Studies Say Facts Don't Change Beliefs, Debunking May Make Them Worse; Trust, Explanations Are Key

[LoneShaman]

I don't disagree. But in the case of paranormal, the claims are more like "this couldn't be a guess" or "I don't see how it can be fraud". Examples of how guessing can lead to the appearance of accuracy, or ways in which fraud could have produced the results - what proponents often refer to as "debunking" - could be considered falsification of those claims through presenting alternative hypotheses.

Anyways, if we go back to my original question, it still isn't clear what the difference is between "presenting alternative explanations' and "debunking", if what is presented are examples of how to produce the results using non-anomalous effects.

Linda

But none of those statements are actual scientifically valid claims in the first place. They are opinions, and what follows starts to resemble a straw man.

I am not separating cases of paranormal with any other type of scientific application. Without falsification there is only the weight of competing hypothesis which could be enough. However each will inherently have a null hypothesis that can distinguish or eliminate. There are lots of things to consider, but to keep it simple and not derail the thread.

A causes X = Hypothesis.
A does not cause X = Null hypothesis (falsification/debunking).
B causes X = alternative hypothesis.

I am not sure what is not clear. We could go even further and say A and B cause X. Perhaps you have spent so long arguing over it you have hardened those neural pathways. Not trying to be rude just conjecture as it relates to the thread. But why even bring it up? Like a dog with a bone if you know what I mean.
We all have been brainwashed to a certain extent, knowing how much is the real trick.

 

[fls]

But none of those statements are actual scientifically valid claims in the first place.

Right. We aren't talking about scientific claims, with formal hypotheses and null hypotheses, but about opinions and informal discussion. So I was a bit surprised that you brought up falsification, but went along with it to be nice. :)

I am not separating cases of paranormal with any other type of scientific application. Without falsification there is only the weight of competing hypothesis which could be enough. However each will inherently have a null hypothesis that can distinguish or eliminate. There are lots of things to consider, but to keep it simple and not derail the thread.

A causes X = Hypothesis.
A does not cause X = Null hypothesis (falsification/debunking).
B causes X = alternative hypothesis.

I don't think it's that formal. It's more like "A might cause X and I can't think of any why in which B could have caused X". And the debunker/presenter of alternative explanations comes back with, "well B could have caused X like this..." I see very little of "A does not cause X" here.

I am not sure what is not clear. We could go even further and say A and B cause X. Perhaps you have spent so long arguing over it you have hardened those neural pathways. Not trying to be rude just conjecture as it relates to the thread. But why even bring it up?

Bring what up?

Linda

 

[LoneShaman]

Right. We aren't talking about scientific claims, with formal hypotheses and null hypotheses, but about opinions and informal discussion. So I was a bit surprised that you brought up falsification, but went along with it to be nice. :)

No, I was not talking about opinions or informal discussion. Debunking is dummy speak for falsification In my interpretation.

I don't think it's that formal. It's more like "A might cause X and I can't think of any why in which B could have caused X". And the debunker/presenter of alternative explanations comes back with, "well B could have caused X like this..." I see very little of "A does not cause X" here.

A might cause X, is implied of course because it is a hypothesis. B might cause X does not immediately meet the null hypothesis of A does not cause X, although in some cases it can. Formality is crucial, it is very formal. What we would have there is the weight of competing hypothesis as I mentioned because both null hypothesis may still stand. The weight being the evidence in support of the hypothesis. I am not being specific to any subject. It is actually quite formal and does depend on how the questions are asked and in turn the positive and negative controls as it relates to both the hypothesis and inherent null hypothesis.

 

[fls]

No, I was not talking about opinions or informal discussion.

I realize that. What I meant was "we" as in "myself and the other people discussing the OP", who were. You decided to introduce formal hypothesis testing, but it doesn't seem relevant to what I was asking.

Debunking is dummy speak for falsification In my interpretation.

