Science, Sceptics, and Authority
- Thread starter Swatter
- Start date
pumpkinsaren'torange
Registered Senior Member
"their" *cringes*
bluemommaphish
Registered Senior Member
Geez Q..
You cut and pasted the hell out of my argument, didn't you?? It's amazing you were able to construct your own argument by re-constructing mine...
(Honestly, I wasn't contradicting myself- your opinion maybe..)
I think maybe I've spun myself a web of my own opinion-you guys are trying to tear it up, man! Hey, chroot- I'm sorry about the moronic thing..you ruffled my feathers. (If I didn't find those documents on the SETI site- I would've dissregarded them myself.)
This probably isn't my place of refuge- I don't trust all facts with my life...I rely on my instincts, which is obviously not a very practical idea when it comes to debate. All I wanted to say is, "I agree. "
...And actually I had asked a question, but somehow it fell by the trench side...
Later... Anna
You cut and pasted the hell out of my argument, didn't you?? It's amazing you were able to construct your own argument by re-constructing mine...
(Honestly, I wasn't contradicting myself- your opinion maybe..)
I think maybe I've spun myself a web of my own opinion-you guys are trying to tear it up, man! Hey, chroot- I'm sorry about the moronic thing..you ruffled my feathers. (If I didn't find those documents on the SETI site- I would've dissregarded them myself.)
This probably isn't my place of refuge- I don't trust all facts with my life...I rely on my instincts, which is obviously not a very practical idea when it comes to debate. All I wanted to say is, "I agree. "
...And actually I had asked a question, but somehow it fell by the trench side...
Later... Anna
Re: Re: Re: Science, Sceptics, and Authority
<b>Swatter:</b>
<i>I believe that scientific knowledge of [NDEs] is in its infancy and at this point you have "authority figures" throwing around little more than thier opinions. That is the problem. Im sure there are scientists out there conducting first-hand empirical research on the topic, they would seem to be the experts.</i>
So, is the fact that "real" experts are not consulted the fault of the experts, the non-experts, the press, or a society willing to consider anybody an expert?
<i>You dont see a priest when you need to attach the proper lense to Hubble, you would hope NASA could take care of that. You dont see priests being qouted about how to fix Hubble, and if you did they wouldnt be taken seriously. It doesnt work the same way with scientists. Scientists can be qouted outside of thier field as an authority and not many would know the difference.</i>
Really? Let's turn it around. Would you ask a scientist to interpret the meaning of the bible? Would you ask a scientist about meditation? The will of God? Religious ethics?
<i>I would agree that neuroscientists who study NDEs would be experts. A neuroscientist who has not studied NDEs are not solid authorities on the matter. That would seem to be consistently logical.</i>
I agree with you. Perhaps, then, what you're really complaining about is people who claim to be experts when they are not. I agree that's bad. Or, maybe you're complaining that people accord scientists too much authority. I agree that can be bad, too, though in that case it isn't the scientists' fault.
<i>My problem is sceptics mixing thier authority as (insert your favorite occupation) and the authority of science. Because they claim to represent science, doesnt make them a scientific authority on anything.</i>
I think that sceptics claim to be authorities in <b>critical thinking and analysis</b>. Most of the time, they spend their time saying "Look at these (pseudoscientific) claims! They are not logically supported by good evidence." They are trained to recognise valid evidence and chains of reasoning when they see it. When those are not present, they point out the fact.
<i>Being a magician doesnt make you an authority in science.</i>
No, but it certainly makes you an authority in methods of deception.
<i>Unfortunately, the media treats James Randy as a scientific expert in a multitude of fields.</i>
Do you think so?
<i>The question of whether ETs are here or not is the realm of speculation, not science.</i>
I disagree. It is simply the case that there is no good reproducible evidence showing that ETs are on Earth right now, or ever have been. That's not a matter of speculation - it's fact.
<i>The authority given to sceptics nowadays is mis-placed, in my not so humble opinion.</i>
I think you're mixing up authority to speak on a topic and authority to comment on the strength of presented evidence. Anybody can be trained to recognise good evidence when they see it, but few people are trained in that way. Personally, I think that critical thinking should be taught in schools.
<i>The sceptics have a very valid view on the subject [of UFOs]. The point is that it is no better than mine.</i>
All the skeptics are doing is saying "There is no good evidence for the existence of UFOs. If there is, please show us." So far, nobody has produced any evidence except anecdotes, blurry photos and film, and small quanitites of equivocal physical evidence.
Whether a skeptic personally believes in aliens is beside the point when you're asking whether ETs are currently visiting Earth. That is simply a question of evidence.
<i>You could be qouted as an expert on the possibility of ET visitation, as a scientific authority. Would that authority be in the correct place?</i>
Any claim I make must be subjected to the same process of critical review as anybody else's claim. If I turn out to be correct more often than not, it would be reasonable to consider me an expert, don't you think?
<b>chroot:</b>
<i>The bottom line is that Swatter wants to bitch about the popular press having lax scientific standards. He's right. He has only two choices: live with it, or get his fill of science from a more reputable source.</i>
Or, he could try to get the press to lift its standards. If people demand higher standards from the press, they will be forced to deliver.
<b>Swatter:</b>
<i>I believe that scientific knowledge of [NDEs] is in its infancy and at this point you have "authority figures" throwing around little more than thier opinions. That is the problem. Im sure there are scientists out there conducting first-hand empirical research on the topic, they would seem to be the experts.</i>
So, is the fact that "real" experts are not consulted the fault of the experts, the non-experts, the press, or a society willing to consider anybody an expert?
<i>You dont see a priest when you need to attach the proper lense to Hubble, you would hope NASA could take care of that. You dont see priests being qouted about how to fix Hubble, and if you did they wouldnt be taken seriously. It doesnt work the same way with scientists. Scientists can be qouted outside of thier field as an authority and not many would know the difference.</i>
Really? Let's turn it around. Would you ask a scientist to interpret the meaning of the bible? Would you ask a scientist about meditation? The will of God? Religious ethics?
