Interview with Dr. Henry Bauer - Part 1

Well, some people claim that parapsychological research is not real science but "pseudoscience", whereas parapsychologists themselves would claim that they are practising legitimate science. How would something as minimalist as "science is what scientists do" help us to determine who's right in this case?

There are two types the scientists. One group does pure research. The other type applies research to a purpose.
The kind we need to concern ourselves with are scientists doing pure science. What those scientists do is try to falsify resesrch to arrive at an ever more accurate understanding. Pop parapsychologists set out to do just the opposite which is to prove their ideas. That's why generally parapsychology has the stigma of being labeled pseudoscience.

There are two types the scientists. One group does pure research. The other type applies research to a purpose.
The kind we need to concern ourselves with are scientists doing pure science. What those scientists do is try to falsify resesrch to arrive at an ever more accurate understanding. Pop parapsychologists set out to do just the opposite which is to prove their ideas. That's why generally parapsychology has the stigma of being labeled pseudoscience.

Can you refer me to The List?  You know the one that categorizes each "scientist" as one or the other.

There are two types the scientists. One group does pure research. The other type applies research to a purpose.
The kind we need to concern ourselves with are scientists doing pure science. What those scientists do is try to falsify resesrch to arrive at an ever more accurate understanding. Pop parapsychologists set out to do just the opposite which is to prove their ideas. That's why generally parapsychology has the stigma of being labeled pseudoscience.

I'm not sure that's useful. I suspect many (most?) scientists have some skin in the game and are somewhat invested in their ideas.

Linda

I'm not sure that's useful. I suspect many (most?) scientists have some skin in the game and are somewhat invested in their ideas.

Linda

Sure they are, though I think the difference in those invested in psi  research rarely stand up to say my idea is wrong. I've yet to see the popular psi researchers most touted do that. If they have ever retracted a paper I'd like to know. I will add I'm not including members of the Parapsychology Asscociation because I don't know enough about them to extend this observation.

Sure they are, though I think the difference in those invested in psi  research rarely stand up to say my idea is wrong. I've yet to see the popular psi researchers most touted do that. If they have ever retracted a paper I'd like to know. I will add I'm not including members of the Parapsychology Asscociation because I don't know enough about them to extend this observation.

I know what you mean. I suspect that the handful of researchers who have become the face of the field aren't particularly representative. 

I've seen reasonable researchers within the field. Also, I suspect that when you feel you are under attack, the natural response may be to overstate your case in defense against that attack.

Linda

Can you refer me to The List?  You know the one that categorizes each "scientist" as one or the other.

I'll play the game. 
Here's two partial lists of names.

Pure science scientists.
Feynmann
Faraday,
Oppenheimer
Agassiz,
Aldrovandi,
Anning,
Arber,
Aristotle,
von Baer,
Schroedinger
Dart,
Franklin, ( not B. Franklin)
Boyle,
Mendeleev,
Arrhenius,
Eratosthenes
Sagan,
Mainzer,
Darwin,
Mlodenow,
Ernst,
Rutherford,
Curie,
Mendel
Planck
Einstein
Newton
Galileo
Copernicus
Kepler
Goodall....

Applied scientists partial listing.
N. Dorh,
 A. Sarua,
T. Ajmal,
J. Okache,
C. Rega,
G. M. Müller,
M. J. Cryan
Jie Zheng,
Mi Ra Chang,
Ryan E. Stites,
Yong Wang,
John B. Bruning,
Bruce D. Pascal,
Scott J. Novick

I do hope this makes differentiating easier. If you knew this why ask?

Most scientific knowledge taught in classrooms today is the result of the efforts of pure science. Pure science seeks to develop and test theories about the biological and physical laws that govern the world we live in. Instead of being driven by the impulse to solve a specific problem, pure science is driven by curiosity and a desire to discover more about the natural world. The new theories, knowledge, and ideas generated by pure science have the potential to alter the ways that we understand the world around us, and our relationship to it.
Basic research is conducted today in every scientific field. Currently, scientists are conducting medical research aimed at better understanding how the body’s cells react to diseases such as cancers, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s. Scientists are also conducting pure science in order to better understand the structure of the human genome. Pure scientific research in these fields can uncover knowledge that could have eventual significant practical applications.

Applied science uses knowledge gained through pure science in order to solve concrete problems. When conducting applied science, researchers begin with a specific problem that they would like to solve. Examples of applied sciences include medical sciences such as medical microbiology and genetic epidemiology, and formal sciences such as probability theory and statistics. Other examples include fluid mechanics, dynamics, kinematics, earth sciences, engineering physics, and statistics.

