Serious Resources for Jeff Corey and other Woo-Woo Watchers [Archive]

Pyrrho

1st November 2003, 08:32 PM

Let's look at the first one:

http://www.parapsych.org/mission_statement.html

Psi experiences have been reported throughout history, in all cultures. Even today, as multiple surveys show, a wide segment of the world’s population reports having had at least one experience that they believe to have been psychic.

These experiences, and the phenomena associated with them, are the subject matter of parapsychology. PA members use well-developed scientific methods to determine to what extent psi phenomena can be explained through presently understood processes -- whether physical or psychological -- and to what extent they may point to unknown forces and laws, or necessitate a revised model of consciousness and its relationship to the world.
The first paragraph sets the stage for the second - which is the classic appeal to popularity fallacy. People can report anything they like; it does not equate to true psychic phenomena. It is incorrect and unscientific to presume that any of those experiences has a "psi" origin. Therefore, we see that the very foundation for this organization's studies is based in a logical fallacy.

SteveGrenard

1st November 2003, 11:52 PM

The organization per se does not do research, its members do. Some may have a registry for people to report psi experiences because somebody is interested in accumulating such information and analyzing it but they make no claims for its veracity. Are you saying such experiences should not be reported? Now that is the epitomy of the materialistic, reductionist pseudoskeptic and close minded cynic.

The appeal to popularity is based on recent Gallup and other polls and is a statement of fact. If bicycles were found to be favored by 82% of the population are you saying there should be no cyclist organization to represent their common interests? If 82% of the American populace or 60 or 70% of the world's population claims some paranormal experience are you saying it is fallacious to study their experiences and beliefs and furthermore to NOT create an organization of scientists to do so?

This is not only prepostrous but it is also a tad arrogant.

The PA publishes the peer reviewed and well respected J of Parapsychology .covering a wide range of issues and investgations in this field. There are five PA-affiliated, peer-reviewed journals in all: The Journal of Parapsychology, the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the European Journal of Parapsychology, and the International Journal of Parapsychology. PA members publish their work in these journals, as well as in the journals of their respective disciplines or in interdisciplinary publications.

They are the only organization in this field which is an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes SCIENCE and Science News Weekly).

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The organization per se does not do research, its members do. Some may have a registry for people to report psi experiences because somebody is interested in accumulating such information and analyzing it but they make no claims for its veracity. Are you saying such experiences should not be reported? Now that is the epitomy of the materialistic, reductionist pseudoskeptic and close minded cynic.

No. I am saying that it is fundamentally erroneous to think that such experiences are in fact "psi" in nature.

The appeal to popularity is based on recent Gallup and other polls and is a statement of fact. If bicycles were found to be favored by 82% of the population are you saying there should be no cyclist organization to represent their common interests? If 82% of the American populace or 60 or 70% of the world's population claims some paranormal experience are you saying it is fallacious to study their experiences and beliefs and furthermore to NOT create an organization of scientists to do so?

This is not only prepostrous but it is also a tad arrogant.

It is still a logical fallacy, appeal to popularity. If you were to form an organization to study why so many people think they have had "psi" experiences, it would not be fallacious; however, that particular organization plainly assumes that "psi" must be studied, and is "psi", because most people think they've had "psi" experiences. It is not necessarily true that they've had true "psi" experiences. It is putting the cart before the horse. It has never been conclusively demonstrated that "psi" even exists, PEAR studies notwithstanding. Thus, the fundamental flaw in reasoning.

Yes, I am saying it is fallacious to study "their experiences" as if they were truly "psi" experiences. I think it's stupid to create an organization of scientists to do so. I think such scientists are stupid, but I certainly wouldn't prevent anyone from forming such an organization. Everyone needs a hobby. Now, if tax dollars go to support such a group, I'd be very irate.

The PA publishes the peer reviewed and well respected J of Parapsychology .covering a wide range of issues and investgations in this field. There are five PA-affiliated, peer-reviewed journals in all: The Journal of Parapsychology, the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the European Journal of Parapsychology, and the International Journal of Parapsychology. PA members publish their work in these journals, as well as in the journals of their respective disciplines or in interdisciplinary publications.

Appeal to authority. Doesn't mean the peer review is any good.

They are the only organization in this field which is an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes SCIENCE and Science News Weekly).
That does not remove the fundamental logical flaw in their mission statement. I didn't put it there; they did.

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 07:05 AM

By your logic, parts of JREF's mission statement are also flawed:

# Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

# Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.

-------------------------------------------------
BTW Tax dollars support, indirectly, any non profit organization in the United States. You can start a church in your basement if you wish and obtain that same benefit from income derived therefrom or you can donate money to it, to JREF, to the PA, etc., and deduct such sums from your perosnal income tax. So while taxpayors are not directly subsdizing the PA or JREF, they indirectly do so. They also do so for literally 100s of 1000s of non-profits organized for any purpose you could possibly think of.

-----------------------------------------------

If a priori there are no paranormal claims (e.g. psi), then they do not need investigation, and further, anyone investigating them should not need a lawyer either. So Pyrrho smugly states it is okay for JREF to investgate such claims but not the PA. How friggin arrogant can you get. LOL.

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
By your logic, parts of JREF's mission statement are also flawed:

# Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

# Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.

-----------------------------------------------

If a priori there are no paranormal claims (e.g. psi), then they do not need investigation, and further, anyone investigating them should not need a lawyer either.
There is no fallacy in investigating a claim. Certainly there are claims of paranormal events; they are not necessarily truly paranormal or "psi".

That's not what the organization you listed says it does. In its mission statement it justifies its activities on the basis of frequency of belief. That is the appeal to popularity fallacy.

I am well aware of the benefits of non-profit status. I object to direct support by tax dollars, such as "faith-based initiatives" funded by the government. If the government is handing grants to "psi" organizations you can count on me to protest strenuously.

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 07:14 AM

Pyrrho: That's not what the organization you listed says it does. In its mission statement it justifies its activities on the basis of frequency of belief. That is the appeal to popularity fallacy.

Answer: Get a life. Really. You are not familiar nor have you ever OBVIOUSLY read a single journal of theirs or their affiliates so you have no idea whatsoever what they do. You are arguing from a blurb which is tantamount to arguing from ignorance in your case. What these people are saying is that these claims occur with great frequency (they do not even put a number on that frequency in the blurb but we can research that ourselves from Gallup polls) and that this frequency justifies a concerted effort to investigate them. Geez pyrrho, if they did not occur with such frequency, what do you think your beloved JREF would be doing right now? Discussing lace making? If there were NO claims of psi or paranormal phenomena, you me, JREF, and the PA etc would not exist. Randi would be doing card tricks somewhere. Er, two paranormal or psi incidents a year in the U.S. doesn't justify the infrastructure created to deal with it: CSICOP and all its affiliates, JREF, The Skeptic Society and all the open minded, truly scientific based organizations that also study and investigate the phenomena. Nor would a legal defense fund at JREF or CSICOP be necessary when Randi or Ed Dittus or Paul Kurtz gets sued for overstepping their bounds and calling someone a nasty name (ad hominem) without the evidence to back it up to a legal certainty.

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 07:24 AM

Pyrrho: If the government is handing grants to "psi" organizations you can count on me to protest strenuously.

Answer: I would rather be protesting spending $87 billion rebuilding Iraq
in a give away program when they are one of the world's richest oil producers while our own citizens are being made homeless in California due to the fires. and wont get anywhere near that much although the extent of their losses far exceeds the measley couple of billion the Federal government says it will kick in. maybe.

PS: You better start protesting. I think there may be some government funded grants being given out by NIH on aternative medicine and prayer which need your attention.