<i>I would agree that neuroscientists who study NDEs would be experts. A neuroscientist who has not studied NDEs are not solid authorities on the matter. That would seem to be consistently logical.</i>
I agree with you. Perhaps, then, what you're really complaining about is people who claim to be experts when they are not. I agree that's bad. Or, maybe you're complaining that people accord scientists too much authority. I agree that can be bad, too, though in that case it isn't the scientists' fault.
<i>My problem is sceptics mixing thier authority as (insert your favorite occupation) and the authority of science. Because they claim to represent science, doesnt make them a scientific authority on anything.</i>
I think that sceptics claim to be authorities in <b>critical thinking and analysis</b>. Most of the time, they spend their time saying "Look at these (pseudoscientific) claims! They are not logically supported by good evidence." They are trained to recognise valid evidence and chains of reasoning when they see it. When those are not present, they point out the fact.
<i>Being a magician doesnt make you an authority in science.</i>
No, but it certainly makes you an authority in methods of deception.
<i>Unfortunately, the media treats James Randy as a scientific expert in a multitude of fields.</i>
Do you think so?
<i>The question of whether ETs are here or not is the realm of speculation, not science.</i>
I disagree. It is simply the case that there is no good reproducible evidence showing that ETs are on Earth right now, or ever have been. That's not a matter of speculation - it's fact.
<i>The authority given to sceptics nowadays is mis-placed, in my not so humble opinion.</i>
I think you're mixing up authority to speak on a topic and authority to comment on the strength of presented evidence. Anybody can be trained to recognise good evidence when they see it, but few people are trained in that way. Personally, I think that critical thinking should be taught in schools.
<i>The sceptics have a very valid view on the subject [of UFOs]. The point is that it is no better than mine.</i>
All the skeptics are doing is saying "There is no good evidence for the existence of UFOs. If there is, please show us." So far, nobody has produced any evidence except anecdotes, blurry photos and film, and small quanitites of equivocal physical evidence.
Whether a skeptic personally believes in aliens is beside the point when you're asking whether ETs are currently visiting Earth. That is simply a question of evidence.
<i>You could be qouted as an expert on the possibility of ET visitation, as a scientific authority. Would that authority be in the correct place?</i>
Any claim I make must be subjected to the same process of critical review as anybody else's claim. If I turn out to be correct more often than not, it would be reasonable to consider me an expert, don't you think?
<b>chroot:</b>
<i>The bottom line is that Swatter wants to bitch about the popular press having lax scientific standards. He's right. He has only two choices: live with it, or get his fill of science from a more reputable source.</i>
Or, he could try to get the press to lift its standards. If people demand higher standards from the press, they will be forced to deliver.
bluemommaphish
Registered Senior Member
How Spooks??
I'm pretty sure that most of the scientific community approaches things from the inside. Working with factual data only. The scientific method is to dissprove theory, isn't it?
How in the world do you present a picture painted with reason to a community of people that have to, by right, refuse to look at the whole picture?
I don't think this is the right topic-or the right forum for an argument such as this.....(Oh well
)
I'm pretty sure that most of the scientific community approaches things from the inside. Working with factual data only. The scientific method is to dissprove theory, isn't it?
How in the world do you present a picture painted with reason to a community of people that have to, by right, refuse to look at the whole picture?
I don't think this is the right topic-or the right forum for an argument such as this.....(Oh well
)bluemommaphish
Registered Senior Member
Please forgive me, that was stupid.
Some of us just have a different idea of what the whole picture is...Right?...ok. I'll shut up now.
Yeah, I was about to ask you what this "pictures painted with reason" is that scientists reject out-of-hand.
In fact, the entire argument that "scientists reject things out-of-hand, and therefore are closed-minded" is very stupid. Scientists dismiss theories which are directly contradicted by established, trusted experiment -- these are the majority of theories published by laymen on the internet. They have every right to dismiss them, because they simply cannot be correct. It is unfotunate that most laymen interpret the dismissal of their theory as a personal attack, or as a conspiracy to squelch "the Truth."
On the other hand, there are many, many open questions in physics right now, and more every day. When someone pipes up with a theory, even a nutty-sounding one, that can correctly explain and predict experiments, scientists will always take notice. I personally feel that string theory is precisely an example of thousands of physicists maintaining an open mind.
- Warren
bluemommaphish
Registered Senior Member
Hey, chroot! How are ya'?
"I agree."
Have you heard of Laplace? Probably. The picture I was speaking of is his...Gestault? Remember him? Same idea.
I guess I see occasionaly someone who is so incredibily focused that they seem to miss the concepts behind the science. The zero theory? (I'm a believer.) It cannot be proven, yet it cannot be dismissed..ya' know? We've made some incredible things with all of our technologies..but have some strayed from the fronts?
"I agree."
Have you heard of Laplace? Probably. The picture I was speaking of is his...Gestault? Remember him? Same idea.
I guess I see occasionaly someone who is so incredibily focused that they seem to miss the concepts behind the science. The zero theory? (I'm a believer.) It cannot be proven, yet it cannot be dismissed..ya' know? We've made some incredible things with all of our technologies..but have some strayed from the fronts?
blue
this is the right place
spend sometime reading the various threads and get a feel for where any particular discussion stopped off at. everything seems to have been done to death over here at one time or another. the more scientific minds here are the backbone of this community and they keep it relatively sane. no one gets away with garbage here (i try tho)
speculate away but try to be realistic and work within an established framework (for the most part anyway)
this is the right place
spend sometime reading the various threads and get a feel for where any particular discussion stopped off at. everything seems to have been done to death over here at one time or another. the more scientific minds here are the backbone of this community and they keep it relatively sane. no one gets away with garbage here (i try tho)
speculate away but try to be realistic and work within an established framework (for the most part anyway)
bluemommaphish
Registered Senior Member
Yes, Sir............
