While the paranormal invades TV, scientists remain skeptical

[Richard]

Dear Action Line: There are more and more of these TV shows featuring "paranormal ability:" "Medium," "Angela's Eyes," "The 4400," "Dead Zone," "Ghost Hunters," "Ghost Whisperer," etc. Has something changed in "reality" or do these shows just take advantage of popular beliefs in such things? -- M.K., Tulsa.

It's just entertainment. Many people believe all sorts of nonsense attempting to understand the world. The shows you mentioned are based on science fiction and the supernatural: (1) that ghosts are all around us and a few gifted people can see and talk to them; (2) that gifted Angela can tell if people are lying just by watching them speak and (3) that extraterrestrial beings visit earth and exposure to their science turns normal folks into superhuman folks. Comic books on TV -- but without the "BIFF, WHANG, POW."


More...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/ActionLineStory.asp?ID=061023_Ac_A20_While73365

[Kord]

We a very funny programme in the UK called 'Harry Hill's TV Burp', in which Mr Hill shows clips from around the TV channels, that mostly speak for themselves, although his comments are hilarious too. He showed one from a programme where this medium visits a family to contact the dead on their behalf (I think it was Living TV UK, but can't recall for sure). We see the medium saying (something like; again, can't remember the exact details), "I'm getting a message for 'John' – does anyone here know a John?" The camera scans around the family who are all shaking their heads; no, they don't know any Johns. "Okay," the medium continues, "I'm also getting a message for 'David' – does anyone know a David?" Again, the family all shake their heads. "Now, I'm getting a message for 'Ian'." They all shake their heads again. "Andrew?" Long pause, then one of the family says, "Er, I think there's an Andrew where I work." "Ah!" says a relieved medium, "that's who it is!"

[brettDbass]

KCBt7TGoj4U

and

8M6yWUKvuJQ

[Big Al]

Richard Dawkins moaned in one of his books about The X-Files.

His complaint was that every week there was a weird happening for which Scully proposed a logical solution and Mulder proposed an outlandish or paranormal one. Of course, in the end, it was always the woo explanation that won.

Dawkins likenend it to a cop show where every week there was a black suspect and a white suspect, and the black suspect was always the guilty party; except that a show like that wouldn't last the first season.

[Big Les]

KCBt7TGoj4U

and

8M6yWUKvuJQ

Nothing like kicking a creti...I mean man, when he's down. I love Harry Hill; still have one of his tour t-shirts from 1997.

[cj.23]

Richard Dawkins moaned in one of his books about The X-Files.

His complaint was that every week there was a weird happening for which Scully proposed a logical solution and Mulder proposed an outlandish or paranormal one. Of course, in the end, it was always the woo explanation that won.

Dawkins likenend it to a cop show where every week there was a black suspect and a white suspect, and the black suspect was always the guilty party; except that a show like that wouldn't last the first season.

That was in the Telegraph in 1996: here is my rejoinder of that date...


"I have remarked on other essays on this site about the current boom of media interest in the paranormal. Was it the X-Files that opened the flood gates, or is it just the approaching millenium? Either way, I am unsure about the benefits of the whole renaissance, or should I perhaps like eminent critic Richard Dawkins, say 'Dark Age', of popular interest in the subject.

Richard Dawkins is a biologist based at Oxford University, and regarded as one of the champions of orthodox science in the U.K. He does not suffer fools gladly, and a recent television programme highlighting his fears of the pernicious influence of the (purportedly) paranormal made compelling viewing. For example, we saw psychic surgeons performing what I desperately hope were elaborate conjuring tricks, for they were using unsterilised instruments!

I am aware that many readers have little patience for the sceptical position, and indeed many believers in the paranormal newsgroups seem to go as far as an active hate of CSICOP, an organisation which, with a few reservations over accusations of fraud, which I am not in a position to judge, I thoroughly admire. (CSICOP, for those who have not heard, is the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, and for many years was associated with Martin Gardner and James Randi, two famous sceptics). These people actively debunk some of the more nonsensical claims which are promulgated as fact.

