Psychology Today bloggers debate Psi and the nature of consciousness

The comments further made by Lewis in the Part 2 comment section are interesting. He basically accuses parapsychologists of being sloppy and victims of cognitive bias. And yet, he fails to see the hypocrisy and irony of that when he is already displaying a bias himself. 

Reber and Alcock do not refuse to look at evidence. They refuse to spend an enormous amount of time digging into the evidence discussed in yet another paper that is based not in original research but on meta-analysis. If you look at Alcock’s record, he has conducted and published in-depth reviews of a very substantial number of supposedly “outstanding” parapsychological research papers without finding any evidence that would suggest that psychic forces are real, and, on the other hand, finding substantial and often egregious methodological errors. It is also important to note that when Reber and Alcock said that psi is impossible, this was in terms of the laws of physics as we know them. Convincing, replicable evidence for psi would of course call for revision of those laws.

Did he not read Taylor's reply that psi doesn't necessarily call for a 'revision of the laws of physics', especially given very recent studies that have come to light indicating that the laws of nature and physics are still not well understood? 

Many parapsychologists have argued that such a “scientific revolution” will ultimately occur in order to accommodate psi. The problem with their hopeful view is that scientific revolutions occur because of anomalies that arise within science itself. Newtonian mechanics could not account for phenomena that could be better explained through the theory of relativity, so ultimately relatively theory triumphed – regardless of how counterintuitive it is. However, Einstein, following that triumph, then essentially declared that the claims of quantum mechanics were impossible, because “God does not play dice with the universe” (his reference to "God" was intended metaphorically, of course). We now know that Einstein’s claim of impossibility was wrong – because of convincing evidence supporting quantum mechanics.

However, the supposed “anomalies” referred to by parapsychologists never occur in the extremely delicate experiments carried out by physicists. Instead, they apparently occur only under sloppy conditions in parapsychological laboratories and cannot be replicated by anyone who is not a believer in psi.

Interesting that he's using quantum mechanics in his favour when Taylor also explains how quantum mechanics can accommodate or be related to psi. Evidence being 'convincing' is subjective. 

Amusing too how he insists he's not generalising all parapsychologists as frauds, but then goes on to generalise them all as sloppy scientists with a cognitive bias anyways. I'm certain there's plenty who are like this, but all of them? Seriously? 

It's also pretty funny to see how Max wrote his own lengthy, wordy response in great detail explaining his views, and all Lewis can respond with is basically 'read my other articles on why parapsychologists are wishful thinkers and psi isn't real', one of which can be found here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/...ntific-age

It does highlight that much further that the only thing worth spending time on in parapsychology is research intended to develop practical, real world applications of psi that can compete and win against their non psi equivalents. No one will care until that happens.

The comments further made by Lewis in the Part 2 comment section are interesting. He basically accuses parapsychologists of being sloppy and victims of cognitive bias. And yet, he fails to see the hypocrisy and irony of that when he is already displaying a bias himself. 


Did he not read Taylor's reply that psi doesn't necessarily call for a 'revision of the laws of physics', especially given very recent studies that have come to light indicating that the laws of nature and physics are still not well understood? 



Interesting that he's using quantum mechanics in his favour when Taylor also explains how quantum mechanics can accommodate or be related to psi. Evidence being 'convincing' is subjective. 

Amusing too how he insists he's not generalising all parapsychologists as frauds, but then goes on to generalise them all as sloppy scientists with a cognitive bias anyways. I'm certain there's plenty who are like this, but all of them? Seriously? 

It's also pretty funny to see how Max wrote his own lengthy, wordy response in great detail explaining his views, and all Lewis can respond with is basically 'read my other articles on why parapsychologists are wishful thinkers and psi isn't real', one of which can be found here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/...ntific-age

Lol... thought I would respond directly to the article on the web site... just because I don’t like the idea that we chuck the baby out (common human experience of anomalous phenomena) with the bath water (shit studies and theories from second rate authors). I agree we should dump much of the dirty bath water as total crap... but the much more common genuine phenomena is still waiting for an explanation... that explanation must connect with our past scientific observations... otherwise you’re just talking to yourself.

The psychology article is identifying much dirty bath water that needs getting rid of, but it’s trying to use an argument that says, because of that, we should chuck out all the phenomena as well.