Re: Re: Re: Re: Science, Sceptics, and Authority
To JR
<i>So, is the fact that "real" experts are not consulted the fault of the experts, the non-experts, the press, or a society willing to consider anybody an expert?</i>
The point is that scientists, who are non-experts in said field are qouted as experts. I dont blame the experts, I blame the unprofessional scientists. The media is also to blame, of course. I have also seen this in texts studied at my university.
<i>Really? Let's turn it around. Would you ask a scientist to interpret the meaning of the bible? Would you ask a scientist about meditation? The will of God? Religious ethics?</i>
I wouldnt, but I have actually seen it done. What could possibly solve the problem in a reasonable way is if a scientist is qouted out of his/her field, they should be qouted as a sceptic(if that is the case). I have seen this done, but not enough.
<i> Or, maybe you're complaining that people accord scientists too much authority. I agree that can be bad, too, though in that case it isn't the scientists' fault.</i>
It is a characteristic of our society. I dont disagree with it either. If a scienctist sticks to what he knows, his opinion is valuable. What really hurts us as a society is when science "runs amuck". When opinions of scientists about a certain subject creates a stigma. When serious research should be done in subjects such as NDEs, ESP, and various "fringe" subjects, we find these areas cannot be explored due to heavy scientific bias mostly from out of field. NDEs should be heavily researched, due to its heavy implications as to how the brains works(wont comment on religious implications). At the present time, ESP is beginning to have solid scientific grounding but is still laughed at. Its implications about the brain are enormous, but small minded scientists outside of the field will deny logic and stall serious research for who knows how long. My complaints about authority were symtoms, this is the disease.
JR, you seem to be a logical person. I am going to pin you down here. It is, at this point(due to the laws of probibility), impossible to explain away ESP. There are now experiments replicable around the world, such as Ganzfield. I am not saying there is proof of any particular thing, but this area is dying for serious research. Why is this topic still a laugher? It would go against all logic, in my opinion. For sceptics being so logical, they only seem to use logic when it suits them.
I will digress even further here for a moment. I read a book called "How To Think About Strange Things", a very good book BTW. I would recommend this book to every person. The book goes into critical thinking and logic, then into debunking this and that. Where I think the book goes wrong, and die-hard sceptics go wrong, is when it deals with things that are truly unexplained. The policy seems to be, if you cant debunk it, ignore it. While I dont advocate jumping to conclusions, it doesnt seem logical to ignore it either. Take for example, an obviously manufactured steel pellet or ball was found in a lump of coal. While I dont advocate scientists coming up with theories about ETs visiting earth, it doesnt seem logical to ignore it as though it never happened. I sent this question to the people at CSICOP and never got a response(they said they would look into it), which did not suprise me.
<i>I think that sceptics claim to be authorities in <b>critical thinking and analysis</b>. Most of the time, they spend their time saying "Look at these (pseudoscientific) claims! They are not logically supported by good evidence." They are trained to recognise valid evidence and chains of reasoning when they see it. When those are not present, they point out the fact.</i>
Sure, they claim to be critical thinkers, but they in words as well as implication claim to represent science and therefore mix thier authority as individuals and that of science. Keep your eye open, maybe you will see what Im saying.
<i>I disagree. It is simply the case that there is no good reproducible evidence showing that ETs are on Earth right now, or ever have been. That's not a matter of speculation - it's fact.</i>
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. In science, everything is possible, but there are degrees of possibility. To say anything more is speculation. An astronomer can say it is highly unlikely ETs are on Earth, nothing more.
In the realm of speculation, I think you are wrong. I see many scientists at NASA talking about visiting Alpha Centari in 50-100 years. In the 1970s we send out spacecraft that will likely someday reach some star. Taking what we know of life and evolution it is not a great logical leap to look for ET spacecraft. If you ask me if they are manned, Id say that wouldnt follow logically at this point.
So, therefore photographs of purported UFOs are more likely photographs of ET probes/spacecraft than you astronomers like to admit. Im not saying its very likely, but the possibilities are greater than you would care to admit.
What I dont understand is the acceptance of ET radio waves as possible and logical, but not of unmanned ET spaceprobes. Why not scan the heavens with radar and look for ET probes, it makes just as much sense. Dont let your bias get in the way, tell me honestly. It does follow logically. And if you do admit that much, you will be laughed at. The same reason astronomers dont discuss ET probes is the same reason brain scientists dont discuss ESP, human bias.
<i>I think you're mixing up authority to speak on a topic and authority to comment on the strength of presented evidence. Anybody can be trained to recognise good evidence when they see it, but few people are trained in that way. Personally, I think that critical thinking should be taught in schools.</i>
It seems we will have to agree to disagree. I think sceptics often appeal to authority not legitimately granted to them, you do not see this. Like I said, watch a little closer, you might see what Im saying.
I agree logic and critical thinking should be taught probably starting in high school.
<i>Any claim I make must be subjected to the same process of critical review as anybody else's claim. If I turn out to be correct more often than not, it would be reasonable to consider me an expert, don't you think?</i>
Absolutely not
That actually opens up another can of worms. Does your knowledge of astronomy and physics make you an expert on the possibility of ET visitation? Even if you have never first-hand examined any purported UFO evidence? Or is it sort of like the patent office, they wont look at your invention if it breaks any of the known laws of science?
To JR
<i>So, is the fact that "real" experts are not consulted the fault of the experts, the non-experts, the press, or a society willing to consider anybody an expert?</i>
The point is that scientists, who are non-experts in said field are qouted as experts. I dont blame the experts, I blame the unprofessional scientists. The media is also to blame, of course. I have also seen this in texts studied at my university.
