Reber and Alcock respond to Cardeña's paper in the American Psychologist

The July-August 2018 issue of American Psychologist contained an article titled “The Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena: A Review” by Etzel Cardeña. Cardeña is known for research on hypnosis and consciousness, parapsychology, and, interestingly, for his work in theater as an actor and director.

So's Seth MacFarlane. Should that mean I dismiss or ignore the Cosmos revival with his name on it as an executive producer?

This pissed me off more than anything else in this article. I hate the insinuation here, that being involved in a profession that produces fiction should cast doubt on one's statements in other areas.

This reads a lot like things Alcock has already written, and there have been responses.

 I hate the insinuation here, that being involved in a profession that produces fiction should cast doubt on one's statements in other areas.

That would exclude the opinions of many vocal atheists/materialists too. One thinks immediately of Stephen Fry, Philip Pullman, Douglas Adams or Isaac Asimov, not to mention Seth MacFarlane himself.

Wow, the basis for this paper are really horrid and unscientifical. Now, you know that normally I'm higly skeptical about psi phenomena outside NDEs, but saying that "we didn't look at the data because they are irrelevant" is totally absurd. Most of our current knowledge has been reached through discoveries that conflicted with established paradigms or previous knowledge. one can't just willfully ignore stuff that doesn't exactly fit inside his worldview, that isn't science but fanaticism.

People used to believe birds could fly because they were kept in the air by magical forces or the hand of God and similar things. we would be still stuck at that point following this people's reasoning.

Eric Wargo's recent blog post is followed by a scathing little note about Reber and Alcock's piece in the Skeptical Inquirer:
http://thenightshirt.com/?p=4436

It ends:
"Like many pseudoskeptics, these authors seem to not realize that science is a method of inquiry, not a list of fixed conclusions about the natural world. The history of science shows that the latter always change, so it’s a bit silly to think they won’t change further. The great Carl Sagan, who embraced real inquiry and dialogue as part of skepticism, would be appalled at the backward-looking (and seemingly, fearful) demon-hauntedness of today’s skeptical movement."

Eric Wargo's recent blog post is followed by a scathing little note about Reber and Alcock's piece in the Skeptical Inquirer:
http://thenightshirt.com/?p=4436

It ends:
"Like many pseudoskeptics, these authors seem to not realize that science is a method of inquiry, not a list of fixed conclusions about the natural world. The history of science shows that the latter always change, so it’s a bit silly to think they won’t change further. The great Carl Sagan, who embraced real inquiry and dialogue as part of skepticism, would be appalled at the backward-looking (and seemingly, fearful) demon-hauntedness of today’s skeptical movement."

Some time ago, there was some experimental result which seemed to show something exceeding the speed of light. Yes, people had their doubts, were sceptical, but didn't simply ignore it. Instead, it was investigated further, examined in detail. That would be an appropriate response.

The SPR provides links to two further responses to the article in Skeptical Inquirer by Reber and Alcock:

Bryan J. Williams:
Impossible in Theory? A Critical Commentary on a Recent Skeptical Rebuttal to an Article on Psychic Phenomena

Ian Wardell:
Skeptical Inquirer attempts to explain why psi could not possibly exist.

I haven't listened to it yet, but it sounds as though Cardeña himself comments on the paper by Reber and Alcock in this New Thinking Allowed interview:

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page - a year on from the publication of Etzel Cardeña's paper, "The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review," here's the abstract of a forthcoming response in the same journal by Arthur S. Reber and James E. Alcock:

Searching for the impossible: Parapsychology’s elusive quest.
Recently, American Psychologist published a review of the evidence for parapsychology that supported the general claims of psi (the umbrella term often used for anomalous or paranormal phenomena). We present an opposing perspective and a broad-based critique of the entire parapsychology enterprise. Our position is straightforward. Claims made by parapsychologists cannot be true. The effects reported can have no ontological status; the data have no existential value. We examine a variety of reasons for this conclusion based on well-understood scientific principles. In the classic English adynaton, “pigs cannot fly.” Hence, data that suggest that they can are necessarily flawed and result from weak methodology or improper data analyses or are Type I errors. So it must be with psi effects. What we find particularly intriguing is that, despite the existential impossibility of psi phenomena and the nearly 150 years of efforts during which there has been, literally, no progress, there are still scientists who continue to embrace the pursuit.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-31453-001

Though I tend to generally be supportive of skeptical efforts to push back against pro-psi findings, this response is embarrassing and feels like some true believer bs.

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page - a year on from the publication of Etzel Cardeña's paper, "The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review," here's the abstract of a forthcoming response in the same journal by Arthur S. Reber and James E. Alcock:

Searching for the impossible: Parapsychology’s elusive quest.
Recently, American Psychologist published a review of the evidence for parapsychology that supported the general claims of psi (the umbrella term often used for anomalous or paranormal phenomena). We present an opposing perspective and a broad-based critique of the entire parapsychology enterprise. Our position is straightforward. Claims made by parapsychologists cannot be true. The effects reported can have no ontological status; the data have no existential value. We examine a variety of reasons for this conclusion based on well-understood scientific principles. In the classic English adynaton, “pigs cannot fly.” Hence, data that suggest that they can are necessarily flawed and result from weak methodology or improper data analyses or are Type I errors. So it must be with psi effects. What we find particularly intriguing is that, despite the existential impossibility of psi phenomena and the nearly 150 years of efforts during which there has been, literally, no progress, there are still scientists who continue to embrace the pursuit.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-31453-001

In case anyone would like to actually read the paper before dismissing it, it can be downloaded from http://jt512.dyndns.org/documents/Search...sible_.pdf