"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

He was never a true skeptic. His piece was debunked here:

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/04/2...onvincing/

Sorry- was not going to respond to you in any way but I just can't help myself here. This is too important to me and maybe others...

Let me understand this: there is a litmus test for skeptics?

So it's not about the merits of a particular thing, where you have particular opinions or interpretation of the data that you wish to discuss? It's not about being skeptical of a particular thing? It's really about loyalty to a cause? So you need to support a whole list of stuff, and deny a whole list of others to be a "true skeptic"?

BTW- I would list those things here (like a thing that is like 811 but you add 100 to it) but afraid it will cause WAY too much off-topic and probably banned discussion. 

I gotta tell you: I'm very happy (and surprised) that you so willingly expose your true motivation. It is helpful for me and others to understand whether, and how to respond.

I'm not sure what you mean by "up against", but I didn't intend for what I said to be unacceptable to anyone. Some people have already made their positions clear - from the people who believe he used psychic powers in at least some cases to the scientists who found the research unconvincing to the people who believe it's all tricks. I thought 'proponent' and 'skeptic' were acceptable terms for someone who has mostly made up their mind one way or the other. If they aren't, what would you suggest instead? I intend no offense or condescension. Like I said earlier, I don't think there's much distinction in terms of who is using critical thinking (with the exception of the formal practice of science). 

Linda

I get it,,,

but how can we differentiate those who are explaining their views while maintaining an openness to alternative opinions, vs dogmatically fighting the battle to preserve a POV? Is there a discernible  difference between the two? (should hope so). What word should be used? 

I just used a word that many use as a blunt force weapon: dogma. It's an insult to most, and hard to determine when someone is simply presenting their view, vs being "dogmatic". Usually this is about evidence,,, but that is a very slippery slope as one person's evidence is another's nonsense. Also, unfortunately whether someone is being "dogmatic" is often about whether they agree with you...

I am personally convinced of the merits of many psi categories, and I guess I assumed that meant I was a "proponent" of psi. 

OTOH- I wish NOT to be labeled as a "proponent" if this means I am dogmatic and close-minded about it.

You know, and everyone else knows your intentions/insinuations by grouping scientists with skeptics, as if you're a proponent you can't be or aren't a scientist. That sort of attitude (amongst many other things) is what Parapsychologists have to deal with. 

And are you now claiming proponent Parapsychologists practice science differently then skeptics? You're right in the sense that the proponents actually conduct experiments.

That wasn't my intent. Obviously there are proponent scientists. I was referring specifically to this case (Geller), where the readers of Nature (scientists) found the research unconvincing (since it didn't lead to widespread acceptance or interest in building on the research). Likewise skeptics. 

It's different when proponent scientists perform the kind of research which others find convincing. The ideas gain acceptance and others start to build on the research. I don't proponent scientists are any different than other scientists in this regard. In fact, I think the term "proponent scientist" is redundant. I don't think parapsychologists are up against anything different from what all scientists are up against. 

Linda

I get it,,,

but how can we differentiate those who are explaining their views while maintaining an openness to alternative opinions, vs dogmatically fighting the battle to preserve a POV? Is there a discernible  difference between the two? (should hope so). What word should be used? 

I just used a word that many use as a blunt force weapon: dogma. It's an insult to most, and hard to determine when someone is simply presenting their view, vs being "dogmatic". Usually this is about evidence,,, but that is a very slippery slope as one person's evidence is another's nonsense. Also, unfortunately whether someone is being "dogmatic" is often about whether they agree with you...

I am personally convinced of the merits of many psi categories, and I guess I assumed that meant I was a "proponent" of psi. 

OTOH- I wish NOT to be labeled as a "proponent" if this means I am dogmatic and close-minded about it.

I don't know what the answer is. I see what you mean, and you have a good point about how we see ourselves vs. how we see others with respect to open-mindedness. I don't see much point in using words with negative connotations (like dogma), though. FWIW I don't think of "proponent" and "skeptic" as "close-minded and dogmatic". At best, maybe it gives a clearer indication of where you are starting from. Evidence has the power to change someone's mind. If the evidence is weak, then a proponent will remain a proponent and a skeptic will remain a skeptic. Science has a formal approach to evaluating evidence, which anyone can participate in, regardless of their starting point. 

Linda

That wasn't my intent. Obviously there are proponent scientists. I was referring specifically to this case (Geller), where the readers of Nature (scientists) found the research unconvincing (since it didn't lead to widespread acceptance or interest in building on the research). Likewise skeptics. 