<i>Really? Let's turn it around. Would you ask a scientist to interpret the meaning of the bible? Would you ask a scientist about meditation? The will of God? Religious ethics?</i>
I wouldnt, but I have actually seen it done. What could possibly solve the problem in a reasonable way is if a scientist is qouted out of his/her field, they should be qouted as a sceptic(if that is the case). I have seen this done, but not enough.
<i> Or, maybe you're complaining that people accord scientists too much authority. I agree that can be bad, too, though in that case it isn't the scientists' fault.</i>
It is a characteristic of our society. I dont disagree with it either. If a scienctist sticks to what he knows, his opinion is valuable. What really hurts us as a society is when science "runs amuck". When opinions of scientists about a certain subject creates a stigma. When serious research should be done in subjects such as NDEs, ESP, and various "fringe" subjects, we find these areas cannot be explored due to heavy scientific bias mostly from out of field. NDEs should be heavily researched, due to its heavy implications as to how the brains works(wont comment on religious implications). At the present time, ESP is beginning to have solid scientific grounding but is still laughed at. Its implications about the brain are enormous, but small minded scientists outside of the field will deny logic and stall serious research for who knows how long. My complaints about authority were symtoms, this is the disease.
JR, you seem to be a logical person. I am going to pin you down here. It is, at this point(due to the laws of probibility), impossible to explain away ESP. There are now experiments replicable around the world, such as Ganzfield. I am not saying there is proof of any particular thing, but this area is dying for serious research. Why is this topic still a laugher? It would go against all logic, in my opinion. For sceptics being so logical, they only seem to use logic when it suits them.
I will digress even further here for a moment. I read a book called "How To Think About Strange Things", a very good book BTW. I would recommend this book to every person. The book goes into critical thinking and logic, then into debunking this and that. Where I think the book goes wrong, and die-hard sceptics go wrong, is when it deals with things that are truly unexplained. The policy seems to be, if you cant debunk it, ignore it. While I dont advocate jumping to conclusions, it doesnt seem logical to ignore it either. Take for example, an obviously manufactured steel pellet or ball was found in a lump of coal. While I dont advocate scientists coming up with theories about ETs visiting earth, it doesnt seem logical to ignore it as though it never happened. I sent this question to the people at CSICOP and never got a response(they said they would look into it), which did not suprise me.
<i>I think that sceptics claim to be authorities in <b>critical thinking and analysis</b>. Most of the time, they spend their time saying "Look at these (pseudoscientific) claims! They are not logically supported by good evidence." They are trained to recognise valid evidence and chains of reasoning when they see it. When those are not present, they point out the fact.</i>
Sure, they claim to be critical thinkers, but they in words as well as implication claim to represent science and therefore mix thier authority as individuals and that of science. Keep your eye open, maybe you will see what Im saying.
<i>I disagree. It is simply the case that there is no good reproducible evidence showing that ETs are on Earth right now, or ever have been. That's not a matter of speculation - it's fact.</i>
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. In science, everything is possible, but there are degrees of possibility. To say anything more is speculation. An astronomer can say it is highly unlikely ETs are on Earth, nothing more.
In the realm of speculation, I think you are wrong. I see many scientists at NASA talking about visiting Alpha Centari in 50-100 years. In the 1970s we send out spacecraft that will likely someday reach some star. Taking what we know of life and evolution it is not a great logical leap to look for ET spacecraft. If you ask me if they are manned, Id say that wouldnt follow logically at this point.
So, therefore photographs of purported UFOs are more likely photographs of ET probes/spacecraft than you astronomers like to admit. Im not saying its very likely, but the possibilities are greater than you would care to admit.
What I dont understand is the acceptance of ET radio waves as possible and logical, but not of unmanned ET spaceprobes. Why not scan the heavens with radar and look for ET probes, it makes just as much sense. Dont let your bias get in the way, tell me honestly. It does follow logically. And if you do admit that much, you will be laughed at. The same reason astronomers dont discuss ET probes is the same reason brain scientists dont discuss ESP, human bias.
<i>I think you're mixing up authority to speak on a topic and authority to comment on the strength of presented evidence. Anybody can be trained to recognise good evidence when they see it, but few people are trained in that way. Personally, I think that critical thinking should be taught in schools.</i>
It seems we will have to agree to disagree. I think sceptics often appeal to authority not legitimately granted to them, you do not see this. Like I said, watch a little closer, you might see what Im saying.
I agree logic and critical thinking should be taught probably starting in high school.
<i>Any claim I make must be subjected to the same process of critical review as anybody else's claim. If I turn out to be correct more often than not, it would be reasonable to consider me an expert, don't you think?</i>
Absolutely not
That actually opens up another can of worms. Does your knowledge of astronomy and physics make you an expert on the possibility of ET visitation? Even if you have never first-hand examined any purported UFO evidence? Or is it sort of like the patent office, they wont look at your invention if it breaks any of the known laws of science?
I would hope you wouldnt do that. If any posts go off to far, just delete them. They original topic, that is still being discussed is legitimate. There is some discussion of UFOs, but it is in a different context. If topics veer from discussions of the atomic weight of boron, does that make it a canidate for moving it? Are wider discussions of science allowed?
Swatter:
<i>If a scienctist sticks to what he knows, his opinion is valuable.</i>
How are scientists different in this respect from any other kind of expert? Why pick on the scientists? It must be that you think that scientists are given more than their fair share of credibility by society in general (or perhaps by the press).
<i>When opinions of scientists about a certain subject creates a stigma. When serious research should be done in subjects such as NDEs, ESP, and various "fringe" subjects, we find these areas cannot be explored due to heavy scientific bias mostly from out of field.</i>
I agree it can be a problem when a fringe field has a history of fraud or unsupported claims. New legitimate research tends to be ignored.
