Sometimes I'm a sceptic

You are reciting the party line that science will prevail and laypeople do not understand. That is like science's ideal gas or textbook science methodology. I do agree with you that science is supposed to help all of us understand our world.

In practice, the discovery-to-market process is overshadowed by political influences ... ideological interests and social engineering. One of the most important ideological influences has been the skeptic's success in establishing pseudoscience as a threat to the public. 

Two ideas are common themes for research parapsychologists. One is that it is a career killer to get even close to anything paranormal. It is said that mainstream scientists run for the door at conferences when paranormal is mentioned. The second is that there is so little funding for serious parapsychological research.

The common factor is the scarlet letter-pseudoscience. We funded a little research as the Association TransCommunication. Managing that included trying to explain to people why there was so little money for research.  Why Has There Not Been More Study of the Paranormal? is an old essay spelling that out as I understood at the time. The main point is the idea that skeptics have talked the National Science Foundation into accepting their definition of pseudoscience as published by “Losh et al” which is a reference to an article in the Skeptical Inquirer. This is published in the Science and Engineering Indicators 2016, Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding

A further comment about “pseudoscientific beliefs” in that chapter is based on a reference from the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOPS) now known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), which states: “According to one group studying such phenomena, pseudoscientific topics include yogi flying, therapeutic touch, astrology, fire walking, voodoo magical thinking, alternative medicine, channeling, psychic hotlines and detectives, near-death experiences, unidentified flying objects and alien abductions, the Bermuda Triangle, homeopathy, faith healing, and reincarnation.” The (late) celebrity skeptic, James Randi, is one of the founders and is the publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer.

You characterize this as "skeptics talking scientists into accepting their definition of pseudoscience" (leaving aside the problem that you refer to the work of a scientist as a "Skeptic"). However, were any of these subjects not regarded as unproven (or disproven) amongst scientists/academics, then there's no reason to suppose that they would have been accepted as examples of pseudoscience by the NSF or any other scientific organization. Had the Skeptical Inquirer elected to identify Global Warming, infectious causes of Peptic Ulcer Disease, or black holes as pseudoscience, do you really expect that the NSF would have just gone along with this? The list of pseudoscientific topics was a list of those topics which loom large in public acceptance and belief, but which lack scientific evidence in support.  

To complete the circle, Reference 67 in the Wikipedia pseudoscience article is the 2006 Science and Engineering report. Kamarlin, for your son, click on the View History tab and see how unstable such a mature but controversial article can be. Reading under the Talk tab will show how the inclusion of what is pseudoscience is expanding. Especially look at the Archived discussion to see some of the arguments. There are some important arguments against the classification. Pseudoscience averages 1,800 views a day.

I describe an Academic-Layperson Partition in terms of the paranormalist community, but I expect it exists throughout our society. The effect is that scientists abdicate their responsibility (which we fund) to educate the public about their work in understandable terms. In the paranormalist community, that which scientists seek to study is produced by laypeople. I explored the resulting problems in Open Letter to Paranormalists: Limits of science, trust and responsibility.

An important point. many of us try to work with people who do not distinguish between belief and discerning consideration of the evidence. In my opinion, belief is evidence of intellectual laziness that plagues all levels of society including academics. The cure is not isolation, as is done with bullshit terms like pseudoscience and sniff test. It is done with education and by teaching people to think.

I will agree that I do not find terms like "pseudoscience" helpful. However, "sniff test" was in reference to scientists' assessments of psychology studies, and there is no point in expecting parapsychology research to be isolated from the concerns research in every other scientific field is subjected to. If physicians are skeptical of some medical research because it doesn't pass the "sniff test", you can't expect them to excuse a parapsychology study that also fails to do so.

Linda

You characterize this as "skeptics talking scientists into accepting their definition of pseudoscience" (leaving aside the problem that you refer to the work of a scientist as a "Skeptic"). However, were any of these subjects not regarded as unproven (or disproven) amongst scientists/academics, then there's no reason to suppose that they would have been accepted as examples of pseudoscience by the NSF or any other scientific organization. Had the Skeptical Inquirer elected to identify Global Warming, infectious causes of Peptic Ulcer Disease, or black holes as pseudoscience, do you really expect that the NSF would have just gone along with this? The list of pseudoscientific topics was a list of those topics which loom large in public acceptance and belief, but which lack scientific evidence in support.  


I will agree that I do not find terms like "pseudoscience" helpful. However, "sniff test" was in reference to scientists' assessments of psychology studies, and there is no point in expecting parapsychology research to be isolated from the concerns research in every other scientific field is subjected to. If physicians are skeptical of some medical research because it doesn't pass the "sniff test", you can't expect them to excuse a parapsychology study that also fails to do so.

Linda

I think the point he's trying to make is money and power influence scientific paraidgms far more than most people are willing to accept. Science is not really, "science" per se due to it being done by people. As a result it is not logic that determines truth but power, this is a pretty well documented phenomenon. For example the origins of the modern field of medicine.




As Americans fret about the Obamacare website and wonder how the country became enslaved to the highest healthcare costs in the world, we turn back the pages to look at how the modern medical paradigm came together in the early 20th century, courtesy of the Rockefeller Foundation and their cronies. Join us this week as we explore the real history of modern healthcare and the real motivations behind the family that brought it to you.

Citations and sources available at: https://www.corbettreport.com/rockefelle...ine-video/

Also the documented phenomenon of rich people funding one thing, while using the thing they say is inferior.

From German politicians and their swine vaccines to Bill Gates’ kids and common core, it’s one rule for the powers-that-shouldn’t-be and another for the plebs. But surely you knew that already. 

The homeopathy example is priceless.

citations and sources available at: https://www.corbettreport.com/fit-for-th...o-edition/

There are many other examples that could be given as this is the pattern that repeats throughout all of history. It's little more that another case of Thucydides’s Trap. It kinda makes your sniff tests largely invalid, since they could simply not be passing it for reasons other than the science itself being bad. It's naive to think that just because something works that the world would just adopt it. Cryptocurrencies and decentralization in general are some of the best modern examples. Anything that's a threat to the current power structure is demonized and destroyed. The development of psionic abilities poses the same threat today that the development of martial arts posed 1500 years ago. I have a theory that I really wish I could research more that psionic abilities were developed in ancient times and were subsequently wiped out while still in relative infancy due to the threat they posed to empires of the day.

::EDIT:::
changed to youtube links because it's the only way it will embedd

I think that religion, faith and other beliefs become intolerable platitudes when they are never questioned.  I love listening to intelligent, well informed atheists (as opposed to knee jerkers) because I find it useful and unavoidable to repeatedly question and challenge my Christian beliefs.  I hope I never become a stereotypical Christian!!!