CFLarsen

2nd November 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Answer: I would rather be protesting spending $87 billion rebuilding Iraq
in a give away program when they are one of the world's richest oil producers while our own citizens are being made homeless in California due to the fires. and wont get anywhere near that much although the extent of their losses far exceeds the measley couple of billion the Federal government says it will kick in. maybe.

Short-Term Vs. Long Term fallacy:
"A subset of the excluded middle, but so important I've pulled it out for special attention. E.g., We can't afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets.
Or: Why explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?"
Source: Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World

Is there no end to the logical fallacies you use, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
PS: You better start protesting. I think there may be some government funded grants being given out by NIH on aternative medicine and prayer which need your attention.

Scources, please? Or is this Yet Another Unsubstantiated Steve Grenard Rumor?

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Pyrrho: That's not what the organization you listed says it does. In its mission statement it justifies its activities on the basis of frequency of belief. That is the appeal to popularity fallacy.

Answer: Get a life. Really. You are not familiar nor have you ever OBVIOUSLY read a single journal of theirs or their affiliates so you have no idea whatsoever what they do.

I'm not talking about their journals. I'm talking about their mission statement.

You are arguing from a blurb which is tantamount to arguing from ignorance in your case. What these people are saying is that these claims occur with great frequency (they do not even put a number on that frequency in the blurb but we can research that ourselves from Gallup polls) and that this frequency justifies a concerted effort to investigate them.

That is the classical appeal to popularity fallacy.

Geez pyrrho, if they did not occur with such frequency, what do you think your beloved JREF would be doing right now? Discussing lace making? If there were NO claims of psi or paranormal phenomena, you me, JREF, and the PA etc would not exist. Randi would be doing card tricks somewhere. Er, two paranormal or psi incidents a year in the U.S. doesn't justify the infrastructure created to deal with it: CSICOP and all its affiliates, JREF, The Skeptic Society and all the open minded, truly scientific based organizations that also study and investigate the phenomena.

They investigate specific claims of phenomena, when they investigate at all, and do not perform such studies because of Gallup polls. It has not been established by any science that true "psi" experiences occur at the frequency claimed in opinion polls. Millions of people might think they've had "psi" experiences, but that does not mean any of those experiences ever happened or that they were genuinely "psi" at all.

Nor would a legal defense fund at JREF or CSICOP be necessary when Randi or Ed Dittus or Paul Kurtz gets sued for overstepping their bounds and calling someone a nasty name (ad hominem) without the evidence to back it up to a legal certainty.
Irrelevant.

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Pyrrho: If the government is handing grants to "psi" organizations you can count on me to protest strenuously.

Answer: I would rather be protesting spending $87 billion rebuilding Iraq
in a give away program when they are one of the world's richest oil producers while our own citizens are being made homeless in California due to the fires. and wont get anywhere near that much although the extent of their losses far exceeds the measley couple of billion the Federal government says it will kick in. maybe.

PS: You better start protesting. I think there may be some government funded grants being given out by NIH on aternative medicine and prayer which need your attention.
I have protested both, and continue to do so.

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 07:42 AM

For reference:

Appeal to Popularity

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pop.php

http://info-pollution.com/popularity.htm

http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/popularity.asp

http://www.esgs.org/uk/log1b.htm

Appeal to Belief

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 07:49 AM

Logic 101. If there were only two cases of cancer in the world last year, we wouldn't need the American Cancer Society. If there were only two heart attacks in the world every three years we wouldn't need the American Heart Association. Nor all the drug companies and medical reesearchers studying, investigating and trying to cure this problem.

I could go on. Every such oganization, dedicated to a problem, its investigation and resolution, bases their existence on numbers. It forms, whether you agree or not, a justification for their mission.
Without significant numbers their mission would not exist or become trivial and unimportant. Marketing pros understand the significance of numbers.
Appeal to popularity? Definitely.
Appeal to belief? Definitely.

In short if this is the best you can do to deconstruct the mission of the PA, it simply isn't cutting it. You can take the fallacious and backseat position that there is no such thing as psi, ignore the fact that a large% of the total population of many countries, including the U.S., claim one or more psi experiences and then proceed to ignore all these people based on your default position but then you need to question the existence of CSICOP and JREF whose existence is not only beholden to these numbers but fallaciously dedicated to an objective which is to create a public relations effort which says all these claims are false and can be disproved as well can never be proved.

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Logic 101. If there were only two cases of cancer in the world last year, we wouldn't need the American Cancer Society. If there were only two heart attacks in the world every three years we wouldn't need the American Heart Association. Nor all the drug companies and medical reesearchers studying, investigating and trying to cure this problem.

Your analogy is incorrect. Heart attacks are diagnosed by well-researched, known means. That they occur are indisputable. Treatment of them is not based on opinion poll results. You know this.

I could go on. Every such oganization, dedicated to a problem, its investigation and resolution, bases their existence on numbers. It forms, whether you agree or not, a justification for their mission.
Without significant numbers their mission would not exist or become trivial and unimportant. Marketing pros understand the significance of numbers.
Appeal to popularity? Definitely.
Appeal to belief? Definitely.

Both are fallacious. Both betray rudimentary flaws in logical thinking that no good scientist should be caught indulging in.

In short if this is the best you can do to deconstruct the mission of the PA, it simply isn't cutting it. You can take the fallacious and backseat position that there is no such thing as psi, ignore the fact that a large% of the total population of many countries, including the U.S., claim one or more psi experiences and then proceed to ignore all these people based on your default position but then you need to question the existence of CSICOP and JREF whose existence is not only beholden to these numbers but fallaciously dedicated to an objective which is to create a public relations effort which says all these claims are false and can be disproved as well can never be proved.
I have not said that there is no such thing as "psi." However, scientifically, that is the default position.

I am saying that even though a large portion of the population believes they have had "psi" experiences, it does not mean that any of those experiences were truly "psi" in nature. It is a fundamental logical fallacy to assume that because most people think something is true, it is true.

Even if CSICOP and JREF were based on logic just as faulty, it would not remove the faulty logic displayed in the mission statement we have been discussing.

The Parapsychological Association claims to be a professional organization of scientists and scholars. Their mission statement contains a glaring example of one of the most rudimentary informal logical fallacies, identified by the Greek philosophers centuries ago.

That this group of scientists and scholars has based justification for their association on such a logical flaw should be disturbing to any serious psi investigator. It betrays a basic flaw in their approach to this subject.

Yes indeed, the informal logical fallacies are taught in Logic 101 classes in college. These are the basics. If a scientist or scholar is still committing such basic logical errors, how can their work be taken seriously? I am sure that not all of them commit such errors, but this is the mission statement for their organization, and, like it or not, it colors all of them.

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 08:38 AM

SG: Marketing pros understand the significance of numbers.

Appeal to popularity? Definitely.
Appeal to belief? Definitely.

Pyrrho: Both are fallacious. Both betray rudimentary flaws in logical thinking that no good scientist should be caught indulging in.

I hope you realize that by this statement you are questionning the validity of just about every scientist working on a popular problem which a lot of them and others believe needs attention.

By inference you are suggesting that such efforts should be directed to trivial, miniscule or even non-existent problems and beliefs because you feel such trivial or non-existent problems are more worthy of attention whereas popular or common problems are not.

The popularity of a phenomenon and a belief, including "problems" dictates the amount and nature of attention it receives. Without such numbers there would be no justification for the mission.

I frankly don't care what the ancient Greeks had to say about this, this is almost 2004 and they were pontificating in an entirely different environment and at an entirely different level of knowledge. They are an anachronism.