This can hardly be a bad thing; if the paranormal exists we all benefit if the frauds and charlatans are exposed, and the misperceptions and fantasies are swept away. If it turned out that astrology was piffle, astral projection codswallop and meditation led to migraines I would not be one jot the sorrier, and we would perhaps be able to make some progress by spending more time and energy on other phenomena which may be worthwhile, or by devoting ourselves to orthodox science, the arts or humanities. Every reduction of the field is a breakthrough; every reduction is a step forward.

And if the paranormal does not exist, and we are all poor deluded fools, then we will be better off financially and spiritually for that knowledge! Think of all the time wasted all over the world by people carrying out divinations, seances, psi-healings, etc, etc. Final proof against the paranormal would not be the end of parapsychology; it's focus would shift to the vital question of why people believe these things, and would shift from the analysis of the implication of the experience (always inferred) to the analysis of the experience, and it's effects on the percipients psyche and behaviour.

Philosophically I believe such final proof is as impossible as final proof of the existence of God. We enter here into the arena of faith. No matter how batty my theory that the shadow I saw last night was an astrally projecting Giant Alien Hedgehog, who happened to be an Ascended Master from Sirius, some one out there will buy it, believe it, and quite possibly preach it, and that is their right. No matter how smug I may be about believing I know such things are impossible, my position is equally one of faith; unless I travel to Sirius, or in some way prove that Giant Hedgehogs can't astrally project!

I like Sceptics. I believe a lot more money should be spent on Science, Medicine and Welfare by governments, that Dawkins, Beloff and Roy should be given CBE's for the encouragement of the others, that spiders have eight legs, and that the moon isn't made of green cheese. But that's Chris Romer speaking, not the SPS, which holds no corporate opinions.

I dislike a priori scepticism; that is the belief that the paranormal is impossible, full stop, the end. My problem with this belief is simple; if paranormal = impossible then what if I decide that hypnotism is paranormal, or dentistry for that matter. Anything to which I apply the label paranormal is hence impossible. This is clearly ridiculous. The range of topics lumped under that label is so vast that some are going to turn out to be in some sense real, and perfectly normal. (Just misunderstood at the moment.)

This is a very real problem for parapsychology as a science. As far as I can see it determines it's subject area in negative terms; investigating those faculties of man not currently explained by any generally accepted scientific hypothesis. It is a frontier science; if it succeeds it loses some of it's territory which is claimed by the psychiatrists, biologists, or whoevers field it more properly falls into. An example from the fringe of parapsychology is the ghost/UFO studies which have recently suggested that certain mysterious lights are a natural rare geological manifestation, a theory now being studied by some distinguished geologists. It may turn out to be worthless; but it may mean certain phenomena are finally explained and leave the Kingdom of Parapsychology to enter the Fair Gardens of Geology. So parapsychology is like a harassed secretary, with an overflowing in-tray, desperately trying to sort the work and forward it to the correct department. Unfortunately as secretaries parapsychologists seem rather inefficient, and a lot of work ends up in the garbage bin as having been junk mail all along. On this analogy, the sceptic is a second secretary who helps by sorting out the junk mail, even if the sceptic is at times a little over zealous!

Today, (Wednesday 13th November 1996) the Daily Telegraph has published a report by Roger Highfield, Science Editor (and a good one at that!) on Richard Dawkins' latest attack on paranormal TV. Interestingly, Dawkins cites the X-Files as evidence of an 'appetite for wonder' which can be fed by real science. Unfortunately I think for most people it will remain an excuse to ogle Scully & Mulder and merely serve to further interest people in the more ridiculous conspiracy theories and outlandish claims of fringe writers. X-philes are rarely discriminating; I personally loathe the show but I think I am alone in the SPS on that score. We need more funding, desperately, for decent science education at school, university and adult education levels, not the X-Files, and I doubt that Dawkins would disagree with me. But as entertainment it is excellent; and I wish all X-philes the very best. The thing which miffs me is the claim that the shows are based loosely on real events; so is Noddy in Toyland by that criteria. Noddy has a car, and cars exist. If I wrote a history of World War 2 in which Churchill was a Prussian Milkmaid embittered ex-lover of Adolf Hitler, I could claim that was based loosely on real events; World War 2, Churchill, Hitler and Prussian Milkmaids all existed, after all. The difference is (almost) no-one would believe me!

