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

This feels exactly like the sort of story that has been retold to sound more incredible and interesting over the years, overplaying the hits and forgetting the misses - we all like to be at the centre of a great story don't we?


Moreover when we look at the wood (rather than the trees) we see that neither this psychic (nor any others) are able to repeat the detective work apparently described in this case.

Heard the show Malf? Alex goes straight to the source. So you can forget everything inbetween. What the hell is that link got to do with anything? Conflating seems to be a skepitical crux.

Radford took the very same angle, you are not saying anything more than he did, and neither is Linda. And it is laughable.
 
Last edited:
There are a few people here who know my real name (including Alex and Andy). For a variety of reasons, including the safety of myself and my family, and professional ones, I would not want my real name to be published openly. In any event, this is a pretty common feature of internet forums. The vast majority of forum posters use pseudonyms.

That said, aside from the handle issue, what you see is what you get.
It's interesting. These Skeptics - and let's not fool ourselves, this is exactly what Arouet is, one only need look at his consistent messaging throughout these forums to realize he's not only a Skeptic, but a pretty hardcore one.

Arouet claims he's open minded, but that is hardly the case: he and Linda make use of many of the standard Skeptic talking points ad nauseum. Linda herself has repeatedly lied about having read Phantasms of the Living based on the original discussion we had a few months ago. That she seems to think that it is somehow entirely believable that she would read half the book (which would be about 500 pages in 2 or 3 days) and not realize that she had only read half of it - is not only preposterous, but given her attitude here toward me and others - shows just how intellectually dishonest and arrogant a woman she is. She is even more dismissive I find than Arouet. At least he pretends to have some semblance of respect - but not by much.

But it is interesting the double standard these guys (Skeptics) practice, they do whatever they can to remain anonymous, especially given the hatchet work done on Wikipedia - but you notice how all the names you find there - the guys who come up with whatever excuse they can to get people banned - within hours sometimes - practicing intellectual dishonesty, since Wikipedia clearly is meant to be a collaborative effort - that these people - these Skeptics - all hide under pseudonyms there, just like Arouet hides here. And we all know why - because they have very little respect for anyone else's opinion but their own. They are obsessively sure that they got their facts rights - and that psi phenomena itself is basically just "woo". As I pointed out earlier, Arouet and Linda here have done nothing but attack anyone both intellectually AND condescendingly like they are Mom & Dad intellectual authority figures - attack the many posters who actually believe in science (not materialism) - insisting their judgement must be flawed. That the methodologies used by men such as William James or Frederic Myers or Tyrell or Ian Stevenson, Van Lommel or Sartori, are not reliable - in essence cannot be deemed good enough, or in other words, the science being used is not real science - it's pseudo-science.

But getting back to the double standard - these Skeptics make every effort to remain anonymous, but have no problem outing anyone they can and smearing that person publicly either via Wikipedia or RationalWiki or on Blogs. It's a remarkable and immoral double standard. They want respect but give none to anyone who has a more open mind than they regarding unknown phenomena. Truly - this is not science being practiced here, but just another kind of fundamentalism, the kind of fundamentalism that led to men like Bruno being burned at the stake, or men like Ian Stevenson having his biography viewed by millions - smeared to make it appear he was a gullible unscientific individual.

It is interesting to see this kind of anonymous fundamentalism in action. Even a hundred years later, we have this incredible bias that Hodgson, Hyslop, Myers,James and Jung talked about. The data doesn't matter at all. Reason doesn't matter at all. There is no reason or science on display here - all I see is intellectual dishonesty, condescending ignorance and arrogance. And above all, clear unreasoning bigotry toward the scientific data provided for psi (or nde's).