And that's all they were doing: pontificating based on their own experiences and era. For everything else they had their Gods to take care of the problem. It may be useful for you to stop and put their beliefs into perspective rather than wildly cling to their every recommendation as if it was relevant or valid in the present day.
They said it was fallacious to appeal to authority yet they wanted to set themselves up as authorities and have the masses appeal to them. They wanted to sit around in gardens and write words of wisdom instead of applying their knowledge to popular problems of their day such as draught, famine and disease. They left these popular problems up to the Gods. It is better not to concern yourselves with these they said, as authorities no doubt. You can measure the difference between their society and that of the Romans who set their best minds to work on popular or frequent problems such as water supply, public works
and security.

I cannot blindly follow the ancient Greeks on such matters sorry; and frankly I am at a loss to understand how you can do that save as some sort of rhetorical device. Their idealism, while commendable to some, was based on the deities which they appealed to to provide them with food and water and healing -- er, when it happened. Perhaps a case can be made that it was these idealistic ancient Greek scholars represented one of the most truly deluded phases in the history of mankind.

Therefore, when there are few or no persons claiming psi experiences, the investigators of such experiencers need to find other occupations. Randi will have to turn card tricks and the PA members will have to find new, more popular stuff to study.

And yes, this has nothing to do with the default position you espouse, it has to do with open minded skeptical and scientific investigation of these phenomena because they are there: they occur with frequency and need to be investigated and explained, regardless of outcome. They affect many people in profound ways. They deserve and are getting attention by organizations of many scientists such as those who come together in the PA.

CFLarsen

2nd November 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The popularity of a phenomenon and a belief, including "problems" dictates the amount and nature of attention it receives. Without such numbers there would be no justification for the mission.

Oh, excellent. That means that popularity determines reality. Great. Oprah is really God/President.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I frankly don't know or care what the ancient Greeks had to say about this, this is almost 2004 and they were pontificating in an entirely different environment and at an entirely different level of knowledge.

This, I find extremely disingenious of you. You were the one claiming on a regular basis that I and other skeptics were merely sophists. You even lectured me several times on this, one of them being:

From: "sgrenard" <sgrenard@si.rr.com> | Add to Address Book
Subject: Megarian Sophists.....
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 23:36:27 -0400

Sophists

A group of Greek teachers who flourished at the end of the fifth century B.C. They claimed to be purveyors of wisdom -- hence the name sophistai, which originally meant one who possesses wisdom -- but in reality undertook to show that all true certitude is unattainable, and that culture and preparation for the business of public life are to be acquired, not by profound thinking, but by discussion and debate. In accordance with this principle, they gathered around them the young men of Athens, and professed to prepare them for their career as citizens and as men by teaching them the art of public speaking and the theory and practice of argumentation. They did not pretend to teach how the truth is to be attained. They did not care whether it could be attained or not. They aimed to impart to their pupils the ability to make the better cause seem the worse, and the worse the better. If we are to believe their opponents, Plato and Aristotle, they affected all kinds of refinement, in dress, speech, gesture, etc., and carried their love of argumentation to the point where all seriousness of purpose ceased and quibbling and sophistry began.

It continues in the same vein. Funny how you can switch horses midstream. You should go into politics.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Therefore, when there are few or no persons claiming psi experiences, the investigators of such experiencers need to find other occupations. Randi will have to turn card tricks and the PA members will have to find new, more popular stuff to study.

But even more so, the proponents of the existence of paranormal phenomena will similarly find new things to occupy themselves with in the wee hours of the morning. And we all know that there are far more of those than of skeptics...

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
And yes, this has nothing to do with the default position you espouse, it has to do with open minded skeptical and scientific investigation of these phenomena because they are there: they occur with frequency and need to be investigated and explained, regardless of outcome. They affect many people in profound ways. They deserve and are getting attention by organizations of many scientists such as those who come together in the PA.

Backward argumentation: You state that they exist, therefore they must be investigated to find out if they exist?

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Pyrrho: Both are fallacious. Both betray rudimentary flaws in logical thinking that no good scientist should be caught indulging in.(end Pyrrho)

I hope you realize that by this statement you are questionning the validity of just about every scientist working on a popular problem which a lot of them and others believe needs attention.

You confused marketing studies and opinion polls with hard science. The two logical fallacies you listed are indeed logical fallacies.

Anyway, assuming the poll has been conducted properly, if a scientist says, "The majority of people polled say they have had a paranormal experience. I will study why they believe this," there is no logical fallacy. If a scientist says, "The majority of people polled say they have had a paranormal experience. I will investigate these paranormal events," he is committing a logical fallacy, and the validity of his work should be questioned. In fact, the validity of all scientific work should be questioned.

If you cite the results of an opinion poll as proof of or even evidence for the paranormal, you are committing a logical fallacy.

By inference you are suggesting that such efforts should be directed to trivial, miniscule or even non-existent problems and beliefs because you feel such trivial or non-existent problkems are more worthy of attention whereas popular or common problems are not.

I suggest nothing of the kind. My position is that the popularity or frequency of a belief is no indicator that the belief is true.

The popularity of a phenomenon and a belief, including "problems" dictates the amount and nature of attention it receives. Without such numbers there would be no justification for the mission.

Again, that is appeal to popularity. I realize that people commonly commit this error, but it is an error nonetheless. If a poll showed that most people believed that psychics should be thrown in jail, it would be fallacious reasoning to say that all psychics should be thrown in jail because most people think they should.

I frankly don't know or care what the ancient Greeks had to say about this, this is almost 2004 and they were pontificating in an entirely different environment and at an entirely different level of knowledge. And that's all they were doing: pontificating based on their own experiences and era. For everything else they had their Gods to take care of the problem. It may be useful for you to stop and put their beliefs into perspective rather than wildly cling to their every recommendation as if it was relevant or valid in the present day.

You've just thrown out the fundamentals of scientific reasoning and scientific investigation. It would certainly be convenient for many people to set aside the basis of logical thinking, but that will not serve serious investigation of the paranormal.

Therefore, when there are few or no persons claiming psi experiences, the investigators of such experiencers need to find other occupations. Randi will have to turn card tricks and the PA members will have to find new, moe popular stuff to study.

That's the inverse of the same logical fallacy. Infrequency of belief does not mean something is not true.

And yes, this has nothing to do with the default position you espouse, it has to do with open minded skeptical and scientific investigation of these phenomena because they are there: they occur with frequency and need to be investigated and explained, regardless of outcome. They affect many people in profound ways. They deserve and are getting attention by organizations of many scientists such as those who came together in the PA.
Such phenomena are not "there" just because most people believe they are "there", or because most people claim to have experienced such phenomena.

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 09:06 AM

I cannot frankly believe you are calling the rants of the ancient Greek scholars "hard science." LOL. They are irrelevant today. They are an anachronism. They are worthy of study by people with no practical or worldly problems to deal with. They offer little in the way of curing the world's ills.
The appealed to their Gods for everything they were too lazy or too stupid to discover for themselves.

I have tried to make my point. You obviously have yours. Impasse. 4-way stop sign in Minnesota.

Thanks for responding. Here are my final responses:

You confused marketing studies and opinion polls with hard science. The two logical fallacies you listed are indeed logical fallacies.

Answer: Polls, even here, are used to determine the prevalence of phenomena, facts, problems, issues, experiences, diseases, etc. I never said marketing studies BTW. but they can and are done in scientifically valid ways.

Anyway, assuming the poll has been conducted properly, if a scientist says, "The majority of people polled say they have had a paranormal experience. I will study why they believe this," there is no logical fallacy. If a scientist says, "The majority of people polled say they have had a paranormal experience. I will investigate these paranormal events," he is committing a logical fallacy, and the validity of his work should be questioned. In fact, the validity of all scientific work should be questioned.

Reply: You are showing your own inherent bias by turning one thing into a belief because you do not believe it is real whereas from the other side, assuming it is real, taking the opposite tack which is to investigate it and prove whether it is real or not. That is the fundamental difference between say CSICP/JREF and the PA or SPR. It is the opening position.