Furthermore, Dawkins detects a further unhealthy trend in the X-Files. To quote the Telegraph article "Each week the X-Files poses a mystery and offers rational and paranormal theories as rival explanations. And week after week, the rational explanation loses. Imagine a crime series in which, every week, there is a white suspect and a black suspect. And every week, lo and behold, the black suspect turns out to have done it. Unpardonable."

Dawkins is correct, though I am a little dubious in his choice of racism as an allegory. But then Dawkins is serious about how unhealthy this is - it is propaganda, and could lead many minds away from rationality into the dark seas of the supernatural - and some people aren't good sailors.

"Let's not go back to a dark age of superstition and unreason, a world in which every time you lose your keys you suspect poltergeists, demons or alien abduction." Yes! This is a message that needs repeating. I remeber the great Christain writer C.S. Lewis writing of the tendency for new Christians to see Demons behind every rosebush; if demons exist let us hope they occasionally hide up the Sycamores as well! One can become obsessed with the paranormal to a ridiculously unhealthy degree, (one of the reasons my partners always seem to be hardcore sceptics?), and start to interpret every event as paranormal in origin. Indeed one excellent US researcher into the Ritual Magick and Wiccan communities of London found that the process of becoming a magician was learning the vocabulary, the belief system and how to interpret events in the light of those beliefs. To be fair to witches & their ilk, they very sensibly tend to insist you have a real job and a reasonably together lifestyle before they will initiate you! I am sure that at least 95% of what the media spews out as paranormal TV is complete hogwash; I can't and won't watch much of it. I prefer to do something more entertaining, like gargle emetics....

So far, so good with Dawkins. Now he says something, however, which many people may find offensive. Referring to the popular British TV programme 'Strange But True', in which reenactments of cases of purportedly paranormal phenomena are shown, he describes this and similar programmes as occasions when "disturbed people recount their fantasies of ghosts and poltergeists. Instead of sending them to a kindly psychiatrist, television producers eagerly hire actors to re-create their delusions."

Now Mr Dawkins, I have a great deal of respect for you, but you are going too far. These programmes are light entertainment, and maybe should not be taken as seriously as some do. Yes they can be permicious - I detest 'Strange But True' for it's lack of sceptical comment, but those witnesses do not need psychiatrists. Lots of perfectly sane and normal people see, hear, or otherwise experience that which we classify as paranormal phenomena. They are not crazy; they are normal, healthy people. It is you who is now returning us to the dark ages - should we burn them as heretics against scientific orthodoxy? I have seen two apparitions. They may have been in some sense real or veridical, they may have been internally generated fantasies, they could have been anything. But I had the experience, and that didn't prove I needed the attentions of a kind psychiatrist. At worst I was just a little over imaginative.

Now with hindsight I might have conferred with my doctor, just to check there was no organic cause for my hallucination, such as temporal lobe epilepsy. But thousands of people have had these experiences, and for the vast majority there were no health implications whatsoever. Mr Dawkins, people have the experience of seeing ghosts, and that does not mean they are mad. You may well have alarmed and upset some innocent readers, who are even now wondering if they really need to see a psychiatrist. Furthermore, some people who might have listened approvingly to your message will be too annoyed to listen further; to them scientific orthodoxy is once again revealed as the voice of narrow minded bigotry.

In summary of my position:-

* People experience ghosts, aliens, etc.
* The experience is a real experience, and should be studied.
* But that doesn't mean we understand what causes the experience, which may well be delusional in some cases, and is likely to arise from a multiplicity of causation.
* So the inferred (paranormal) explanation may be inadaquate.