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
In its quest to demonstrate the reality of psi phenomena to the mainstream scientific community, parapsychology has rarely been afforded the luxury of dealing in averages. On the contrary, the field has had to develop a progressive ethos, a long and distinguished tradition of adopting the more rigorous and innovative techniques in science—sometimes even to the point of creating them. It is no coincidence, for example, that the first comprehensive meta-analysis in scientific history was performed by Rhine et al. on ESP card studies (Bösch, 2004), or that the first official policy of publishing null results was set out by the Parapsychological Association (Carter, 2010). Neither is it trivial that psi research has kept pace with associated mainstream and behavioral fields in terms of reproducibility—on a minimal budget (Baptista & Derakhshani, 2014); exceeded their criteria with respect to masking practices (Watt & Nagtegaal, 2004); and exceeded them again in terms of reporting negative results (Mosseau, 2003) 1 . It should indeed be this way, for not only has parapsychology been subject to (and strengthened by) an intensified back-and-forth between proponents and skeptics along its history, but the claims it propounds have always demanded high standards of evidence. This is a fact recognized by sides of the psi debate.

Well no this fact is not recognized with our so called reasonable house skeptics.

Explicit Anomalous Cognition: A Review of the Best Evidence in Ganzfeld, Forced-choice, Remote Viewing and Dream Studies

Fairly recent, I have not looked to deep into ganzfeld, very interesting. But way over my statistical know how.
the cochrane collaboration is also one of the references In here.
 
Last edited:
No you didn't. What journal did the results get published in, have they been reveiwed?

Just read the journal names from the list of references at the end.

I am working my way through it. I serched for various terms to find related content, but I do not see it yet. What are you talking about?

The chapter is fairly self-explanatory when you read it.

I don't know any of the details, or even care that much. I am asking what I have suggested skeptics do. Replicate under the null hypothesis!

Parapsychologists have already done this. Is there any particular reason you don't trust those results?

Example:
http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/cl...elly-pdfs/KEL13JNMD 2011 Mediumship Paper.pdf

The ones you choose to listen to that meets your expectations. You show clear bias here as well.

Huh? None of this depends upon controversial ideas. Any statistician would say much the same thing.

Linda
 
This is just hogwash, you cannot say that trained professional detectives have collaborated a systematic synchronised confabulation. Beyond absurd. These are not mediocre every day events.

This is a well-established problem with testimony and research on the topic abounds. I can provide some references if you are interested.

Linda
 
Maybe Alex could put you in the hot seat, and replicate Radfords brilliant performance. He was saying the exact same thing you know? So what difference could you make. You are saying exactly what he said.

What would be the point? Since both you and Alex seem unfamiliar with the research on the subject, wouldn't the result be the same? What would have been better would be for Alex to have interviewed Ian Stevenson. Since he was a proponent, he may have been listened to.

There is not a shred of reason to think that the detectives are making it up. The evidence actually denies that.

What evidence? The point is that there isn't anything to go on but non-blinded, long after the fact recollection. And we can see how well that performed (not!) in the Noreen Renier case (if you need a concrete example).

Linda
 
Well no this fact is not recognized with our so called reasonable house skeptics.

Explicit Anomalous Cognition: A Review of the Best Evidence in Ganzfeld, Forced-choice, Remote Viewing and Dream Studies

Fairly recent, I have not looked to deep into ganzfeld, very interesting. But way over my statistical know how.
the cochrane collaboration is also one of the references In here.

There is no need to get into the statistical specifics, you just have to see that it's vetted by professor Jessica Utts, who was voted 111th president of the American Statistical Association by its membership last year. She is department chair of statistics at UC Irvine. What this means is that while there are alternate ways to view the statistical results of the ganzfeld, the way its been done meets ordinary standards of statistical procedure.

I also looked into the objections raised in peer reviewed literature. Knowing the intense politics surrounding this field, I summarily reject all criticism below this level of accountability. These critics at least meet the admittedly low standard of reading the literature before they write about it. Also at this level, there is always a rebuttal to the criticism from the scientists, which allows more insight into what's going on.

