Fighting the good fight

[chance144]

Hi everyone, long time lurker. Just thought I would share my most recent fight here in Texas. This is the article that started it all:

West University Examiner article: Finding lost objects just a dowsing rod away (http://www.westuexaminer.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=56&twindow=Default&mad=No&sdetail=13490&wpage=1&skeyword=dowsing&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=)

The usual drivel. Here is my
letter to the editor, published today: (http://www.westuexaminer.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=57&twindow=Default&mad=No&sdetail=13618&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=)
Dear Editor:

Dowsing belongs in the same category with crystal healing, pendulums, ESP, psychic readings, aura-reading, feng-shui and other types of mysticism, in that there is not a shred of evidence suggesting that they work any better than random chance would suggest (“Finding lost objects just a dosing rod away,� Feb. 9, 10, 11 Examiners). If dowsers scoff at inclusion in this group, there is a simple way to silence the skeptics.

The James Randi Educational Foundation (www.randi.org) has a million dollar prize for any individual who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event. If your altruism does not permit you to dowse for personal gain, donate the winnings to your favorite charity. A success would also be among the greatest scientific discoveries ever. Of course, many dowsers have already attempted to collect the prize, yet have failed even preliminary (less stringent) tests of their claims.

Thirty-five years ago, America launched Apollo 11, successfully navigating a metal capsule thousands of miles to the moon, landing safely and returning home with enough data to keep scientists busy for the next century. Those scientists and astronauts did not dowse for water on the surface of the moon, hang crystals on the interior of the ship to ward off evil spirits, communicate with Houston via psychic connection or ask the dead whether the mission would be a success. They leveraged knowledge gained from decades of detailed scientific observation and experiment here on Earth. That same scientific process has shown repeatedly that every single one of these pseudoscientific practices is bunk.

When a publication like the Examiner gives exposure (and thus perceived credence) to pseudoscience, you embarrass and insult those scientists, engineers, medical doctors and others who have spent entire careers pushing back the boundaries of ignorance and attempting to understand the universe around us, often with spectacular results.


We all fight the good fight, in our own little way.

[JAK]

Originally posted by chance144
Hi everyone, long time lurker. Just thought I would share my most recent fight here in Texas. This is the article that started it all:

West University Examiner article: Finding lost objects just a dowsing rod away (http://www.westuexaminer.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=56&twindow=Default&mad=No&sdetail=13490&wpage=1&skeyword=dowsing&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=)

The usual drivel. Here is my
letter to the editor, published today: (http://www.westuexaminer.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=57&twindow=Default&mad=No&sdetail=13618&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=)


We all fight the good fight, in our own little way.

We all fight the biased fight, in our own little way ;-)

[jmercer]

Very nice letter, indeed. :)

[supercorgi]

Congratulations on your first posting Chance! I thought it was a very good letter, very expressive, and well-written. I loved the paragraph about science!

http://my.voyager.net/~farrago/MyIcons/BrposeR.gif

[chance144]

We all fight the biased fight, in our own little way ;-)

If by biased, you mean fighting against passing off stories and articles about phenomena that have repeatly been proven false as news and newsworthy without any skepticism, then, yes, I am biased.

If you were being sarcastic, I missed it, sorry:)

[Ipecac]

Well done, Chance! Excellent letter.

[jambo372]

There is a fly in your ointment ...
sceptics cannot disprove the paranormal ...
they even admit it.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by jambo372
There is a fly in your ointment ...
sceptics cannot disprove the paranormal ...
they even admit it.

I really should put you on ignore, jambo, but I've never put anyone on any forum on ignore before. You just don't say much and seem bent on bringing up the same tired already refuted points time and time again.

You're a troll... congratulations...

Edit: Sorry, I didn't put this in earlier...

Nice letter, well said. Keep it up.

[chance144]

My bad,

should have said "repeatedly shown that there is no evidence supporting" or something similar.

However, if you really want to split hairs, disproving a particular individual's claim is very different than disproving a paranormal phenomenon in general.

But I agree with you in principle, bad writing on my part. And it does not change the original flavor or meaning of my statement.

(edit to add "in general")

[chance144]

There is a fly in your ointment ...
sceptics cannot disprove the paranormal ...
they even admit it.

Actually, this is really an, um, interesting statement. It is semantic game-playing, and has no effect on the validity of my argument. Technically, it is a red herring, especially considering my subsequent clarification. I expect some indication that you (jambo) did read my clarification, and respond that your comment is rescinded. You (jambo) will then be considered a forthright discussant, rather than a troll.