The problem with these programmes is not that they give people a chance to tell the world about their experiences, but the fact that they also favour a paranormal explanation for those experiences without due consideration of both sides of the case. But that does not allow any critic the right to dismiss the case as fantasy, delusion or madness without at least some degree of supporting evidence. That is not science, it is opinion, and completely irrational.

Richard Dawkins apparently does not believe it important that we try to locate the sources of these experiences and explain them. I do; that is what I have in common with CSICOP. CSICOP & the Parapsychologists are working together to solve the riddle of these anomalous experiences; we are two denominations, Sadducees and Pharisees if you like, engaging in a scientific endeavour together, and only separated by their beliefs as to the likely outcome of the project. In the pursuit of this goal, the discourse leads to anger, tears, recriminations and accusations, but it also leads to vitality, rigorous research and hopefully progress. The interpretation is not the experience; maybe you are right Mr Dawkins (can I call you Richard?) and the true province for such experiences is within the field of psychiatry, or at least cognitive psychology, but it's early days yet and we can not be sure....

The Telegraph article continues to discuss the apparently annual TV extravaganza of super- psychism that I bitterly criticised in an early SPS new bulletin. My feelings and Mr Dawkins' are apparently completely on this matter, and I will not waste space discussing it. Suffice to say it was largely utter bilge.

Finally we encounter Mr Dawkins' objection to the paranormal; and a perfectly sound one it seems to be - economy of explanation, or something akin to Occam's Razor. "It is possible that your car engine is driven by psychokinetic energy, but if it looks, smells and performs exactly like a petrol engine, the sensible working hypothesis is that it is a petrol engine."

This paragraph leaves me shuddering. Be very, very careful, Mr Dawkins! Some might say that if they visit a medium and are told facts no-one but their deceased relatives knew, the most economical explanation is not elaborate fraud or even Super-ESP, but that the medium is genuine! Some might argue the most economical explanation for thousands of people claiming they are being abducted by aliens is that they are being abducted by aliens! The SPR Journal contains at least two articles on the dangers of the use of Occam's Razor in parapsychology, the second being my own 'The Poverty of Theory; notes on the investigation of spontaneous cases' which can be found in the July '96 journal. Occam's Razor and Economy of Explanation are useful pragmatic tools, but they are not scientific, or indeed strictly rational ways of determining the veracity of an proposition! The syllogism was considered a useful tool of logic once; it's absurdities are obvious. Occam's Razor's aren't - but it is often downright wrong. I am sure you have better, more rational reasons for opposing the paranormal, but be careful of your own tools lest they betray you.

In conclusion; Mr Dawkins makes some very important and valid points, yet is on dangerous ground. I hope this eminent and eminently sensible scientist writes once more on this subject - I am gladdened to note and reassure readers of this site he is not an a priori sceptic - "There is certainly nothing impossible about abduction by aliens. One day it may happen. But on grounds of probability it should be kept as explanation of last resort."

Any thoughts?

The strange highlighting on the word Dawkins is simply a result of my search and C&P of the decade old article. Sorry about that.

I have no idea what you will think of my article. I have worked on five different paranormal TV shows since that date, have a good knowledge of the genre, and will happily discuss them. :)

cj x

[Cuddles]

Any thoughts?

Generally a very good article, but I would question the part about Occam's Razor. Some might say that if they visit a medium and are told facts no-one but their deceased relatives knew, the most economical explanation is not elaborate fraud or even Super-ESP, but that the medium is genuine! Some might argue the most economical explanation for thousands of people claiming they are being abducted by aliens is that they are being abducted by aliens!