Pyrrho: If you cite the results of an opinion poll as proof of or even evidence for the paranormal, you are committing a logical fallacy.

Answer: I did not do that. You are learning from Larsen. Polls are proof that there is a problem that needs investigating. If it turns out to be purely psychgological and not a physical problem this will be determined. I have never said such polls are evidence of anything other than what they are: that a large% of people claim to have had one or more experiences they characterize as psi.

Pyrrho: I suggest nothing of the kind. My position is that the popularity or frequency of a belief is no indicator that the belief is true.

Response: It is an indicator that he belief occurs. Beliefs are either invalid or not valid. This is obvious. It bothers cynics that the weight of so many people claim such experiences. Entire societies claim such beliefs in some parts of the world as well. How many Hindus are there? This is why Stevenson decided to study and investigate the reincarnation cases which forms a part of their belief system.

Pyrrho: Again, that is appeal to popularity. I realize that people commonly commit this error, but it is an error nonetheless. If a poll showed that most people believed that psychics should be thrown in jail, it would be fallacious reasoning to say that all psychics should be thrown in jail because most people think they should.

Response: It is only an eror in the eyes of the sedentary ancient Greek scholars who preferred to sit around their gardens drinking wine, eating grapes and dreaming up new wisdoms for others to follow.

You can construct a poll for almost anything including things based on fallacious or specious reasoning. This is sophistry, one thing worthwhile learned from the ancients because they engaged in it ad nauseum.

Pyrrho: You've just thrown out the fundamentals of scientific reasoning and scientific investigation. It would certainly be convenient for many people to set aside the basis of logical thinking, but that will not serve serious investigation of the paranormal.

Response: I have thrown out the anachronistic platitudes of a dead civilization that is revered by certain segments of society today because they need these platitudes to engage in sophistry.

Pyrrho: That's the inverse of the same logical fallacy. Infrequency of belief does not mean something is not true.

Response: So you are saying if no one, nt a single person or society claimed psi experiences we should then still study them? What do we do? Invent them and then study them? How illogical is that.

Pyrrho: Such phenomena are not "there" just because most people believe they are "there", or because most people claim to have experienced such phenomena.

Response: Of course they are there because people express they have had such experiences. If they did not make such claims they would not be there. You are questionning the ability of sentient human beings to determine ocurrences in their lives which need to be critically reviewed, investigated and studied and then either validated or impeached depending on the results of such investigations. Your default position does not allow for this so it must be rejected by any true skeptic who says he or she is cannot be certain.

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I frankly don't care what the ancient Greeks had to say about this, this is almost 2004 and they were pontificating in an entirely different environment and at an entirely different level of knowledge. They are an anachronism.

And that's all they were doing: pontificating based on their own experiences and era. For everything else they had their Gods to take care of the problem. It may be useful for you to stop and put their beliefs into perspective rather than wildly cling to their every recommendation as if it was relevant or valid in the present day.
They said it was fallacious to appeal to authority yet they wanted to set themselves up as authorities and have the masses appeal to them. They wanted to sit around in gardens and write words of wisdom instead of applying their knowledge to popular problems of their day such as draught, famine and disease. They left these popular problems up to the Gods. It is better not to concern yourselves with these they said, as authorities no doubt. You can measure the difference between their society and that of the Romans who set their best minds to work on popular or frequent problems such as water supply, public works
and security.

I cannot blindly follow the ancient Greeks on such matters sorry; and frankly I am at a loss to understand how you can do that save as some sort of rhetorical device. Their idealism, while commendable to some, was based on the deities which they appealed to to provide them with food and water and healing -- er, when it happened. Perhaps a case can be made that it was these idealistic ancient Greek scholars represented one of the most truly deluded phases in the history of mankind.

I really must learn to wait until you've re-edited your posts before I respond.

To address this: the Greek philosophers identified several logical fallacies. Philosphers such as Locke and others in subsequent years identified more. These fundamentals of logic are taught in colleges in the present day. I understand your reservations in accepting the historical basis for these rules of logic, but the rules have not been found wanting except by those who would prefer not to have to follow them. In fact, your argument takes the form of a genetic fallacy, that is, you disparage the validity of the rules based on the beliefs of the culture from which they originated.

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I cannot frankly believe you are calling the rants of the ancient Greek scholars "hard science." LOL. They are irrelevant today. They are an anachronism. They are worthy of study by people with no practical or worldly problems to deal with. They offer little in the way of curing the world's ills.
The appealed to their Gods for everything they were too lazy or too stupid to discover for themselves.

I have tried to make my point. You obviously have yours. Impasse. 4-way stop sign in Minnesota.

Thanks for responding.
Impasse? No. You're still sitting at the stop sign. The rest of us are on the superhighway that was built over the intersection ages ago.

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 09:26 AM

Pyrrho: The rest of us are on the superhighway that was built over the intersection ages ago.

The Romans built the highways. The Greeks whose culture and philosophy you espouse had dirt roads.

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Pyrrho: The rest of us are on the superhighway that was built over the intersection ages ago.

The Romans built the highways. The Greeks whose culture and philosophy you espouse had dirt roads.
I clearly used the word fundamentals. The fundamentals of reasoning and logic developed by the Greeks were refined and developed further over the following centuries, up to the present day, where some of the fundamentals developed by the Greeks are still taught to college students.

But, silly me, I haven't consulted any opinion polls as to whether or not the rules of logic are valid.

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 09:49 AM

For better or worse, have you stopped to consider that billions of people throughout history since the ancient Greeks lived and died, have never heard of them or what they espoused? That these societies comprising billions upon billions of peoples have flourished, given us great advances (e.g. China) and never once stopped to consider the consequences of their actions based on the presumed fallaciousness of an appeal to authority or an appeal to popularity? That even in our own modern era, inventors such as the Wrights did not stop to worry if what they were doing in developing manned, heavier than air flight, was an appeal to authority or whatever other appeal you care to dredge up and credit the ancients or Locke with? I can see Wilbur arguing with Orville right now whether what they were doing was a violation of one of Locke's tenants. Not.

Now you may say look at where we are today. You might say we would have been better off if such societies and billions upon billions had stopped to consider such things. We would have no war and all the horrors war entails. But then again, had we stopped to consider the platitudes of the ancients or Locke, at every juncture of our development, we might still be living in fear of pestilence, disease and famine as well. We would still be appealing to the the gods of Love, Fertiity, Healing
and whatever other gods the ancient Greeks had dreamed up for relief.

edited to add:

I for one cannot give serious consideration, no matter how wise or logical it may seem to do so, to the arguments of an elitist group of scholars living in a society built on a fabric of specialist deities that were alleged to cater to all their material requirements.

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
For better or worse, have you stopped to consider that billions of people throughout history since the ancient Greeks lived and died, have never heard of them or what they espoused? That these societies comprising billions upon billions of peoples have flourished, given us great advances (e.g. China) and never once stopped to consider the consequences of their actions based on the presumed fallaciousness of an appeal to authority or an appeal to popularity? That even in our own modern era, inventors such as the Wrights did not stop to worry if what they were doing in developing manned, heavier than air flight, was an appeal to authority or whatever other appeal you care to dredge up and credit the ancients or Locke with? I can see Wilbur arguing with Orville right now whether what they were doing was a violation of one of Locke's tenants. Not.

Now you may say look at where we are today. You might say we would have been better off if such societies and billions upon billions had stopped to consider such things. We would have no war and all the horrors war entails. But then again, had we stopped to consider the platitudes of the ancients or Locke, at every juncture of our development, we might still be living in fear of pestilence, disease and famine as well. We would still be appealing to the the gods of Love, Fertiity, Healing
and whatever other gods the ancient Greeks had dreamed up for relief.
Certainly, many advances have been made by people who refused to listen to cynics, skeptics, naysayers, and scoffers, but that is irrelevant, except to note that such people did not accept the popular opinions of the day, which more or less supports my point. None of what you have stated dismisses the logical fallacy committed in the mission statement we have been discussing.

