Do skeptics see parapsychology as intrinsically irrational?

[Titus Rivas]

It has occurred to me that some skeptics regard parapsychology as an intrinsical irrational endeavour. Is this impression correct (or incorrect) and if it is, who's doing this and why?
What aspects or fields do they consider more irrational?

Titus Rivas

[Ed]

You might say that irrational belief systems constitute the corpus of the paranormal.

[arcticpenguin]

Intrinsically? No. But to continue to believe in the light of a consistent lack of reproducible controlled results and lack of a plausible mechanism does seem irrational.

[bjornart]

Speaking just for myself I don't see parapsychology as intrinsically irrational. However it's not very usefull to continue lines of investigation that has proved fruitless in properly blinded experiments.
Take telepathy. We start with the observation that tales of telepathy abounds and hypothesise that some of them are true. We find some people who claim to be telepathic and they turn out to be terribly vague and useless when the experiments are blinded.
It appears that our original hypothesis was false, and that the fantastic tales of telepaths are just that, fantastic tales. It's irrational to keep trying and trying and trying to prove the alternate hypothesis that some or all people are very slightly telepathic, so slightly as to be almost impossible to meassure.

And this applies to almost all lines of investigation available today. The real use of parapsychology is debunking new claims.

[Titus Rivas]

Bjornart,
And this applies to almost all lines of investigation available today. The real use of parapsychology is debunking new claims.
What would be the exceptional lines of investigation in your view, I mean lines which might still give results you'd find unexpected (i.e. 'paranormal')?

Titus

[Yahzi]

Parapsychology - the idea that there is a phenomona to study - is not inherently irrational. However, as it is practiced today, it is.

An example of a rational paraspychologist would be Susan Blackmore, or James Randi.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
It has occurred to me that some skeptics regard parapsychology as an intrinsical irrational endeavour. Is this impression incorrect and if so, who's doing this and why?
What aspects or fields do they consider more irrational?

Titus Rivas

Well, I don't think so. I think people who see it as irrational tend to lump together non-laboratory issues in with the laboratory issues. For example, people tend to see the neighborhood psychic or mediums, or some high school kid who thinks he can shoot chi beams out his hands in the same light as Ph.D's psychologists doing controlled, blinded, and randomized experiments in universities and laboratory settings, and then peer reviewing and publishing that work.

I also think that people who see it as irrational tend to confuse the methods of science with the current topics of science.

Although, there is some suggestive evidence for 'psi' stuff, there is certainly not a lot of good evidence, and there definitely isn't evidence in MANY of the subsets of 'psi', and there has, without any doubts, been evidences of fraud in some cases, so that could be a case for 'irrational'.

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I also think that people who see it as irrational tend to confuse the methods of science with the current topics of science.

T'ai Chi, do you think you could explain the methods of science?

[Archangel]

It has occurred to me that some skeptics regard parapsychology as an intrinsical irrational endeavour. Is this impression correct (or incorrect) and if it is, who's doing this and why?

That is the impression, people like Claus Larsen give when dealing with the matter, but I feel this is from having to deal with the likes of Lucianarchy, NeoFight & Clancie, who tilt at their windmills, saying that there is definately something there in face of evidence to the contrary.

With regards to Parapsychology itself, I feel it is similar to calling all Cryptozoological researchers intrinsically irrational or people who believe in Alien life as intrinsically irrational, just because the fringe want to believe that Bigfoot & the Loch Ness Monster exist or Greys visit the earth doesnt mean there aren't credible discoveries to be made in these areas.

Cryptozoology for example has brought a few tangible creatures to the table, however these are always fleeting news to the mainstream, whereas a report on the latest bigfoot hoax or Loch Ness Monster sighting (maybe that should be Log Ness Monster) will bring about a couple of days worth of news footage.

Personally I am undecided about whether or not there is something to Paranormal activity, but everything I've seen so far (scumbags like John Edward, James van Praagh(sp), Colin Fry & Sylvia Browne) seems to indicate there is nothing to it, but feel that those who actually are actually studying Parapsychology rather than doctoring data should be left in piece.

Same with Bigfoot & Alien visitations.

(edited to add a sentence I forgot)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A major problem with psi is that the hypotheses of the experiments are about the outcome of the experiments themselves rather than about a theory. This means that, even if you reject the null hypothesis, you have no idea what actually happened. You cannot assume that you controlled for all possible mundane sensory explanations, because you cannot even list all such explanations.

If there is a theory, then other researchers can replicate your results with variations in the experimental protocol. This helps weed out protocol errors. With psi, it seems, changes in the protocol cause the results to evaporate (as with Ganzfeld).

~~ Paul

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN

T'ai Chi, do you think you could explain the methods of science?

Do you think you could explain the methods of statistics, mathematics, psychology, and martial arts, all in extreme detail, first?

