Interview with Dr. Henry Bauer - Part 2

My view of a Science Court is for help primarily to policy makers, under today's conditions, not 50 years ago when Kantrowitz suggested such a thing. Please read the full discussion in my book, otherwise we cannot communicate meaningfully I can't repeat all that here.

The policy makers of today still need access to the best scientific information, do they not?

I'm just looking for an indication that your recommendations have some validity. There should be at least some examples where the process you recommend has led to a desirable outcome, if that is the case. Can you provide some examples?

Linda

Dr. Bauer,

In responding to a post such as this, it should be noted that Linda is under the distinct impression that to have a truly valuable response to any sort of topic, you must be an "expert", which in her eyes seems to be limited to those with advanced degrees in a subject. Certainly, she will attempt to say this is a mischaracterization, but if you have the time to go through her posts in the link she provided (and elsewhere), it becomes readily apparent that that is the case.

Nah. I said, "people with knowledge and experience", rather than "people with advanced degrees in a subject" for a reason. I don't think the two are synonymous, although in some cases they are pretty close. I don't think that expertise is limited to those with advanced degrees or that an advanced degree necessarily confers expertise. 

What Linda seems to have trouble coming to grips with, at least with PSI and its related topics, is that the people she seems to consider experts (ie neuroscientists, neurologists, and researchers from related fields) are not in any way experts. The vast majority of them have conducted no research whatsoever into PSI topics, and many/most of them haven't even seriously considered the research done by the actual experts, who Linda might consider "laypeople" if they fall outside her self-defined scope of expertise.

I'm pretty sure someone who is unfamiliar with the research in a particular field would not be regarded as an expert in that field.

While of course expert input is critical and necessary, being an expert in one field certainly does not provide you with range to claim expertise or knowledge to pontificate on a topic which you have not seriously considered or done research in, and certainly someone like, say, Tim, may be as or more qualified to speak on NDE research than any neuroscientist who claims such a thing could not possibly be real without conducting their own research or really and honestly considering the NDE research that exists, whether or not it falls short of some general scientific standard. It is exactly for this reason that Linda has received so few responses on her linked thread, I'm sure, because it is obvious on the face of it that it's purely absurd to suggest that to have a legitimately informed opinion on a topic and to provide meaningful input, you must really be an expert. It is essentially a thinly veiled appeal to authority argument, and one that has little merit outside of the obvious importance of expert opinion - because we can't all have advanced degrees and do thousands of hours of research in every field we're interested in researching.

Any intelligent and informed person can read a science paper and determine, with legitimacy, whether they find the reasoning in the discussion and conclusion sections of that paper to be sensical and reasonable based on what the data and results suggest, provided that they are well versed in the topic and informed/smart enough to understand what was going on.
There are lots and lots of really smart people who have degrees and careers outside the sciences, and likely could have gotten those degrees had they pursued them. Does it make sense to essentially disregard their opinions (which, do not be fooled, is in essence what Linda seems to think should be the case, based on a large number of her comments on this forum) simply because they did not pursue that career or degree professionally? I would say certainly not. There is obvious necessity in expert input and ideas - so obvious that it seems silly to need to say such a thing. However, it seems equally or nearly as obvious to me that one need not be an expert under my impression of Linda's definition of the term to valuably and genuinely provide insight and reason regarding a scientific topic, again provided that you are informed. As stated earlier, regarding PSI research and experts, Linda is hoist by her own petard in suggesting that the appropriate experts to analyze PSI studies are those with degrees and experience in neuroscience and the like - given that the vast majority of them, for a variety of reasons, have little or no experience in the existing research. There are many people with degrees in math, law, or other scientific fields who are likely substantially more qualified to discuss those topics, given their actual intimate familiarity with the research, than Linda's so-called "experts" who have a background in brain research and processes that distinctly have assumed since their inception the reductiveness and materiality of consciousness. Many, many people on this forum have degrees and advanced degrees in the sciences and related fields, and I think it narrow minded, short cited, and abhorrently biased toward appeals to authority to suggest that such people aren't qualified to opine with legitimacy on a wide range of the topics we discuss. Of course, I'm not suggesting the scientific world at large come to PQ to be enlightened - only that the opinions formed by those here are not delegitimized by a lack of "expertise" or an advanced degree in a related scientific field, especially as determined by Linda.