The two seem only loosely related, since they seem to apply to two different endeavours. Falsification is part of a more formal system of hypothesis testing. Debunking seems to be about investigating events and offering non-anomalous possibilities.

A might cause X, is implied of course because it is a hypothesis. B might cause X does not immediately meet the null hypothesis of A does not cause X, although in some cases it can.

Exactly. People tend to present explanations which seem plausible to them and present ways in which other explanations are implausible. But the explanations tend not to be mutually exclusive in the way a formal hypothesis and null hypothesis are.

Formality is crucial, it is very formal.

For what you are talking about, yes. For what the OP and I were talking about, not so much.

What we would have there is the weight of competing hypothesis as I mentioned because both null hypothesis may still stand. The weight being the evidence in support of the hypothesis. I am not being specific to any subject. It is actually quite formal and does depend on how the questions are asked and in turn the positive and negative controls as it relates to both the hypothesis and inherent null hypothesis.

I agree that it is more like attempting to weigh various ideas or competing hypotheses, rather than weighing a single hypothesis vs. its null (unless you regard the psi hypothesis to be "it doesn't seem like it could be fraud, illusion, or chance). But it's pretty obvious that this isn't done in any sort of formal manner in these discussions. Instead of going on direct comparisons and the use of control conditions (of which we have very little), the weighing seems to be about our intuitions with respect to plausibility. And in that case, debunking/presenting alternate explanations is more about taking advantage of ways in which intuitions about plausibility can be increased - for example, making use of an availability heuristic (an idea is regarded as more probable if a specific example can be brought to mind).

I think we'd be better off if we were able to discuss direct comparisons of competing hypotheses instead, as you suggest. But in the absence of formal tests, we seem to be left with discussing our intuitions about plausibility. And unfortunately, our intuitions are poor under these conditions. :)

http://gaddeswarup.blogspot.com/2011/10/daniel-kahneman-and-gary-klein-on.html

Linda

 

[LoneShaman]

Oh lordy. I was just giving my answer to your very simple question. which are facts relating to the scientific method (part of my recent formal studies in applied science) But it is strange how you can't accept a simple answer that I think is reasonable and accurate.

Do you see what I am saying and it's direct relationship to the subject of the thread?

I really don't care about all that In the above. It seems to indicate debunking as nothing but excuse making, and I think you are right there. Debunking as done by psuedo skeptics is not anything scientific. Debunking as falsification is relevant but then we would not use such a juvenile term. Perhaps some people are just smart enough to see the difference.

Btw,"psi does not seem like it could be fraud" is the null hypothesis to the hypothesis that "psi does seem like it could be fraud". You see it depends on how you ask the question.

This scenario is easily flipped, because psi certainly has not been falsified. And then we can ask how positive evidence hardens your skepticism. But I imagine your claim is that no positive evidence exists. Exactly the same situation as what the OP indicates.

I find it interesting especially in the context of the thread how such a simple thing inevitably leads you back to your favorite axe to grind. Again don't take it the wrong way. I am curious about the infatuation though.

 

[fls]

Oh lordy. I was just giving my answer to your very simple question. which are facts relating to the scientific method (part of my recent formal studies in applied science)

I appreciate your effort, but my question wasn't about facts relating to the scientific method, so you didn't really resolve my question. I appreciate that under some circumstances, "debunking" means showing the various ways in which the idea cannot be true, which is related to falsification. The example in the OP was about whether a fire was caused by a spark near some gas cylinders in a closet. "Debunking" meant that you explained that the closet was empty. "Presenting alternative explanations" meant that you explained that arson was found to be the cause.

However, this doesn't tend to apply to psi and related topics, since there isn't usually a way in which the claim can be shown to be false, other than by presenting an alternative (usually non-anomalous) explanation. If we both think of pineapples, I can't falsify your claim that you thought of pineapples because you were reading my mind. All I can offer is alternative explanations for why the same thing comes to mind in two people.

I really don't care about all that In the above. It seems to indicate debunking as nothing but excuse making, and I think you are right there.

