"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

Stories documented after the fact, no matter how seemingly compelling, are essentially useless as evidence, as it is no longer possible to know who was the original source of the information. Plus the baseline of compelling correspondences due to happenstance further confounds the situation. Stevenson recognized that most of his cases fell in to this category. I would suggest that if you want scientists to take you seriously, you should stop referring to undocumented stories when asked about evidence.

Linda

If you do have copies, I'd be interested to see them. Google suggests they are no longer on Skeptiko.

Of course, Ganzfeld experiments aren't the whole of parapsychology, but that protocol has obviously been more closely scrutinised than most. So it would be equally interesting if you could remember significant methodological criticisms of the more recent Ganzfeld studies. To be honest, I'd be surprised if the Ganzfeld methodology, as refined in the light of the Honorton-Hyman exchanges, could fairly be described as "poor", but perhaps I'm missing something.

Going by memory, I believe the ganzfeld experiments came out as 'fair' in terms of level of evidence, with a moderate risk of bias. I think that they represent the best of the evidence for psi. 

Linda

Going by memory, I believe the ganzfeld experiments came out as 'fair' in terms of level of evidence, with a moderate risk of bias. I think that they represent the best of the evidence for psi. 

Can you remember why it was only "fair", and where the risk of bias came from? Was it a question of flaws that were missed in the Hyman/Honorton exchanges, or failures to adopt their recommendations?

Stories documented after the fact, no matter how seemingly compelling, are essentially useless as evidence, as it is no longer possible to know who was the original source of the information. Plus the baseline of compelling correspondences due to happenstance further confounds the situation. Stevenson recognized that most of his cases fell in to this category. I would suggest that if you want scientists to take you seriously, you should stop referring to undocumented stories when asked about evidence.

Linda

snip- Stories documented after the fact, no matter how seemingly compelling, are essentially useless as evidence,

That is simply hogwash. Otherwise the whole science of archaeology, forensics, and most of anthropology wouldn't exist. Of if they did, they would be considered meta-science by some who unnecessarily tie themselves up in knots by the rigors (and really dogma) of what they consider to be the pure execution of science.

The FBI solves crimes every day using "evidence" that are stories after the fact. I'm sure you must be using a different more "scientific" definition of the word, but it is still nonsense.

Do you KNOW dinosaurs walked this earth? Or does (occasionally flimsy) evidence simply infer it?

If science was so perfect, how did they get the theory of the atom wrong so many times? Do they even have it right now? (according to my understanding they do not) Or gravity? Or the formulation of the of solar systems, or our galaxy? Let's face it science like everything else in our world, is subject to errors and miss-steps. And just like less precise endeavors, science modifies their incorrect assumptions and outright mistakes as they go along.

Saying this field of study can't do good work because it relies on what you call "useless evidence" is arrogant, selfserving and just flat-out wrong.

I'm just trying to provide a realistic perspective to counter those proponents who overstate the strength of the evidence.  I'm coming from the same place as Kennedy, where the reforms just now taking place in parapsychology and psychology were undertaken decades ago with Evidence-Based Medicine. I have been immersed in evaluating evidence over that time, so I understand what other scientists see when they look at stories documented after the fact and research studies performed with many degrees of freedom. I also understand what kind of studies have changed minds which clung strongly to old ideas.

Linda

I find Kennedy's work to be too negative and damning personally - though he's a proponent based on his own personal experiences. There are also many issues of bias and conflicts of interest due to funding sources in medicine research - so it's hardly perfect either (and some effect sizes for medicines are pretty small too). 

You also should admit that people are uniquely resistant to changing their mind about psi/afterlife research. I agree Parapsychology should continually improve - but I don't think the evidence is as weak as you are suggesting (most people who are informed enough on the research are proponents or lean that way for a reason). 

All this said, I hope you stick around, we need skeptics here, I may find you overly pessimistic and at times misleading - but your contributions are valuable and people have been very rude to you in the past. I apologised if I have been. We agree that Parapsychology should improve - I just think the evidence is strong enough that the existences of psi I believe to be be strongly proven (though it is clearly pretty weak as a force or whatever word fits psi best).