I'm sure everyone agrees that the Razor is by no means proof, or even scientific, but it is much more reliable and useful than you imply. In the cases here, the people who say aliens are the most economical are simply wrong. A good way to state Occam is "The explanation with the least assumptions is the best". We know people can hallucinate, and we know that people lie or misremember things, so the only assumption for lots of hallucinations is that this is actually the case. To say aliens are responsible makes the assumptions that aliens exist, that they are capable of coming to Earth, that they abduct people, and so on. The same is true for mediums. We know it is possible to replicate their work using entirely mundane psychology, so no assumption is needed. To say that they really are contacting the dead requires assuming that there is life after death and that the dead can communicate with the living at the least.

If people really believe that these are the simplest explanation, we have to ask why they think this, when half an hour's research will show that there are simpler mundane explanations. Of course, this in no way proves that aliens aren't actually responsible, but it does say an awful lot about the willingness of some people to believe in things.

[cj.23]

HI cuddles, thanks --

Yes, it was written a decade ago, and I think that as it was a defence of parapsychology -- I was President of the Student Parapsychology Society based at what is today the University of Gloucestershire at the time -- I was probably just being rhetorical in that bit. There are dangers however in applying Occam's Razor indiscriminately -it's a useful principle, but not a proof, and frequently misleading in my experience.

On re-reading I was actually surprised how little my opinions have really changed in this respect in a decade, though it sounds like i might have liked the JREF forum even then...

cj x

[Miss Whiplash]

I never had a problem with the X-Files. It was clearly fiction. I do have a problem with A Haunting being shown on the Discovery Channel, of all places. It presents all dramatized accounts of hauntings and demonic possession as a factual occurrences as well as the pseudoscience used by ghost hunting teams. Also, it's more or less become the "Ed and Lorraine Warren Show." Many of the cases featured are from the files of these two humbugs. They were the biggest frauds in the paranormal racket. However, this show is presenting their tall tales as proven facts.

[cj.23]

I worked on a Discovery Channel series called Ghosthunters, a UK production (not the US show of a very similar name about ghosthunting plumbers). It is universally decried as incredibly boring, but I wondered if you caught it? :) I'd love to hear the sceptical reviews...

I'm afraid I am with you on A Haunting, based on my limited knowledge of it.

cj x

[Beth]

I particularly liked this part:

Lots of perfectly sane and normal people see, hear, or otherwise experience that which we classify as paranormal phenomena. They are not crazy; they are normal, healthy people.


I think that it bears repeating.

[sat556]

I really like 'A Haunting', but I take it for entertainment only. I recall one episode where the reconstruction showed a ghostly figure walking behind somebody. I thought to myself "how can the person know that's an accurate reconstruction if they didn't see the ghost?".

As for the X-Files, I remember when it was first shown of Sky One, it was touted as dealing with real cases. Whether it started that way and just got carried away, I don't know, but I hold it responsible for the explosion of alien encounters in recent times. And talking tattoos? Ffs :D

[Miss Whiplash]

I really like 'A Haunting', but I take it for entertainment only. I recall one episode where the reconstruction showed a ghostly figure walking behind somebody. I thought to myself "how can the person know that's an accurate reconstruction if they didn't see the ghost?".

As for the X-Files, I remember when it was first shown of Sky One, it was touted as dealing with real cases. Whether it started that way and just got carried away, I don't know, but I hold it responsible for the explosion of alien encounters in recent times. And talking tattoos? Ffs :D

What season are you on with A Haunting? Season 3 just ended and it so redundant it's laughable. The same actors and locations are being recycled over and over.

As for the X-Files, it was never intended to be taken seriously. Granted, Chris Carter used legends and classic UFO tales as the basis of many scripts, but molded them to fit his vision of the show. I think the misunderstanding stems from the original publicity for the X-Files. Fox, the network showing X-Files , already had a hit speculation show called Sightings. To boost ratings, the pilot episode of X-Files was shown with a disclaimer at the beginning stating the show was based on "true occurrences." As it was clear the story came from the mind of Chris Carter, the disclaimer was dropped. It was a well publicized gaff here in the States, but I don't think it was ever clarified when the show was sold abroad.

[BillC]

KCBt7TGoj4U
and
8M6yWUKvuJQ
Hilarious! Thanks, brettDbass.