The rules of logic are not the superstitious imaginings of ancient Greeks.

Logic is quite similar to mathematics. Arguments can be diagrammed, the premises examined, and so on. To examine the argument advanced in the mission statement, we can look at it this way:

Premise: Psi experiences have been reported throughout history, in all cultures.

Premise: Even today, as multiple surveys show, a wide segment of the world’s population reports having had at least one experience that they believe to have been psychic.

Conclusion: These experiences, and the phenomena associated with them, are the subject matter of parapsychology. PA members use well-developed scientific methods to determine to what extent psi phenomena can be explained through presently understood processes -- whether physical or psychological -- and to what extent they may point to unknown forces and laws, or necessitate a revised model of consciousness and its relationship to the world.

The premises cite no evidence beyond popular belief. No direct observations have been cited in the premises; their validity has not been established. The conclusion is not supported by the premises.

To simplify:

Premise: Psi experiences have been reported in all cultures.

Premise: Psi experiences have been reported throughout history.

Premise: Many people believe they have had psychic experiences.

Conclusion: Psi is real and should be studied.

The validity of the premises has not been established. The premises do not support the conclusion.

To illustrate further:

Premise: Most people believe that A is true.

Conclusion: A is true.

Appeal to Popularity. It is fallacious because it is based on subjective belief and not empirical evidence.

CFLarsen

2nd November 2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The Romans built the highways. The Greeks whose culture and philosophy you espouse had dirt roads.

Well...you know, the Romans hailed the Greeks as being far more clever than themselves. Sure, the Romans kicked ass military-wise, but they took most of their philosophical knowledge from the Greeks.

You are one funny dude, Steve. It seems that no matter what you come up with, it is wrong.

thaiboxerken

2nd November 2003, 10:14 AM

It's funny that SG appeal to popularity to try and prove that the appeal to popularity fallacy is wrong.

For better or worse, have you stopped to consider that billions of people throughout history since the ancient Greeks lived and died, have never heard of them or what they espoused?

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 10:16 AM

Premise: Psi experiences have been reported in all cultures.

True.

Premise: Psi experiences have been reported throughout history.

True.

Premise: Many people believe they have had psychic experiences.

True. Emphasize word: believe

Conclusion: Psi is real and should be studied.

Belief in psi is true and should be studied as should psi itself to determine validity of the belief.

The validity of the premises has not been established. The premises do not support the conclusion.

The validty of the premise that many people believe they have had a psi experience has been established.
The premises support this conclusion.

thaiboxerken

2nd November 2003, 10:18 AM

The rules of logic are not the superstitious imaginings of ancient Greeks.

Yes, and while the Greeks categorized the logical fallacies, SG has to demonstrate that other cultures didn't discover such principles on their own.

I understood most of the logical fallacies before ever taking a course on debate or critical thinking, I just didn't have a name for them. I would just think "what he said doesn't make sense because....".

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 10:48 AM

TBK: Yes, and while the Greeks categorized the logical fallacies, SG has to demonstrate that other cultures didn't discover such principles on their own.

You are making an implication for which there is no evidence: that ALL other societies, throughout history, before or after the Greeks codified their logic, and did so on their own and in the absence of any body of written knowledge of the ancient Greeks and their mythology. Therefore I can no more demonstrate that they didn't anymore than you can demonstrate that they did. You are asking me not only to prove a negative, but to prove a negative over tens of thousands of years of civilization. Any other absurd or inane requests today?

Your personal observation and introspection that you claim, incidentally, could be based on your environment, the advice of your friends and parents, your experiences, what you have heard others say (this is most common as many children learn by mimicking) and on a wide assortment of effectors you cannot consciously identify.

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 11:20 AM

Pyrrho: The rules of logic are not the superstitious imaginings of ancient Greeks.

No, they just lived, worked, ponitifcated and were influenced by a rich mythology of specialist deities which provided for all their material needs............. or so they believed. And those who followed them did so based on their dictums.

CFLarsen

2nd November 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The validty of the premise that many people believe they have had a psi experience has been established.
The premises support this conclusion.

The validity of the premise that many people believe they have had a "God" experience has been established.

Should we similarly seek scientific evidence of God?

xouper

2nd November 2003, 11:41 AM

SteveGrenard: They [PA} are the only organization in this field which is an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science That affiliation is highly controversial and does not imply an endorsement by AAAS. PA was only admitted to AAAS in deference to Margaret Mead, and the AAAS has since considered dissolving that affiliation. One of the reasons given is that people like you erroneously attribute credibility to the PA on the basis of affiliation with the AAAS.

Thanks for playing Steve, but this thread re-affirms why I generally pay no attention to anything you have to say.

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 11:44 AM

Sorry Xouper, but I merely stated what the PA's website advertises as an FYI. The reference was properly given as well. If you wish to make this into a flag pole for yourself, go right ahead. I don't care. Sit on it. BTW Margaret Mead is dead. Are they still deferring to her? Or has the council of the AAAS moved on?

Pyrrho -- you may find it useful to read pp 309-12 in Sagan's Demon Haunted World.
It is food for thought and while I do not agree with everything he says, his ruminations have shaped some of my attitudes in this discussion.

xouper

2nd November 2003, 12:00 PM

SteveGrenard: ... I merely stated what the PA's website advertises as an FYI.If you say so. :rolleyes:

If I don't post anymore replies to you in this thread, it's probably because I'm out sitting on my flagpole, "watching the tide roll away ... "

showme2

2nd November 2003, 12:24 PM

xouper

Why is it that you and other so-called sceptics (or skeptics if you can't spell in proper English) insist on being so downright offensive and devoid of elementary good manners with those who happen to disagree with your opinions.

It does you little credit.

It seems to me that the sceptics on this forum are - with half a dozen or so notable exceptions - more interested in demonstrating to their fellow sceptics (via abusive posts) what massive balls they allegedly have, than in engaging in rational debate.

xouper

2nd November 2003, 12:39 PM

showme2: It seems to me that the sceptics on this forum are - with half a dozen or so notable exceptions - more interested in demonstrating to their fellow sceptics (via abusive posts) what massive balls they allegedly have, than in engaging in rational debate.You might have a point if Steve would engage in rational debate himself, but he often doesn't. It is not worth my time to debate someone who won't argue rationally. Most of the time I simply ignore him, but every once in a while, I may choose to refute a point he tries to make.

Let me ask YOU a question. What did you think of my argument about the PA affiliation with the AAAS? Was that not rational enough for you? Or are you simply interested in bashing skeptics?

And by the way, "skeptic" is the proper spelling, since it comes from a Greek word. The spelling "sceptic" comes from the Latin variant of the original Greek skeptikos. But I don't usually make a fuss over people who prefer to spell it sceptic.

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Premise: Psi experiences have been reported in all cultures.

True.

Premise: Psi experiences have been reported throughout history.

True.

Premise: Many people believe they have had psychic experiences.

True. Emphasize word: believe

Conclusion: Psi is real and should be studied.

Belief in psi is true and should be studied as should psi itself to determine validity of the belief.

That's not what the mission statement says. Nice try, though.

The validity of the premises has not been established. The premises do not support the conclusion.