I find Kennedy's work to be too negative and damning personally - though he's a proponent based on his own personal experiences. There are also many issues of bias and conflicts of interest due to funding sources in medicine research - so it's hardly perfect either (and some effect sizes for medicines are pretty small too). 

In case people haven't seen it, J. E. Kennedy's site, containing a lot of his papers, is here:
https://jeksite.org/

(I am pleased that I managed to resist the temptation to say "You're no J. E. Kennedy" to Linda! )

Stories documented after the fact, no matter how seemingly compelling, are essentially useless as evidence, as it is no longer possible to know who was the original source of the information. Plus the baseline of compelling correspondences due to happenstance further confounds the situation. Stevenson recognized that most of his cases fell in to this category. I would suggest that if you want scientists to take you seriously, you should stop referring to undocumented stories when asked about evidence.

Linda

I wouldn't say they are useless, and some areas of psi/afterlife research cannot only be done after (NDE's for example). I would also add that's Parapsychologists have done plenty to improve the quality of their work - other scientists should be willing to challenge their own biases, conduct experiments etc.

snip- Stories documented after the fact, no matter how seemingly compelling, are essentially useless as evidence,

That is simply hogwash. Otherwise the whole science of archaeology, forensics, and most of anthropology wouldn't exist. Of if they did, they would be considered meta-science by some who unnecessarily tie themselves up in knots by the rigors (and really dogma) of what they consider to be the pure execution of science.

The FBI solves crimes every day using "evidence" that are stories after the fact. I'm sure you must be using a different more "scientific" definition of the word, but it is still nonsense.

Do you KNOW dinosaurs walked this earth? Or does (occasionally flimsy) evidence simply infer it?

If science was so perfect, how did they get the theory of the atom wrong so many times? Do they even have it right now? (according to my understanding they do not) Or gravity? Or the formulation of the of solar systems, or our galaxy? Let's face it science like everything else in our world, is subject to errors and miss-steps. And just like less precise endeavors, science modifies their incorrect assumptions and outright mistakes as they go along.

Saying this field of study can't do good work because it relies on what you call "useless evidence" is arrogant, selfserving and just flat-out wrong.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. None of the things you mentioned depend upon stories documented after the fact for their existence. For example, the idea of dinosaurs comes from fossils and other physical findings, not stories about what someone said about their dreams. 

Linda

Can you remember why it was only "fair", and where the risk of bias came from? Was it a question of flaws that were missed in the Hyman/Honorton exchanges, or failures to adopt their recommendations?

I remember that selective reporting was one of the risks, and that indirect comparisons and heterogeneity were part of the downgrading. 

Linda

I find Kennedy's work to be too negative and damning personally - though he's a proponent based on his own personal experiences. There are also many issues of bias and conflicts of interest due to funding sources in medicine research - so it's hardly perfect either (and some effect sizes for medicines are pretty small too). 

You also should admit that people are uniquely resistant to changing their mind about psi/afterlife research. I agree Parapsychology should continually improve - but I don't think the evidence is as weak as you are suggesting (most people who are informed enough on the research are proponents or lean that way for a reason). 

All this said, I hope you stick around, we need skeptics here, I may find you overly pessimistic and at times misleading - but your contributions are valuable and people have been very rude to you in the past. I apologised if I have been. We agree that Parapsychology should improve - I just think the evidence is strong enough that the existences of psi I believe to be be strongly proven (though it is clearly pretty weak as a force or whatever word fits psi best).

There was a whole thread on the old forum about problems which had arisen in conventional research, including medicine. I never did understand why proponents were pleased with this, given its relevance to parapsychology research. If it's reason for proponents to dismiss well-evidenced ideas, then it's also reason to dismiss your pet 'well-evidenced' ideas. 

There are plenty of well-informed people, including parapsychologists, who think the evidence is weak. "Informed" doesn't serve to distinguish between proponent and skeptic. And there isn't anything unique about resistance to parapsychology beliefs. Look at all the conventional ideas dismissed by proponents, for example. 

Linda