YES/NO? The TLN counter is on. :hb:

Anyway...
After studying it for a few years, and recently intensively for a couple of months, I think that parapsychology is somewhat backwards in its approach. It tries to use statistics to provide evidence that 'psi' stuff exists (with some minor but controversial success), yet it is my opinion (through experience) that statistics itself can predict things much more accurately than any psychic can, and statisticians can be explict with their models, can quantify their errors, and a whole host of other important things that are involved in the prediction business.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by TLN
T'ai Chi, do you think you could explain the methods of science?
Are you proposing some kind of "scientific method", I'd like to see THAT!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
This means that, even if you reject the null hypothesis, you have no idea what actually happened. You cannot assume that you controlled for all possible mundane sensory explanations, because you cannot even list all such explanations.


You can't list all such explanations in just about any experiment I'd say.


With psi, it seems, changes in the protocol cause the results to evaporate (as with Ganzfeld).


Here is the most recent paper I could find on it:

http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/Updating_Ganzfeld.pdf

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

T'ai said:You can't list all such explanations in just about any experiment I'd say.
Yes, but real science is designing experiments to test a theory. This leads to a rich set of possible hypotheses and protocols to test them, and allows other scientists to alter the protocols and still test the same theory. The more people modify the protocols, the less likely that the entire project is just some subtle sensory leak or experimenter error. Witness N-rays.

Psi has no theory. The experiments use hypotheses like "We'll see a significantly great than chance guessing rate by the subjects." Heck, they can't even tell if the subjects are using telepathy, remote viewing, precognition, or micro-PK.

Here is the most recent paper I could find on it:
You read it, I presume. Note how variations from the "standard protocol" for Ganzfeld results in less significant results. The paper basically warns researcher to vary the protocol at their own risk.

If psi wants to get serious, they should propose theories (DAT?) and start testing them. They should plan to fail miserably, at least for awhile.

~~ Paul

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
T'ai said:
Yes, but real science is designing experiments to test a theory.


Perhaps they are in more of an 'experimental stage'??


Heck, they can't even tell if the subjects are using telepathy, remote viewing, precognition, or micro-PK.


Well, there is DAT (and probably some other stuff) for that I think, but I agree that if there is actually no underlying phenomena, then DAT is essentially a test to see if your random number generator is random, rather than a way to tell between PK and ESP.

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you think you could explain the methods of statistics, mathematics, psychology, and martial arts, all in extreme detail, first?

YES/NO? The TLN counter is on. :hb:

No, I couldn't.

Your turn.

[thaiboxerken]

Do you think you could explain the methods of statistics, mathematics, psychology, and martial arts, all in extreme detail, first?

This question is irrelevant.

I also think that people who see it as irrational tend to confuse the methods of science with the current topics of science.

Why do you think so, Tai? Any examples?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN

No, I couldn't.

Your turn.

Yes, I think I could.

Here is what I think of the 'scientific method' as (of course, limiting it to 4 points is simply a matter of convenience, and different people would, while including the same main points, make a different list)

1. Observe and/or describe of a phenomenon.

2. Form a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use the hypothesis to predict the existence of related phenomena and/or to predict the results of new observations.

4. Perform tests of the predictions by replicated controlled experiments done by independent investigators.

5. If you're lucky, get it published and get the babes. ;)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

This question is irrelevant.


Again, you answer someone else's questions and turn it around on me.

That is irrelevant. :)
:hb:

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Again, you answer someone else's questions and turn it around on me.

That is irrelevant. :)
:hb: [/B]

I did not answer that question, I simply pointed out that it should've never been asked. Try sticking with the subject instead of throwing out red-herrings. TLN did a great job of staying on track by simply answering no to your question though.

I also think that people who see it as irrational tend to confuse the methods of science with the current topics of science.

Why do you think so, Tai? Any examples

Now, about this.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Try sticking with the subject instead of throwing out red-herrings.


:th:

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Bjornart,

What would be the exceptional lines of investigation in your view, I mean lines which might still give results you'd find unexpected (i.e. 'paranormal')?

Titus

None that I know of, but I don't know everything.

[Vitnir]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
It has occurred to me that some skeptics regard parapsychology as an intrinsical irrational endeavour. Is this impression correct (or incorrect) and if it is, who's doing this and why?
What aspects or fields do they consider more irrational?

I consider myself as a die hard fanatic skeptic BUT I have yet to come to the point of cynism. The human race is prone to irrational behaviour and that is something that is not going to go away. (The only limiting factor is politicians with integrity enough to resist the urge to follow the fool. However the current political climate is not rewarding politicians with integrity in most countries but reward a mundane behaviour that doesn't upset too many people.)

To me parapsychology is a valid field of research as is any other field. The lack of positive results dampens the ability to get funding naturally and the ability to recruit able scientists would be difficult since hardly anyone think they can have a career in the field. It's difficult to differentiate this valid research and the wannabe researchers which outnumber the good ones with an unknown factor (a million?)