A big problem in reviewing criticism is that a lot of it is so poorly written that it's nearly unintelligible without spending hours sorting it all out. They always seem to choose the most obtuse way to explain themselves. It's easier to read the rebuttal first from whatever parapsychologist deciphered it. I don't know how these things make it through peer review. The rebuttals though are generally easy to understand.

In criticisms, what you look for are one or two clear examples that show where things went wrong. Something every sensible person can agree on once they understand it. Good criticism is rarely debatable. I see this a lot in failure analysis in construction. Once someone has it right and has explained it, no one can argue with it. If you do get an enormous amount of arguing, like you do in psi research, it's because the criticism is just an interpretation or is flat out wrong. In psi research, I've seen both.

The criticisms of the ganzfeld are laughable. Everyone trots out selective reporting, even though it's been repeatedly pointed out how ridiculously impossible this is. They all remove Kathy Dalton's studies from consideration for no reason other than the results were too good. They torture the statistics as well.

The problem with this is that the more you start tinkering with the data, the less reliable your criticism is because all of these choices cumulatively add up to an interpretation, not a criticism. All it shows is that you can change the data and come up with a different result. That doesn't prove anything.

And that's it. That's all there was. My conclusion is that in light of the fact that the criticism that met the high standard of peer review failed to find any clear and convincing fault with the ganzfeld means that the studies were acceptable.
 
Thanks Craig. Done with Linda, she can't walk the talk. The constant run around is irritating and nothing different to Radfords excuse which was verifiably flattened to absurdity. Then even again with another bait and switch! Wow! Unfalsifiable speculation does not help. It gets quite boring when the same unfalsafiable excuses are rolled out in not just in this case but anthing that requires it. All I wanted was some actual published examples, evidence to support the claim that yet another condition makes it all go away.


I am not well versed in the parapsychology literature, or statistics for that matter. I will be Studying it soon though. I have spent a little time looking at the history of the ganzfeld and I think it is quite impressive in it's strict protocols. Despite ever tightening conditions the effect is still there. Despite what the skeptics say, parapsychology can and has taught mainstream science a thing or two. The claims here seem in contrast with extensive reporting of null effects, extensive methodological approach, approach to criticism etc... There is no doubt there is a very high standard comparable and out performing other sciences.

I really don't see the same sort of quality within the arguments presented here, as a novice it seems to very misrepresenting of the field.
I suppose it is true, that debunking does make some opinions stronger, particularly when they are so piss weak. Just natural I think.
 
Thanks Craig. Done with Linda, she can't walk the talk. The constant run around is irritating and nothing different to Radfords excuse which was verifiably flattened to absurdity. Then even again with another bait and switch! Wow! Unfalsifiable speculation does not help. It gets quite boring when the same unfalsafiable excuses are rolled out in not just in this case but anthing that requires it. All I wanted was some actual published examples, evidence to support the claim that yet another condition makes it all go away.


I am not well versed in the parapsychology literature, or statistics for that matter. I will be Studying it soon though. I have spent a little time looking at the history of the ganzfeld and I think it is quite impressive in it's strict protocols. Despite ever tightening conditions the effect is still there. Despite what the skeptics say, parapsychology can and has taught mainstream science a thing or two. The claims here seem in contrast with extensive reporting of null effects, extensive methodological approach, approach to criticism etc... There is no doubt there is a very high standard comparable and out performing other sciences.

I really don't see the same sort of quality within the arguments presented here, as a novice it seems to very misrepresenting of the field.
I suppose it is true, that debunking does make some opinions stronger, particularly when they are so piss weak. Just natural I think.

Yeah, it takes awhile to catch on to the fact that the doubt that skeptics express is immune to evidence. They immediately assume a worst case scenario for all things psi. Researchers are all incompetent, research is flawed, there isn't enough of it, we need stricter controls and more data, blah, blah blah.

One thing they all have in common is that they are blind to the patterns in their own behavior and not self correcting when it's been pointed out. They are living a scientific groundhog day.
 
