Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Parapsychology Message-ID: <1839@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Oct-85 22:53:41 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1839 Posted: Wed Oct 2 22:53:41 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 03:08:05 EDT References: <636@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 97 >>>>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. [ROSEN] >>>Can you say straw-man? I knew you could. [BILL GATES?] >> Where's the 'straw man'? [DAVID MOEWS -- good question!!!!] > A "straw man" is when a debater invents an easily refuted argument to his/her > thesis, then proceeds to refute it, when that argument does not represent the > opponent's viewpoint. Clearly the claim that "scientific rigor contributes to > an atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur." is an easily > refuted argument. We need only establish that the opponents of the view which > is being put forward are not likely to make such an argument. [COOPER] But, alas, they do, every time serious scientific rigor shows up what they claim to be true. The fact remains that the only trials at which parapsychological "success" have occurred are those for which rigorous analytical procedures were not followed. Careful examination of what really goes on when psychic powers are demonstrated persistently show fraud. >>>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. [GATES?] >>It is not a straw man when major psi types like Thelma Moss use this excuse. >>-- Jim Balter (ima!jim) > Given that the discussion was about an attempt to scientifically evaluate psi > phenomena, I took as the meaningful group which the "those" referred to as > the scientific parapsychological community, specifically those who feel that > scientific evidence for psi phenomena exists. There are of course many > people who claim to be parapsychologists who are not. These include both > non-scientific types (for example some psychics) and people with some > technical or scientific qualifications who are not at all qualified in > parapsychology. We can start by excluding them from the discussion. What are we left with? > Nevertheless, if she has made such a statement, my claim that the argument > was a straw man, would not be correct (the argument would still come very > close since I would still claim it to be a minority opinion). Although it is > possible that Dr. Moss has said such a thing, I don't know of it, and think > that it is unlikely. Does anyone have a citation? I think it highly likely given that it the only "excuse" left after rigorous analysis shows the causes of the phenomena to be quite simple and explainable (blowing "under one's breath", etc.). > What Dr. Moss may well have said, is a lot less broad, and a lot less easy to > knock down: that controls applied without taking into account what little > we know about psi may well interfere with the process. Note that this is > a very different statement than that rigorous controls will NECESSARILY > preclude psi phenomena. Yet it is THAT statement which HAS been used, thus making the notion that this a "straw man" invalid. > Let's make an exaggerated analogy. Let's say that I have heard that there are > people, called batters, who claim that they are frequently able to hit a small > ball, moving at high speed, with a narrow stick. I find this an unlikely > claim to say the least: after all, known hand/eye reaction times would > preclude such abilities. I decide to test the claim, and gather up a > collection of self-proclaimed batters. But wait, they might be using some > kind of concealed device, such as an air cannon, to create the appearance of > successfully striking the ball. To control for this, I tie there hands behind > their back. When the fail to hit the ball, have I presented reasonable > evidence that they cheated and are not actually able to accomplish the feat? > Are any who criticize the nature of my controls claiming that, in general, > rigorous controls prevent the occurrence of "batting" phenomena? I'd say what a poor design for the experiment. Why not simply take film of the event and examine the results in slow motion? Unfortunately, many psi proponents claim that their hands are tied behind their backs (metaphorically speaking) when "forced" to adhere to scientific method. It is a poor analogy, because such methodology is used for the purpose of ensuring credible results, thus freeing them of the shackles of having to defend themselves against charges of shoddiness in analysis. The fact that so many claim not to want any part of that (claiming that such rigor will interfere with the results) tells me that only the shoddy technique will bring results, which essentially means no viable results at all. > A hostile atmosphere does seem to interfere with the eliciting of psi > phenomena, but, with some care and forethought, rigorous controls can be > applied in an atmosphere of open-minded skepticism. When this is done, psi > phenomena frequently (not always) occur. Since any skepticism is deemed "hostility" ("You've gotta believe!" ---famous psi scholar Dr. Tug McGraw :-), and since skepticism is a necessary part of rigorous analysis, what conclusions can we draw? -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com