Yes, that is what I'm getting at. "Debunking" as used here seems to indicate "excuse-making". If the distinction is between "an explanation" and "an excuse", what makes something an excuse, rather than an explanation?

I ask because it seems all well and good to suggest that presenting alternative explanations can help people drop false ideas (from the OP), but experience shows that people find ways to discredit consideration of alternative explanations, so I am skeptical that this technique has merit. One of the ways to discredit it seems to be relabelling explanations as "debunking". But if there is really a difference between offering an alternative explanation and offering an excuse, then the technique may have merit after all, as long as one doesn't stray into excuse-making. I'm hoping you, or someone else who understands that difference, can shed some light on this.

Debunking as done by psuedo skeptics is not anything scientific.

Agreed. Once you bring "pseudo-skeptics" into it, it indicates that you are talking about fringe ideas and "debunking" as it relates to "excuse-making", rather than "falsification". ("Pseudo-skeptics" refers to those who deny any plausibility for those fringe ideas.)

Linda

 

[LoneShaman]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not in disagreement with your post here. As I said without falsification there is only the evidential weight of the competing hypothesis. I also mentioned that sometimes an alternative can be enough, if the weight of the evidence is enough. Just as in your gas station example, which is an exact exmaple of what I am talking about. You are just repeating what I have already said. Going back to what I originally said. Presenting an alternative is not strictly falsification.

If you want to define debunking as simply presenting an alternative that is your option. I do not understand how you can't see the difference though, debunking implies that it is definitive, if you have a definitive alternative then sure. But to debunk you do not need an alternative hypothesis and a weak alternative can't be considered as debunking.

Hehe, how very difficult. The difference between an alternative and debunking. Seriously?

 

[Craig Weiler]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not in disagreement with your post here. As I said without falsification there is only the evidential weight of the competing hypothesis. I also mentioned that sometimes an alternative can be enough, if the weight of the evidence is enough. Just as in your example, which by evidence also falsifies. You are just repeating what I have already said in a few lines. Going back to what I originally said. Presenting an alternative is not strictly falsification.

If you want to define debunking as simply presenting an alternative that is your option. I do not understand how you can't see the difference though, debunking implies that it is definitive, if you have a definitive alternative then sure. But to debunk you do not need an alternative hypothesis and a weak alternative can't be considered as debunking.

Hehe, how very difficult. The difference between an alternative and debunking. Seriously?

Yup. Debunk = disprove. It's got nothing to do with alternate hypotheses.

However, offer a hypothesis that better explains the evidence and that can be convincing to many people.

There is also an ineffable factor in play here. People with good intuition can sometimes sense the truth or the lack thereof.

 

[Arouet]

People with good intuition can sometimes sense the truth or the lack thereof.

Sure, although as someone who has is constantly on the receiving end of incorrect judgments based on such "intuition" on this forum, I'm not sure people have adequately assessed the accuracy of their intuitions on this regard.

Frankly, it really sucks for the person of good intention being falsely accused of dishonesty, or being treated as if they are dishonest.

 

[Typoz]

The term "debunk" strongly suggests that the original hypothesis was considered "bunk" to begin with. Which implies that the person or group using that term were opposed to that hypothesis on ideological grounds, which makes the mere preferring of an alternative hypothesis less adequate, in that it similarly is preferred on ideological grounds. The best way out of this dilemma is to avoid the use of pejorative terms in the first place.

 

[fls]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not in disagreement with your post here. As I said without falsification there is only the evidential weight of the competing hypothesis. I also mentioned that sometimes an alternative can be enough, if the weight of the evidence is enough. Just as in your gas station example, which is an exact exmaple of what I am talking about. You are just repeating what I have already said. Going back to what I originally said. Presenting an alternative is not strictly falsification.

Yes, we are agreed on that, as far as I can tell.

If you want to define debunking as simply presenting an alternative that is your option.

