xkcd nails the paranormal

[zooterkin]

No need to spend any more time on devising complicated protocols for the paranormal or alternative medicine, the excellent xkcd (http://xkcd.com/808/) has provided the answers.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_economic_argument.png

(If you follow the link to the site, you also get the mouse-over punchline.)





ETA: For anyone wondering, the link to the image is explicitly provided provided for the purposes of hotlinking. Follow the first link, and at the bottom of the page you will see:
Image URL (for hotlinking/embedding): http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_economic_argument.png

[Uncayimmy]

Too funny. I shared that on Facebook.

BTW, there's a list of sites that allow hot linking in Forum Management (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175376), and XKCD is on there.

[lauwersw]

Exactly the argument I'm using for some time. The existence of some kind of industry around a product doesn't necessarily means the product is working well.

So there is some paranormal industry, but as long as it doesn't sell "products" that really everybody uses, like for example a light bulb or a gps, it doesn't mean a thing.

xkcd nails it again!

[Denver]

Used as an argument, I think you'll find believers will have responses for it. Such as:

- The healthcare system is evil and wants to keep you sick to make more profits.
- Same with the oil industry, etc.
- It's based on spiritual principles, so science and unbelievers can't harness it.
- Industry is too ignorant/close-minded/controlled/etc to think outside its box.
- Powerful people do use it, but use their power to keep it secret.
- Its a conspiracy. Proof = you don't know its a conspiracy.

And so on.

[readme.txt]

Used as an argument, I think you'll find believers will have responses for it. Such as:

- The healthcare system is evil and wants to keep you sick to make more profits.
- Same with the oil industry, etc.
- It's based on spiritual principles, so science and unbelievers can't harness it.
- Industry is too ignorant/close-minded/controlled/etc to think outside its box.
- Powerful people do use it, but use their power to keep it secret.
- Its a conspiracy. Proof = you don't know its a conspiracy.

And so on.

Unfortunately... you're right.

[Wowbagger]

- The healthcare system is evil and wants to keep you sick to make more profits.
- Same with the oil industry, etc.
- It's based on spiritual principles, so science and unbelievers can't harness it.
- Industry is too ignorant/close-minded/controlled/etc to think outside its box.
- Powerful people do use it, but use their power to keep it secret.
- Its a conspiracy. Proof = you don't know its a conspiracy.

This argument ignores the highly competitive nature of these industries. Surely, if these ideas were effective, more companies would adopt them as a matter of competitive advantage over each other.

[Denver]

This argument ignores the highly competitive nature of these industries. Surely, if these ideas were effective, more companies would adopt them as a matter of competitive advantage over each other.

I didn't say the arguments were valid. I said they would be used. ;)

[TjW]

I didn't say the arguments were valid. I said they would be used. ;)

That's why the mouseover punchline is funny.

[paperskater]

I :heartbeat: Randall Munroe.

[HansMustermann]

This argument ignores the highly competitive nature of these industries. Surely, if these ideas were effective, more companies would adopt them as a matter of competitive advantage over each other.

You've never heard the pharma conspiracy theory before? E.g., that _all_ those companies and _all_ those doctors withhold some miracle cure, because it's more profitable to pretend it doesn't exist than to patent it and wipe the floor with the competitors for 20 years?

In those people's world, competitive advantage either doesn't exist. That or _everyone_ is wise enough to not make a trillion now with being the only ones who can cure cancer/diabetes/whatever, when they could be making millions by sticking to their share of the selling out-of-patent insulin for a lifetime.

[Almo]

I :heartbeat: Randall Munroe.

Does he know that?

[blutoski]

Used as an argument, I think you'll find believers will have responses for it. Such as:

- The healthcare system is evil and wants to keep you sick to make more profits.
- Same with the oil industry, etc.
- It's based on spiritual principles, so science and unbelievers can't harness it.
- Industry is too ignorant/close-minded/controlled/etc to think outside its box.
- Powerful people do use it, but use their power to keep it secret.
- Its a conspiracy. Proof = you don't know its a conspiracy.

And so on.

The comic is great, but I do have one nitpick... it's a bit of a strawperson in two ways.

1) Many of these blank checkboxes should actually have checks in them.

It's a skeptic's personal nightmare that businesses really do pay consultants to do this crap and so many are convinced there's a business case.

Health insurance companies cover naturopathy, chiropractic, homeopathy; corporate HR departments employ graphologists, lie detectors, and even mediums to screen job applicants; mineral exploration and landscapers employ dowsers; stock brokers consult astrologers and fung shui experts.





2) For the most part, paranormal claimants had already moved past the efficacy argument in the 19th century and watered down their claims appropriately.

Specifically, the defenders are pretty consistent in that they're claiming these abilities 'exist' but are 'unpredictable and unreliable, and cannot be deployed on demand'

How this is different from my description as 'useless and indistinguishable from ordinary guessing' is a distinction without a difference to them.

Another defense is that these abilities are undeveloped. ie: they are an emerging field, rather than a mature field like geology or physics. They argue that we are building a circular argument: that we are rejecting calls to invest in their development on the grounds that these technologies are underdeveloped.