<i>NDEs should be heavily researched, due to its heavy implications as to how the brains works(wont comment on religious implications).</i>
They <b>are</b> being researched, as I understand it. What particular implications for brain function are you referring to?
<i>At the present time, ESP is beginning to have solid scientific grounding but is still laughed at. Its implications about the brain are enormous, but small minded scientists outside of the field will deny logic and stall serious research for who knows how long.</i>
As far as I am aware, there is little, if any, convincing evidence for any form of ESP. A few legitimate studies have shown small statistical effects, but nothing to write home about. On the other hand, all studies which have claimed to demonstrate large effects have been shown in one way or another to be methodologically flawed. That does not do much for the reputation of ESP research.
<i>JR, you seem to be a logical person. I am going to pin you down here. It is, at this point(due to the laws of probibility), impossible to explain away ESP.</i>
Tell me why.
<i>There are now experiments replicable around the world, such as Ganzfield.</i>
Do you have a reference or link to this? I haven't heard about it.
<i>I am not saying there is proof of any particular thing, but this area is dying for serious research. Why is this topic still a laugher?</i>
For the reasons I gave above.
<i>I will digress even further here for a moment. I read a book called "How To Think About Strange Things", a very good book BTW. ... Where I think the book goes wrong, and die-hard sceptics go wrong, is when it deals with things that are truly unexplained. The policy seems to be, if you cant debunk it, ignore it.</i>
I would say if you can't debunk it, keep an open mind. I think you'll find most skeptics do that, and that is why they may seem to ignore it. If there seems to be something new, skeptics don't set out to debunk it any more than scientists of any kind would. However, it is part of the process of science that new theories are tested to their limits. If a theory can stand up to all challenges, then it is probably a good one.
Many people unfamiliar with skepticism make the mistake of assuming that skeptics start from a position of disbelief. In fact, they start with an open mind, but bear in mind how thinking and experimenting can go wrong. They are on the lookout for unsupported or unsupportable conclusions.
<i>Take for example, an obviously manufactured steel pellet or ball was found in a lump of coal. While I dont advocate scientists coming up with theories about ETs visiting earth, it doesnt seem logical to ignore it as though it never happened. I sent this question to the people at CSICOP and never got a response(they said they would look into it), which did not suprise me.</i>
As a skeptic, the first questions I would ask in this case is: how do you know the steel pellet was manufactured? And how did it get inside the lump of coal in the first place? What is unexplained about this? Have you considered explanations within what we already know? How do they stack up against the alternatives?
<i>Sure, [skeptics] claim to be critical thinkers, but they in words as well as implication claim to represent science and therefore mix thier authority as individuals and that of science. Keep your eye open, maybe you will see what Im saying.</i>
That's because scientists also have to be critical thinkers. The scientific method involves careful evaluation of claims. You don't need to be a scientist to be a skeptic, but you should be a skeptic to be a good scientist. (Note: in real life, scientists don't always make good sceptics for a number of reasons.)
<i>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.</i>
Of course it isn't. But in the absence of evidence, it cannot be concluded that ETs are present, either (which is what the UFO nutters claim).
<i>In science, everything is possible, but there are degrees of possibility. To say anything more is speculation. An astronomer can say it is highly unlikely ETs are on Earth, nothing more.</i>
I agree. Show me one quote by a professional astronomer saying that there is no way ETs could be visiting Earth. I don't think you'll find one.
<i>In the realm of speculation, I think you are wrong. I see many scientists at NASA talking about visiting Alpha Centari in 50-100 years. In the 1970s we send out spacecraft that will likely someday reach some star. Taking what we know of life and evolution it is not a great logical leap to look for ET spacecraft.</i>
Alpha Centauri is 4 light years away and it is the <b>closest</b> star to Earth (other than the sun). Any interstellar voyage from there to here would therefore take 4 years at the very least, and probably much longer. Even the Voyager spacecraft - the fastest objects ever created by human beings - will take about 100,000 years to reach any other star.
The chances of ETs arriving on our doorstep without any prior notice are miniscule. If you'd spent 4 years travelling through space to get here, wouldn't you at least send a message saying you're coming?
And yes, it is reasonable to listen for messages from ETs. Messages are much more likely than spacecraft. That's why the SETI program is going ahead.
<i>So, therefore photographs of purported UFOs are more likely photographs of ET probes/spacecraft than you astronomers like to admit.</i>
There is simply no persuasive evidence that <b>any</b> purported UFO photo shows an alien spacecraft of any type.
<i>Im not saying its very likely, but the possibilities are greater than you would care to admit.</i>
What makes you think that?
<i>What I dont understand is the acceptance of ET radio waves as possible and logical, but not of unmanned ET spaceprobes.</i>
They are certainly possible, though much more difficult to send than messages. But again, there is no evidence that they exist (so far).
<i>Why not scan the heavens with radar and look for ET probes, it makes just as much sense.</i>
No, it doesn't. In the case of radio messages, we assume that ET is trying to contact us. If we look for space probes with radar they will be a lot harder to find than a radio message deliberately beamed our way. And radar has a limited range.
<i>The same reason astronomers dont discuss ET probes is the same reason brain scientists dont discuss ESP, human bias.</i>
No. The reason is that there's nothing to discuss (so far). That doesn't mean that the possibility is not taken seriously, though.
Finally, I said: <i>Any claim I make must be subjected to the same process of critical review as anybody else's claim. If I turn out to be correct more often than not, it would be reasonable to consider me an expert, don't you think?</i>
You replied: <i>Absolutely not
That actually opens up another can of worms. Does your knowledge of astronomy and physics make you an expert on the possibility of ET visitation? Even if you have never first-hand examined any purported UFO evidence?</i>
I should have said "If I turn out to be correct more often than not <b>when discussing the relevant topic</b>..." I agree with you that I should not be considered an expert on UFOs unless I have studied the available evidence and arguments for and against alien visitations.