The validty of the premise that many people believe they have had a psi experience has been established.
The premises support this conclusion.
True. Many people believe this. This does not make psi a reality, as implied by the mission statement we have been discussing. The organization in question is studying psi as if it were an established fact, which it is not, and their mission statement cites popular belief as a justification. The mission statement does not indicate that they are engaged in sociological or anthropological research to find the reasons for such belief. They are studying psi because they think it is real.

showme2

2nd November 2003, 02:00 PM

>>>>>>>Let me ask YOU a question. What did you think of my argument about the PA affiliation with the AAAS? Was that not rational enough for you? Or are you simply interested in bashing skeptics?<<<<<<<<<<

I'm not really interested in getting into disputes about affiliations at all. It is insignificant.

I am interested in getting to the truth about so-called paranormal phenomena.

And no, I am not interested in "bashing sceptics" (apart from idiotic sceptics like DeBunk and TBK who deserve every bashing they get).

What I am interested in is a constructive debate to help ME to arrive at the truth.

There is altogether too much "bashing" on this forum. People with entrenched positions simply trying to prove that they are the smartasses who have got it right whilst those who disagree with them are, self-evidently, mentally retarded.

Let's try to get back to CONSTRUCTIVE debate, shall we ?

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 02:10 PM

The mission statement states "belief." In your premises you stated belief. What part of belief, as the saying goes, do you not understand? Are you saying the scientist-members of the PA do not know they are dealing with beliefs?

Or as the two old ladies on the Wendy's commercial used to ask, "Where's the belief...?"

The working assumptions for psi research are well established and I would not expect you to know them since you are arguing from ignorance at your end.

These assumptions are:

1. occurence of psi varies greatly among people and reflects substantial cultural, innate, belief systems and even genetic differences.

2. a minority of people may have actual noticeable psi in their lives

3. a larger number tends to interpret non-psi experiences as true psi

4. psi is guided by factors other then identifiable motivations of the people involved. This has been established repeatedly through questionnaires determing relious beliefs, belief in mystical powers and other fanatasy proneness: BigFoot, UFOs, alien abductions, and all the other stuff that occupies the hearts and minds of the skeptics and cynics.

I understand that the above causes many scientists to dismiss parapsychological claims, even those which simply manifest as beliefs, as unrelaistic.

2nd November 2003, 02:13 PM

"PA members use well-developed scientific methods to determine to what extent psi phenomena can be explained through presently understood processes -- whether physical or psychological -- and to what extent they may point to unknown forces and laws, or necessitate a revised model of consciousness and its relationship to the world. "

Steve, focus. Thier minds are made up. Psi exists and it it their mission to study them. They do not use the words "alleged" or "purported" or even "reported". They are studying Psi.

This is the same problem as the folks at PEAR have. The phenomonon exists now we need to understand it!! This is not science.

xouper

2nd November 2003, 02:22 PM

showme2: Let's try to get back to CONSTRUCTIVE debate, shall we ?Was anyone preventing you from doing that all along?

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 02:24 PM

Thanks Ed. Now go back and read what you quoted again. Did you miss the word "psychological?" Do you think psychological causations are true physical manifestations of psi? Your problem and that of every cynic here is that this is the only explanation they wish to entertain for psi so it is not the PA that's being closed minded, its you. They are happy to entertain "psychological" as a causal factor,
as ONE option, to explain psi. You prefer to think of it as the only option which, therefore, no longer makes it an option. It makes it a deterministic statement.

Remember also that psi is defined by the experiencer as something which they either feel or which they describe as happening to them. It frequently takes the form of a premonitory remark which later, often within hours or a few days, becomes true. Last Thursday night, October 23rd, I mentioned that a friend of a deceased member of my family was warned not to move to California. I did not know about the fires last Thursday night. On Sunday this man lost his house and I am told by a friend of a friend of his he and his family is on their way back East to live with his parents.

Was this psi on my part? You can find the remark in a post I made on October 23rd at 8:41 PM (last edit). Or was it coincidence, an unfortunate and tragic one at that? I don't know but these kinds of so-called coincidences happen all the time. How many of them are too many to be a coincidence? When you can answer that question, come back and let me know. We'll have something to talk about.

showme2

2nd November 2003, 02:31 PM

Will someone - anyone - explain something for me?

Why is there all of this apparent animosity towards Steve Grenard on this forum?

I know nothing about him, but his posts seem to be entirely constructive.

Yet every time he says ANYTHING, it seems that a number of people descend upon him with the sole intention of rubbishing whatever he says and kicking him in the teeth.

So come on , come clean - what's the agenda here ?

CFLarsen

2nd November 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Was this psi on my part? You can find the remark in a post I made on October 23rd at 8:41 PM (last edit). Or was it coincidence, an unfortunate and tragic one at that? I don't know but these kinds of so-called coincidences happen all the time. How many of them are too many to be a coincidence? When you can answer that question, come back and let me know. We'll have something to talk about.

No, Steve. You come back, after you count these coincidences. Qualify them. Then, you tell us if you think something paranormal is going on - and why.

The onus is not on skeptics, it is on you.

Interesting Ian

2nd November 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho

I have not said that there is no such thing as "psi." However, scientifically, that is the default position.

No that is not correct. Materialistically it is the default position. Or even it is the default position of naturalism. But not of science.

I am saying that even though a large portion of the population believes they have had "psi" experiences, it does not mean that any of those experiences were truly "psi" in nature. It is a fundamental logical fallacy to assume that because most people think something is true, it is true.

Yes absolutely. If, however, people throughout history and across all cultures have experienced particular phenomena, and also scientific research on the whole is suggestive of a slight effect, then our default position should be to suppose it exists, unless we have excellent reasons to suppose otherwise. Do you have any such excellent reasons?

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The mission statement states "belief." In your premises you stated belief. What part of belief, as the saying goes, do you not understand? Are you saying the scientist-members of the PA do not know they are dealing with beliefs?

Or as the two old ladies on the Wendy's commercial used to ask, "Where's the belief...?"

Back to square one:

Psi experiences have been reported throughout history, in all cultures. Even today, as multiple surveys show, a wide segment of the world’s population reports having had at least one experience that they believe to have been psychic.

These experiences, and the phenomena associated with them, are the subject matter of parapsychology. PA members use well-developed scientific methods to determine to what extent psi phenomena can be explained through presently understood processes -- whether physical or psychological -- and to what extent they may point to unknown forces and laws, or necessitate a revised model of consciousness and its relationship to the world.
The mission statement does not state that they are studying beliefs.

The working assumptions for psi research are well established and I would not expect you to know them since you are arguing from ignorance at your end.

These assumptions are:

1. occurence of psi varies greatly among people and reflects substantial cultural, innate, belief systems and even genetic differences.

2. a minority of people may have actual noticeable psi in their lives

3. a larger number tends to interpret non-psi experiences as true psi

4. psi is guided by factors other then identifiable motivations of the people involved. This has been established repeatedly through questionnaires determing relious beliefs, belief in mystical powers and other fanatasy proneness: BigFoot, UFOs, alien abductions, and all the other stuff that occupies the hearts and minds of the skeptics and cynics.

I understand that the above causes many scientists to dismiss parapsychological claims, even those which simply manifest as beliefs, as unrelaistic.
No, I am not arguing from ignorance. Everything you have stated above is in no way evidence that psi exists, nor is it any of it a valid foundation upon which to base research. Number 4, as Mark Twain might have said, is a chestnut.

You seem to be unable to understand simple logic. Perhaps it is unfair to keep repeating these things to you, but this is an educational foundation after all, and there is always the chance that someone else reading this may learn something.

Jeff Corey

2nd November 2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If, however, people throughout history and across all cultures have experienced particular phenomena, and also scientific research on the whole is suggestive of a slight effect, then our default position should be to suppose it exists, unless we have excellent reasons to suppose otherwise. Do you have any such excellent reasons?
IF throughout history and across many cultures, many people have believed in witches. Giles and Martha Corey were, respectively, stoned and hung to death in Salem Village in 1692, along with others. And IF lousey scientific research on the whole is suggestive of a slight "witch effect", then our default position is to suppose witches exist.