As it happens, the best counter to this is that there *has* been investment in their development, and it has not borne fruit. We can thank Martin Gardner for documenting the Soviet military's huge investment in resources exploring paranormal abilty weaponization. Also Jon Ronson's exposee of the US Army's attempts, which was also turned into a movie.

[Wowbagger]

I didn't say the arguments were valid. I said they would be used. ;)I know.

You've never heard the pharma conspiracy theory before? E.g., that _all_ those companies and _all_ those doctors withhold some miracle cure, because it's more profitable to pretend it doesn't exist than to patent it and wipe the floor with the competitors for 20 years?This argument ignores the tremendous difficulty in maintaining such a wide conspiracy. Money and power would not be enough to sustain such a giant thing. It would also have to systematically break everything we know about the innate social heritage of human beings.

By the time any conspiracy could achieve that, they would probably not be interested in peddling mere drugs, anymore.

[tsig]

Does he know that?

More importantly does her Significant Other know it.

[HansMustermann]

This argument ignores the tremendous difficulty in maintaining such a wide conspiracy. Money and power would not be enough to sustain such a giant thing. It would also have to systematically break everything we know about the innate social heritage of human beings.

By the time any conspiracy could achieve that, they would probably not be interested in peddling mere drugs, anymore.

You're preaching to the choir. But my point was: try convincing one of those conspiracy theorists of that. Don't underestimate how far people can bend reality, if the cognitive dissonance _must_ be resolved as they're right.

And based on that, well, you can probably see how it would apply to the things in the XKCD table just as well.

E.g., for relativity you don't even need to guess. There are people arguing basically that it's a scam and GPS actually works without it. In fact, there is no shortage of them.

[AdMan]

Very funny, zooterkin! Thanks for sharing.



(If you follow the link to the site, you also get the mouse-over punchline.)



That punchline was the point I was about to make.

[laca]

You've never heard the pharma conspiracy theory before? E.g., that _all_ those companies and _all_ those doctors withhold some miracle cure, because it's more profitable to pretend it doesn't exist than to patent it and wipe the floor with the competitors for 20 years?


Not surprisingly, they even have an answer to that: it's not patentable because it's natural. That's why they don't want to embrace it, it's non-patentable. Go figure... :rolleyes:

[paperskater]

Does he know that?


Boy oh boy, I wish he did.


More importantly does her Significant Other know it.


Yes. :D

[Safe-Keeper]

Used as an argument, I think you'll find believers will have responses for it. Such as:

- The healthcare system is evil and wants to keep you sick to make more profits.
- Same with the oil industry, etc.
- It's based on spiritual principles, so science and unbelievers can't harness it.
- Industry is too ignorant/close-minded/controlled/etc to think outside its box.
- Powerful people do use it, but use their power to keep it secret.
- Its a conspiracy. Proof = you don't know its a conspiracy.

And so on.I don't know if it's a good example, but I like to bring up x-ray technology as a counter-argument. How come you can have an x-ray shot of your leg taken at a doctor's office, while you need to go to a psychic's fair to get an aura reading, considering how x-ray imagery technology was, to my knowledge, laughed at just as much as aura readings in its infancy?

[HansMustermann]

Not surprisingly, they even have an answer to that: it's not patentable because it's natural. That's why they don't want to embrace it, it's non-patentable. Go figure... :rolleyes:

I'm not even sure about the "natural" part. Well, not for all the CT-ers, anyway.

I've actually seen posts to the effect that, for example, some secret lab in Russia invented some medicine in the 60's which kills all bacteria, all viruses and cancerous cells too! But some evil western pharma conspiracy keeps it from being produced and marketed.

Supposedly also in the USSR and China and rest of the Eastern block at the time, because if you ask someone from there what they got when they got ill, it turns out they got penicillin or such. The pharma conspiracy is so evil that it even makes countries which had free medical care and no profits to protect that way still prefer to treat than to cure, you know?

[blutoski]

Supposedly also in the USSR and China and rest of the Eastern block at the time, because if you ask someone from there what they got when they got ill, it turns out they got penicillin or such. The pharma conspiracy is so evil that it even makes countries which had free medical care and no profits to protect that way still prefer to treat than to cure, you know?

Having said that, China and the ex-Comintern are hotbeds of herbalism and paranormal cures largely because pharmaceutical solutions are capital-intensive and their governments invented and promoted labour-intensive alternatives, whether they worked or not.

I have a reference copy of an English translation of the [Barefoot Doctor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot_doctor)]'s Guide from China circa 1986, and they emphasize that 'western medicine' is still far, far, behind Chinese traditional medicine.

Essentially, the response to national poverty was to distribute propaganda that the cheap stuff worked better anyway. Add to that a little jingoism, and bob's your uncle.

[Monza]

You've never heard the pharma conspiracy theory before? E.g., that _all_ those companies and _all_ those doctors withhold some miracle cure, because it's more profitable to pretend it doesn't exist than to patent it and wipe the floor with the competitors for 20 years?