Instead of being driven by the impulse to solve a specific problem, pure science is driven by curiosity and a desire to discover more about the natural world.

I question any assertion that a group of people are acting in purely altruistic terms unaffected by the society around them and traditional human flaws of purity.

So, how am I to discern scientist "A" is conducting pure science while scientist "B" is conducting "applied science" (or more aptly your description of it as "trying to prove one's own ideas")?  Who's the arbiter of this distinction?

Ultimately don't the ideas stand on their own merit regardless of whether the initial scientist was "pure" or "applied"?

[Laird]

What those scientists do is try to falsify resesrch to arrive at an ever more accurate understanding. Pop parapsychologists set out to do just the opposite which is to prove their ideas.

I don't think that the distinction you're trying to draw holds any sort of water. "Proving" an idea scientifically is roughly the same as trying to falsify it and failing. Compare with "rejecting the null hypothesis". Edit: of course, in science as it is currently practised, there is strictly speaking no such thing as "proof" anyway, only provisional degrees of confidence. Interestingly, Larry Laudan claims in the paper referenced by Henry Bauer and to which I linked above, that originally, starting with Aristotle, the idea of science was that it did (must) provide (indisputable) proof, because it was a process of reasoning from (indisputable) first principles.

Falsification is about whether your hypothesis reflects what you would see if your idea is true or whether it reflects what you would see if your hypothesis is false. This is different than the distinction between an alternative and a null hypothesis. 

This is illustrated in the Wason Card test (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e789/b9...2bf07a.pdf) where people are given a rule (if p, then q) and then asked to test this rule by selecting which cards to turn over. The vast majority of people test this rule by looking for examples which would confirm the rule (i.e. they choose to look at "p") or for examples which do not test the rule (i.e. they choose to look at "not p" and/or "q"). Very few people choose to test the rule by falsifying the rule (i.e. choose to look at "not q").

You are attempting to confirm the idea when you choose to look at "p". Your result may be "q" (alternative hypothesis confirmed) or "not q" (null hypothesis confirmed). 

You are attempting to falsify the idea when you choose to look at "not q". Your result may be "not p" (alternative hypothesis confirmed) or "p" (null hypothesis confirmed). 

This tends to matter because by and large we get our ideas for hypotheses by observing phenomena which aren't obviously explicable, which means that the phenomena tend to be relatively frequently produced (frequently enough to be noticed). This also suggests that it will be relatively easy to produce confirming examples for your hypothesis regardless of whether or not your hypothesis is true, which means that positive tests are unlikely to be able to serve as evidence (evidence is something which provides a meaningful distinction between whether your idea is true or false) for your hypothesis.

On the other hand, this also suggests that falsifying examples should be relatively easy to produce, so a failure to produce those falsifying examples would be able to serve as evidence for your idea. 

This is a fairly dense paper, but it demonstrates this point. And it also demonstrates the point that confirming hypotheses can also serve as evidence when confirming examples are difficult to produce. Well-formed control groups are one way in which to test confirming hypothesis in this way.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow...1&type=pdf

However, that being said, I'm not sure that this makes a difference with respect to distinguishing science vs. pseudoscience a priori, since it seems to be no different from making that distinction post hoc on the basis of evidence. That is, a field which tends to test confirming hypotheses under conditions where confirming hypotheses should be fairly easy to produce, will generally not be seen as having produced evidence for their ideas. Whereas those who test difficult to produce confirming hypotheses generally will be seen as having produced evidence. 

Linda

I don't think that the distinction you're trying to draw holds any sort of water. "Proving" an idea scientifically is roughly the same as trying to falsify it and failing. Compare with "rejecting the null hypothesis". Edit: of course, in science as it is currently practised, there is strictly speaking no such thing as "proof" anyway, only provisional degrees of confidence. Interestingly, Larry Laudan claims in the paper referenced by Henry Bauer and to which I linked above, that originally, starting with Aristotle, the idea of science was that it did (must) provide (indisputable) proof, because it was a process of reasoning from (indisputable) first principles.

Which distinction are you referring  to? That there are scientists that do pure science and applied science or that certain much championed psi researchers never seem retract a claim of success?

Actually rejecting the null is the same as testing the null. 

Argument from first principles is what the process of pure  science does not do or is used for and it's not what pure scientists actually do.