Parapsycholgists need to investigate psychedelics and in particular the the indigenous Amazonian healers. These have been long reported in anthropology and have been in modern times with much documented on film but no serious research has actually been done that I know of.

Further more they possess a body of pharmacological knowledge spanning 50 generations or so into one of the richest if not richest potential for medicine, the Amazon rain forest. By comparison modern science has investigated maybe 1% of plant species for medicinal properties. And they have borrowed some, or stolen or copied. But there is a huge untapped resource there.

Anthropology, particularly from the New World, has long informed us that the people who traditionally use psychedelic plants and potions do so specifically for ‘magical’ purposes, such as ESP, psychic diagnosis and healing.

More compelling yet, there is an abundance of stories of anthropologists either witnessing or experiencing first-hand the occurrence of apparently paranormal phenomena with the use of psychoactive plants and fungi: peyote among the Huichol indians, psilocybin-containing mushrooms with the Mazatec, fly agaric mushrooms with the Ojibwa, datura in India, pituri in Australia, and practically all known psychedelic plants in all regions of the world.

Of particular importance in this equation is ayahuasca, which is so often accompanied by reports of psychic ability that when one of its psychoactive constituents, harmine, was isolated at the beginning of the 20th century it was named ‘telepathine.’ It is also interesting to note that, conversely, there is a serious lack of similar paranormal reports with the non-visionary psychoactive plants that have also been in use for centuries, such as coffee, coca, and cacao.
http://realitysandwich.com/220900/psychedelics-parapsychology-and-exceptional-human-experiences/
 
What evidence? The point is that there isn't anything to go on but non-blinded, long after the fact recollection. And we can see how well that performed (not!) in the Noreen Renier case (if you need a concrete example).

Linda

This story had already been through the contrivance of a TV show too, where the pressure to make the story sound incredible and magical would have been significant. Few of us could control for subconscious confabulation under the weight of that expectation. Thus a story evolves...

At which point we have to remind ourselves that this was the absolute best case Alex could find.
 
Thanks Craig. Done with Linda, she can't walk the talk. The constant run around is irritating and nothing different to Radfords excuse which was verifiably flattened to absurdity. Then even again with another bait and switch! Wow! Unfalsifiable speculation does not help. It gets quite boring when the same unfalsafiable excuses are rolled out in not just in this case but anthing that requires it. All I wanted was some actual published examples, evidence to support the claim that yet another condition makes it all go away.

I think this is a good example of why I was skeptical about the OP. It is clear that providing you with the published research you asked for to support my suggestions doesn't alter your beliefs. There is already a well-established framework for denying facts or explanations which don't suit your cause (the easiest of which seems to be to avoid reading the material in the first place :)). Arouet and myself have even provided references from parapsychologists saying the same thing we say (heck, Bertha Huse's favourite source, Phantasms of the Living even thoroughly outlines the ways in which eyewitness testimony is suspect, and we've had a hundred years of research to add to it in the meantime), yet it also fails to be taken seriously by you and Craig and others.

I agree with what you said earlier. I think the change has to come from within. It isn't so much a matter of what kind of material is persuasive. It's more that someone has to let themselves open up to the idea of engaging with the material, defences down. Difficult for all of us. I know that when I encounter someone who quickly defaults into attack and denial, I can feel myself start to push back against any information they are trying to present. It's hard work to avoid "defense mode". What I hope for on this forum, is opportunities for discussion where I can practice overcoming that sensation in myself - that is, have reasonable discussion without feeling like I am defending a particular position. Arouet and myself and others have gone over the good in parapsychology research. It seems like discussion which starts with on that level has more hope of success - nobody has to feel like they are under attack. And I think that is some of what Arouet was getting at earlier.

I am not well versed in the parapsychology literature, or statistics for that matter. I will be Studying it soon though. I have spent a little time looking at the history of the ganzfeld and I think it is quite impressive in it's strict protocols. Despite ever tightening conditions the effect is still there. Despite what the skeptics say, parapsychology can and has taught mainstream science a thing or two. The claims here seem in contrast with extensive reporting of null effects, extensive methodological approach, approach to criticism etc... There is no doubt there is a very high standard comparable and out performing other sciences.