In those people's world, competitive advantage either doesn't exist. That or _everyone_ is wise enough to not make a trillion now with being the only ones who can cure cancer/diabetes/whatever, when they could be making millions by sticking to their share of the selling out-of-patent insulin for a lifetime.


I find it even more incredible that out of all those doctors and all those heads of companies, not one of them has had a family member get cancer/diabetes/whatever. Or if they did, that the loved one was allowed to die to protect the money-making scheme.

[Wowbagger]

You're preaching to the choir. I know. I can't help it. I'm sorry.


E.g., for relativity you don't even need to guess. There are people arguing basically that it's a scam and GPS actually works without it. In fact, there is no shortage of them.That sort of argument only works best, for those who know the least about the devices. The moment you are in a position where you either have to compete in the field of global tracking technologies, or in the field of innovating existing GPS systems, then it would quickly go out the window. The folks who know the most about GPS are the ones who are considering the impact Relativity has on them, the most.

[HansMustermann]

Having said that, China and the ex-Comintern are hotbeds of herbalism and paranormal cures largely because pharmaceutical solutions are capital-intensive and their governments invented and promoted labour-intensive alternatives, whether they worked or not.

I have a reference copy of an English translation of the [Barefoot Doctor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot_doctor)]'s Guide from China circa 1986, and they emphasize that 'western medicine' is still far, far, behind Chinese traditional medicine.

Essentially, the response to national poverty was to distribute propaganda that the cheap stuff worked better anyway. Add to that a little jingoism, and bob's your uncle.

Some where, some weren't. Depends on the country and time, I guess. The USSR wasn't quite so bad in some aspects (and far worse in others) AFAIK. They did take medical research in some different directions, e.g., phages, but I don't think they actually promoted paranormal at a state level. There was a bunch of woowo researched too, though.

Personally my wild guess -- though hopefully still Occam compliant -- is a bit different: that he or his source did read about something real, but was too stupid to understand what they've read. You probably know better than me that killing germs outside the body is actually a simpler affair. E.g., a strong oxidant can get rid of 99% of them. But ome people just don't understand the difference between killing germs on a petri dish and killing them in the body, basically. And I've seen the same mistake done about that when it came to western stuff too. Heck, just think all the people who think that because alcohol kills germs on the skin, getting plastered is a cure for pneumonia too. So I'm guessing that what happened is he heard of some disinfectant used on floors or FSM knows what else in Russia, and misunderstood it as some wonder medicine.

[HansMustermann]

That sort of argument only works best, for those who know the least about the devices. The moment you are in a position where you either have to compete in the field of global tracking technologies, or in the field of innovating existing GPS systems, then it would quickly go out the window. The folks who know the most about GPS are the ones who are considering the impact Relativity has on them, the most.

No argument there, actually. That the people who believe the most woowoo and CTs on domain X, whatever X may be, are those who understand domain X the least... is pretty obvious, I think. Just looking at the stuff they come up with or present as proof, is usually ample evidence of that.

[HansMustermann]

I find it even more incredible that out of all those doctors and all those heads of companies, not one of them has had a family member get cancer/diabetes/whatever. Or if they did, that the loved one was allowed to die to protect the money-making scheme.

That's the argument I've been using on them too, but I can tell you first hand that even that won't deter a determined CT-er. Best case scenario they retreat into some nebulous "that's what they want you to believe" dodge, worst case they actually believe that someone would rather die horribly than reveal the secret.

[Cuddles]

x-ray imagery technology was, to my knowledge, laughed at just as much as aura readings in its infancy?

Well, not really. X-rays were discovered by real scientists, investigated sensibly, published about in peer reviewed journals, and almost immediately used in various applications because the results and utility were so incredibly obvious. They even won the first ever Nobel prize in physics just 6 years after the first publication about them. To give an idea of how little they were laughed at - Rontgen first observed them on November 8th 1895 (others, such as Tesla, had actually observed the phenomenon first, but did not publish papers until later, if at all), published the first paper on them in December the same year, and they were being used for medical imaging by February the next year.

More on topic, I agree with Blutoski. While we like to think that the xkcd cartoon represents reality, it really doesn't. In the UK, the NHS provides homeopathic care. The military (both US and UK I think) have used dowsing to search for landmines. Businesses all over the world use astrology, feng shui, and various other nonsense for serious business decisions. And the list goes on. The only one I can't think of an example for is oil prospecting (technically also crystal energy, but I think that's more an issue of semantics since they're simply using the word "energy" to mean something completely different. Imaginary, yes, but different).

The whole reason people hold these beliefs in the first place is because they don't think about them rationally. Given that, we should hardly expect them to act in a rational way regarding them, even when those actions could have consequences for their business.

[Tanstaafl]

That's the argument I've been using on them too, but I can tell you first hand that even that won't deter a determined CT-er. Best case scenario they retreat into some nebulous "that's what they want you to believe" dodge, worst case they actually believe that someone would rather die horribly than reveal the secret.


I always assumed they secretly gave their family member the cure that must not be mentioned and tried to pass it off as just a random spontaneous remission.

[HansMustermann]

I always assumed they secretly gave their family member the cure that must not be mentioned and tried to pass it off as just a random spontaneous remission.