It's not so much that I want to, as that I am referring to the activity, not the label. As can be seen from subsequent posts from Craig and Typoz, "debunking" is used as a pejorative terms, and a suggestion which is called "debunking" is treated as though it can be dismissed out of hand, without having to attend to whether or not the suggestion was reasonable. However, both "falsification" and "presenting alternative explanations" are regarded as valid endeavours. So if we are trying to be reasonable here, equating debunking with either of those activities, either means that debunking is actually a valid activity (and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand), or that the perjorative has been misapplied when the activity is actually "falsification" or "presenting an alternative explanation".

I do not understand how you can't see the difference though, debunking implies that it is definitive, if you have a definitive alternative then sure.

Ah, now that's a new suggestion. The difference is in the definitiveness of the opinion.

So if one makes sure they present their alternative explanations or falsifications with lots of "maybes", they shouldn't be called "psuedo-skeptic debunkers"? Because my experience shows that this doesn't work, either.

Linda

 

[Craig Weiler]

Sure, although as someone who has is constantly on the receiving end of incorrect judgments based on such "intuition" on this forum, I'm not sure people have adequately assessed the accuracy of their intuitions on this regard.

Frankly, it really sucks for the person of good intention being falsely accused of dishonesty, or being treated as if they are dishonest.

I hear you. I've begun to entertain the possibility that you're just really complicated.

 

[Craig Weiler]

As can be seen from subsequent posts from Craig and Typoz, "debunking" is used as a pejorative terms, and a suggestion which is called "debunking" is treated as though it can be dismissed out of hand, without having to attend to whether or not the suggestion was reasonable.
Linda

No. That is not what I meant. Debunking = disproving. If you can successfully disprove something you have debunked it. Debunking is of value in some situations. If you can show for example that a perpetual motion machine had a hidden battery powered motor and that it doesn't work without it, then there was obviously cheating involved and you have debunked the claim. There need be no alternate hypothesis. The evidence is enough.

I have in the past referred to debunking in a form that more closely resembles what you're referring to. I tend to use the term "cheap debunking." A weak alternate hypothesis is typically dressed up as Truth.

 

[fls]

No. That is not what I meant. Debunking = disproving. If you can successfully disprove something you have debunked it. Debunking is of value in some situations. If you can show for example that a perpetual motion machine had a hidden battery powered motor and that it doesn't work without it, then there was obviously cheating involved and you have debunked the claim. There need be no alternate hypothesis. The evidence is enough.

I have in the past referred to debunking in a form that more closely resembles what you're referring to. I tend to use the term "cheap debunking." A weak alternate hypothesis is typically dressed up as Truth.

I should qualify it as "when debunking is used as a pejorative", then.

I think that few psi claims can be disproven, though. Even demonstrating that a simple trick can explain the pictures of Geller's sword-bending, or stop-cues can explain getting the correct digits in Diane Powell's videos doesn't disprove that psi was used in those cases. They merely offer non-anomalous alternatives for achieving the same effect.

Although, now that I think of it...discussion on those two examples did seem to change some people's minds.

Linda

 

[LoneShaman]

Yes, we are agreed on that, as far as I can tell.



It's not so much that I want to, as that I am referring to the activity, not the label. As can be seen from subsequent posts from Craig and Typoz, "debunking" is used as a pejorative terms, and a suggestion which is called "debunking" is treated as though it can be dismissed out of hand, without having to attend to whether or not the suggestion was reasonable. However, both "falsification" and "presenting alternative explanations" are regarded as valid endeavours. So if we are trying to be reasonable here, equating debunking with either of those activities, either means that debunking is actually a valid activity (and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand), or that the perjorative has been misapplied when the activity is actually "falsification" or "presenting an alternative explanation".



Ah, now that's a new suggestion. The difference is in the definitiveness of the opinion.

So if one makes sure they present their alternative explanations or falsifications with lots of "maybes", they shouldn't be called "psuedo-skeptic debunkers"? Because my experience shows that this doesn't work, either.

