(2017-09-14, 03:49 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]Can someone link to the exact post where Linda does a blanket dismissal so I don't have to read the entire thread?
We were talking about persuading scientists who don't currently believe in psi. I mentioned that good/strong evidence would be needed to persuade someone who is disinclined to be persuaded, and that psi research currently falls short in that regard. The Ganzfeld was mentioned as probably the best of the bunch and formal assessments of its strength put it, at best, at 'fair'.
Then several people proceeded to throw some stories at me, and I pointed out that when it comes to grades of evidence, stories don't even show up on the list - that is, they are essentially useless as far as evidence goes.
I agree that I am using the term in a formal sense, so it may be better to say "scientific evidence".
I'm not suggesting in any way, shape, or form that we should only talk about things for which there is evidence, here.
Linda
(2017-09-14, 03:55 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]Black and white Linda. It's not fiction, there are examples of this; living in an ideal world where dogma doesn't exist in science is ridiculous.
Regardless, my point was in essence that it brings the hallowed "science" down a peg, and lets people who aren't familiar with its inner workings in on the fact that it isn't about proof, or that any time a study comes out in support of something, it isn't creed. Yes, this applies to proponent research as well - but that isn't the point. It's that the issues that are allegedly plaguing "paranormal" research don't just disappear with more empirical research in the hard sciences (and certainly not in fields like psychology, which has the respect of being an empirical science when in many ways it isn't one at all).
Certainly you'd acknowledge that while most scientists wouldn't subscribe to that view, there are plenty of lay people who do it to the detriment of science (when they really think they're supporting it).
Mostly what I see is that people are misinformed about the practice of science. Then when they learn something about the practice, like just because a study comes out in support of something, that doesn't mean it becomes creed, they act like they've discovered some dirty little secret.
Linda
(2017-09-14, 07:25 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that I am using the term in a formal sense, so it may be better to say "scientific evidence".
I think that is closer to at least making a distinction. Although not everyone was happy with that.
(2017-09-14, 07:34 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Mostly what I see is that people are misinformed about the practice of science. Then when they learn something about the practice, like just because a study comes out in support of something, that doesn't mean it becomes creed, they act like they've discovered some dirty little secret.
Linda
Uh, the exact opposite is the reason things like scientism exist, because there's a narrative (that some scientists with a platform certainly promote) that science is god and is an infallible beast. Those people are also misinformed about the practice of science. Those people act like they have heightened or enlightened understanding of the world that the unscientific plebs don't. It absolutely goes both ways. What a narrow minded comment.
(2017-09-14, 06:31 PM)Arouet Wrote: [ -> ]Just to be clear, I'm not talking about old standards. I'm talking about the most up to date standards.
And I have to disagree with you that the standards should be different for psi. At least, I can't think of a reason why they should be?
Upon what basis should they be loosened? And what methods should we use to determine what the new standards should be?
Sure it should be taken seriously. But that means assessing how the evidence was collected. If there are known risks of error in the manner in which the evidence is collected that must be taken into consideration in assessing the report.
Science deals with this all the time. Take history, for example, which I studied in my undergrad. Historians are quite aware of the risks associated with evidence they use. They know there are high error bars associated with certain types of evidence. They don't ignore it - rather, they incorporate it into their conclusions. Readers are warned to take the findings with large grains of salt. That doesn't mean it is ignored. Rather, it is viewed in the appropriate context.
People have different interests. Some of us like to talk about this stuff. Others don't. I'm sure there are all sorts of things other people find amazing that you don't have an interest in. Even among those of us who enjoy discussing these topics people tend to have subtopics they find more interesting than others. I think we have to just accept that not everyone shares the same interests.
The recent history of science suggests that the rules need to be tightened, not loosened. Look up, for example, what has come to be known as the replication crisis. It has hit areas like psychology hard. I think you're running an uphill battle to suggest that loosening standards is the direction we should go. Just because it might be difficult to employ such standards doesn't mean we should stop trying. No one said it should be easy!
Haven't we heard this before? I know I have. I believe loosening the standard of evidence is a way to hold to an idea or belief when stricter rules of evidence don't produce desired results.
(2017-09-14, 06:28 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]OK- so first of all, proof of reincarnation doesn't require proof of the mechanism of how it works.
After all- we don't know how the double slit experiment really works, but I think we can agree that it is considered "proven science" at this point. Right?
Next- there are very few things in the world that are 100% proven. Most things can be referred to as "suggestive". It's just that science likes to use this term especially often with stuff they feel is woo woo.
Here's the bottom line: even if we don't know what a soul is, and don't know the mechanism of operation of all this stuff, we can still theoretically say this much- this person, somehow, has access to the memories of a person who lived before. They are for all intents and purposes this other person in another younger body. Or something like this.
I don't see the necessity of needing to know how this happens, to make this sort of statement.
I mean maybe someday we come face to face with an alien spaceship. And we may determine to our satisfaction that it is real. We don't need to understand its form of propulsion to claim that we have found an alien spaceship do we?