"She's a Witch!"
"How do you know?"
"She turned me into a newt.
"Erm, I got better..."

SteveGrenard

2nd November 2003, 03:10 PM

Yes this is an educational forum so back to square 1 and reading comprehension.

The following is pasted and copied from your post above. I have taken the liberty of adding bold face where apprpriate. What is it that I am missing here? Do they not state that psi can be psychological? Do they not state psi can be something that is a belief. My lord Pyrrho, are we reading this the same way? I fear I have to side with the scientists at the PA rather than you in this matter, espeically since I know who they are and don't know who you are.
--------------------------------------------------

Psi experiences have been reported throughout history, in all cultures. Even today, as multiple surveys show, a wide segment of the world’s population reports having had at least one experience that they believe to have been psychic.

These experiences, and the phenomena associated with them, are the subject matter of parapsychology. PA members use well-developed scientific methods to determine to what extent psi phenomena can be explained through presently understood processes -- whether physical or psychological -- and to what extent they may point to unknown forces and laws, or necessitate a revised model of consciousness and its relationship to the world.

--------------------------------------------------
The mission statement does not state that they are studying beliefs. Pyrrho.
-------------------------------------------------

Ans: No, it states they are studying psi or (unusual) experiences or psi experiences which can be due to psychological causes or beliefs. er...I don't know what else to say to you.
This conversation is getting like UFOS. UFOS exist... they are unidentified thingies flying in the sky. Some can be explained, then they are no longer unidentified. A few remain unexplained. They remain UFOs.

PS: When did I caim that any of this is evidence that psi exists? That is an entirely different matter and certainly cannot rely on the mission statement of this organization. Are there any more separate directions you want to take this?

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

No that is not correct. Materialistically it is the default position. Or even it is the default position of naturalism. But not of science.

In science, one does not start from the position that a given phenomena is factually real. One starts from a set of observations; then an hypothesis is developed to explain those observations; experiments are devised to test the hypothesis; the hypothesis is revised; a theory is developed; observations continue; theory is revised when new evidence is observed; and so on. It is a continuous process. Science is the exception to the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. If there is no evidence for something, we do not presume that it exists. The default position is that it does not exist, until observations and evidence inform us that yes, it does exist.

Yes absolutely. If, however, people throughout history and across all cultures have experienced particular phenomena, and also scientific research on the whole is suggestive of a slight effect, then our default position should be to suppose it exists, unless we have excellent reasons to suppose otherwise. Do you have any such excellent reasons?
See above.

Interesting Ian

2nd November 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
[No that is not correct. Materialistically it is the default position. Or even it is the default position of naturalism. But not of science.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In science, one does not start from the position that a given phenomena is factually real. One starts from a set of observations; then an hypothesis is developed to explain those observations; experiments are devised to test the hypothesis; the hypothesis is revised; a theory is developed; observations continue; theory is revised when new evidence is observed; and so on. It is a continuous process. Science is the exception to the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. If there is no evidence for something, we do not presume that it exists. The default position is that it does not exist, until observations and evidence inform us that yes, it does exist.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes absolutely. If, however, people throughout history and across all cultures have experienced particular phenomena, and also scientific research on the whole is suggestive of a slight effect, then our default position should be to suppose it exists, unless we have excellent reasons to suppose otherwise. Do you have any such excellent reasons?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See above

Yes I have no disagreement with this whatsoever. It has no relevance to the point I made however.

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yes this is an educational forum so back to square 1 and reading comprehension.

The following is pasted and copied from your post above. I have taken the liberty of adding bold face where apprpriate. What is it that I am missing here? Do they not state that psi can be psychological? Do they not state psi can be something that is a belief. My Lord Pyrrho, are we reading this the same way. I fear I have to side with the scientists at the PA rather than you in this matter, espeically since I know who they are and don't know who you are.
--------------------------------------------------

Psi experiences have been reported throughout history, in all cultures. Even today, as multiple surveys show, a wide segment of the world’s population reports having had at least one experience that they believe to have been psychic.

These experiences, and the phenomena associated with them, are the subject matter of parapsychology. PA members use well-developed scientific methods to determine to what extent psi phenomena can be explained through presently understood processes -- whether physical or psychological -- and to what extent they may point to unknown forces and laws, or necessitate a revised model of consciousness and its relationship to the world.

--------------------------------------------------
The mission statement does not state that they are studying beliefs. yrrho.
-------------------------------------------------

No, it states they are study psi or (unusual) experiences or psi expewriences which can be due to psychological causes or beliefs. er...I don't know what else to say to you.

PS: When did I caim that any of this is evidence that psi exists? That is an entirely different matter and certainly cannot rely on the mission statement of this organization. Are there any more separate directions you want to take this?
They identify experiences and survey results with psi phenomena. Ergo, they presume that psi exists, based on survey results and popular belief.

Back to this again:

The working assumptions for psi research are well established and I would not expect you to know them since you are arguing from ignorance at your end.

These assumptions are:

1. occurence of psi varies greatly among people and reflects substantial cultural, innate, belief systems and even genetic differences.

This statement presumes that psi exists and actually occurs.

2. a minority of people may have actual noticeable psi in their lives

Again, presumes that psi exists and may be noticeable.

3. a larger number tends to interpret non-psi experiences as true psi

Yeah, well, probably true. Doesn't presume that psi exists.

4. psi is guided by factors other then identifiable motivations of the people involved. This has been established repeatedly through questionnaires determing relious beliefs, belief in mystical powers and other fanatasy proneness: BigFoot, UFOs, alien abductions, and all the other stuff that occupies the hearts and minds of the skeptics and cynics.

Statement presumes that psi exists.

I understand that the above causes many scientists to dismiss parapsychological claims, even those which simply manifest as beliefs, as unrelaistic.
If you want to define psi as a belief, fine. But that's not how it is commonly defined, and is certainly not defined that way by organizations who investigate possible psi phenomena. A belief in psi may be purely psychological, but the organization we've been discussing does not state that it is studying the psychological basis of belief in psi.

2nd November 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

IF throughout history and across many cultures, many people have believed in witches. Giles and Martha Corey were, respectively, stoned and hung to death in Salem Village in 1692, along with others. And IF lousey scientific research on the whole is suggestive of a slight "witch effect", then our default position is to suppose witches exist.

"She's a Witch!"
"How do you know?"
"She turned me into a newt.
"Erm, I got better..."

Giles Corey was pressed to death peine fort et dure I think was the term for it. He refused to plead and if he refused his property could not be forfitted so door on the chest, rocks, inevitable conclusion.

I suppose that is what you will say when you said "stoned". Sheesh.

Obviously a relative. I shoulda caught it earlier.

Lucianarchy

2nd November 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Remember also that psi is defined by the experiencer as something which they either feel or which they describe as happening to them. It frequently takes the form of a premonitory remark which later, often within hours or a few days, becomes true. Last Thursday night, October 23rd, I mentioned that a friend of a deceased member of my family was warned not to move to California. I did not know about the fires last Thursday night. On Sunday this man lost his house and I am told by a friend of a friend of his he and his family is on their way back East to live with his parents.

Was this psi on my part? You can find the remark in a post I made on October 23rd at 8:41 PM (last edit). Or was it coincidence, an unfortunate and tragic one at that? I don't know but these kinds of so-called coincidences happen all the time. How many of them are too many to be a coincidence?

Was my 'ladybrook' post (see my sig) a "lucky" coincidence too?