[Horatius]

Richard Dawkins moaned in one of his books about The X-Files.

His complaint was that every week there was a weird happening for which Scully proposed a logical solution and Mulder proposed an outlandish or paranormal one. Of course, in the end, it was always the woo explanation that won.

Dawkins likenend it to a cop show where every week there was a black suspect and a white suspect, and the black suspect was always the guilty party; except that a show like that wouldn't last the first season.

The problem with this is that, in the first season at least, most of the time they were both wrong. Mulder would propose a woo solution, but it would turn out to be some other kind of woo. :)

[brettDbass]

Hilarious! Thanks, brettDbass.
'tis my pleasure to share the laughter. :D

[Yahzi]

Any thoughts?
You defend them as just "light entertainment."

But since when does entertainment lie? These shows depend on being taken seriously. Not one of them can afford to present itself as fiction.

I have worked on five different paranormal TV shows since that date, have a good knowledge of the genre, and will happily discuss them. :)
Did you ever work on a show that could afford to tell its viewers the truth?

[cj.23]

You defend them as just "light entertainment."

But since when does entertainment lie? These shows depend on being taken seriously. Not one of them can afford to present itself as fiction.


Did you ever work on a show that could afford to tell its viewers the truth?

Yes. That was written before I worked in paranormal TV. Ghosthunters, Discovery Civ was a pretty sensible and sober look at the current state of ghost research - not perfect, but credible as a show.

And I have never been involved in any deliberate fraud or misdirection. I must say I did suspect it in one popular "live ghosthunting show",and was misrepresented, possibly accidentally, on one episode of that show - and have complained bitterly about it ever since.

cj x

[Yahzi]

There are dangers however in applying Occam's Razor indiscriminately -it's a useful principle, but not a proof, and frequently misleading in my experience.
It is the foundation of all reason. As for applying it indiscriminately, you apply a billion times a day; automatically, instinctively, reflexively. Every time you reach for you car keys, you presume the absolute truth of Occam's Razor; getting in your car to drive to work is an act of complete faith that the world is exactly as it appears.

When it rains, you dismiss the theory that the rain is caused by an invisible elf. You dismiss this theory without even a passing thought. While you're at it, you dismiss an infinite number of theories, containing an infinite number of elves. And then you dismiss an infinite number of invisible, intangible kinds of entities that could be causing rain.

Indeed, the application of Occam's Razor is so iron-ruled as to virtually unnoticeable; the only time the subject even comes up is when someone wants a special exemption.

If it weren't for people pretending they can get what they want by holding their breath until they turn blue, we would be no more aware of Occam's Razor than we are of air.

[cj.23]

Oh, and i think - but have not reread my ten year old essay - the light entertainment comment was in reference to the X-Files, which does clearly mark itself as fiction?

cj x

[Yahzi]

And I have never been involved in any deliberate fraud or misdirection.
On how many of these paranormal shows did the JREF challenge get mentioned?

On how many of these shows did they explain why the data was good enough to make a show about, but not good enough to submit for a million-dollar award, a Nobel prize, and instant global fame?

[cj.23]

It is the foundation of all reason. As for applying it indiscriminately, you apply a billion times a day; automatically, instinctively, reflexively. Every time you reach for you car keys, you presume the absolute truth of Occam's Razor; getting in your car to drive to work is an act of complete faith that the world is exactly as it appears.

When it rains, you dismiss the theory that the rain is caused by an invisible elf. You dismiss this theory without even a passing thought. While you're at it, you dismiss an infinite number of theories, containing an infinite number of elves. And then you dismiss an infinite number of invisible, intangible kinds of entities that could be causing rain.

Indeed, the application of Occam's Razor is so iron-ruled as to virtually unnoticeable; the only time the subject even comes up is when someone wants a special exemption.

If it weren't for people pretending they can get what they want by holding their breath until they turn blue, we would be no more aware of Occam's Razor than we are of air.