In both of your analogies anyone, anywhere and at anytime can demonstrate the double slit experiment. With the spaceship we could determine it is an alien craft. However, reincarnation has at best slightly more maybe evidence than an alien craft. It it falls far short of the double slit experiment.
(2017-09-14, 06:31 PM)Arouet Wrote: [ -> ]Just to be clear, I'm not talking about old standards. I'm talking about the most up to date standards.
And I have to disagree with you that the standards should be different for psi. At least, I can't think of a reason why they should be?
Upon what basis should they be loosened? And what methods should we use to determine what the new standards should be?
Sure it should be taken seriously. But that means assessing how the evidence was collected. If there are known risks of error in the manner in which the evidence is collected that must be taken into consideration in assessing the report.
Science deals with this all the time. Take history, for example, which I studied in my undergrad. Historians are quite aware of the risks associated with evidence they use. They know there are high error bars associated with certain types of evidence. They don't ignore it - rather, they incorporate it into their conclusions. Readers are warned to take the findings with large grains of salt. That doesn't mean it is ignored. Rather, it is viewed in the appropriate context.
People have different interests. Some of us like to talk about this stuff. Others don't. I'm sure there are all sorts of things other people find amazing that you don't have an interest in. Even among those of us who enjoy discussing these topics people tend to have subtopics they find more interesting than others. I think we have to just accept that not everyone shares the same interests.
The recent history of science suggests that the rules need to be tightened, not loosened. Look up, for example, what has come to be known as the replication crisis. It has hit areas like psychology hard. I think you're running an uphill battle to suggest that loosening standards is the direction we should go. Just because it might be difficult to employ such standards doesn't mean we should stop trying. No one said it should be easy!
OK so I'll give this a try via cut and paste...
Q- Just to be clear, I'm not talking about old standards. I'm talking about the most up to date standards.
A- Up to date? not really,,, still based on historical/traditional methods and views and still materialist at core (of course), so still "old"
Q- Upon what basis should they be loosened? And what methods should we use to determine what the new standards should be?
A- No idea how to fix. But it is too rigid today and based on experimental repeat ability which is not compatible with psi. Rules vary today between physics and psychology. No reason why psi couldn't be considered "soft" like psych and subject to similar rules.
Q- Sure it should be taken seriously. But that means assessing how the evidence was collected. If there are known risks of error in the manner in which the evidence is collected that must be taken into consideration in assessing the report.
A- of course
Q-The recent history of science suggests that the rules need to be tightened, not loosened.
A- I shouldn't have said loosened. I should have said reviewed and modified to incorporate the reality (sorry pun..) of psi.
(2017-09-14, 08:03 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]In both of your analogies anyone, anywhere and at anytime can demonstrate the double slit experiment. With the spaceship we could determine it is an alien craft. However, reincarnation has at best slightly more maybe evidence than an alien craft. It it falls far short of the double slit experiment.
Agree completely re: falls short. Every situation will fall on a spectrum. Some short, some long.
Were it so, that everything could be measured to the mouse's whisker, but alas, that is not so. We need to be flexible in our ability to handle a wide range of scientific research situations.
Perhaps we find footprints on Mars. Maybe we can't apply the exact some rules of rigor in that situation because we don't have that luxury. We do the best we can. We don't just shrug our shoulders, with nothing to say, as if the rules were given to us by God.
(2017-09-14, 08:11 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]We need to be flexible in our ability to handle a wide range of scientific research situations.
Maybe we can't apply the exact some rules of rigor in that situation because we don't have that luxury. We do the best we can. We don't just shrug our shoulders, with nothing to say, as if the rules were given to us by God.
The question I see that needs a better answer is why you keep hedging? It not just you that's hedging. What's meant by: "We need to be flexible"? Why even bring up " Maybe we can't apply the exact same rules of rigor"? It seems over the years the one thing people that believe in psi want most is acceptance by the academic and scientific communities. That will never happen if the standard of evidence is less than rigorous. In other words the psi proponents need to speak the same language as academia and certainly the scientific community.
(2017-09-14, 06:41 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, I'm going to just say "uncle".
I really, really don't want to spend the next 5 hours doing what I've been doping for the last five.
No hard feelings....
I did try to warn this is what would happen. It became inevitable when Arouet joined the old tag team.
Be in no doubt what is going on here - plain and simple distraction. The subject of this thread is (was) "Why I am no longer a skeptic". Someone used the Stevenson research as a pretty good reason.
Linda claimed that evidence was weak and that even Stevenson said it was weak (something I strongly disagree with and posted my reasons why). The discussion then degenerated into semantic confusion and definitions of evidence. What is lost is any discussion of why Stevenson's work should be considered weak. Whenever I've seem alternative explanations I've been less than impressed - usually because they boil down to coincidence or families trying to make money or nebulous theories about unreliable memories.
So the tactic is: make a statement that the evidence is weak. Make another statement that scientists have standards of evidence and that this research (be it Stevenson, Radin, NDE cases or whatever falls outside the mainstream, materialist orthodoxy) doesn't meet those standards. Get into an argument about standards and definitions of evidence and forget about the cases under discussion.
Result: thread derailed, objective achieved.