Linda

I think we have come to an agreement here. I mentioned that debunking as falsification is valid. A stong alternative hypothesis is also valid. Except you can't have lots of maybes with falsification. If lots of maybes are involved in the alternative when there is no evidence for them and only a possibbility then that is not very strong. In many cases these can be accounted for with sufficient controls. Or the alternative could be actually independantly tested to replicate the results. Words are cheap. There are lots of weak excuses that some cling to. Not naming names.

A loop hole is not refutation. Although simply pointing out flaws in experimental design or presenting a weak alternative is often falsely regarded as actual debunking.

What a terribly unfortunate term.

So much nonsense over such a simple thing. Quite amazing, thanks for the reminder of the futility.

 

[LoneShaman]

I hear you. I've begun to entertain the possibility that you're just really complicated.

Haha, who would have thought debunking and an alternative hypothesis was just so really complicated?

Common, this is how it goes. I can't really put it words but I am sure you have a good sense of what is behind the scenes here. The point is our thoughts are shaped by our emotional conditioning. Biological robots don't like having there claims explained as the result of programming ironically. They have trouble seeing that it works boths ways.

 

[Steve]

This thread has earned a 60's song I reckon. :D

 

[Bertha Huse]

I wonder how I would feel if I were Russell Targ, or Rupert Sheldrake, or Ian Stevenson: and came upon my Wikipedia biography page that is one of the most used resources now on the Internet to look up information (by millions of people) - how would I feel when reading my Bio page that Skeptics similar to Arouet and Linda here - have doctored my bio page - in a very dishonest and despicable fashion - to make me appear as a charlatan, a "pseudo scientist", or as is written in Ian Stevenson's Wikipedia bio, simply a gullible individual? To characterize years of my scientific research as simply flawed based on half-truths you have deliberately produced on my bio page, and you have deliberately misused and gamed the Wikipedia rules meant to enforce fairness and objectivity, and shut out, censored, and literally banned person after person who attempts to provide more balanced objectivity on my biography?

How would I feel if I were Frederic Myers, Podmore or Gurney, I had produced a highly scholarly study based on very methodical scientific documentation and categorization - but was dismissed out-of-hand by someone who hadn't even read my scientific work, or had claimed to have read it in 2 days - and insinuated my work was based on mere intuition, or gullibility - or just a bunch of anecdotes and nothing more!

What words should be used to describe the kind of person who smears the biographies of honest hard working scientists on Wikipedia, and insinuates these scientists who have studied psi - reached their conclusions via gullible intuition or obviously flawed scientific methods? And yet you yourself have neither practiced scientific research in psi nor have you bothered (much at all) to read the peer-reviewed publications of the hard-working individuals who have done the scientific work?

As for people who have not adequately assessed the accuracy of their intuitions. Well for fucks sake, at least some of us have actually read the scientific studies we base our "so-called" intuitions upon. You know? This is not a complicated idea. If you want to observe a medium, go visit one. If you want to know what a study is about, read the study.

My Best,
Bertha

 

[Smithy]

I know the feeling, Bertha. This behavior you are referring to is nothing but the behavior of (intellectual?) criminals. And then I express myself mildly...:mad: It is a real pitty that this kind of writing about people whose ideas one does not not like seems to be part of the 'normal' scientific discourse.

 

[Typoz]

The controlling of the content of Wikipedia is a characteristic of our times. We see the same drive towards uniformity of belief in the militant fundamentalism in the Middle East - and elsewhere. These forces are not opposed to one another, They are each sides of the same coin and represent the same force.

What is this driving force? It is a fear of allowing people the freedom to make up their own minds, to follow their own dreams, to live according to individual conscience. Instead, they must be coerced into following an approved belief system. Yet as we see time and again through history, particularly in the 20th Century, the ideals of those who wish to assert control are certainly not nobler than those of the people they wish to subjugate or destroy.

It is so very easy to look at others and criticise. The most difficult thing in the world is to look at ourselves with the same critical appraisal. But this is what needs to happen, in order to discover what is really taking place in our ideologies.