When continental drift was considered pseudoscience

I thought Typoz was seeing Continental Drift as a case of an initially controversial theory, and was asking how things should work in the different situation where there are unexplained phenomena but no theory to explain them [as in parapsychology].

I suppose it's not quite true to say there are no theories in parapsychology, but it's much closer to phenomena without a theory than a theory without phenomena.

What ersby seems to be saying is that the scientists adopted the streetlight effect http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-br...9#pid16889

That is to say "it must be rubbish because we cannot examine it with our present paradigm"  Either way, the ridicule and scorn poured on the poor chap was entirely uncalled for and is the same as the unprofessional sneering attitude of the Brian Cox's of the world.  Add to that the ignorant and poorly informed lynch mob acting the same way as internet "skeptics" and you have a very close parallel.

Well, of course I had some thoughts along those lines. But at the same time, I'd like it to be considered in a neutral fashion, without trying to score points or paint things in a particularly good or bad light.

Well, I'd say the ideal scientific approach in a situation where there seem to be phenomena without a theory to explain them, would be to consider the empirical evidence carefully, to investigate further as appropriate, and then to try to develop a testable theory to account for it.

As far as parapsychology is concerned, I think we are stuck at the first stage, and I think that's partly because a vocal minority is insisting there is no evidence worth considering.

What ersby seems to be saying is that the scientists adopted the streetlight effect http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-br...9#pid16889

That is to say "it must be rubbish because we cannot examine it with our present paradigm" 

No, that would be incorrect. I think that some scientists rejected Continental Drift on the grounds that it (a) seemed physically impossible, especially given the numbers that Wegener originally suggested and (b) did not explain certain features as well as their own favoured theory. I don't know what you mean by “we cannot examine it with our present paradigm”. Did you mean the physical effect couldn't be detected using the then current technology?

The behaviour of the scientists who took it upon themselves to try to ruin the chances of Continental Drift was regrettable, and largely based on pride and self-preservation than scientific work. I say “largely” because Wegener's theory wasn't perfect and other theories at the time had their own advantages. But that type of behaviour is not restricted to skeptics on the internet nor scientists. It can happen in all walks of life, e.g., the change from silent movies to talkies, or the apparent ridicule faced by Dick Fosbury with his new style of doing the high jump (I really must get around to researching that one day). 

Perhaps a more appropriate example for this forum would be the hostile reception to criticisms of the Soal-Goldney ESP experiments. When a parapsychologist tried to put forward a theory that those results were fraudulent, other parapsychologists rallied round to belittle his work, protect Soal's integrity and cast doubt on the validity of the initial witness statement that sparked off the whole debate. Certainly, there's enough material there that you could write an article, in the same style as the Smithsonian one, making parapsychologists look every bit as reactionary and blinkered as the rest of us.

Perhaps a more appropriate example for this forum would be the hostile reception to criticisms of the Soal-Goldney ESP experiments. When a parapsychologist tried to put forward a theory that those results were fraudulent, other parapsychologists rallied round to belittle his work, protect Soal's integrity and cast doubt on the validity of the initial witness statement that sparked off the whole debate. Certainly, there's enough material there that you could write an article, in the same style as the Smithsonian one, making parapsychologists look every bit as reactionary and blinkered as the rest of us.

Remarkably, Betty Markwick, who investigated the Soal experiments as long as 40 years ago, is still the Honorary Statistical adviser to the SPR, and with another veteran researcher, Donald West, is working on a 200-page report on the subject, which according to the Society's latest annual report is nearing completion.

West's account of the affair in the SPR Psi Encyclopedia can be read here:
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/samuel-soal

I'm sure that parapsychologists, like sceptics, can be tribal and partisan. And equally I think a significant proportion of the published work in parapsychology is sub-standard in one respect or another. I'm not sure that means one side is necessarily as bad as the other, and probably that isn't a vital question in itself. But I think extreme sceptics have to take much of the blame for psi not having been investigated in the way it should have been over the last century or so.

I saw this on the SPR facebook page and thought some of the issues there overlapped onto this discussion.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...the-future

I saw this on the SPR facebook page and thought some of the issues there overlapped onto this discussion.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...the-future

Thanks for this. It was interesting to read the author's reaction to the recent discussion about precognition in Psychology of Consciousness, discussed here:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-di...sciousness