While I'll agree that this would be a logical dodge, it's also strangely one I've yet to hear the pharma CT-ers use.

[zooterkin]

More on topic, I agree with Blutoski. While we like to think that the xkcd cartoon represents reality, it really doesn't. In the UK, the NHS provides homeopathic care. The military (both US and UK I think) have used dowsing to search for landmines. Businesses all over the world use astrology, feng shui, and various other nonsense for serious business decisions. And the list goes on. The only one I can't think of an example for is oil prospecting (technically also crystal energy, but I think that's more an issue of semantics since they're simply using the word "energy" to mean something completely different. Imaginary, yes, but different).

I disagree with the highlighted part; businesses may be using those techniques, but they are not making a killing by doing so; the only people doing that are those peddling the woo (see the mouseover text).

[laca]

I always assumed they secretly gave their family member the cure that must not be mentioned and tried to pass it off as just a random spontaneous remission.

Yeah, but what if their family member actually dies? Then either the wonder cure is not working or they did not give it to them. Quite a conundrum...

[Tanstaafl]

Since they gave them the wonder cure secretly... still not a problem.

[laca]

Since they gave them the wonder cure secretly... still not a problem.

No, it's still a problem. The statistics would be off. If they aren't, the argument falls flat. Since the conspiracists are the ones with the claim, the burden of proof falls on them. Unless they can show significant difference in mortality by [fill in disease for which supposedly a miracle cure is being suppressed] in the "big pharma" community, the argument is invalid. See, problem! :D

[HansMustermann]

I wouldn't be surprised if that's why they don't use that argument. Plus, I guess it makes the secret pharma conspiracy even more evil if they can sit and watch their own baby die rather than divulge the secret.

[blutoski]

I disagree with the highlighted part; businesses may be using those techniques, but they are not making a killing by doing so; the only people doing that are those peddling the woo (see the mouseover text).

But that's incorrect, and that's the point. The checkboxes in the cartoon are not qualified in that way.

Businesses are perfectly capable of making bad decisions, which is why the economic argument is invalid. Businesses fail all the time because they keep making the same mistakes over and over. My personal hell as a business management consultant was to watch good advice like: "The customers pay for all your costs," ignored and good hardworking people sink into debt and close their doors.

The good news is that the longer a business has been in operations, and the larger it is, the more professional and scientific its operations will be.

Just as a specific datapoint, Barry Beyerstein was involved in getting graphology prohibited as a HR management tool in Canada back in the 1980s. Prior to that, firing somebody on the basis of handwriting analysis was practically SOP for even major companies. My feeling is that the only reason it's as uncommon as it is today is because it's explicitly illegal, and small companies that are not aware of the law are the only ones still doing this.

And even today, failing a polygraph is a perfectly legitimate reason for employee termination for many fortune 500s and the US Government, even though the evidence is that it does not work at all.

My employer is one of the largest in Canada, and right now, they have at least two fulltime naturopaths on staff for 'wellness instruction' in BC and Alberta. Possibly another on retention in Toronto - not 100% sure about that. The flu season is here, so the company has also hired homeopaths to give 'vaccines'. Our EVP for facility operations banned Aspartame from the cafeterias company-wide last year. He probably makes a million annual salary for his 'proven ability to make good business decisions'.

I have personally come across several dowsers who have astronomical contracts with exploration plays in the AB oilpatch. It's all speculation, and any 'edge' over the competition is considered a good investment.

[Minadin]

When I saw the comic (it's part of my morning routine) I immediately thought of the JREF.

[CORed]

Specifically, the defenders are pretty consistent in that they're claiming these abilities 'exist' but are 'unpredictable and unreliable, and cannot be deployed on demand'


In other words, these abilities exist, but their existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence.

[blutoski]

In other words, these abilities exist, but their existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence.

Well, they do try very hard to produce a distinction from nonexistence through experimentation. Sheldrake has made himself quite a nice career doing this.

To be frank: that part goes in their favour. (I concede that decreeing positive results for psi experiments such as remote viewing "must be the result of falsified data" is not collegial scientific conduct, and I think ultimately Ray Hyman has come to terms with this and we're stuck with the data as-is)

What they can't show is that it responds to intention, which means it's useless at this point.

[zooterkin]

But that's incorrect, and that's the point. The checkboxes in the cartoon are not qualified in that way.

I suggest you read the column headings again.

[PellyDforscience]

Ah, one of the many reasons I LOVE that comic.

[Shrike]

I suggest you read the column headings again.
English is not my first language (nowadays not even my second...), but I read it as the companies providing the dowsing etc. would be making a killing if it worked, not necessarily the companies using it.
The text from the mouseover (xkcd's jokes should not be read out of the context of the mouseovers): Not to be confused with 'making money selling this stuff to OTHER people who think it works', which corporate accountants and actuaries have zero problems with.

p.s. Not in response to Zooterkin's (quoted) posts.

[Gawdzilla]

In other words, these abilities exist, but their existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence.

They're random positives that they've decided confirm their own beliefs. (A car with the same characteristics would be on blocks in their front yard.)

