Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!decvax!cca!ISM780B!jim
From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: RE:  Weird Science (response)
Message-ID: <27500135@ISM780B.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Sep-85 17:11:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ISM780B.27500135
Posted: Sat Sep 28 17:11:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 05:59:44 EDT
References: <2250346@hpfcms.UUCP>
Lines: 71
Nf-ID: #R:hpfcms:-225034604:ISM780B:27500135:000:4020
Nf-From: ISM780B!jim    Sep 28 17:11:00 1985


>/* Written 12:32 pm  Sep 25, 1985 by cooper@decwrl in ISM780B:net.philosophy */
>In article <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> bill@hpfcla.UUCP writes:
>>I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful
>>experiences with experiments in the paranormal.  He noticed that when
>>scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is
>>was not, the number of successes jumped sharply.  Of course, there are
>>always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an
>>atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur.  If that's
>>not wishful thinking, I don't know what is.
>
>Can you say straw-man?  I knew you could.
>
>I suppose there are people who would make the above claim.  There are also
>many who would claim that Laetrile cures cancer, whatever the statistics say.
>This in no way reflects on legitimate cancer researchers.

It is not a straw man when major psi types like Thelma Moss use this excuse.

>Apparent paranormal phenomena has been elicited in the laboratory many
>(conservatively speaking, hundreds) times under conditions most scientists
>would consider highly rigorous, particularly if they were not informed that
>the experiment were a parapsychology experiment.

If that is true, why do most scientists, and most non-parapsychological
scientists who have investigated, reject it?  Please document these claims.
Parapsychology is not widely accepted in the scientific community precisely
because it has *not* been demonstrated in the way you calim.

>Without knowing more about the experiments and what "enforcing scientific
>rigor" means in this case, I could not speak with any authority on why Hawking
>got the results he did.  The simplest explanation from a parapsychologist's
>point of view is the obvious one.  Hawking failed to illicit psi phenomena
>at all, and was only observing artifacts, which disappeared upon application
>of rigorous methods.

How are "artifacts" distinguished from "psi phenomena", other than
operationally by believing, vested-interest, parapsychologists?
Unless you have good a priori definitions that can be reliably applied,
you are not practicing science.

>Parapsychology can best be described as an observational science.  We set up
>conditions in the laboratory which will allow us to distinguish psi phenomena,
>if it occurs, from noise, statistical and physical.  We are also starting to
>discover those conditions which are "psi conducive", i.e., which increase the
>likelihood that the phenomena will be there to be observed.  It occurs more
>often than chance would predict.

It appears to me that most parapsychologists (not to mention regular
psychologists and lots of others) don't understand statistics very well.
Statistics *predicts* that random occurrence will *on occasion* give rise to
phenomena beyond what chance predicts.  That is the nature of the distribution
curve.  But, by only considering those situations when you get good results,
and trying to fit them to a "psi conducive" mold, you are skewing the results.

>Speaking of rigor, how rigorous was the experiment of "enforcing scientific
>rigor?"  Were all other factor held constant or counter-balanced?  Was
>condition order (rigorous vs. non-rigorous) counter-balanced?  Was subject,
>supervising experimenter, tabulator and scorer (whether or not these were
>different people) all blind to which condition was in effect?  If not, how
>much credence can be put in the result?  Is sauce for the goose sauce for the
>gander?  Or is rigor only required when you don't like the results?

You seem to be requesting a proof that rigor provides more reliable results
that lack of rigor.  This sort of recursive obfuscation may be good for
argument, but not for science.  The fact is that there is good documentation
of the illimination of "results" through the introduction of rigor, and the
observation of lack of rigor and active skewing of results among
parapsychologists through such simple methods as secret observation.

-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com