The burden is not on skeptics to disprove the paranormal (or in other words, not reject the null hypothesis). The burden is on the woo-woos to provide evidence that would lead to the rejection of the null. There is not a shred of evidence put forward by believers (that has withstood scientific-level scrutiny) for any paranormal phenomenon that would lead one to reject the null. Never has been.

I would love, just once, to hear a woo-woo say "believers cannot provide evidence that supports rejecting the null", although this is not how psi believers view the world.

I think the single most tiresome element to these debates is that those on the believer side are playing with a rulebook that is nearly the exact inverse of the scientific process, yet in every other facet of their lives, they willingly use products and services (think medical profession) that have been entirely created by the scientific process, all the while ignoring evidence (gathered by that exact same process) that shows that their beliefs are completely invalid.

I also love the sweeping generalization about the admissions of all skeptics. But that is neither here nor there.

(edited for clarity)

[Ashles]

Excellent letter Chance, and welcome to the forum.

Please excuse Jambo - he is a troll pretending to be a believer.

We have debated with him seriously for a while, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that he is just joking.

Please check out his posting history if you don't believe me (or if you are feeling down and fancy a chuckle).

Jambo claims to believe in every paranormal ability, researcher and claimant in the history of the world (except Uri Geller!). He has amused us all for many months.

[JAK]

Originally posted by chance144
If by biased, you mean fighting against passing off stories and articles about phenomena that have repeatly been proven false as news and newsworthy without any skepticism, then, yes, I am biased.

If you were being sarcastic, I missed it, sorry:)

Perhaps "bias" is not the best term.

"Good" is a subjective and relative term. And "truth" always brings a vigorous debate. In the end, we seem to separate into camps of "biases." Even the 2nd law of thermodynamics, one of the "hardest" of natural laws is just a probability which no one has been able to explain or refute.

Claiming ultimate truth requires omniscience (the Coherence Theory of Truth). Without it, all knowledge is just theory which is probable - perhaps even incredibly probable (as with the 2nd law), but nonetheless a probability based upon methodologies and historical references.

It just seems that we all have our biases.

[jj]

Originally posted by jambo372
There is a fly in your ointment ...
sceptics cannot disprove the paranormal ...
they even admit it.

Jambo, we all, including you, know that statement goes right along with the following statements:

Skeptics can not prove the nonexistance of green cheese on the moon.
Skeptics can not prove the nonexistance of invisible pink unicorns.
Skeptics can not prove the nonexistance of invisible sky daddies who never, ever interefere with the world.


The problem is, Jimbo, that you must, absolutely and without fail, PROVE YOUR CLAIM THAT IT EXISTS. The world is full of empty claims and promises. The human race invents more of them every day. They have no value. Your assertions have no value, no meaning, no worth UNTIL YOU PROVE THE EXISTANCE of what you assert.

Until you can make POSITIVE proof, your words are empty posturing.

[chance144]

Perhaps "bias" is not the best term.

"Good" is a subjective and relative term. And "truth" always brings a vigorous debate. In the end, we seem to separate into camps of "biases." Even the 2nd law of thermodynamics, one of the "hardest" of natural laws is just a probability which no one has been able to explain or refute.

Claiming ultimate truth requires omniscience (the Coherence Theory of Truth). Without it, all knowledge is just theory which is probable - perhaps even incredibly probable (as with the 2nd law), but nonetheless a probability based upon methodologies and historical references.

It just seems that we all have our biases.

Yes, and I should have said "if you mean the GOOD fight.." Sorry about the muddiness.

Any scientist (myself included) agree that there is no Truth. However, there is an objective world, and we humans, through our observations, try to understand it.

Bias does exist, but on one hand, scientists have a way to deal with it (the scientific process). On the other hand, psi believers do not have a way to deal with their biases.

I agree with your philosophical points, however, where the rubber meets the road (fighting ignorance, exposing flaws in data, exposing frauds, etc), I argue that a less tolerant position on the validity of multiple truths that result from biased observations needs to be adhered to. This is simply because, as I stated earlier, one process for uncovering (objective) truths has a bias-reducing mechanism built in, while no other process does.