[zooterkin]

English is not my first language (nowadays not even my second...), but I read it as the companies providing the dowsing etc. would be making a killing if it worked, not necessarily the companies using it.

I believe you've read it wrong, since the wording is "If it worked, companies would be using it to make a killing in...". Simply selling it to people who believe it works is covered by the mouseover.

[blutoski]

I suggest you read the column headings again.

I read it... if you ask the managers who are accountable for deploying these paranormal practices, they'll say it's because they make the company money.

Again: dowsers in the oilpatch. They're hired because the speculators who hire them are convinced it gives them a good economic benefit.

That's the tragedy of confirmation bias: remember the hits; forget the misses. Groupthink and 'good money after bad' fallacy also come into play with post-hoc rationalizations for money spent. They shop around for even a shred of evidence that it was a good investment after all.

[zooterkin]

I read it... if you ask the managers who are accountable for deploying these paranormal practices, they'll say it's because they make the company money.

Again: dowsers in the oilpatch. They're hired because the speculators who hire them are convinced it gives them a good economic benefit.


The point remains; whatever they think they are doing, the people deploying the practices are not actually making a killing by using them.

I hate over-analysing jokes, but I think Randall Munroe has chosen his words carefully, and the meaning seems quite clear to me, which is why I find it surprising that some people seem to read it the opposite way.

[Gawdzilla]

The point remains; whatever they think they are doing, the people deploying the practices are not actually making a killing by using them.

I hate over-analysing jokes, but I think Randall Munroe has chosen his words carefully, and the meaning seems quite clear to me, which is why I find it surprising that some people seem to read it the opposite way.

It's Munroe's fault for not including a reply to every possible objection there could possibly to that cartoon.

[Fnord]

In other words, these abilities exist, but their existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence.
If the effects of the existence of an ability is indistinguishable from the effects of the non-existence of the same ability, then it is safe to conclude that the ability itself does not exist.

[blutoski]

The point remains; whatever they think they are doing, the people deploying the practices are not actually making a killing by using them.

I hate over-analysing jokes, but I think Randall Munroe has chosen his words carefully, and the meaning seems quite clear to me, which is why I find it surprising that some people seem to read it the opposite way.

I'm not sure that I'm so concerned about the wording than I am about the strawperson argument. I'm not sure it would be true that every emerging technology would be profitable today.

100 years ago, somebody would say that physicists were wrong about chain reactions because no business made money from nuclear power generation. A reasonable counterargument would have been that more investment is required in monetizing the science.

My impression is that paranormalists have been sitting on that lame story for about 30 years, but the point remains that they're not claiming psi is available on demand for commerce today.

[blutoski]

It's Munroe's fault for not including a reply to every possible objection there could possibly to that cartoon.

(shrug) - if it was a creationist cartoon with a strawperson argument, we'd probably be laughing at it.

My personal approach is that the claims of fellow skeptics are not exempt from critical examination.

[Gawdzilla]

(shrug) - if it was a creationist cartoon with a strawperson argument, we'd probably be laughing at it.

My personal approach is that the claims of fellow skeptics are not exempt from critical examination.

"Cartoon". Repeat as necessary.

[zooterkin]

My impression is that paranormalists have been sitting on that lame story for about 30 years, but the point remains that they're not claiming psi is available on demand for commerce today.

Where does 30 years come from? Most of the items on the list have been around for a lot longer than that, and at least some are claimed to have real and reliable effects, dowsing and homoeopathy, to name but two.

[Pixel42]

Didn't think this was worth its own thread but here's another diagram most here will, I think, enjoy:

http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/10/handy-alternative-therapy-flowchart.html

It's "a handy little flowchart to help you find the ideal alternative therapy to meet your needs".

[blutoski]

"Cartoon". Repeat as necessary.

?

I don't understand.

[blutoski]

Where does 30 years come from? Most of the items on the list have been around for a lot longer than that, and at least some are claimed to have real and reliable effects, dowsing and homoeopathy, to name but two.

I probably didn't phrase that well.

I was referring to the 'lame story' that there's a conspiracy to suppress research funding despite scientifically validated proof of concept.

They're trying to explain why a good idea isn't getting developed by private or public funding. My impression from reading the literature going back at least 200 years now is that this is a relatively new argument.

[Gawdzilla]

?

I don't understand.

There in lies the problem.

[blutoski]

There in lies the problem.

I'm sincerely sharing my thoughts in good faith.

I'd be grateful that if you have a point to make, you'd just make it.

[blutoski]

I apologise if this comes across as an idee fixe, but it's important to point out that an argument from current business practices is a pretty classic logical fallacy.

There's an illustrative joke that goes like this:

Skeptic: "Hey, that's a $50 laying there on the ground."
Economist: "No it isn't - somebody would have picked it up by now."

[HansMustermann]

Actually, I think it's a pretty classic reductio ad absurdum, rather than anything needing a new name. If X were true, then Y would happen, and Y is clearly false.

I've seen your objections, and frankly, I think they miss the mark.