The genuine phenomena we talk about on here, is directly analogous to the anomaly of the different coloured shadows thrown onto a translucent background screen by shadow puppets, which are  illuminated by different coloured lights from in front, and behind the screen. That phenomena did not fit our theories of colours, and was a clue that they must be wrong. Someone (Edwin Lands) eventually found a better theory, that could explain everything we had already observed, and also explain the shadow puppet problem. So we could dump the old theories and move to a better one. It won’t be the final theory, because it’s still got some holes, but it’s much better than what we had before.

The same thing is happening today... people are finding observational holes in current theories (shadow puppets)... which are probably related to the stuff we talk about on here... but we are waiting for a better theory to emerge that can explain all the old observations, and some of the new holes. But until it arrives, I’m afraid we’re stuck with the current theories, which are the best we have.

It is coming... it will be a very big shift. There will be massive resistance to it. It will probably be a huge generalisation of our current theories in physics, and I hope its impact will reach as far as biology and psychology, as it becomes understood.

There are thousands of "Ralph Lewises" in Academia all over the world, singing the same old song..not a shred of solid evidence..it's all self delusion etc etc. I had a look at some of his articles and this one https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/...ve-meaning  caught my attention. He includes a quote from (deceased) writer Douglas Adams....

 A universe designed for us (?)

Adams also had this to say about the dangers of our human tendency to think that the universe is designed for us:
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, may have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. 

Adams bestowed self awareness/reflection on a puddle of water to make a point. As a writer of course, he can do that. However, I can't quite see how Ralph (as a scientist), can use it literally (has he hasn't he ?) as an argument to bolster his case. For me, it casts doubt on his judgement. It's just not very good and coming from someone who wants to influence the debate (on Psi) by basically discounting everything as complete nonsense, it does make you wonder.

Frankly I just find this Ralph Lewis to be a very condescending character and I can tell Taylor seemed to be getting very frustrated with him. He's not very open-minded for a psychiatrist IMO. 

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-r...ychologist

I see the papers that Taylor showed Lewis have been discussed here, as have the 'skeptical criticisms'. Very insightful.

[Ninshub]

It's also pretty funny to see how Max wrote his own lengthy, wordy response in great detail explaining his views, and all Lewis can respond with is basically 'read my other articles on why parapsychologists are wishful thinkers and psi isn't real', one of which can be found here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/...ntific-age

Can you point out exactly where is Max's response? I look through the 14 comments but can't find him - is Max using another name?

Can you point out exactly where is Max's response? I look through the 14 comments but can't find him - is Max using another name?

Oh my apologies, I was referring to Part 2 of the whole Psi debate. That's where Max's comment is. In his response, Lewis links to that other article.

Just wanted to pay Max a compliment.

I've not always seen eye to eye with you, but its always been clear to me that you are a serious thinker.  I thought your post at this "Part 2" debate was really wonderful.  Chock full of interesting things but most impressive: you stayed above the fray.  And while the author's response wasn't overly engaging he did start with a thank you.

Nice to see actual dialogue and civil discourse, is I guess my point.  The world needs a lot more of it.

Kudos Max.

Just wanted to pay Max a compliment.

I've not always seen eye to eye with you, but its always been clear to me that you are a serious thinker.  I thought your post at this "Part 2" debate was really wonderful.  Chock full of interesting things but most impressive: you stayed above the fray.  And while the author's response wasn't overly engaging he did start with a thank you.

Nice to see actual dialogue and civil discourse, is I guess my point.  The world needs a lot more of it.

Kudos Max.

Ralph Lewis doesn't deserve civil discourse. If he is sincere then he's an idiot. I thought about replying to him myself, not because it would make any difference, but because I've rarely read such utter crap even from some of the best of them.

Just wanted to pay Max a compliment.

I've not always seen eye to eye with you, but its always been clear to me that you are a serious thinker.  I thought your post at this "Part 2" debate was really wonderful.  Chock full of interesting things but most impressive: you stayed above the fray.  And while the author's response wasn't overly engaging he did start with a thank you.

Nice to see actual dialogue and civil discourse, is I guess my point.  The world needs a lot more of it.

Kudos Max.

Thank you... ...that’s at least 2 people who read it...