That was what I was getting at with the chapter I asked you to read. It clearly outlines the sorts of standards and conditions which influence the reliability and validity of the results - the sorts of things you seem interested in. If you are taking courses in science and methodology, you will eventually need to learn this stuff anyways (admittedly, it's graduate level, rather than undergrad). It also helps clarify when arguments are weak and when they are strong.

Linda
 
This story had already been through the contrivance of a TV show too, where the pressure to make the story sound incredible and magical would have been significant. Few of us could control for subconscious confabulation under the weight of that expectation. Thus a story evolves...

At which point we have to remind ourselves that this was the absolute best case Alex could find.
Heh. I'm in the process of re-reading Nassim Taleb's, The Black Swan, and right now I'm on the chapter about narration and how it leads us astray. As I read along, much of it is apropos to this conversatIon. I highly recommend it (the style of the author is a bit off-putting, but the information and presentation is excellent). I also highly recommend Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahnmann (or something like that) whose style is excellent. But don't read either if you want to cling to the idea that your memory or your intuition are useful and reliable, and that post hoc pattern-finding is a valid process. :)

Linda
 
Yeah, it takes awhile to catch on to the fact that the doubt that skeptics express is immune to evidence. They immediately assume a worst case scenario for all things psi. Researchers are all incompetent, research is flawed, there isn't enough of it, we need stricter controls and more data, blah, blah blah.

One thing they all have in common is that they are blind to the patterns in their own behavior and not self correcting when it's been pointed out. They are living a scientific groundhog day.
Arouet and I have made a point of mentioning and discussing parapsychology research where the methods are of better quality and where much of the criticism has been taken into account. Also, there have been several articles lately offering recommendations for progress in psi research, coming from staunch proponents, such as Utts, Kelly, Maaneli , Johann, etc. making the same recommendations which I (and others), have been making for years. That seems like it would be a good starting point for reasonable discussion - where we all seem to be on the same page.

Linda
 
Heh. I'm in the process of re-reading Nassim Taleb's, The Black Swan, and right now I'm on the chapter about narration and how it leads us astray. As I read along, much of it is apropos to this conversatIon. I highly recommend it (the style of the author is a bit off-putting, but the information and presentation is excellent). I also highly recommend Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahnmann (or something like that) whose style is excellent. But don't read either if you want to cling to the idea that your memory or your intuition are useful and reliable, and that post hoc pattern-finding is a valid process. :)

Linda
I'm 50 pages in to the Kahnmann book following your earlier recommendation. :)
 
Arouet and I have made a point of mentioning and discussing parapsychology research where the methods are of better quality and where much of the criticism has been taken into account. Also, there have been several articles lately offering recommendations for progress in psi research, coming from staunch proponents, such as Utts, Kelly, Maaneli , Johann, etc. making the same recommendations which I (and others), have been making for years. That seems like it would be a good starting point for reasonable discussion - where we all seem to be on the same page.

Linda

Certainly research can always be better. This is not controversial and it does not contradict the fact that the existing research is already convincing as it stands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
At first I feared this thread had been derailed (because I really was excited coming across the articles and sharing them with y'all), but in what seems to be a rare occurence, I think we've demonstrated the whole point behind the topic: neither side trusts the other, so everyone's ears are closed. Good job team!
 
Certainly research can always be better. This is not controversial and it does not contradict the fact that the existing research is already convincing as it stands.

If that were really the case, there'd be no such thing as Skeptiko and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Linda
 
We are not having this discussion because the evidence isn't good enough, but rather because it is. That's what creates the controversy.

Ah, that's what explains David's climate denial and Lone Shaman's anti-evolution. The evidence for those is too good.

Handy.

Linda
 
Back
Top