E.g., "100 years ago, somebody would say that physicists were wrong about chain reactions because no business made money from nuclear power generation. A reasonable counterargument would have been that more investment is required in monetizing the science." fails to be even analogous at all, because as you note there simply wasn't any money to be mad in it. That "X => Y" just fails to be there, so, yes, big surprise that the ad absurdum doesn't work there ;)

By comparison all those paranormal scams are presented as working and producing useful results right here and now. E.g., dowsers don't ask you to put money into more research to maybe one day actually make it actually detect anything, they promise a detection that works here and now. E.g., aura readers don't ask for funding to eventually develop it into a diagnostic method that actually works at all, they promise you an accurate diagnostic here and now. Etc.

If in 1910 someone were to claim that a nuclear reactor exists that produces hundreds of megawatts for almost no cost, and furthermore that it has existed for decades, then yes you'd be perfectly entitled to ask where are the companies getting rich with that.

Do you understand that crucial distinction? When someone promises something that works here and now, you are perfectly entitled to build an ad absurdum boiling down to "what would happen if it worked here and now, and is that conclusion true?"

[blutoski]

Actually, I think it's a pretty classic reductio ad absurdum, rather than anything needing a new name. If X were true, then Y would happen, and Y is clearly false.

I've seen your objections, and frankly, I think they miss the mark.

E.g., "100 years ago, somebody would say that physicists were wrong about chain reactions because no business made money from nuclear power generation. A reasonable counterargument would have been that more investment is required in monetizing the science." fails to be even analogous at all, because as you note there simply wasn't any money to be mad in it. That "X => Y" just fails to be there, so, yes, big surprise that the ad absurdum doesn't work there ;)

Agreed. It's probably true that nuclear power has never made money. ie: nobody's made a killing generating nuclear power. But nobody claims economic failure is evidence that nuclear power is junk science.




By comparison all those paranormal scams are presented as working and producing useful results right here and now. E.g., dowsers don't ask you to put money into more research to maybe one day actually make it actually detect anything, they promise a detection that works here and now. E.g., aura readers don't ask for funding to eventually develop it into a diagnostic method that actually works at all, they promise you an accurate diagnostic here and now. Etc.

Some do, which is who I'm specifically talking about.
Much of the funding in the 1970s was provided as public/private grants. Targ&Puthoff got something like the equivalent of half a million 2010 $USD to operate their labs.

T&P would be the first to say that these mediums and dowsers are probably frauds.



If in 1910 someone were to claim that a nuclear reactor exists that produces hundreds of megawatts for almost no cost, and furthermore that it has existed for decades, then yes you'd be perfectly entitled to ask where are the companies getting rich with that.

Do you understand that crucial distinction? When someone promises something that works here and now, you are perfectly entitled to build an ad absurdum boiling down to "what would happen if it worked here and now, and is that conclusion true?"

No, I don't understand your distinction. Fraud always coexists with legitemate science. There are people selling quack medical remedies, alongside people genuinely involved in developing new medical technologies. Stem cells would be a good analogy:


there are quacks selling stem cell cures, even though they haven't been proven to work yet (boo, hiss)
there are legitemate scientists developing these technologies with research budgets (socially acceptable - oh, except in the US apparently)
there is no business currently making a killing selling these technologies (they're emerging and have potential)


Compare to the psi adovocacy claims:


there are quacks selling psi/dowsing/&c, even though they haven't been proven to work yet (boo, hiss)
there are very few scientists developing these technologies because nobody takes them seriously (social prejudice)
there is no business currently making a killing selling these technologies (they're emerging and have potential)

[HansMustermann]

But the people doing genuine research don't go promise that a $5 pill will cure your illness and replace that lifetime treatment for, say, diabetes, before actually testing it.

What you're trying to present there as equivalent, and more than once is (A) some guy selling a miracle solution as working _now_, and (B) someone doing research. I don't see how that's equivalent at all.

The distinction is that what they actually claim, not some vague analogies and unrelated other things, would add up to someone making a killing if it actually worked. Yes, some other things may not add up, but the actual claims used in some of these scams do. And really where are the companies that do?

To use your silly joke, if I see a $100 note on the sidewalk _now_, ok, I can believe it just fell. But if someone were to tell me that a $100 note has been under a bench in the park for 30 years, then exactly that economist's objection would apply. Someone _would_ have taken it.

E.g., if graphology or numerology actually worked, and I mean as a predictor of job performance and not just as a way to drop a random 90% of the resumes for peons without being sued for discrimination, then someone out there wouldn't just use it to drop resumes. Someone would go through a handwriting analysis of everyone who just graduated some community colleges (and is probably very cheap to hire), make the right ones a good offer and be the next Google.

Or heck, we would see it used not just for peons, but someone would also use it to hire their next CFO or VP of Marketing. Just go through a few fresh and cheap MBA graduates, find the one destined to greatness, and let him make you a billion dollars. Where are the actual examples of that?

Or if almost everyone is doing it, where is the correlation between failures and not doing it? Then you'd see some companies who use graphology and at least get by, and everyone who thought it was baloney get pushed out of the market. Where is that correlation?