Occam's razor is a philosophical proof, NOT a scientific one. I can name hundreds of instances where Occam's Razor suggest conclusions, much like common sense does, which are simply factually untrue. If you wish to start a new thread on the usefulness of Occam's Razor, well I am happy to do so.
cj x

[cj.23]

On how many of these paranormal shows did the JREF challenge get mentioned?

On how many of these shows did they explain why the data was good enough to make a show about, but not good enough to submit for a million-dollar award, a Nobel prize, and instant global fame?

Not once have i had a chance to make a show dealing with replicable experimental evidence (because there is not any?). That does not mean the programmes were devoid of merit - they focussed on spontaneous cases, and in fact I have proposed theories in them (environmental ones) which can and are being tested. I refer you to my answer on infrasound on the ghosts thread for further details.

cj x

[Yahzi]

the light entertainment comment was in reference to the X-Files, which does clearly mark itself as fiction?
Aside from the pilot episode, which identified itself as truth.

In any case, Dawkins complaint still holds true. If you made a show where it was always, always, always the black guy who was guilty, and the one character on the show who championed racial equality was constantly showed up as naive, foolish, and wrong; do you think such a show could defend itself by calling itself "Light Entertainment?"

If you want an example of acceptable fiction, consider: Star Trek. Have you ever heard Dawkins complain about Star Trek? Or James Bond? McGyver, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, My Uncle the Martian, Lost in Space... the list of shows that deal with fantasy elements is extremely long. The list of shows that skeptics complain about is quite short.

Can you identify the common element that separates the fantasy shows no one complains about from the ones that we do?

Hint: the ones we complain about acquire their entire entertainment value from the possibility of being true.

[Yahzi]

Occam's razor is a philosophical proof, NOT a scientific one.
In the sense that A = A is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one, you are correct.

However, the process of reason requires the basic laws of logic and Occam's Razor. These concepts underpin, support, and make possible the enterprise of science.

To be perfectly clear: it is impossible to do science without Occam's Razor.

I can name hundreds of instances where Occam's Razor suggest conclusions, much like common sense does, which are simply factually untrue.
You mean you can describe hundreds of misapplications of a principle. Well, I have no doubt you can. However, this doesn't really address the issue, which is that the absolute iron-clad inflexible domination of Occam's Razor is necessary to science, reason, and knowledge.

As for starting another thread, I would be willing to do that, if you can answer the following question in the affirmative:

is there anything I could say that could change your mind?

[sat556]

What season are you on with A Haunting? Season 3 just ended and it so redundant it's laughable. The same actors and locations are being recycled over and over.


I'm afraid I haven't got a clue. I don't get to see it on a regular basis, I just watch it when I spot it's on.

[cj.23]

In the sense that A = A is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one, you are correct.

However, the process of reason requires the basic laws of logic and Occam's Razor. These concepts underpin, support, and make possible the enterprise of science.

To be perfectly clear: it is impossible to do science without Occam's Razor.

You mean you can describe hundreds of misapplications of a principle. Well, I have no doubt you can. However, this doesn't really address the issue, which is that the absolute iron-clad inflexible domination of Occam's Razor is necessary to science, reason, and knowledge.

As for starting another thread, I would be willing to do that, if you can answer the following question in the affirmative:

is there anything I could say that could change your mind?

On Occam's Razor? Yes -- demonstrate it is more than a useful philosophical tool, and is as you suggest an invariably true law of the universe.

cj x

[cj.23]

Aside from the pilot episode, which identified itself as truth.


Not in the UK it didn't. It may have in the US?


If you want an example of acceptable fiction, consider: Star Trek. Have you ever heard Dawkins complain about Star Trek? Or James Bond? McGyver, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, My Uncle the Martian, Lost in Space... the list of shows that deal with fantasy elements is extremely long. The list of shows that skeptics complain about is quite short.

Can you identify the common element that separates the fantasy shows no one complains about from the ones that we do?

No. Harry Potter features magic. I don't believe in magic. Do children goout and cast spells because they watch Harry Potter?


