Narrow Minded MSM Scientist

I think it would be taking rather a lot on trust to assume there is a careful objective analysis of the scientific evidence behind those "bonkers" and "woo" tweets. We know it hasn't always been the case in the past with people who have a strong commitment to a particular cause.

The fact that her own mother would write to the press criticising her activities as president of Humanists UK does suggest to me a pretty strong commitment to the cause:
“Some humanists complaining about, and campaigning against, the ‘indoctrination’ of children in our church schools seem to be unaware that they are doing almost exactly that about which they are objecting.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11...nst-faith/

I suppose it depends whether she is trying to make a kind of argument from her authority as a scientist. Of course, that's a contradiction in terms at the best of times. But in the circumstances she'd do better to use more measured language and show her reasoning. Then again, I don't really think Twitter is a suitable medium to conduct scientific arguments anyway.

Maybe "scientists" should be made a protected group under the Equality Act. People seem to be very prone to generalising about them, based on the behaviour of a vocal minority.

And do people not think parapsychologists are scientists too?

Caroline Watts and Susan Blackmore are parapsychologists, as is Richard Wiseman, or at least they were at one time. I don’t know about you, but I consider all three to have deeply sceptical pov. 

So would I say that parapsychologists are no different to any other scientist, they have they’re bias, only not in the direction you may suppose.

Here are a couple of examples of how two or those I have highlighted think:

https://skeptiko.com/165-dr-caroline-wat...periences/

Then again, I don't really think Twitter is a suitable medium to conduct scientific arguments anyway.

Maybe not, but it’s where we might get a glimpse of what people really think. I think it can give valuable insights.

At first read I gave your post a like, but I felt I had to remove it after a more thorough read. Sorry  The telegraph article reveals both sides of this silliness. The mothers frustration with her daughter is more to do with religious belief than with heart imo. In this case I would agree with Alice from a fairness POV.

‘Intent’ gets to the heart of the matter.

You explained that so well I'd bet folks are saying to themselves, of course that makes sense.

Really? Not so in my case.

I think Silence countered the post equally well.  

15/15

Caroline Watts and Susan Blackmore are parapsychologists, as is Richard Wiseman, or at least they were at one time. I don’t know about you, but I consider all three to have deeply sceptical pov.

I don't know quite what you're getting at there. Of course some scientists - and even some parapsychologists - have a sceptical point of view. But the point I'm making is that you can't generalise. Most parapsychologists, unsurprisingly, don't have a sceptical point of view.

I think you need to put Caroline Watt in a different category from the other two. I'd say she has a mildly sceptical point of view, but she is still doing experimental work and getting some positive results. I don't think a mildly sceptical point of view is at all a bad thing, if people are continuing to investigate.

I don't know quite what you're getting at there. Of course some scientists - and even some parapsychologists - have a sceptical point of view. But the point I'm making is that you can't generalise. Most parapsychologists, unsurprisingly, don't have a sceptical point of view.

I think you need to put Caroline Watt in a different category from the other two. I'd say she has a mildly sceptical point of view, but she is still doing experimental work and getting some positive results. I don't think a mildly sceptical point of view is at all a bad thing, if people are continuing to investigate.

I don’t quite know either Chris. But don’t you think it’s telling that what comes to my mind when parapsychologists are seen as ‘less sceptical’ on average are three names that are not in that category. 
It’s not as if I am not relatively well informed about these matters compared to the average Joe, is it? 

Perhaps that’s the reason I think that the forum should be as interested, if not more, in propaganda and other more down to earth problems that we face if were to change anything?

I don’t quite know either Chris. But don’t you think it’s telling that what comes to my mind when parapsychologists are seen as ‘less sceptical’ on average are three names that are not in that category. 
It’s not as if I am not relatively well informed about these matters compared to the average Joe, is it? 

Perhaps that’s the reason I think that the forum should be as interested, if not more, in propaganda and other more down to earth problems that we face if were to change anything?

If you're denying that parapsychologists are on the whole not sceptical about psi, on the argument that Blackmore and Wiseman are parapsychologists, frankly I think that's a bit silly.

1) What makes Alice Roberts an authority on the science underlying of consciousness?

I'm not sure why you're asking me. As I said earlier, she is unlikely to be an authority (I assume by "authority", you mean those with the most experience and knowledge on the subject) on the science. She is capable of conveying the scientific position of those scientists who are though (as I also mentioned earlier).

2) What, exactly, is the proven science to which she is appealing is sharing the consensus on this topic?

That from the field of neuroscience (as I mentioned earlier). And there would be overlap with other fields, as well.

3) Why didn't she provide such citations as support to her statement of science's consensus on the topic?

That's a whole topic in itself, and I've written about this in the past - how do you get an idea of where the evidence leads through the lens of those scientists with the most knowledge and experience on the subject? However, is it really necessary for her to offer citations of where those in the field of neuroscience are looking for consciousness? Don't we all know this already? Haven't we had to listen to endless whining here on the subject of "mainstream" neuroscientists focussing on the brain?  

I don't think she put nearly the thought into the tweet as you are ascribing.  I think she just popped off about it based on her faith in materialist science.  I'd have respected the tweet if she'd stated as much.

I think most of the thought that went into her tweet is hidden from laypeople (who tend to be unfamiliar with how research is evaluated in terms of evidence, and how those evaluations spread to others). She specifically states that she isn't acting on faith when she states that the belief we have in science [not "materialist science" (this isn't a description of the practice of science but rather a trope coming from anti-materialists), but methodological naturalism] as the most powerful way of understanding the world around us, and ourselves, is founded on an extremely good track record of having done just that in the past. That is, she specifically refers to the evidence for her belief that the findings from methodological naturalism have been useful wrt consciousness - the opposite of "faith". 

All that said, I really don't know what she was/is thinking.  That fact alone tells me she played it a bit fast and loose.

I don't think you can expect scientists to share in your personal ignorance, though.

Comparing black holes to consciousness is a false comparison.  Albeit a few years ago it wouldn't have been.  Black holes, I believe so keep me straight everyone, are a proven phenomena.  Stating that consciousness exists only in the 'brain' is anything but proven science.  What was your point again?

My point can be understood by reading what I said. I did not make a comparison between the extent to which "black holes" are proven vs. "consciousness exists only in the 'brain'". I said that if scientists want to know the extent to which anything (black holes, consciousness, etc.) has been established, they look to those who have the most knowledge and experience on the subject, not to themselves. 

What is a "scientific position" exactly?

I was quoting you. What did you mean by it?

So, is "scientific position" here actually an appeal to future science?  Science some years from now that will ultimately prove human consciousness is strictly limited to the brain?

Is "scientific position" therefore actually a position of faith?

I thought you were referring to the current scientific findings on the subject (what has been established). Did you mean something else?

Linda

If you're denying that parapsychologists are on the whole not sceptical about psi, on the argument that Blackmore and Wiseman are parapsychologists, frankly I think that's a bit silly.

You’ve totally missed my point.
What I was trying to say in my latest post is that the mainstream media ie the power behind the materialists has the upper hand in forcing who it likes to the fore. That’s why there’s little point in arguing the toss on PSI only forums, when understanding things like propaganda and bias is of more practical importance.
I disagree with you about Watts by the way - she’s a materialist. Wasn’t she married to Wiseman? I’m sure I’ve read that she was, but now there’s no sign of it when googling.

You explained that so well I'd bet folks are saying to themselves, of course that makes sense.

The evidence from past events suggests that folks will find that "makes sense" leads to cognitive dissonance and all its wonderful consequences.

Linda