance of that event, and independently of any ideas which it might be calculated to awake in his mind, there seems no ground at all for supposing that he has coloured his statement, at any rate in any way which would affect its evidential value. If A, a person with a general character for truthfulness, and with no motive to deceive, mentions having had an unusual experience—a hallucination of the senses, an unaccountable impression, or whatever he likes to call it—which was strongly suggestive of B, no one will tell him that he is romancing or exaggerating, and that he had no such impression as he reports. He will simply be told that his nerves are overstrung, or that he has had a waking dream, or something of that sort. And this assumption of the truth of the statement could of course not be impugned merely because it subsequently turned out that B died at the time.

Hence, one of the points to which we have, throughout our inquiry, attached the highest value, is the proof that evidence of the percipient’s experience was in existence prior to the receipt of the news of the agent’s condition. This prior evidence may be of various sorts. The percipient may at once make a written record in a diary, or in a letter which may have been preserved. Where this has been the case, we have always endeavoured to obtain the document for inspection."

"Undocumented" means that a record was not made prior to any sort of information becoming known to the percipient, depending instead upon recollection after the fact. The concerns raised by this are also mentioned in Chapter IV, under subheading 9:

http://www.esalen.org/ctr-archive/book-phantasms.html#i-c4-9

You clearly have not read any of the standards that were used in Phantasms, which are stated in Chapter IV.
Click to expand...

I'm at a bit of a loss here to understand you. The concerns I have raised are also concerns which are mentioned in Chapter IV. I don't understand why, when I say it, it means I haven't read the research and I am parroting organized skepticism sources, but when the authors of Phantasms of the Living say it, it's rigorous scholarship.

I do not want to waste my time here with someone who continues to insist upon something that if they only read the actual research for themselves, would be demonstrably false, and who is so biased, has already been willing to lie about their knowledge in order to push forward their ideological agenda, that has very little to do with actual science or psychical research.

Sadly, what you are practicing here is not science, but a new kind of ignorance which I think has been appropriately labeled in the past as fundamentalistic thinking. Good luck with your medical work. And I hope someday you will find the courage to take your skeptical blinders off, and take a look at the actual psi research, instead of relying entirely on easily falsifiable skeptical resources.

My Best,
Bertha
Click to expand...

Where on earth are you getting that from? I have already demonstrated that I have done what you ask of me - looking at the actual psi research and eschewing skeptical resources.

Linda
 
Arouet said:
Incidentally fls (among others) is much more qualified than me on the technical questions. You've made some assumptions about her posts that I don't think are warranted. Some of it is undoubtedly because she is using some terms - such as "documented" - in a technical sense that keys directly into questions of research methodology. Very likely you have a different definition in mind - so you think she's says something that she's not.
Click to expand...

To be fair (to me :)), I have stated several times specifically what I mean by "documented", I gave a reference to Stevenson's discussion of it early in the thread, and it is also covered in Chapter IV of the book Bertha Huse says he's familiar with.

Linda
 
Arouet said:
You may have made that decision, but do you care if its justified? If you were wrong would you want to know? If there was something of value worth considering, would you want to know? If she based her views on research rather than skeptical talking points would you want to know? If there was relevant research that you were ignorant of, would you want to see that research?
Click to expand...
If actually making a serious effort to associate with people who have the capacity to demonstrate the phenomena discussed here (in real life situations) could give you a few valuable clues about the nature of if, wouldn't you want to try it? This is, after all, a thread about someone's personal experience--not a thread where you lecture people on what methodologies they should be studying up on, or how to distrust their own judgement because of bias.

Cheers,
Bill
 
billw said:
If actually making a serious effort to associate with people who have the capacity to demonstrate the phenomena discussed here (in real life situations) could give you a few valuable clues about the nature of if, wouldn't you want to try it?
Click to expand...

Are you talking about discussing forum member's actual personal experiences? I've written about this before: I tend to avoid this as the discussions become too personal and have a high chance of resulting in hurt feelings, which is not my goal. Anytime I've gotten into that kind of discussion I've regretted it. I tend to stick to talking about the research.

This is, after all, a thread about someone's personal experience--not a thread where you lecture people on what methodologies they should be studying up on, or how to distrust their own judgement because of bias.
Click to expand...

Sorry, we have indeed gotten off topic - although with very positive results! Later today I'll create a thread for this topic and we can move the discussion there. Sorry for the derail!
 
I believe your assumption that fls read 500 pages in 2 days, since 3 days is not when the discussion on Phantasms actually began, and if one looks closely, it is more like 1 day, is simply absurd.
Click to expand...

MU/Waller Joel or your latest 'personality' Bertha Huse. You were funny at first but now you are just being repetitive. Why do you keep spamming in a book that was debunked many years ago:

The two-volume Phantasms of the Living was criticized by scholars for the lack of written testimony and the time elapsed between the occurrence and the report of it being made. Some of the reports were analyzed by the German hallucination researcher Edmund Parish (1861–1916) who concluded they were evidence for a dream state of consciousness, not the paranormal. Charles Sanders Peirce wrote a long criticism of the book arguing that no scientific conclusion could be reached from anecdotes and stories of unanalyzed phenomena. Alexander Taylor Innes attacked the book due to the stories lacking evidential substantiation in nearly every case. According to Innes the alleged sightings of apparitions were unreliable as they rested upon the memory of the witnesses and no contemporary documents had been produced, even in cases where such documents were alleged to exist. The psychologist C. E. M. Hansel noted that the stories in Phantasms of the Living were not backed up by any corroborating evidence. Hansel concluded "none of the stories investigated has withstood critical examination."
Click to expand...

