(2017-09-14, 09:52 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]And this strikes at the heart of what I was saying to Arouet - it's an entirely different thing we're talking about here. Certainly, as you've already pointed out chuck, because the evidence is not of the "scientific" or "proving" nature, that does not at all indicate that something significant can't be drawn from it, and further, because evidence doesn't fall under the umbrella of empirical or "scientific" does not mean that a reasonable conclusion can't be drawn from it.
As I wrote above, taking for the sake of argument that scientific analysis is inappropriate for psi (again, I disagree but let's go with it), then question then becomes: what other method do we use to determine if the evidence is reliable or not? That's a discussion I'm more than willing to have. What do you think?
Quote:Measuring the evidence against scientific norms doesn't make sense when we're trying to understand something for which we have absolutely no idea, at least right now, how we could possibly detect its validity. The "that is the very nature of this reality" comment is particularly poignant.
You state this as a fact but I am not clear upon what it's based on. But again, let's accept it for the sake of argument: if we have no idea how to detect its validity, then should we not refrain from concluding that it is valid?
Quote:The key for me is that there isn't some objective notion, as has been suggested, of what the implications the evidence can be relied on for. It involves an appreciation for the type of thing being discussed. And, as Kam pointed out, we've avoided actual discussion of the evidence itself here, instead speaking in extremely broad terms, which is hardly useful for a conversation like this one.
I think it is useful to discuss methodology in absence of the evidence itself. But sure, bring the evidence into the discussion, we can do that too.
(2017-09-14, 09:57 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]I almost made it through in agreeing with this one... but the last sentence is not fair. There is evidence for what we're talking about. It might not be evidence that is going to garner the research a spot in a prime time journal, or broad scientific acceptance, but it's evidence nonetheless and can't be dismissed as unreliable wholly based on one set of analysis (empirical, scientific analysis).
Sorry, I didn't mean anything like that by my comment. I didn't intend for it to be anything anybody here would disagree with. I was just trying to avoid giving the idea that the only things worth considering involve scientific evidence.
Linda
(2017-09-14, 10:11 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how many sceptics blind themselves to the results of parapsychology papers before criticising their methods. Or how many of their post hoc statistical analyses are preregistered. 
Awhile back I read a blog post (unrelated to parapsychology) by a scientist with the title something like "How to read a scientific paper". That's exactly what the author proposed. He even said not to read the abstract or introduction before reading the methodology section. While I can't say I do it 100% of the time, I do try and employ this strategy when reading papers (whether parapsychological or otherwise).
In any event, this is very good advice that everyone should follow.
(2017-09-14, 10:31 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Can you give some examples? I don't know what you're talking about.
Linda
Frankly I don't want to play this game while you plead ignorance.
Look up anything whatsoever that Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye say, and then watch the swarms of science fan girls and boys fawn over their every word, without a critical thought in mind (and in many cases, no idea what science's purpose actually is, the limits of what it pursues, or how it even actually works on a day to day basis).
Give me a break. I come from a science background too Linda, I'm not just aimlessly flailing here in hopes to strike gold. In no way is this a critique of you or Arouet, and this line of discussion is pretty much irrelevant to the rest of the thread, but your dismissal of the notion that there can be dogma in science and an uncritical following of sheep isn't warranted. It's certainly not 'fiction', as you earlier stated.
It's not all or nothing here.
(2017-09-14, 10:51 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, I didn't mean anything like that by my comment. I didn't intend for it to be anything anybody here would disagree with. I was just trying to avoid giving the idea that the only things worth considering involve scientific evidence.
Linda
That clears that up, and I'm in agreement and have a better understanding of your position. The last sentence is partially at the core of what I've been saying.
(2017-09-14, 10:02 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]Right, but that's just what I'm saying, is that I think when Arouet speaks as if he is dealing with an objective standard of analysis, it's unreasonable to suggest that those who are more inclined to think the Stevenson research is meaningful are just accepting objectively unreliable evidence.
