New book, "Heavens on Earth", by Michael Shermer

Yes. The usual special pleadings weren’t flowing as smoothly as usual

Oh I thought Shermer did a good job pushing the usual excuses of the materialist faith?

This exchange of wit might seem to suggest that there is an equivalence between the two positions represented by the protagonists.

However, that is largely not the case. If one might reduce things to their simplest at the level of a caricature, in general, the view loosely represented by Tsakiris is supported by evidence, while that represented by Shermer is represented by a fingers in ears "not listening, not listening" stance.

Frankly I haven't listened to this latest episode. Whether or not it lived up to its billing is irrelevant. The idea of sending two champions to do battle in order to determine a winner is a Mediaeval concept, perhaps useful in the days of knights in shining armour, whether entering a jousting tournament or full-scale bloody warfare. Nowadays we need not be concerned with such antics in seeking what is true.

[Laird]

This exchange of wit might seem to suggest that there is an equivalence between the two positions represented by the protagonists.

Yep, I think that that's what those of us who have critiqued it are concerned about.

... If one might reduce things to their simplest at the level of a caricature, in general, the view loosely represented by Tsakiris is supported by evidence, while that represented by Shermer is represented by a fingers in ears "not listening, not listening" stance.

Honestly, this is exactly what the skeptical community says about the non-local consciousness supporters.

There was an interesting guest on Skeptiko maybe a couple of years back (female academic, psi-friendly) who frustrated Alex because she wouldn’t criticise her physicalist/mind=brain colleagues. I suspect Doug will remind me of her name

Her (IMO correct) opinion was that each ‘side’ had strong evidence that was highly suggestive and supportive of their position; it depends on the eividence one is immersed in.

Honestly, this is exactly what the skeptical community says about the non-local consciousness supporters.

There was an interesting guest on Skeptiko maybe a couple of years back (female academic, psi-friendly) who frustrated Alex because she wouldn’t criticise her physicalist/mind=brain colleagues. I suspect Doug will remind me of her name

Her (IMO correct) opinion was that each ‘side’ had strong evidence that was highly suggestive and supportive of their position; it depends on the eividence one is immersed in.

I agree that the same criticisms are applied to each side.

I disagree that each side has strong evidence. I think that what is happening is that "confirmed" has been substituted for "evidence". "Evidence" has a specific technical meaning in the practice of science - "evidence" makes an idea more likely to be true (or false). Confirming an idea does not make it more likely to be true because this is easy (except under specific circumstances which are not in play here), and the support for psi is almost entirely of the "easily confirmed" type. It is as easy to confirm false ideas, as true ideas. Strictly speaking, there is no symmetry with respect to "evidence" here - the evidence falls strongly on the skeptical side. But if you want to talk about whether psi has been confirmed or not, then the discussion pretty much depends upon what sort of world view one is immersed in.

This is the tie-in for the Conspiracy Theory crowd, as well.

Linda

There was an interesting guest on Skeptiko maybe a couple of years back (female academic, psi-friendly) who frustrated Alex because she wouldn’t criticise her physicalist/mind=brain colleagues. I suspect Doug will remind me of her name

Was it perhaps Julia Mossbridge?

Honestly, this is exactly what the skeptical community says about the non-local consciousness supporters.

There was an interesting guest on Skeptiko maybe a couple of years back (female academic, psi-friendly) who frustrated Alex because she wouldn’t criticise her physicalist/mind=brain colleagues. I suspect Doug will remind me of her name

Her (IMO correct) opinion was that each ‘side’ had strong evidence that was highly suggestive and supportive of their position; it depends on the eividence one is immersed in.

Who are the sceptical community, Malf ? You can't mean Shermer. Do you mean the members of CSICOP or Dawkins ? They don't do the research, they just criticise it or ignore it.

Why should the view of perennial 'sceptics' who don't (by and large) do the work, be given the same weight as those who have actually done the experiments ?

Honestly, this is exactly what the skeptical community says about the non-local consciousness supporters.