Instead of responding to those criticisms you ignore them and throw around ad-hominem attacks about skeptics. You ignore any criticisms of your psychic beliefs. It is not honest. You are biased. No different than a religious fundamentalist.

Please stop wasting our time with such pseudoscience drivel.
 
Last edited:
billw said:
Not at all, I'm suggesting that you might wish to make a serious effort to observe and interact with the phenomena for yourself.

Cheers,
Bill
Click to expand...
Yes, good point you make billw. We can debate scientific methodology until the next ice age sets in, and I have a feeling that's what I may be getting myself into here (but I have agreed heh). But you're right, there is nothing like first-hand experience with say, a very capable medium such as a Leonora Piper, or a Gladys Osborne Leonard to make one in very short order, throw away all your preconceptions and realize something quite unexplainable is taking place. (As, what indeed occurred with William James.)

Although I do not know Arouet well, it would seem odd that given his apparent interest of this topic of psi phenomena and its potential validity, you would think he would make some kind of attempt to seek out a good medium (although admittedly, they are not very easy to find these days, especially at the mediumistic level of a Mrs. Piper).

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
Bertha Huse said:
I believe your assumption that fls read 500 pages in 2 days, since 3 days is not when the discussion on Phantasms actually began, and if one looks closely, it is more like 1 day, is simply absurd.
Click to expand...

You first mentioned the book and asked me if I'd read it on Sunday evening. However long it took me, I was done when I said I was done. Except that I didn't realize I had a whole 'nother book to read. :)

I appreciate that you have strong feelings about false assumptions. Perhaps you could consider drawing on those feelings to avoid making false assumptions about me?

ESPECIALLY given her comments after she made the claim she had read the book. Her comments were entirely dismissive and did not even establish a single case the book made, did not acknowledge anything good about the book. In addition, Phantasms is not an easy read, it is a highly didactic book of scientific research by a highly intellectual group of scholarly men.
Click to expand...

Volume II is an easier read, as it is mostly stories. Volume I is more didactic, but most of the arguments and information are not new to me, so I'm getting through it pretty quickly. The kinds of studies and stories, as well as the arguments used to support the case for psi have been used (and continue to be used) by other authors.

I want to make it clear that just because it is recognized that there are concerns with stories which weren't recorded in advance of the knowledge (and I hope I can say that without raising your ire, since the authors of the book also say it), it doesn't mean that it can be assumed that the stories are false and dismissed en bloc. As Arouet mentioned, information of questionable validity and reliability can be useful to guide additional exploration, and is often what precedes the performance of good-quality research. The authors of the book even mention that the evidence falls short of the ideal, in section 19 of Chapter IV. To me, it makes more sense to focus on the progress which has been made in the hundred years since, as researchers have built on earlier work referenced in Phantasms of the Living, and have gathered information with stronger reliability and validity. I don't criticize Phantasms of the Living to dismiss it. I criticize it in order to focus on the much better research which has supplanted it.

Linda
 
Bertha Huse said:
But it does show you just how reliant people now are on Wikipedia, and what a devastating influence it will have on the general public. :(
Click to expand...

If it's not a wind up, then yes, unfortunately. Historical mediumship is not my favourite piece of the survival jigsaw but Piper was astonishing and if that hadn't been the case then Richard Hodgson wouldn't have gone to the extreme measures he did to test her.
 
tim said:
If it's not a wind up, then yes, unfortunately. Historical mediumship is not my favourite piece of the survival jigsaw but Piper was astonishing and if that hadn't been the case then Richard Hodgson wouldn't have gone to the extreme measures he did to test her.
Click to expand...
Entirely agree. She was - remarkable. I just wish someone with some clout would take some action against Wikipedia. Because what is taking place there goes beyond reasonable, and borders on the criminal.

You would think the SPR would try to take action, although I imagine funding is always an issue.
 
tim said:
If it's not a wind up, then yes, unfortunately. Historical mediumship is not my favourite piece of the survival jigsaw but Piper was astonishing and if that hadn't been the case then Richard Hodgson wouldn't have gone to the extreme measures he did to test her.
Click to expand...
Yes, there really is the question of how far the unconscious can impersonate, and the super-telepathy hypothesis is still out there as well (or maybe some other related hypothesis). But my God, her proxy sittings, the year after year level of veridical details, that was recorded in detail ... absolutely astonishing.
 
Bertha Huse said:
Entirely agree. She was - remarkable. I just wish someone with some clout would take some action against Wikipedia. Because what is taking place there goes beyond reasonable (IMO).
Click to expand...

I've tried to edit pages but they just change it back. They have teams of young materialist/atheists activists watching all the time. I don't care anymore, they're too young to get angry with, better to ignore them, at least on there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top