There's opinion and predisposition, and of course subjectivity, involved in analyzing that evidence. For this topic, it's not some objective standard.
Agreed.
Subjectivity when it comes to parapsychology (or even plain, vanilla psychology?) is so important. To try to veer back to the original topic, the reason I'm not a skeptic (I am, but not in the way that internet skeptics tend to see themselves) is because you can't always reduce these phenomena to objective measurables. I look at the whole story and ask myself what is the more reasonable explanation. I'm not just talking about Stevenson, I'm talking about the whole canon of evidence going back into ancient history.
To use reincarnation evidence as an example, a child might remember faces as being family members but get other things wrong. The names of some of the people or town might have been mistaken. So, to apply strict objectivity, a pedant might say that the whole case must be dismissed because of such errors. Memory is fallible so all of the memories should be considered inadmissible.
This is important because people often come across sceptical dismissal such as this and don't bother to read the actual cases. I suspect that is the agenda when Wikipedia editors fill up those sections under headings like "Criticism" or "Reaction". Time and again, in those entries, you are pointed to some hatchet piece by Shermer or Alcock or Woerlee.
I do have some sympathy with the view that lab-testing psi doesn't produce convincing results. I am not well versed in statistics so the endless debates about the minutiae become so very boring and don't, from what I can see, ever end up in agreement. So, while I admire Radin et al for trying, I suspect they are just as susceptible to losing sight of the woods for the trees. By trying to be strictly objective, they lose sight of the subjective insights which probably can't be measured.
(2017-09-14, 09:03 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]It really depends what hat I'm wearing. In this thread I'm wearing my "prove" is a very high standard hat. I'm all in on reincarnation. I think it happens. But it isn't proven in the same sense as hard science facts. It never is going to be. I don't want to keep repeating myself. It's apples and oranges. You are trying to screed concrete with a watermelon. It isn't going to work. We can't "prove" the afterlife. We can't prove the existence of the soul. It doesn't matter. It doesn't affect what many of us already "know." Linda isn't going to change. She accepts that psi in some form probably exists. But her requirements for proof are super high. She doesn't care what you believe. I don't think Linda is belittling anyone for believing in reincarnation. She's just is saying it isn't proven in the same way that some other things are. And it won't ever be. It's impossible to prove it to the same level. (Sorry for trying to interpret Linda. I'm sure there will be corrections. 
)
I don't think my requirements are super high - they're not really different than any other academic physician, as far as I can tell (which may be super high compared to the average layperson, I guess). But I don't see why reincarnation would be impossible to prove. Just like I don't see why anybody thinks psi isn't amenable to a scientific approach. Lots of medical conditions have the same kinds of characteristics that are attributed to psi, yet we've been able to make progress in our understanding of them. And the claims which are made about psi and reincarnation are the kinds of things a scientific approach is able to address.
While I don't see the reincarnation research at the same level as some other things, there's no reason it couldn't be. Which was kinda my point when I mentioned that stories are essentially useless if you're trying to present evidence. Focus on gathering the kind of information about reincarnation which can serve as decent scientific evidence, instead.
Linda
(2017-09-14, 08:56 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Don't you see that most psi simply doesn't duplicate the way more traditional science experiments do? That's just the nature of it. The stuff is subtle and elusive. Hell, that's why we are still arguing over it 100 years later.
I'm not trying to "relax" standards. I'm suggesting we use methods that are appropriate for the thing that we are trying to study.
You are trying to measure a gallon of water with a tape measure, when a measuring cup is much better suited for the job.
Now you can did in your heels and deny that fact and that's fine. You can stay right where you are. Exclaiming that it is all fake. If that works for you. Go right ahead. Matters not to me.
But here's the question- evidence rules aside, doesn't it occur to you that something extraordinary is going on when you hear these stories?
Something extraordinary is. But I don't know what. You see? How odd you should use the word extraordinary. I was roundly criticized for using that very word recently, remember?
I'll sit in the minority on this one. I'm sure there are aspects of psi that are amenable to the scientific method. I don't think the transmigration of souls is one them.