Further, even if I am totally stringent in my language (for example, multiple theories about the way the world works and no Truth), the use of the term theory necessarily requires some process by which to support or disprove that theory. We have chosen to use to scientific process exclusively to support or disprove theory. When you step away from the scientific process, you lose your license to throw around terms like hypotheses, theory, law, truth, and the like, because without the context of that process, those terms become absolutely meaningless.

By the way, I mean "you" as in "people in general" and not in the specific sense.

[jj]

Well done. Please let us know if somebody starts to harrass you. Been there. :(

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by jambo372
There is a fly in your ointment ...
sceptics cannot disprove the paranormal ...
they even admit it.

And the beleivers can't disprove the invisible dragon that I claim lives under my bed feeding on dust bunnies.

That statement is just as meaningless as yours, yet just as true.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Ashles
Jambo claims to believe in every paranormal ability, researcher and claimant in the history of the world (except Uri Geller!). I wouldn't be so sure of that. His most recent mention of Geller seems to be (in the "Herbal Healing" thread on 13th October last year): I fixed a broken watch using the Uri Geller techniqueIn any case, if he doesn't believe in Geller, can he prove that Geller has always been non-genuine? (How about it, Jambo?)

Good letter, Chance, and welcome.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by chance144
Any scientist (myself included) agree that there is no Truth. However, there is an objective world, and we humans, through our observations, try to understand it.
Chance I am already enjoying your posts a great deal.

Would it be too rude to ask what is your scientific field?

[Luke T.]

Outstanding letter to the editor, chance.

I've been on something of a letter writing campaign to reporters and editors myself lately. Local and out of state news organizations.

Your statement about how these organizations are lending credence to the crackpots rings right along with what I have been saying in my letters.

My particular pet peeve are psychics who claim to know where missing children/women are. The crass exploitation of a stricken family's grief is unconscionable and I do not hesitate to flame the news organizations for being party to it for the sake of sensationalism. They simply sicken me.

See the topic farther down this part of the forum entitled "Allison Dubois on KNBC" for my last two emails to news organizations.

[delphi_ote]

VERY well written! You packed quite a punch in those few words. Please let us know if there is any response (I hope their editor shows some courage and integrity.)

As a fellow lurker-turned-newbie, I'm sure you know there are a few... shall we say "less than enlightened" individuals in this forum. You probably expected they'd drop by and put in their two cents worth. Nonetheless, I apologize on their behalf and assure you that this forum is full of sharp minds who very much appreciate what you've done by writing that letter.

[chance144]

Would it be too rude to ask what is your scientific field?

Nope, undergrad hard science, MBA, and Phd in Marketing (social psychology minor, I do consumer behavior research, which is essentially applied social psychology). I study philosophy of science, evolution, and history on the side.

Please let us know if there is any response (I hope their editor shows some courage and integrity.)

It has already been published, came out today in the local newspaper.

Thank you all for the nice comments. Im glad to officially be here now:)

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by chance144
Further, even if I am totally stringent in my language...the use of the term theory necessarily requires some process by which to support or disprove that theory. We have chosen to use to scientific process exclusively to support or disprove theory. When you step away from the scientific process, you lose your license to throw around terms like hypotheses, theory, law, truth (my bold), and the like, because without the context of that process, those terms become absolutely meaningless.I might be picking nits here, but I think philosophers (and mathematicians) have a licesnse to throw around terms like 'truth' without using the "scientific process exclusively" because they can explore hypothetical possibilities and probabilities that cannnot be proven or disproven by emperical analysis. Never-the-less, such conclusions of those hypotheticals must be based on very strict and sound assumtions, such as those knowledge derived from the scientific process. Mathematics can prove that some things would be a certain way in some non-existant reality. And that is a truth. Sorry, I just got bugged out about one of your words.I can tend to go sideways on some issues. I won't even get into attorneys and politicians trowing around the word 'law'. ;)

chance144 : Great letter and great posts. Welcome! :)

[Chocolate Chip]

Great letter chance, really well written.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by JAK
Even the 2nd law of thermodynamics, one of the "hardest" of natural laws is just a probability which no one has been able to explain or refute.
Warning:
JAK, do me a favor. Pick up an undergrad thermodynamics text, read the chapters that "explain" the 2nd law, provide a detailed discussion of closed and open systems, and provide numerous examples of its application.

Then come back here and justify your remark quoted above


ETA: Chance, way to go. I admire folks who take the time to put good logic out in public view. And my added welcome....

[Jas]

Awesome letter! Welcome to the forum!

Let us know if there are any responses published in the next little while.