Hint: the ones we complain about acquire their entire entertainment value from the possibility of being true.

What in the X-Files could be considered true? So Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a problem? Some people believe this stuff?? What about 2001 (approved of by the Vatican?) I can't see any issue with the X-Files! I never liked the show, but I see nothing differentiating it from say M.R James or Charles Dickens ghost stories, Poltergiest, or Close Encounters?

I just can not see your point here. Sorry.

cj x

[sat556]

Not in the UK it didn't. It may have in the US?


I believe it did. As I mentioned earlier, I am pretty sure that when it first appeared on Sky One, it was advertised as being 'based on true cases'.
Obviously neither of us are going to be able to prove we're correct now, it's been too long since.

[Yahzi]

It may have in the US?
Yes, it did. Only on the pilot; but the die was cast. It was understood by the audience that they had to take the "truth" statement out because the Government made them - which, of course, was taken as further proof that they were telling real secrets.

What in the X-Files could be considered true?
The conspiracy theories, for one.

So Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a problem?
Are you saying you are unable to recognize what makes "A Haunting" different from "The Sixth Sense?"

An even better example is "Medium." While it is presented as fiction, it is quite clearly presented as a fictionalization of real events. The character in Medium does not live in another world; she lives in the same world the rest of us do. This is entirely different than Buffy the Vampire Slayer, who lives in Sunnydale, California, in a different universe.

How can you not see this distinction? How can you not understand the difference between fiction and fictionalization?

[sat556]

Are you saying you are unable to recognize what makes "A Haunting" different from "The Sixth Sense?"

Just to let you know, here in the UK, there is a medium who does a show called 'Sixth Sense'. Confused me that did, I couldn't see the difference for a second there...

[cj.23]

The conspiracy theories, for one.


Dark Skies worried me for reason I am sure you understand. I tend to dismiss conspiracy theories, and find it hard to believe anyone would take the X-Files as anything other than fiction.


An even better example is "Medium." While it is presented as fiction, it is quite clearly presented as a fictionalization of real events. The character in Medium does not live in another world; she lives in the same world the rest of us do. This is entirely different than Buffy the Vampire Slayer, who lives in Sunnydale, California, in a different universe.

How can you not see this distinction? How can you not understand the difference between fiction and fictionalization?


I have never seen Medium. If it is on in the UK I would avoid it, so I can't follow your analogy. However I have more sympathy now, I do think I see where you are coming from...

cj x

[cj.23]

Just to let you know, here in the UK, there is a medium who does a show called 'Sixth Sense'. Confused me that did, I couldn't see the difference for a second there...

Sat, I would dispute the truth of that statement. :) Well Unless you believe Colin Fry actually is a medium! Sorry, only joking to lighten the atmosphere.

And yes, the Sixth Sense (UK), Crossing Over, etc - these are shows I have a problem with...

cj x

[sat556]

Sat, I would dispute the truth of that statement. :) Well Unless you believe Colin Fry actually is a medium! Sorry, only joking to lighten the atmosphere.



Damn, I've spent so much time on here I've started to forget to put 'alleged' in front of everything :p

[luchog]

As for the X-Files, it was never intended to be taken seriously. Granted, Chris Carter used legends and classic UFO tales as the basis of many scripts, but molded them to fit his vision of the show.

Dawkins was also incorrect in his assessment of the woo vs. science content, since even with my limited watching I can recall several episodes that ended with the scientific explanation, rather than the woo one, winning out. They did a brilliant send-up of "Alien Autopsy" as well.

[Yahzi]

I have never seen Medium. If it is on in the UK I would avoid it,
And well you should. It's so... dull.

I do think I see where you are coming from...
Exactly. "Medium" is a close call, because it pretends to have characters and plot and stuff; but it takes itself seriously, in a way that James Bond never did even during the height of the Cold War.

More to the point, it expects us to take it seriously.

I'll get to that Occam's Razor thread later. Dogs need their walk now.