<i>Or is it sort of like the patent office, they wont look at your invention if it breaks any of the known laws of science?</i>
A side point, but the patent office doesn't actually work that way. You can get a patent on a perpetual motion machine if you like, even though the laws of thermodynamics say that such a thing cannot exist. There are, in fact, a number of people who hold such patents. Your invention need not work in order for you to be able to patent it.
<i>If a scienctist sticks to what he knows, his opinion is valuable.</i>
How are scientists different in this respect from any other kind of expert? Why pick on the scientists? It must be that you think that scientists are given more than their fair share of credibility by society in general (or perhaps by the press).
<i>When opinions of scientists about a certain subject creates a stigma. When serious research should be done in subjects such as NDEs, ESP, and various "fringe" subjects, we find these areas cannot be explored due to heavy scientific bias mostly from out of field.</i>
I agree it can be a problem when a fringe field has a history of fraud or unsupported claims. New legitimate research tends to be ignored.
<i>NDEs should be heavily researched, due to its heavy implications as to how the brains works(wont comment on religious implications).</i>
They <b>are</b> being researched, as I understand it. What particular implications for brain function are you referring to?
<i>At the present time, ESP is beginning to have solid scientific grounding but is still laughed at. Its implications about the brain are enormous, but small minded scientists outside of the field will deny logic and stall serious research for who knows how long.</i>
As far as I am aware, there is little, if any, convincing evidence for any form of ESP. A few legitimate studies have shown small statistical effects, but nothing to write home about. On the other hand, all studies which have claimed to demonstrate large effects have been shown in one way or another to be methodologically flawed. That does not do much for the reputation of ESP research.
<i>JR, you seem to be a logical person. I am going to pin you down here. It is, at this point(due to the laws of probibility), impossible to explain away ESP.</i>
Tell me why.
<i>There are now experiments replicable around the world, such as Ganzfield.</i>
Do you have a reference or link to this? I haven't heard about it.
<i>I am not saying there is proof of any particular thing, but this area is dying for serious research. Why is this topic still a laugher?</i>
For the reasons I gave above.
<i>I will digress even further here for a moment. I read a book called "How To Think About Strange Things", a very good book BTW. ... Where I think the book goes wrong, and die-hard sceptics go wrong, is when it deals with things that are truly unexplained. The policy seems to be, if you cant debunk it, ignore it.</i>
I would say if you can't debunk it, keep an open mind. I think you'll find most skeptics do that, and that is why they may seem to ignore it. If there seems to be something new, skeptics don't set out to debunk it any more than scientists of any kind would. However, it is part of the process of science that new theories are tested to their limits. If a theory can stand up to all challenges, then it is probably a good one.
Many people unfamiliar with skepticism make the mistake of assuming that skeptics start from a position of disbelief. In fact, they start with an open mind, but bear in mind how thinking and experimenting can go wrong. They are on the lookout for unsupported or unsupportable conclusions.
<i>Take for example, an obviously manufactured steel pellet or ball was found in a lump of coal. While I dont advocate scientists coming up with theories about ETs visiting earth, it doesnt seem logical to ignore it as though it never happened. I sent this question to the people at CSICOP and never got a response(they said they would look into it), which did not suprise me.</i>
As a skeptic, the first questions I would ask in this case is: how do you know the steel pellet was manufactured? And how did it get inside the lump of coal in the first place? What is unexplained about this? Have you considered explanations within what we already know? How do they stack up against the alternatives?
<i>Sure, [skeptics] claim to be critical thinkers, but they in words as well as implication claim to represent science and therefore mix thier authority as individuals and that of science. Keep your eye open, maybe you will see what Im saying.</i>
That's because scientists also have to be critical thinkers. The scientific method involves careful evaluation of claims. You don't need to be a scientist to be a skeptic, but you should be a skeptic to be a good scientist. (Note: in real life, scientists don't always make good sceptics for a number of reasons.)
<i>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.</i>
Of course it isn't. But in the absence of evidence, it cannot be concluded that ETs are present, either (which is what the UFO nutters claim).
<i>In science, everything is possible, but there are degrees of possibility. To say anything more is speculation. An astronomer can say it is highly unlikely ETs are on Earth, nothing more.</i>
I agree. Show me one quote by a professional astronomer saying that there is no way ETs could be visiting Earth. I don't think you'll find one.
<i>In the realm of speculation, I think you are wrong. I see many scientists at NASA talking about visiting Alpha Centari in 50-100 years. In the 1970s we send out spacecraft that will likely someday reach some star. Taking what we know of life and evolution it is not a great logical leap to look for ET spacecraft.</i>
Alpha Centauri is 4 light years away and it is the <b>closest</b> star to Earth (other than the sun). Any interstellar voyage from there to here would therefore take 4 years at the very least, and probably much longer. Even the Voyager spacecraft - the fastest objects ever created by human beings - will take about 100,000 years to reach any other star.
The chances of ETs arriving on our doorstep without any prior notice are miniscule. If you'd spent 4 years travelling through space to get here, wouldn't you at least send a message saying you're coming?
And yes, it is reasonable to listen for messages from ETs. Messages are much more likely than spacecraft. That's why the SETI program is going ahead.
<i>So, therefore photographs of purported UFOs are more likely photographs of ET probes/spacecraft than you astronomers like to admit.</i>
There is simply no persuasive evidence that <b>any</b> purported UFO photo shows an alien spacecraft of any type.
<i>Im not saying its very likely, but the possibilities are greater than you would care to admit.</i>
What makes you think that?
<i>What I dont understand is the acceptance of ET radio waves as possible and logical, but not of unmanned ET spaceprobes.</i>
They are certainly possible, though much more difficult to send than messages. But again, there is no evidence that they exist (so far).
<i>Why not scan the heavens with radar and look for ET probes, it makes just as much sense.</i>
No, it doesn't. In the case of radio messages, we assume that ET is trying to contact us. If we look for space probes with radar they will be a lot harder to find than a radio message deliberately beamed our way. And radar has a limited range.
