Psychology Today bloggers debate Psi and the nature of consciousness

This article features a debate between a skeptic and a proponent of psi and the nature of consciousness. The two involved are Ralph Lewis (the skeptic) and Steve Taylor (the proponent). This is Part 1:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/...sciousness

I find some of the statements made by the skeptic to be strange to say the least. He at least recognizes that parapsychology is a 'legitimate scientific field', but then seems to contradict this claim later on, as though he's tricking readers into thinking he's going to be more neutral on the topic. He makes some statements about psi that I'm sure will interest some here: 

Steve, the amount of independently replicated evidence for the kind of paranormal phenomena described in the book Irreducible Mind that you refer to, and in the other similar parapsychology literature, is precisely zero...

The view that you articulate, Steve, is indeed a thoughtful one, and one that feels intuitively correct, which is why so many intelligent people hold it. It is not an intellectually weak argument. It is simply misinformed—or to be more exact, under-informed. Dig deeper. The mainstream scientific evidence is far deeper and more complex than most people think.

And yet he doesn't further elaborate on any of this 'deep' and complex mainstream evidence, in this article at least. Meanwhile, Steve Taylor has written numerous other articles offering evidence, and Mr Lewis does not seem to address these, or any other specific examples, just hand-waves them away without providing his own example. He only reads one of the papers Taylor suggests he read. Mr Taylor then responds by explaining the numerous other views and understandings of consciousness, even clarifying that he isn't exactly a dualist. He also points out cases of replicated experiments for psi, such as Deryl Bem's, that should be analysed with an open-mind. 

Part 2 of their discussion involves Lewis' response to Taylor's: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/...iousness-0

He responds by referencing Susan Blackmore's 'debunking' of Bem's experiments, and others. 

Far simpler, evidence-based explanations for perception of paranormal phenomena are: random statistical fluctuations or methodological flaws, the unreliability of subjective perception, cognitive bias, and frankly, wishful thinking.

And frankly, I think those same criticisms can be made of the arguments of some materialists when faced with better evidence. Taylor seems to think so too. But Lewis then goes on to cite articles explaining the 'impossible quest of parapsychology' and accuses seemingly all parapsychologists of not 'correcting methodological faults and problems with analyses'. He mentions statistical deviations, and, of course, the James Randi Challenge, which has become a tiresome excuse in my eyes given the fact that it's been criticised to death by many, many people. 

And here's the thing: Parapsychological claims are so fundamentally incompatible with the entire body of scientific knowledge that in order for them to be true would require not just a major paradigm shift in science of the kind that certainly has occurred periodically in modern history. No, the problem is orders of magnitude more radical than that: It would actually invalidate science itself.

Well not only can it be argued that a paradigm shift is already underway, and has been for quite some time, but claiming that all of science would be 'invalidated' seems to be quite a stretch to me. 

Taylor clarifies the obvious to Lewis and, IMO, wins the debate: the response Lewis cited featured the skeptics explicitly stating that they refused to even give the statistical evidence a chance, which is completely unscientific. Taylor then explains how psi and science are then not incompatible: 

Psi are not incompatible with science, since they don’t contradict it. As I said earlier, precognition is completely compatible with many of the findings and theories of physics, as is telepathy (with the concepts of superposition and entanglement, for instance.) Note again that I’m not saying that quantum physics can explain the phenomena. I’m not sure that (like many other phenomena such as dark energy or consciousness) psi phenomena can be explained at present. We should also remember that science is open-ended. There is no final word on how the universe works.

Taylor's argument seems more plausible as well given how I've seen articles recently (including on here) emphasising how the laws of nature and physics aren't nearly as well understood as previously thought due to recent findings. 

Anyways, I'm not sure if he's been brought up here previously, but Taylor is definitely someone to watch out for. His articles encompass everything from veridical NDEs to the power of the placebo effect.

I'd also recommend reading the comments beneath the last article by William Braddell, who offers further criticisms of the pseudo-skepticism and misinformed claims made by Lewis, but perhaps not in as polite or professional a manner 

I like Steve Taylor but I guess that would be fairly predictable. He writes with a clarity and perception and he's very good at cutting through crap and setting out what is relevant and important. He doesn't believe there is a physiological or psychological explanation for NDE's, either. But he doesn't have to because he's not a mainstream psychologist.

[Ninshub]

He is a psychologist though, just to be clear - he has a PhD in psychology and is a senior lecturer in psychology. (Transpersonal psychologists are not new, and it's a recognized academic school of psychology, but yes they're a small minority. Abraham Maslow more or less established the field.)

He is a psychologist though, just to be clear - he has a PhD in psychology and is a senior lecturer in psychology. (Transpersonal psychologists are not new, and it's a recognized academic school of psychology, but yes they're a small minority. Abraham Maslow more or less established the field.)

I'm not sure, Ian. He told me (via email) that he was not restricted about what he could (what he is allowed to) say about near death experiences because he wasn't a mainstream psychologist. I don't know if he has a PHD in psychology. The transpersonal one probably wouldn't be any easier to attain.

My oldest friend is now a professor of psychology. Trust me, as a mainstream psychologist, you cannot say things like near death experiences suggest that the mind is separable from the brain etc. If you do, your career will come to an abrupt end rather quickly.

I don't know if he has a PHD in psychology. The transpersonal one probably wouldn't be any easier to attain.

From Wikipedia. 

Taylor's main interest is in transpersonal psychology, which investigates higher states of consciousness and 'awakening' experiences. Taylor has a master's degree (with distinction) in Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology and a PhD in Psychology from Liverpool John Moores University.

From Wikipedia. 

Taylor's main interest is in transpersonal psychology, which investigates higher states of consciousness and 'awakening' experiences. Taylor has a master's degree (with distinction) in Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology and a PhD in Psychology from Liverpool John Moores University.

Thanks, Stan ! Well, there you go. He has the qualification but because he's not under their jurisdiction anymore, he can speak the truth

[Ninshub]

Yeah I got the info from the Wiki page too.

Yeah I got the info from the Wiki page too.

Some things are easier to bullshit about than others! 

[Ninshub]

I told tim I don't know if by Steve Taylor saying he's not a "mainstream psychologist" means he's saying that in terms of mentality, rather than accreditation. He's probably not a clinical psychologist (working with patients), so maybe it's less of a problem in that way, and he's found himself a little niche, on the basis of being a well-known author starting with his mindfulness-based spirituality. Yes but it's well-known that psychology in general is one of the professions most at odds with any non brain=mind philosophy or assumption.

I told tim I don't know if by Steve Taylor saying he's not a "mainstream psychologist" means he's saying that in terms of mentality, rather than accreditation. He's probably not a clinical psychologist (working with patients), so maybe it's less of a problem in that way, and he's found himself a little niche, on the basis of being a well-known author starting with his mindfulness-based spirituality. Yes but it's well-known that psychology in general is one of the professions most at odds with any non brain=mind philosophy or assumption.

I think he probably means he isn't just paradigm wise, not a mainstream psychologist (ie the way he thinks now), but because he is now officially a transpersonal psychologist, he isn't bound by the former "rules".