The skeptic can end up with several different attitudes:
1. Believers are crackpots.
2. The skeptic is superiour.
3. Remain neutral.

While I'm still trying my best to remain neutral since I know some believers first hand and they are not particulary stupid or crazy I do consider the following things to be irrational since I have read some about each areas:
1. Dowsing
2. Homeopathy
3. Astrology
There is a few more areas which are bordeline cases which could possibly work but luckily I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE IT DOESN'T WORK. It's the people who claim it work who have to convince me and everyone else.

In conclusion I think James Randi is an idol for all skeptics to look up to. He doesn't reject people as crackpots or consider them as of inferior intellect. Parapsychology has the potential of turning everything uside down of the world as we know it and I think it's good to have a few scientists here and there looking into it just incase.

[Darwin]

"An example of a rational paraspychologist would be Susan Blackmore, or James Randi."

I do not think Randi is a parapsychologist.Anyway,as far as I know,Susan Blackmore continues to have faith in PSI even though it has been refuted for her.

Personally,I don´t think of parapsychology as much of a science.They start from the assumption that there actually is something about it there,contrary to evidence.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darwin
"An example of a rational paraspychologist would be Susan Blackmore, or James Randi."

I do not think Randi is a parapsychologist.



No he most emphatically is not. What he is, is an ********.



Anyway,as far as I know,Susan Blackmore continues to have faith in PSI even though it has been refuted for her.



She doesn't believe in any paranormal phenomena.



Personally,I don´t think of parapsychology as much of a science.They start from the assumption that there actually is something about it there,contrary to evidence.



They don't start from any assumption. They investigate it. The evidence is extremely strongly suggestive that anomalous cognition and anomalous perturbation exists.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No he most emphatically is not. What he is, is an ********.

As is anyone who disagrees with you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
As is anyone who disagrees with you.

I think it is easier to list the people who (un)Interesting Ian does not think is an "********" or any other derogative term, than the other way around.

Here's the list of people who (un)Interesting Ian thinks is not an "********":


(un)Interesting Ian

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The evidence is extremely strongly suggestive that anomalous cognition and anomalous perturbation exists.

Huh? :confused:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:They don't start from any assumption. They investigate it. The evidence is extremely strongly suggestive that anomalous cognition and anomalous perturbation exists.
Then you haven't read very many psi papers. The blatant question begging is almost laughable.

~~ Paul

[Ed]

Originally posted by Vitnir

To me parapsychology is a valid field of research as is any other field.


I take issue with that. Name a field that has had no successes over, say, 50 years. Would you suggest that unicorn hunting is a valid field? The fact that it goes on means nothing more than that it goes on. Perseverative behavior is not necessarily valid

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
1. Observe and/or describe of a phenomenon.

What exactly is the observable phenomenon in psi or in homeopathy?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN


What exactly is the observable phenomenon in psi or in homeopathy?

"or describe".

But I guess "observe" could be observing results far away from chance expectation.

Dunno.

[Archangel]

Originally posted by Ed
I take issue with that. Name a field that has had no successes over, say, 50 years. Would you suggest that unicorn hunting is a valid field? The fact that it goes on means nothing more than that it goes on. Perseverative behavior is not necessarily valid

IIRC, Physicists have been after a G.U.T. about that long with no success does that count? (yes I realise there have been other successes in Physics but not in this area)

[thaiboxerken]

IIRC, Physicists have been after a G.U.T. about that long with no success does that count? (yes I realise there have been other successes in Physics but not in this area)

Isn't there mathematical evidence associated with the GUT?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Archangel


IIRC, Physicists have been after a G.U.T. about that long with no success does that count? (yes I realise there have been other successes in Physics but not in this area)

I mean NO successes, none, zip, nada, zilch, zero.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Archangel


IIRC, Physicists have been after a G.U.T. about that long with no success does that count? (yes I realise there have been other successes in Physics but not in this area)

From my limited knowledge - Hawking's and others work on black holes has brought together general relativity with some aspects of quantum mechanics and I think that physicists will tell you that they have some idea of what a GUT should look like - without yet having the equations.
In other words they have made progress and there are indications of the way ahead.

I'm not aware of any such progress in parapsychology, are you?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed


I mean NO successes, none, zip, nada, zilch, zero.

Well that certainly doesn't apply to parapsychological research now does it since meta-analysis reveal odds of trillions to one of getting the results they did. :rolleyes: I think you need to do your homework. The skeptic cannot rationally maintain there is not a huge amount of evidence. What he needs to do is to try and specify artifacts which have skewed the results.