<i>The same reason astronomers dont discuss ET probes is the same reason brain scientists dont discuss ESP, human bias.</i>
No. The reason is that there's nothing to discuss (so far). That doesn't mean that the possibility is not taken seriously, though.
Finally, I said: <i>Any claim I make must be subjected to the same process of critical review as anybody else's claim. If I turn out to be correct more often than not, it would be reasonable to consider me an expert, don't you think?</i>
You replied: <i>Absolutely not
That actually opens up another can of worms. Does your knowledge of astronomy and physics make you an expert on the possibility of ET visitation? Even if you have never first-hand examined any purported UFO evidence?</i>
I should have said "If I turn out to be correct more often than not <b>when discussing the relevant topic</b>..." I agree with you that I should not be considered an expert on UFOs unless I have studied the available evidence and arguments for and against alien visitations.
<i>Or is it sort of like the patent office, they wont look at your invention if it breaks any of the known laws of science?</i>
A side point, but the patent office doesn't actually work that way. You can get a patent on a perpetual motion machine if you like, even though the laws of thermodynamics say that such a thing cannot exist. There are, in fact, a number of people who hold such patents. Your invention need not work in order for you to be able to patent it.
JR
Thanks for the great debate.
Here is a link for ganzfeld(I am a terrible speller with a terrible memory).
http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ganzfeld.html
Heres a little snipet from a different web page:
--------
Honorton and his research team proceeded to design a new ganzfeld system which met the criteria he and Hyman had specified in their communiqué. This system, and studies using it, are referred to as ``autoganzfeld studies'', as much of the procedure is under automated computer control in order to avoid the problems found in some of the earlier studies. Before Honorton's lab closed in 1989, 11 experimental series, representing 355 sessions, conducted by eight experimenters, had been collected using the autoganzfeld. Honorton et al. [15] published a summary of the autoganzfeld studies and compared them with his earlier meta-analysis. The autoganzfeld sessions yielded overall significant results ( z = 3.89, p = 0.00005), with an obtained hit rate of 34.4 percent (with 25 percent being chance expectancy). The effect sizes by series and by experimenter were both homogeneous. Comparing the autoganzfeld outcomes to those of the 28 studies of the earlier meta-analysis revealed very similar outcomes, with the autoganzfeld showing slightly better ESP scoring than that obtained in the earlier studies (autoganzfeld results by series: effect size or es = .29, earlier 28 meta-analysis studies by experiment: es = .28).
--------
That is 20,000 to 1 odds.
Apparently 20,000 to 1 is still fringe.
This link describes the experiment:
http://www.psiexplorer.com/ganzint2.htm
Thanks for the great debate.
Here is a link for ganzfeld(I am a terrible speller with a terrible memory).
http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ganzfeld.html
Heres a little snipet from a different web page:
--------
Honorton and his research team proceeded to design a new ganzfeld system which met the criteria he and Hyman had specified in their communiqué. This system, and studies using it, are referred to as ``autoganzfeld studies'', as much of the procedure is under automated computer control in order to avoid the problems found in some of the earlier studies. Before Honorton's lab closed in 1989, 11 experimental series, representing 355 sessions, conducted by eight experimenters, had been collected using the autoganzfeld. Honorton et al. [15] published a summary of the autoganzfeld studies and compared them with his earlier meta-analysis. The autoganzfeld sessions yielded overall significant results ( z = 3.89, p = 0.00005), with an obtained hit rate of 34.4 percent (with 25 percent being chance expectancy). The effect sizes by series and by experimenter were both homogeneous. Comparing the autoganzfeld outcomes to those of the 28 studies of the earlier meta-analysis revealed very similar outcomes, with the autoganzfeld showing slightly better ESP scoring than that obtained in the earlier studies (autoganzfeld results by series: effect size or es = .29, earlier 28 meta-analysis studies by experiment: es = .28).
--------
That is 20,000 to 1 odds.
Apparently 20,000 to 1 is still fringe.
This link describes the experiment:
http://www.psiexplorer.com/ganzint2.htm
Last edited:
I have a few major complaints about the methodology presented in this website:
How exactly was the hit rate expectation determined to be 25%? The fact that there are four choices does not by itself lead to the conclusion that each should be chosen 25% of the time. Some of the stimuli might be selected more often because they provoke people more, or simply because they are first on the left. I would go so far as to say that it is impossible to create four stimuli that are so similar that they get chosen by a control group 25% of the time each.
Four different colors would evoke personal bias. Four different photographs of anything would evoke personal bias. Four different numerals or letters would evoke personal bias. Four different playing cards would evoke personal bias. I simply don't see how any four stimuli could be chosen to prevent personal bias from entering the equation.
This study claims that "receivers achieved an average hit rate of about 35 percent." They fail entirely to explain the conditions that might cause this hit rate, and instead imply that ESP is the only possible explanation.
Futhermore, the studies were done 354 times with the autoganzfeld. This isn't even remotely a large enough sample size to determine anything. Keep in mind that ESP effects, if they exist at all, are extremely weak, and are swamped by all sorts of larger effects. You need immense sample sizes to find the needle in the haystack. These results are also not repeatable from subject to subject -- if you can't find a single person who is capable of a consistent 35% hit rate, how can you assume that the group's 35% is significant?
I still can't follow the leap of logic from "music students are good at this test" to "music students have ESP." Perhaps the music students are just better at detecting minute biases left in the targets themselves by the people who designed them? Keep in mind that these experiments are always designed by people, even when run by computers.
I really think all of these experiments belong fully in the realm of sociology....