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Thanks Ed. Now go back and read what you quoted again. Did you miss the word "psychological?" Do you think psychological causations are true physical manifestations of psi? Your problem and that of every cynic here is that this is the only explanation they wish to entertain for psi so it is not the PA that's being closed minded, its you. They are happy to entertain "psychological" as a causal factor,
as ONE option, to explain psi. You prefer to think of it as the only option which, therefore, no longer makes it an option. It makes it a deterministic statement.

Remember also that psi is defined by the experiencer as something which they either feel or which they describe as happening to them. It frequently takes the form of a premonitory remark which later, often within hours or a few days, becomes true. Last Thursday night, October 23rd, I mentioned that a friend of a deceased member of my family was warned not to move to California. I did not know about the fires last Thursday night. On Sunday this man lost his house and I am told by a friend of a friend of his he and his family is on their way back East to live with his parents.

Was this psi on my part? You can find the remark in a post I made on October 23rd at 8:41 PM (last edit). Or was it coincidence, an unfortunate and tragic one at that? I don't know but these kinds of so-called coincidences happen all the time. How many of them are too many to be a coincidence? When you can answer that question, come back and let me know. We'll have something to talk about.
Anecdote, and I don't bother trying to explain anecdotes, but it's completely within the possibilities of coincidence.

Explained here:

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/do_you_know/coincidence.shtml

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Was my 'ladybrook' post (see my sig) a "lucky" coincidence too?
Probably. Who the hell knows. Do some more.

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by showme2
Will someone - anyone - explain something for me?

Why is there all of this apparent animosity towards Steve Grenard on this forum?

I know nothing about him, but his posts seem to be entirely constructive.

Yet every time he says ANYTHING, it seems that a number of people descend upon him with the sole intention of rubbishing whatever he says and kicking him in the teeth.

So come on , come clean - what's the agenda here ?
The agenda is critical thinking and rational thought. My discussion has been centered on the mission statement of the Parapsychological Association, not Steve Grenard personally. Sorry, but there is no anti-Grenard conspiracy here that I know of.

showme2

2nd November 2003, 03:42 PM

Sorry, but - as a disinterested outside observer - it doesn't look that way to me ........

Pyrrho

2nd November 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by showme2
Sorry, but - as a disinterested outside observer - it doesn't look that way to me ........
There is no doubt that there has been a history of acrimony between some skeptics here and Steve Grenard. It has taken place on this board and others. Still, I don't see that there is anything conspiratorial about it. But I have no way to know that, so you'll have to draw your own conclusions.

Jeff Corey

2nd November 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho

There is no doubt that there has been a history of acrimony between some skeptics here and Steve Grenard. It has taken place on this board and others....
In my experience, mostly other boards. TVTalk, Survival silence, fiendsofjohnedward.com.
I trust the level of discourse does not sink to those levels here.

davidsmith73

3rd November 2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Let's look at the first one:

http://www.parapsych.org/mission_statement.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Psi experiences have been reported throughout history, in all cultures. Even today, as multiple surveys show, a wide segment of the world’s population reports having had at least one experience that they believe to have been psychic.

These experiences, and the phenomena associated with them, are the subject matter of parapsychology. PA members use well-developed scientific methods to determine to what extent psi phenomena can be explained through presently understood processes -- whether physical or psychological -- and to what extent they may point to unknown forces and laws, or necessitate a revised model of consciousness and its relationship to the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first paragraph sets the stage for the second - which is the classic appeal to popularity fallacy. People can report anything they like; it does not equate to true psychic phenomena. It is incorrect and unscientific to presume that any of those experiences has a "psi" origin. Therefore, we see that the very foundation for this organization's studies is based in a logical fallacy.

I see no fallacy. They first state that many people have experiences that have enough similarities to be grouped under the label "psychic", "psi" or "anomalous cognition" etc, for the sake of a convenient label. They then simply go on to say that the foundations mission is to find out the extent to which these experiences can be explained by known principles or not. They are presuming nothing in their mission statement Pyrrho.

thaiboxerken

3rd November 2003, 09:54 AM

They are presuming nothing in their mission statement Pyrrho.

Except for the whole redesign of the consciousness model and it's relationship to the world part. Their mission statement is presuming that there is "psi" and that they will change the face of science because of it. They presume that there is psi because of the number of experiences.

Their mission statement implies that something is there simply because many people have said so.

davidsmith73

5th November 2003, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
They are presuming nothing in their mission statement Pyrrho.

Except for the whole redesign of the consciousness model and it's relationship to the world part. Their mission statement is presuming that there is "psi" and that they will change the face of science because of it. They presume that there is psi because of the number of experiences.

Their mission statement implies that something is there simply because many people have said so.

Something is there! Regardless of your opinion of any psi hypothesis, people have these experiences. There is nothing presumed there, its a fact. Their mission is simply to find out which explanation is correct for these experiences.

thaiboxerken

5th November 2003, 07:39 AM

Something is there!

Yes, but it's not "psi".

Regardless of your opinion of any psi hypothesis, people have these experiences.

I don't just have an opinion about "psi", I have the fact that there is no scientific evidence that supports "psi hypothesis" on my side.

There is nothing presumed there, its a fact.

They are presuming that there is something to the "psi" claims outside of fiction.

Their mission is simply to find out which explanation is correct for these experiences.

No, their mission is to prove that "psi" exists.

Pyrrho

5th November 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Something is there! Regardless of your opinion of any psi hypothesis, people have these experiences. There is nothing presumed there, its a fact. Their mission is simply to find out which explanation is correct for these experiences.
Correctly speaking, some people have had experiences which they have believed to be psychic in nature. When someone cites "reports in all cultures throughout history", it says nothing about the veracity or quality of the reports. When someone cites a Gallup poll that shows a majority of people think they've had a psychic experience, it says nothing about veracity or quality; indeed, the poll reports only the answers to a set of questions and gives no details of the experience whatsoever.

The presumption is twofold: one, that all such "experiences", as measured by polls or surveys, are true and valid despite the lack of details, and two, that because the poll or survey shows that a majority of people believe these things, "there must be something there". This is classic appeal to popularity.

davidsmith73

6th November 2003, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Correctly speaking, some people have had experiences which they have believed to be psychic in nature.

Partly agree.

Some people do ascribe their own explanations to the experiences they have, often not based on much reason. For example, they might conceive of "spirits of the dead" to explain why they saw a vision of their dead grandmother. However, such so called explanations always fall apart upon questioning what exactly "spirits of the dead" are and what they mean.

Other people have these experiences and simply concede that they do not know how they can be explained.

"phychic" is a word that can mean different things to different people.

When someone cites "reports in all cultures throughout history", it says nothing about the veracity or quality of the reports. When someone cites a Gallup poll that shows a majority of people think they've had a psychic experience, it says nothing about veracity or quality; indeed, the poll reports only the answers to a set of questions and gives no details of the experience whatsoever.

I agree. However if many children were to report witnessing or being subjected to physical abuse from their parents, regardless of the veracity or quality of the reports, there would certainly be a case for finding out if the reports are true by whatever appropriate method.

In other words, in the face of what seems like a real and recurrent event reported in a subjective manner, one would try to objectively investigate whether the events really do occur and which alternative explanations are more valid. And so it is the same for psi experiences.

The presumption is twofold: one, that all such "experiences", as measured by polls or surveys, are true and valid despite the lack of details, and two, that because the poll or survey shows that a majority of people believe these things, "there must be something there". This is classic appeal to popularity.

I disagree. They do not have to presume that such experiences are true and valid. They are trying to find out if the experiences are true and valid, for the reasons I explained above. Indeed, they actually say:

"PA members use well-developed scientific methods to determine to what extent psi phenomena can be explained through presently understood processes -- whether physical or psychological"

If they say this, why do you keep insisting that they presume psi to be real ? It may seem like these experiences reported by people point to unkown forces and laws but that is the PA's mission to find out to what extent this is true, through science.