[blutoski]

But the people doing genuine research don't go promise that a $5 pill will cure your illness and replace that lifetime treatment for, say, diabetes, before actually testing it.

What you're trying to present there as equivalent, and more than once is (A) some guy selling a miracle solution as working _now_, and (B) someone doing research. I don't see how that's equivalent at all.

I'm not saying they're equivalent.

You've misunderstood my analogy.

My point is that argument from business practice is a fallacy.

[Almo]

I'm not saying they're equivalent.

You've misunderstood my analogy.

My point is that argument from business practice is a fallacy.

And he pointed out, rather clearly I thought, how it can be a valid argument.

[elgarak]

I guess it's worthwhile to point out the actual wording on the comic. That has been said, but some have not paid attention to that.

Let's pick one example: Homeopathy.

The wording of the comic reads: "If it [homeopathy] worked, companies would make a killing in health care cost reduction. Are they? [No]."

The whole point here is not that people and companies do not sell homeopathy and make money with it (they do), but that they do not reduce health care cost in doing so. If homeopathy actually worked, the health care 'industry' would not have to pay for the R&D of drugs, which would drive the cost down, but the opposite happens. Health care insurers pay for homeopathy, which actually drives health care costs UP.

[blutoski]

And he pointed out, rather clearly I thought, how it can be a valid argument.

Where?

[blutoski]

I guess it's worthwhile to point out the actual wording on the comic. That has been said, but some have not paid attention to that.

Let's pick one example: Homeopathy.

The wording of the comic reads: "If it [homeopathy] worked, companies would make a killing in health care cost reduction. Are they? [No]."

The whole point here is not that people and companies do not sell homeopathy and make money with it (they do), but that they do not reduce health care cost in doing so. If homeopathy actually worked, the health care 'industry' would not have to pay for the R&D of drugs, which would drive the cost down, but the opposite happens. Health care insurers pay for homeopathy, which actually drives health care costs UP.

I know what he said. I think the argument has a questionable hidden premise, that's all:

P: If [paranormal] worked, companies would make a killing using it.

It is possible that [paranormal] could work, but companies would not be making a killing using it.

Lots of amazing tech works, but the business world is competitive, and the application of tech may just keep a company's head above water, rather than generate windfall profits.

[Dr. Keith]

I know what he said. I think the argument has a questionable hidden premise, that's all:

P: If [paranormal] worked, companies would make a killing using it.

It is possible that [paranormal] could work, but companies would not be making a killing using it.

Lots of amazing tech works, but the business world is competitive, and the application of tech may just keep a company's head above water, rather than generate windfall profits.

Then I think you have a different definition of "works" than most paranormal purveyors.

[Almo]

Where?

When he said

"To use your silly joke, if I see a $100 note on the sidewalk _now_, ok, I can believe it just fell. But if someone were to tell me that a $100 note has been under a bench in the park for 30 years, then exactly that economist's objection would apply. Someone _would_ have taken it."

[blutoski]

Then I think you have a different definition of "works" than most paranormal purveyors.

It's hard to generalize, is what I said. Asserting that paranormalists are aligned in their claims could very well be a strawperson.

When I deal directly with people in businesses who are using paranormal services - and this is mostly oil exploration plays in Alberta, but also includes investors who consult astrologers - they are quite convinced that this gives them a competitive edge.

This doesn't suddenly prove that psi works.
I would advise using a different proxy to evaluate claims than profitability.

[blutoski]

When he said

"To use your silly joke, if I see a $100 note on the sidewalk _now_, ok, I can believe it just fell. But if someone were to tell me that a $100 note has been under a bench in the park for 30 years, then exactly that economist's objection would apply. Someone _would_ have taken it."

Maybe. Who knows. I'm not big on beating an illustration to death. It seems like intentionally avoiding the point.

I wasn't sure why this is referred to as a 'silly joke' - it's simply used to illustrate a fallacy in its simplist form. I have others for different fallacies. I find humour is a good vehicle for explaining reasoning errors.

It's usually used to refute the efficient market assumption. First year economics, basically. Missed opportunities are not convincing evidence that the opportunity did not exist.

[dlorde]

More on topic, I agree with Blutoski. While we like to think that the xkcd cartoon represents reality, it really doesn't. In the UK, the NHS provides homeopathic care. The military (both US and UK I think) have used dowsing to search for landmines. ...

Who can forget the Dowsing Rod Bomb Detector (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/04/2340204/Iraq-Swears-by-Dowsing-Rod-Bomb-Detector?from=rss) and all the lives it cost (and still costs) ?

It's one way of 'making a killing'...

[dlorde]

?

I don't understand.

Cartoon == joke

It's just playing with preconceptions and prejudices to make you laugh, and to trigger discussion. Which it has achieved.

[zooterkin]

It's hard to generalize, is what I said. Asserting that paranormalists are aligned in their claims could very well be a strawperson.

When I deal directly with people in businesses who are using paranormal services - and this is mostly oil exploration plays in Alberta, but also includes investors who consult astrologers - they are quite convinced that this gives them a competitive edge.

