|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
I don't think we're really at cross purposes. I suspect that you aren't what I refer to as a pseudo-skeptic.
My position on psi is really pretty simple. I don't believe that the psi hypothesis has been "proven" by any means. But I do feel that enough significant results have been obtained to warrant continuing research. Where that research will lead is anyone's guess, but already the conceptual notion of telepathy, for example, has inspired productive advances in "mind operated" technology, etc. To me continued research is invaluable for its own sake, wherever it may lead. And, very often, the unexpected things that turn up along the way are the most interesting things of all. My personal world view is flexible enough, I think, to accept that there are probably many things, as Hamlet told Horatio that are "undreamt of in your philosophy." Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
panlives Inner circle 2087 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 20:01, mastermindreader wrote: Great post.
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
This "pseudo skeptic" term seems to be thrown around a lot. Before the skeptics section was shut down it seemed to be getting thrown around by those who simply were not skeptical in the least. Not saying anything about you Mr. Cassidy.
I certainly would say that those who's mind are simply closed are as illdescribed as "skeptics" as those who will believe anything. I always laugh when I hear the likes of George Noory call themselves "skeptics."
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
Randwill Inner circle 1914 Posts |
Calling anyone a "pseudo" anything has a pejorative feel to it doesn't it?
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Absolutely agree Glenn. The terms pseudo-skeptic was popularized by my good friend, the late Dr. Marcello Truzzi.
Quote:
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. Dr. Susan Blackmore described pseudo-skepticism this way: Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Tr......epticism I agree with both Truzzi and Blackmore and their views accurately reflect what I mean when I refer to "pseudo-skepticism." Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Good to hear. Now, while they take an agnostic position on such claims, does that mean they can be said to" believe" said claims? Or is that a separate question?
The difference between not believing something to be true, and believing it to be not true, oh the clarity of language Anyways, back on topic. There certainly comes a point at which the continuous lack of evidence in support of a claim makes the backing of the negating hypothesis to be, from a practical stand point, completely reasonable. However one must be willing to reconsider (not neccessarily turn) upon presentation/discovery of evidence in support of. If (a) god came down and spoke to me themselves, my belief would change. Then again, I could always be delusional, but at that point my belief in a god or gods is not the most pertinent of concerns.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
jhostler Loyal user 278 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 18:14, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Nope - it is, in fact, impossible to prove absolute and *exclusive* causality. Example: I lift a pen. Under reasonable scientific standards, it can be proven that the pen's motion was induced by me. Under the ridiculous conditions imposed by some skeptics, I would be required to prove that the pen did not defy gravity as I *thought* I was lifting it. See how "crazy" works both ways? :o) |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Jhostler, we don't have so many sophists messing about with words after the first few courses in a science and most are long gone by the time experimental design comes up and it's all about well formed hypotheses and experiments designed to measure a predicted value which is significantly distinct from values predicted by competing theories. Those who like to be clever with words are not usually also up for working with the math and real equipment to make measures. Confidence limits come into play here too. It's fairly solid ground long before you do the t-tests for significance on the resultant data.
It's no problem to set up a room with pens you like and pencils you don't like and a couple of controls rooms with each - and record which room has more pens in the pen holder after you pick a room and are given an instruction to put only pens in the pen holder. The other room videos show ... and the count of pens on the pen holder shows... :)
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-11 22:09, gdw wrote: Not at all. By definition, being agnostic means not having a belief one way or the other without sufficient proof. If a so called skeptic claims that offered proof for psi is based on experimental error, fraud, statistical errors, artifacts, etc., he has made an affirmative claim and the burden is now on him to prove that is the case. |
|||||||||
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts |
Back in the days of the old skeptics forum I quickly realized that I was about the only thoroughgoing skeptic in the whole place.
On topic: I have this unprovable theory that our brains have an extraordinary ability to take sensory information and extrapolate it to "sense" things in a way that seems paranormal. Take, for example, the person who "dies" on the operating table and floats above his body, and upon being brought back to consciousness can describe the scene in a way that seems as if he actually had been conscious all along. And not only that, but he can describe things visually even though his eyes were closed. My theory is that the other senses give sufficient information for the brain to "compute" the scene relatively accurately. So my guess is that the 3% improvement on chance as described in the article is actually a slightly effective computation about the future made by our extraordinary computing machines: the human brain. But, as you all know, I ain't no scientist. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
So Elmer the invisible mini-elephant that flies also magically projects images into people's heads - but he's only into doing "floating" and mostly hangs out at hospitals... but not so often anymore since they are cutting down on peanuts?
First part of a well formed hypothesis is that it is falsifiable - ie you can test for "anything but" the thing you wish to claim is going on. Vague "sometimes I feel" type statements are not so well formed. Anecdotes are good clues that there could be something of value to study. Your experience is yours and is real for you. Your ability to use that experience in a way that serves you in context is also yours. But as far as science goes - it's all annecdotal/random until proved otherwise.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Hi Stone,
I mentioned a case like that a few months ago. The point was not that the astral body actually floated above the O.R., but that even under anesthesia, sensory information, e.g. in this case what the surgeons were saying to each other, made it into the mind, and could be recalled. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-11 22:43, mastermindreader wrote: Actually, by definition it means not KNOWING one way or the other. However the rest is true. As such, the statement "I do not believe the claim" is consistent with the agnostic position, as is the statement "I do not believe the claim to be false.". They are not mutually exclusive. "I neither believe it to be true, nor false." The first part is that statement says that they "do not believe." This does not preclude them from also not believing the claim to be false.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
panlives Inner circle 2087 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-12 06:17, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Again - you may find something of interest in the Rupert Sheldrake books.
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes. |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 16:14, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote: Proven to be not valid, or merely not proven to be valid? The latter seems rather likely; the former, a lot more unlikely. Quote:
On 2012-06-09 19:11, LobowolfXXX wrote: Rats! Lobo beat me to it! |
|||||||||
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-12 06:17, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Jon, I clearly said that my theory is "unprovable"--i.e., unscientific. But remember, I'm the thoroughgoing skeptic who questions the current status of natural science as the highest form of human knowledge. It's not. It's just the most useful, because we get stuff like DVD players and Playstations from it. But science cannot at this time tell me the true nature of a random/annecdotal out of body experience. What science clearly is NOT is the last word on anything. And it doesn't claim to be, or it wouldn't be very scientific. :bounce: |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 19:09, mastermindreader wrote: I figured that you expected this thread to take a political turn and would then point to your post as proof of precognition. It would have been a pretty crafty strategem. |
|||||||||
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-12 07:15, Woland wrote: Exactly! But, you know, it's anecdotal, so we can't think about it scientifically. Still, I think my theory is pretty good: the brain is mysteriously processing information in a way that seems miraculous or "paranormal" to us, when in fact it's just a pretty darn sophisticated machine. Alternatively, angels might be involved. Or little mini-flying elephants, to use Jonathan's more colorful way of describing things. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-12 07:52, gdw wrote: I was simply explaining Truzzi's definition of agnosticism as it applies to skepticism regarding paranormal claims. Perhaps if you change the word "belief" to "position" in my first sentence my meaning will be a bit more clear. |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
I have tested it and it does not work.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » One Influential Scientist's Quixotic Mission to Prove ESP Exists (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |