Psience Quest

(2017-09-01, 02:09 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]So, as usual, it comes down to which way your individual preferences lead you when all you have to go on is "trust me". Proponents will still believe and scientists/skeptics will still be skeptical.

Linda

This is bogus. I know plenty of skeptical proponents who are true to the classical meaning of "skeptical", and aren't skeptics in the way that many self-anointed "skeptics" are "skeptical". They don't believe everything they read or hear about, and do their best to research and then critically think about things before coming to a conclusion. There seem to be at least a decent number of proponents here who do that. 

Likewise, there are plenty of skeptics who aren't "skeptical" by the actual meaning of the word at all, unless you think it means "to be utterly cynical and disbelieving of any one thing that doesn't fit into your worldview, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, and as a result come to a conclusory belief."

And, of course, there are legitimately skeptical "skeptics" (though my guess is that those people would be far too intelligent to label themselves with such a term), and there are "true believing" proponents who take things more at face value and are led to belief in paranormal (and related) topics because they want to believe them, with little supporting information.

Grouping scientists with skeptics is another foolish and unreasonable characterization, as if there aren't plenty of proponent (in this context) scientists or proponents can't be skeptical (again, in the real, actual, classical meaning of the term, not the term as it's been bastardized today).

With regards to this topic, I hadn't even heard of Uri Geller prior to this thread, and I am woefully unfamiliar with any of the details contained herein. However, Laird and Kamarling (just calling them out because I've noticed they prominently feature here) are, in my experience, intelligent and well-reasoned members who make meaningful contributions because they back up what they're saying with evidence. Of course, this discussion has largely been about the merits of the evidence, which is wonderful. But to just broadly state "proponents will still believe" is disingenuous, unless you really and truly meant that the "all you have to go on is 'trust me'" phrase is applying equally to proponents and skeptics, and I'm not getting that sense from your post. Stating "proponents take it on faith" is another unreasonable statement. They've gone back and forth with the skeptics of Geller by stating that they would like to hear legitimate reasons and specifics for why the Geller skeptics think the whole thing is fraudulent or bogus; not so different from skeptics saying something like, "where's the evidence?", is it? That's a double standard if I've ever seen one.

I'm not in any way saying I agree with their opinions, or yours, or anyone else's on this topic, and in fact my default position here without looking into it at all is that I would be inclined to not buy much of anything Geller was selling, but I haven't done my own research; either way, I think this is an important thing to make note of.

Dante, I don't disagree with any of that and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I simply meant that these kinds of investigations, where in the end it depends on trust in someone's judgement, aren't going to change anyone's mind. When I said "skeptical" it was the "I doubt that claim" not "I approach claims with the application of critical thinking" meaning of skeptical.

I included scientists in this case because they were the target audience for the Nature article, yet it did not lead to a widespread acceptance. And also because where widespread scientific acceptance goes, Skeptics follow (with a capital "S", the self-anointed skeptics you referred to).

Linda

(2017-09-01, 07:32 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]excellent and interesting detective work ersby.

I picture ersby as old money, time on his hands, sitting in a castle, surrounded by books.

(2017-09-01, 02:46 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's difficult for those of us who haven't read the book to judge from what's been posted here either the seriousness of the discrepancies or the likelihood of the explanations. In particular, how far the explanations are based on documented facts, and how far on speculation about how things might have been. If I get a chance, I'll see if I can copy the relevant parts when I'm next at a library that has it.

I'd find the idea of an accomplice outside more plausible than all the suggestions about pinholes and cable conduits, but if that's really how it's supposed to have been done the evidence would need to be spelled out. But perhaps these authors felt constrained by libel considerations?

I think it's probably best, in order to answer your questions, for you and Max to simply read the book. I don't think it's hard to find. It's one of those books which is handy to have on hand for reference. 

Linda

(2017-09-01, 08:38 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's probably best, in order to answer your questions, for you and Max to simply read the book. I don't think it's hard to find. 

Yes - the British Library has it. That's the closest I get to sitting in a castle surrounded by books.

(2017-09-01, 08:18 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Dante, I don't disagree with any of that and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I simply meant that these kinds of investigations, where in the end it depends on trust in someone's judgement, aren't going to change anyone's mind. When I said "skeptical" it was the "I doubt that claim" not "I approach claims with the application of critical thinking" meaning of skeptical.

I included scientists in this case because they were the target audience for the Nature article, yet it did not lead to a widespread acceptance. And also because where widespread scientific acceptance goes, Skeptics follow (with a capital "S", the self-anointed skeptics you referred to).

Linda

That's fair, I don't disagree that this kind of discussion (I'm meaning very specifically the one that's gone on in this thread) is likely to change anyone's mind. Also fair point about the capital S Skeptics. Thanks for clarifying.

(2017-09-01, 12:41 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, something practical like this. See this thread. The U.S. Military Believes People Have a Sixth Sense" 
How about figuring out how it works? Perhaps, if it's real it would give us a deeper understanding of how this universe works. If it's real who can imagine what practical applications might arise?

Only the Soviet Union ever spent a quantity of money comparable to other sciences -close to 500 millions per year if the DIA/CIA is to be trusted- and despite grainy PK videos gathering all the attention, it seems that most of that actually went into aerospace/military applications for telepathy. The American psi projects in which Geller was allowed entry, were pitiful by comparison and mostly focused on immediate practicality than theory.

Of course, the Soviets had some odd figures that were interested in telepathy early on, Stalin and Tsiolkovsky, so it should not be surprising that this was the focus once the French media conned them into lifting their ban on parapsychology decades later.

(2017-09-01, 02:09 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Proponents are willing to take it on faith that the experiments were performed without error. 

Some experiments may have been performed without error I think better describes what most of the proponents are angling towards. While many skeptics in this thread seem to know with certainty what really happened. Ironically, that certainty reminds me of Alex once he decided he knew the truth about psi and it was no longer worth discussing if you were in any way questioning it.

It's perfectly possible Alex does know the truth about Psi. Convincing others is a different thing, even if he wanted to.