This doesn't suddenly prove that psi works.
Nor does it contradict the cartoon. They may think that the paranormal services give them an edge, but they don't. They are not making a killing by using those services. If the paranormal services worked as advertised then the advantage should be quite clear.

I would advise using a different proxy to evaluate claims than profitability.
Well, yes, it's possible to be profitable despite wasting money on paranormal services, but one will be less rather than more profitable as a result, in general.

[blutoski]

Cartoon == joke

It's just playing with preconceptions and prejudices to make you laugh, and to trigger discussion. Which it has achieved.

Whoah, whoah: are you suggesting we stop critiqing Chick Tracts now?

Or those medium shows that are intended for entertainment?

[blutoski]

Nor does it contradict the cartoon. They may think that the paranormal services give them an edge, but they don't. They are not making a killing by using those services. If the paranormal services worked as advertised then the advantage should be quite clear.

Hey! It sounds like you're making a claim? Do you have their company books to show this?

You might word it better by saying you suspect they're wrong about their accounting. So am I, of course. But the point is that there are plenty of businesses that say they're doing it. This is the bane of skepticism: nobody learns.

Other examples (not business) would be:


if [paranormal] worked, people would say they're getting rich off it (like celebrities... oh, wait, they do)
if [paranormal] worked, people in important positions would say they're using it to assist with important decisions (like presidents - oh, wait, they do)





Well, yes, it's possible to be profitable despite wasting money on paranormal services, but one will be less rather than more profitable as a result, in general.

No, this is the fallacy I'm trying to highlight. In an competitive market, profits do not indicate whether a deployed technology works. For example: if two competitors are using psi succesfully, they could engage in a price war and suffer continuous losses. Or: the price of psi could be so high that it cuts into or negates the windfall profits they produce.

ie: it's a false premise, and thus a poor argument. That's all.

[HansMustermann]

Except for the little fact that, you know, it wasn't an argument from business practices, it was an argument from whether it works as advertised or not.

Frankly, you're asking me to believe what? That something could be working, but we only don't see the results because business practices don't include doing that? Or what? Because that idea seems to me like essentially a CT.

You keep returning to some vague "you can't judge by business practices", but short of a CT, those business practices are not something everyone does the same way. There is no one thing that every MBA does, except maybe breathe and eat. For each of those domains, you have people who do and people who don't. You have people who hire their peons by tarot, and people who don't. You have people who pay dowsers to find oil, and people who stick to sonar and drilling. You have people who pay Feng Shui consultants to optimize chi flow in the cubicle farm (or even, I'm not kidding, in their HTML layout), and people who don't. Etc.

Where is that difference between those who do and those who don't? Simple question, no?

[blutoski]

Except for the little fact that, you know, it wasn't an argument from business practices, it was an argument from whether it works as advertised or not.

Whose advertisements? (That's the strawperson I'm trying to tease out)



Frankly, you're asking me to believe what? That something could be working, but we only don't see the results because business practices don't include doing that? Or what? Because that idea seems to me like essentially a CT.

I don't understand this question. I'm not asking you to believe anything.

I'm using critical thinking to examine the argument in the cartoon in the original post.
I believe one of the premises is incorrect, for reasons I have listed in previous posts.




You keep returning to some vague "you can't judge by business practices", but short of a CT, those business practices are not something everyone does the same way. There is no one thing that every MBA does, except maybe breathe and eat. For each of those domains, you have people who do and people who don't. You have people who hire their peons by tarot, and people who don't. You have people who pay dowsers to find oil, and people who stick to sonar and drilling. You have people who pay Feng Shui consultants to optimize chi flow in the cubicle farm (or even, I'm not kidding, in their HTML layout), and people who don't. Etc.

Business practices vary. I agree, but don't understand what you're getting at.



Where is that difference between those who do and those who don't? Simple question, no?

I'm not understanding this question.

[BenBurch]

http://xkcd.com/808/

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_economic_argument.png

Note to mods: Site permits embedding.

[Starthinker]

Note to BenBurch http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189086 :)

[Dr. Keith]

Note to BenBurch http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189086 :)

The small font is a very nice touch. Well done.

[BenBurch]

Note to BenBurch http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189086 :)

Doh!

[quadraginta]

Note the eerie similarity in OP titles.

Coincidence?

I wonder ...

[BenBurch]

Note the eerie similarity in OP titles.

Coincidence?

I wonder ...

Maybe you can commercialize it!

[rjh01]

One thing I do not understand. How is relativity important for GPS devices? If relativity did not exist then GPS devices would still work. They just need the speed of light to be less than infinite. In fact did the first software assume that relativity did not exist? But this gave errors which they fixed by adding in relativity?

[Emet]

One thing I do not understand. How is relativity important for GPS devices? If relativity did not exist then GPS devices would still work. They just need the speed of light to be less than infinite. In fact did the first software assume that relativity did not exist? But this gave errors which they fixed by adding in relativity?

AdMan answered this in another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6519744&postcount=123).

[rjh01]

AdMan answered this in another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6519744&postcount=123).

Yes, because relativity exists they need to take it into account. But relativity it did not exist then GPS would still work.

I do agree that because relativity does exist it must be taken into account.