There was an interesting guest on Skeptiko maybe a couple of years back (female academic, psi-friendly) who frustrated Alex because she wouldn’t criticise her physicalist/mind=brain colleagues. I suspect Doug will remind me of her name

Her (IMO correct) opinion was that each ‘side’ had strong evidence that was highly suggestive and supportive of their position; it depends on the eividence one is immersed in.

As Chris tentatively suggests above, it was indeed Julia Mossbridge.

This exchange of wit might seem to suggest that there is an equivalence between the two positions represented by the protagonists.

However, that is largely not the case. If one might reduce things to their simplest at the level of a caricature, in general, the view loosely represented by Tsakiris is supported by evidence, while that represented by Shermer is represented by a fingers in ears "not listening, not listening" stance.

Frankly I haven't listened to this latest episode. Whether or not it lived up to its billing is irrelevant. The idea of sending two champions to do battle in order to determine a winner is a Mediaeval concept, perhaps useful in the days of knights in shining armour, whether entering a jousting tournament or full-scale bloody warfare. Nowadays we need not be concerned with such antics in seeking what is true.

I'd even say it goes outside of evidence. If the skeptics are right you have no free will, there's no objective morality, and within the tiniest fraction of a moment in the universe's long history you'll be shuttled off into oblivion.

Why even worry about Truth in that case? Just take the proponent side as at least somewhat right, or possibly right, and live as a good person until the atoms of your body cast you into Nothingness.

I disagree that each side has strong evidence. I think that what is happening is that "confirmed" has been substituted for "evidence". "Evidence" has a specific technical meaning in the practice of science - "evidence" makes an idea more likely to be true (or false). Confirming an idea does not make it more likely to be true because this is easy (except under specific circumstances which are not in play here), and the support for psi is almost entirely of the "easily confirmed" type. It is as easy to confirm false ideas, as true ideas. Strictly speaking, there is no symmetry with respect to "evidence" here - the evidence falls strongly on the skeptical side. But if you want to talk about whether psi has been confirmed or not, then the discussion pretty much depends upon what sort of world view one is immersed in.

As is usually the case with you, this is a load of baloney. You just make things up that benefit your position. In essence what you're saying it "it's not evidence because it isn't what I consider to be evidence", in spite of your attempt to falsely characterize evidence as having to meet some technical standard. Is making an idea more likely to be true or false a technical or scientific definition? Not remotely. That's, I'm sure, how almost anyone would define it.

Evidence can be anything that supports a position. It doesn't have to meet some vague, completely arbitrary and capricious standard that you lay out. If, at this point, you honest to goodness just can't admit that there exists evidence that there are issues with the traditional reductionist, materialistic paradigm, you are blatantly being obstinate. I don't know why you stick around here if you think there is no evidence and that the "evidence" falls strongly on the skeptical side. I would love to know what evidence it is that you're referring to, and find it comical that you've magically dismissed loads of other phenomena to the contrary with a clearly false matter-of-fact statement, including NDE research and reincarnation studies, to name two of the many that exist. 

I mean seriously, to say that those things aren't evidence requires that, at the outset, you dismiss them and just say that they're not evidence because it doesn't meet your standard of whatever it is that evidence means. Evidence does not have to meet Linda's arbitrary standard of evidence. You can say all you want that there exists a "technical definition" of evidence. Without a doubt, such a definition might exclude legitimate evidence and include some evidence that is totally bogus, depending on who is applying the standard. It really is funny how authoritative you get - "strictly speaking", as if you are the unbiased voice of reason here. You are so obviously one sided that you can't concede what is perhaps the most minimal statement that I imagine almost any reasonable person familiar with the research would say, which is that there are studies, and evidence, that challenge the traditional paradigm. 

There are likely many members here and many people all over the place who pay close attention to research regarding psi and the like who wouldn't subscribe to the binary distinction you make between whether psi has been "confirmed" or not, as opposed to a more realistic sliding scale, grey area approach where one can admit that there is evidence that they think suggests there is more to it than the skeptical side of things, without full-fledged "confirmation". Another mischaracterization on your part. Just as you say it's easy to confirm false ideas as true ideas, it is easy to dismiss evidence as not evidence when it doesn't suit you.