- Warren
None of this, however, detracts from the autoganzfelds themselves. Honorton’s experiments did produce strong positive results which cannot be easily denied. Nonetheless, many scientists remain unconvinced because of several potential flaws in the research. "Of the eleven ganzfeld studies, smaller samples displayed larger hit rates than larger samples. If the effect is real, this is the opposite of what you’d expect." says Lee D. Ross, psychology professor at Stanford. The fact that larger hit rates existed among the smaller samples (The 50% hit rate was from a sample of only twenty) does raise doubt as to whether it really was ESP (Bower 68).
Also, some technical errors raised the brows of other scientists. Early on in the experiments, there was found to be some faulty wiring in the receiver’s headset. This allowed some of the information from the sender (who was allowed to vocalize the images in order to help concentration) to be heard by the receiver. Although Honorton, after fixing the problem, maintained that the flaw was not perceptible, even subliminally, to the receiver, others assert that the possibility of contamination requires that all data gathered prior to the discovery of the problem be discarded. Without that data, the results of Honorton’s experiments are no longer statistically significant (McCrone 31).
Another consideration is that the highest hit rate among the Honorton experiments was with video clips rather than static images, about 41% compared to about 30% (McCrone 30). The latter hit rate is not statistically significant, however the former appears to be so. Yet, what does not seem to be taken into consideration is that a 60 second video clip provides several more images than a still picture. If several more images are involved, the probability that the receiver may identify the film clip coincidentally is raised significantly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then if six decades of experiments have failed to accurately demonstrate the existence of ESP, there are two reasons that could have caused that failure. The first is the simplest: ESP does not exist. The second is that any explanation of ESP transcends science. That is, ESP becomes a matter of faith in the same class as God, angels, and other spiritual matters. This may be asserted because of the logical rules of alternatives: if not one thing, then another. That is to say if something can not be asserted by the empirical use of the scientific method, then it must be either non-existent, or a matter of faith. The popularity of the phenomena of ESP seems to make at least some argument for its existence, even if its not a scientifically sound one. Thus, rather than not existing at all, ESP likely belongs in that category of human experience which does not relate to science at all, but to personal faith; its existence a matter of the heart, rather than the laboratory.
ESP: Just Have Faith
what makes people believe in esp is personal experience or the experience of others that are known to them. to ascribe it to faith is a cop out. also why assume the case is closed? how about devising new tests with tighter and more stringent methods?
Also, some technical errors raised the brows of other scientists. Early on in the experiments, there was found to be some faulty wiring in the receiver’s headset. This allowed some of the information from the sender (who was allowed to vocalize the images in order to help concentration) to be heard by the receiver. Although Honorton, after fixing the problem, maintained that the flaw was not perceptible, even subliminally, to the receiver, others assert that the possibility of contamination requires that all data gathered prior to the discovery of the problem be discarded. Without that data, the results of Honorton’s experiments are no longer statistically significant (McCrone 31).
Another consideration is that the highest hit rate among the Honorton experiments was with video clips rather than static images, about 41% compared to about 30% (McCrone 30). The latter hit rate is not statistically significant, however the former appears to be so. Yet, what does not seem to be taken into consideration is that a 60 second video clip provides several more images than a still picture. If several more images are involved, the probability that the receiver may identify the film clip coincidentally is raised significantly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then if six decades of experiments have failed to accurately demonstrate the existence of ESP, there are two reasons that could have caused that failure. The first is the simplest: ESP does not exist. The second is that any explanation of ESP transcends science. That is, ESP becomes a matter of faith in the same class as God, angels, and other spiritual matters. This may be asserted because of the logical rules of alternatives: if not one thing, then another. That is to say if something can not be asserted by the empirical use of the scientific method, then it must be either non-existent, or a matter of faith. The popularity of the phenomena of ESP seems to make at least some argument for its existence, even if its not a scientifically sound one. Thus, rather than not existing at all, ESP likely belongs in that category of human experience which does not relate to science at all, but to personal faith; its existence a matter of the heart, rather than the laboratory.
ESP: Just Have Faith
what makes people believe in esp is personal experience or the experience of others that are known to them. to ascribe it to faith is a cop out. also why assume the case is closed? how about devising new tests with tighter and more stringent methods?
The topic will not doubt be moved, so I guess I wll answer.
I dont claim that my resource is rock solid, I just picked a site to qoute. Just use a search engine.
If there are scientists or sceptics who do not wish to believe, there is no amount of evidence that will convince them. The qoute above is the first qoute I have ever seen that challenges the validity of autoganzfeld results. I will investigate your source.
<i>Futhermore, the studies were done 354 times with the autoganzfeld. This isn't even remotely a large enough sample size to determine anything. Keep in mind that ESP effects, if they exist at all, are extremely weak, and are swamped by all sorts of larger effects. You need immense sample sizes to find the needle in the haystack. These results are also not repeatable from subject to subject -- if you can't find a single person who is capable of a consistent 35% hit rate, how can you assume that the group's 35% is significant? </i>
No one claims to have proven anything. I agree that a great deal more research needs to be done to say anything for sure. I dont believe you have a valid argument challenging the expected hit rate of 25%.
I dont claim that my resource is rock solid, I just picked a site to qoute. Just use a search engine.
If there are scientists or sceptics who do not wish to believe, there is no amount of evidence that will convince them. The qoute above is the first qoute I have ever seen that challenges the validity of autoganzfeld results. I will investigate your source.
<i>Futhermore, the studies were done 354 times with the autoganzfeld. This isn't even remotely a large enough sample size to determine anything. Keep in mind that ESP effects, if they exist at all, are extremely weak, and are swamped by all sorts of larger effects. You need immense sample sizes to find the needle in the haystack. These results are also not repeatable from subject to subject -- if you can't find a single person who is capable of a consistent 35% hit rate, how can you assume that the group's 35% is significant? </i>
No one claims to have proven anything. I agree that a great deal more research needs to be done to say anything for sure. I dont believe you have a valid argument challenging the expected hit rate of 25%.