It's different when proponent scientists perform the kind of research which others find convincing. The ideas gain acceptance and others start to build on the research. I don't proponent scientists are any different than other scientists in this regard. In fact, I think the term "proponent scientist" is redundant. I don't think parapsychologists are up against anything different from what all scientists are up against. 

Linda

Most of this is pretty reasonable - but I think Parapsychologists are up against more then most scientists. Lack of funding, insinuations of fraud, media hostility, media 'skeptics' being taken more seriously than them on their own subject of expertise.

Most of this is pretty reasonable - but I think Parapsychologists are up against more then most scientists. Lack of funding, insinuations of fraud, media hostility, media 'skeptics' being taken more seriously than them on their own subject of expertise.

I remember this coming up on Skeptiko once - what would it cost to run a proper long-term study with appropriate replications, review, etc.?

I don't know what the answer is. I see what you mean, and you have a good point about how we see ourselves vs. how we see others with respect to open-mindedness. I don't see much point in using words with negative connotations (like dogma), though. FWIW I don't think of "proponent" and "skeptic" as "close-minded and dogmatic". At best, maybe it gives a clearer indication of where you are starting from. Evidence has the power to change someone's mind. If the evidence is weak, then a proponent will remain a proponent and a skeptic will remain a skeptic. Science has a formal approach to evaluating evidence, which anyone can participate in, regardless of their starting point. 

Linda

I think this breaks down in cases where most scientists are extremely unwilling to accept new ideas - ψ in particular.

The problem is that in most areas of science, if someone put up evidence for a new phenomenon - X, there would inevitably be critics who would come up with alternative explanations. If X was an important result - gravitational waves, for example, then another research could gain a lot of kudos by doing some research to test an alternative explanation. In effect, the original explanation - X - would stand unless someone else could refute it properly.

ψ is different. Very few researchers want to dabble with ψ, because if they confirm evidence for ψ they become a pariah themselves, and if they manage to refute the experiment, there isn't that much kudos to be had because everyone expected the experiment to be wrong in the first case!

Thus I would argue the normal process of science certainly doesn't work in the case of ψ, and may not work in quite a lot of other areas of science. For example, most astronomers desperately don't want there to be objects that are heavily red-shifted, but not very far away (cosmologically speaking), because this would destroy their distance measurements - hence people may be only too glad to bury the evidence that Halton Arp accumulated, suggesting exactly that situation.

Science is a human activity, and as such, it can be distorted in the same way as other human activities.

David

Most of this is pretty reasonable - but I think Parapsychologists are up against more then most scientists. Lack of funding, insinuations of fraud, media hostility, media 'skeptics' being taken more seriously than them on their own subject of expertise.

There any many examples of scientists up against the same things you list. They are mostly overcome with evidence. Those problems would be relieved if parapsychologists were able to obtain results under conditions of low risk of bias (http://cobe.paginas.ufsc.br/files/2014/1...e.RCT_.pdf). I've often made suggestions as to how to do this (as have parapsychologists such as Kennedy, Stevenson, Utts, as well as our own Manelli and Johann).

Linda

I think this breaks down in cases where most scientists are extremely unwilling to accept new ideas - ψ in particular.

The problem is that in most areas of science, if someone put up evidence for a new phenomenon - X, there would inevitably be critics who would come up with alternative explanations. If X was an important result - gravitational waves, for example, then another research could gain a lot of kudos by doing some research to test an alternative explanation. In effect, the original explanation - X - would stand unless someone else could refute it properly.

ψ is different. Very few researchers want to dabble with ψ, because if they confirm evidence for ψ they become a pariah themselves, and if they manage to refute the experiment, there isn't that much kudos to be had because everyone expected the experiment to be wrong in the first case!

Thus I would argue the normal process of science certainly doesn't work in the case of ψ, and may not work in quite a lot of other areas of science. For example, most astronomers desperately don't want there to be objects that are heavily red-shifted, but not very far away (cosmologically speaking), because this would destroy their distance measurements - hence people may be only too glad to bury the evidence that Halton Arp accumulated, suggesting exactly that situation.

Science is a human activity, and as such, it can be distorted in the same way as other human activities.

David

I realize this is the story which is told to justify why psi isn't taken seriously. But I suspect much of it is false. You won't know, of course, until you see how scientists react when decent evidence is produced. So far, the level of evidence produced for psi is almost overwhelmingly poor, with a few hints of fair, using formal evaluations of levels of evidence.

Linda.