I'm open to considering that you're right. I was just interested in some specific examples. 

Or I started a thread a while back for people to show how they would evaluate a research paper (http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-422.html). That could be an example.

Linda

[Laird]

I edited it earlier today.

Linda

Thank you. And I've now edited Henry's post and moved the HIV/AIDS stuff to the relevant thread in the hidden forum.

My view of a Science Court is for help primarily to policy makers, under today's conditions, not 50 years ago when Kantrowitz suggested such a thing. Please read the full discussion in my book, otherwise we cannot communicate meaningfully I can't repeat all that here.

I think the distinction between Kantrowitz's concept of a court with expert judges who are able to evaluate the substance of technical evidence, and one where decisions are made "by judging whether opposing witnesses seem responsive or evasive, consistent or inconsistent, forthcoming or arrogant, etc." is the crucial one. From what you said it sounds as though you are advocating a court in which decisions are made by a non-expert jury, rather than expert judges. That's the specific point I hoped you could clarify, but of course if you want to refer people to your book instead, that's up to you.

Linda & Chris:
I discuss the Science Court concept in chapter 12 of Science Is Not What You Think (McFarland 2017), starting with Kantrowitz’s suggestion, continuing through a symposium in 1993 in which Kantrowitz participated (the citation given by Chris was an outcome of that symposium), ...

On that point, what I quoted was the Interim Report of a Task Force chaired by Kantrowitz, published in 1976:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/193/4254/653

Expertise is hard. The problem I have with Bauer's science court is that lacking this expertise, people tend to weigh these arguments using something easier - how personable the presenter is, whether they understand the argument, whether the presenter seems evasive or obfuscatory (which will, of course, be coloured by attribution biases), etc. None of these characteristics validly distinguishes ideas which are true or false, though (if anything, it seems to have the opposite effect).

This contrasts with experts who would look at the contents of the presentation - the available evidence for and against an idea - irrespective of presentation style. It seems inevitable that under these conditions the core issue will not be resolved - Bauer's science court will still fail to convince experts to treat fringe ideas, especially those manufactured by non-experts from political or ideological concerns, as valid. While non-experts will continue to be puzzled by their seeming obstinacy.

Linda

I looked a bit more at what Bauer is suggesting. It does seem to be about forcing experts to respond to controversies arising from what he calls "dissenting minorities", when the ordinary practice of science does not seem to regard them as valid. He also refers to dissenters as "qualified experts".

So I have a couple of questions...

Why would scientists agree to engage in this process? My impression is that most are uninterested in engaging with criticisms which don't appear to be valid.

What is a "qualified expert" if it doesn't refer to someone who has extensive knowledge and practice in the relevant field?

Linda

I looked a bit more at what Bauer is suggesting. It does seem to be about forcing experts to respond to controversies arising from what he calls "dissenting minorities", when the ordinary practice of science does not seem to regard them as valid. He also refers to dissenters as "qualified experts".

So I have a couple of questions...

Why would scientists agree to engage in this process? My impression is that most are uninterested in engaging with criticisms which don't appear to be valid.

What is a "qualified expert" if it doesn't refer to someone who has extensive knowledge and practice in the relevant field?

Linda

"No answer" came the stern reply.

For someone who complains so much about other people refusing to debate with him, Henry Bauer seems remarkably reluctant to debate with other people!

Perhaps he was just looking for book sales. 

Linda

"No answer" came the stern reply.

For someone who complains so much about other people refusing to debate with him, Henry Bauer seems remarkably reluctant to debate with other people!

Perhaps he was just looking for book sales. 

Linda

I contacted Dr. Bauer and asked him whether he is going to return here, on Psience Quest.

Here is his reply:

I was reminded, from Linda, of my experiences commenting on blogs: Most contributors just want to air their own views, don't want to spend time reading and learning. It's too time-consuming to wade through many useless comments to find the few worth responding to.

I looked at the thread again.

I think Dante was spot-on. In the Society for Scientific Exploration we had much discussion about credentials and qualifications to become fully participating members, because those who know most about UFOs, parasychology, etc. may not have the formal credentials expected of experts in mainstream fields.

But Linda and Chris both want to talk about my views on Science Court without reading what I wrote, and it's a waste of time for me to keep repeating bits of it for them.