[Vitnir]

Originally posted by Ed



I take issue with that. Name a field that has had no successes over, say, 50 years. Would you suggest that unicorn hunting is a valid field? The fact that it goes on means nothing more than that it goes on. Perseverative behavior is not necessarily valid

I doubt you can find a scientist who is looking for unicorns. Please observe that I make a distinction between scientists that actually have a real PhD degree and is working in a University and the deluded person in his backyard shed working on his perpetum mobile who is sometimes refered to as a scientist although people should know better.

In principle I do claim that you can do real research in any imaginable field so looking for unknown species would also qualify. In reality the scientist would not get any money because the people with money would think that the money would be better spent on a cure for cancer.

The fact that no convincing evidence exists for psi with a good 150 years of research behind it suggests that there is no such thing as psi but you can never prove it doesn't exist. If mr Ian knows of a paper that proves otherwise he is welcome to post a link to it. A paper in this context would be from a peer-reviewed journal and not a report which just about anyone can write up.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well that certainly doesn't apply to parapsychological research now does it since meta-analysis reveal odds of trillions to one of getting the results they did. :rolleyes: I think you need to do your homework. The skeptic cannot rationally maintain there is not a huge amount of evidence. What he needs to do is to try and specify artifacts which have skewed the results.
Trillions to one?
You are wrong, sir or madam. There is no such meta-analysis that yields a p of .0000000000001. That's the US notation, one in 10 to the 12th power. One in a million million.
The Britsh notation it is one million raised to third power, expressed by a unit with eighteen ciphers annexed.
In other words, no chance in Hell.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well that certainly doesn't apply to parapsychological research now does it since meta-analysis reveal odds of trillions to one of getting the results they did. :rolleyes: I think you need to do your homework. The skeptic cannot rationally maintain there is not a huge amount of evidence. What he needs to do is to try and specify artifacts which have skewed the results.

How do you know it was a paranormal phenomenon?

If "anomaly" = "paranormal phenomenon", or even "unexplained" = "paranormal phenomenon", then I experience a paranormal phenomenon each time I am one sock short.

Sorry, can't explain what happens. Looked everywhere. I have excluded all rational explanations. According to you, it has to be a paranormal phenomenon.

http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/inmyeye.gif

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
A major problem with psi is that the hypotheses of the experiments are about the outcome of the experiments themselves rather than about a theory. This means that, even if you reject the null hypothesis, you have no idea what actually happened. You cannot assume that you controlled for all possible mundane sensory explanations, because you cannot even list all such explanations.



This is a problem with any research that attempts to investigate a phenomena that we start knowing next to nothing about. Especially one which may rely on such a volatile thing as the human psyche. We are dealing with discovery research here, not the slow but steady pace of mainstream science which has a solid foundation of knowledge on which to advance the two step of theory and observation.

[thaiboxerken]

This is a problem with any research that attempts to investigate a phenomena that we start knowing next to nothing about.

And phenomena that never happened/ doesn't exist as well.


Especially one which may rely on such a volatile thing as the human psyche.

In other words, anecdotes only.

We are dealing with discovery research here, not the slow but steady pace of mainstream science which has a solid foundation of knowledge on which to advance the two step of theory and observation.

We're dealing with research into fiction. That makes it very hard to find evidence.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

DavidSmith said:This is a problem with any research that attempts to investigate a phenomena that we start knowing next to nothing about. Especially one which may rely on such a volatile thing as the human psyche. We are dealing with discovery research here, not the slow but steady pace of mainstream science which has a solid foundation of knowledge on which to advance the two step of theory and observation.
What TBK said notwithstanding, I'm not suggesting we pass a law against exploratory research . . . up to a point. But it really is time for psi to get off its butt and propose some theories. The contacting-the-dead folks have had 150 years, after all.

Why don't they? Well, because it's so darn difficult to replicate the effects consistently, something you need to be able to do to test theories about them. And because they can't seem to distinguish (or even define) all the differents sorts of psi phenomena.

~~ Paul

[Archangel]

Originally posted by Dragon


From my limited knowledge - Hawking's and others work on black holes has brought together general relativity with some aspects of quantum mechanics and I think that physicists will tell you that they have some idea of what a GUT should look like - without yet having the equations.
In other words they have made progress and there are indications of the way ahead.
I'm not aware of any such progress in parapsychology, are you?

As far as I was aware (and Im definately not a physicist) the fact that quarks? (I think it was quarks) made at the same instant change spin independantly but identically irrespective of distance flies in the face of most of the GUTs out there.

Anyway, dont most of these Psi researchers have the same opinion, they can tell us what Psi should look like without having equations or proof?

But anyway I'm really just playing devils advocate here, in a way I was trying to say the absence of proof, isnt proof of absence.

Whilst there hasnt been any proof yet who knows what we might find in the future, for all we know the greys have been abducting the farmers to teach them the long lost powers of telekinesis which the Egyptians used to make the pyramids and sink Atlantis.