A thread, a tactic, Claus.

[lekiotr]

The thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25778

I would just like to point out how Claus immediately jumped to the false conclusion from Keen's statement that he (Keen) was asking skeptics to prove the negative, when in fact he wasn't. And when confronted with someone (Mike D.) who could actually have a rational discourse he backed down, and, of course, without admitting he made a mistake or agreed. Of course, he doesn't need to.
This is not a personal attack as much as this instance is representative. This kind of rhetorical aversion to either agreeing on a point, or admitting fault directly, derails alot of worth while discussion here. Agreeing on the terms of a discussion are important to make it move forward, and I find it hardly ever happening in threads where Claus or other similiar to him are involved. Instead of agreeing to a point and progressing in the conversation they just change the topic, or aim from a different angle, bringing the discussion that could have moved forward to some worthwhile conclusions to a halt. This is more of a general comment on the methodology of some of the skeptics like claus, here, but it also applies to this thread. Here we have Keen, someone who seems to extend a variety of the more intelligent literature on the subject, and Claus immediately draws a false conclusion, and when confronted with this, does not agree and progress, but says:

"Mike D.,

If you wanna go for it, go for it. There are only so many hours in the day, you know."

Right, there are only so many hours in the day. But why don't more skeptics investigate the more intelligent claims rather than go after obvious quacks. Claus, to what in the skeptical realm are you spending your time on that you think is more worth while than the more serious literature? Are you out to find quacks to prove your belief (I know it's an age old attack, but at times seems very appropriate) or to find the truth? If the latter, why not spend time with these Keen references, as surely they seem to be of the more serious variety? And yes, you don't need to answer any of this, it's your life, you can do whatever you want.

The conversation tangent is one skeptical rhetorical tactic that seems, to me, to come from an emotional anxiety and fear of being wrong, and not being able to admit it and move on without actually having to face it, which some can't seem to do, and if did, would probably cry. The extreme believers let their anger roar on the outside when they find out their wrong, the extreme skeptics keep their emotions in a tight bottle on the inside, not even admitting to having it, probably. This last paragraph is pure speculation on my obervation, any psychologists that could shed some light on this speculation would be welcome.

To Claus' half credit, his last post:

"It needs to be investigated, if it hasn't been before."

It needs to be. Why not you, what better claims are you investigating? (I can see you responding "Why not YOU? - But I am not the one traipsing around "debunking") And, in any case, why did you post in this thread? You came in and spewed out an terribly correct analysis of Keen's statement, and when faced with the fact that you were incorrect, you bowed out, when you had a chance to look into references that may have been of better value then most claims. Isn't it even worth a look? What better are you working on? I wonder.

And I can see the responses now, and don't care that most of them will, admittedly, set off a little fire in me, due to abnoxious rhetorical tactics. I post for those who don't see this, and think it is right, think the methodology is right, at times when it isn't.

It seems to me that skepticism, at it's worse, which it is as often, perhaps slightly less, as religion is at it's worse, is little more than a Ten year old boy upset because he was proven wrong about the moon being made out of cheese, and in response saying "You can't prove anything, ABSOLUTELY" - No, it isn't quite THAT bad, and skeptics don't let it become that obvious. But the scale is tilted far in that direction, and far from the balance that is needed to look, and see, and find out what the f**k is going on here.

And my references to "skeptic" in this article are towards those who exhibit similiar tactics as described, and more that are similiar.

Finding problems in any proposed evidence is, as has been pointed out often, a hallmark of the scientific process. Why isn't more time spent on the proposed evidence from the more reliable sources rather than just rhetorical combat based around speculation about fraud and such in more seemingly obvious quackery?

[CFLarsen]

Pelopre,

You have to pick your fights, especially if you are not a full-time skeptic.

Sure, Keen's statements need to be investigated. So do the many incidents of fraud. Yes, it is important to check the more brainy parts of pseudoscience. It is also important to check the many, many cases of outright fraud, where people are scammed out of their money, health, and sometimes, lives.

Which is more important? Right now, I think fraud is. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any paranormal phenomenon is real. I could turn it around and say "Hey, why waste time on something that isn't there? Why not spend the time on something we know hurts people?"

If Keen has such a good case, why does he rely on others to show him wrong? Why doesn't he just pick up his Nobel Prize?

Good questions, don't you think?

[lekiotr]

>>>>>Pelopre,

>>>>>You have to pick your fights, especially if you are not a full-time skeptic.

As you've said.

>>>>>Sure, Keen's statements need to be investigated. So do the many incidents of fraud. Yes, it is important to check the more brainy parts of pseudoscience. It is also important to check the many, many cases of outright fraud, where people are scammed out of their money, health, and sometimes, lives.

I agree with you that outright fraud should be exposed for those reasons.

>>>>>Which is more important? Right now, I think fraud is.

That's your choice. And I wouldn't wholly disagree.

>>>>>There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any paranormal phenomenon is real.

(that you know of)

You don't know this: first - it is a negative existential claim, second - how can you say it when you admittedly don't even think it worth it or spend your time investigating the proposed evidence? You say there is absolutely no evidence, how will you ever know if there is if you never listen to or consider anyone who claims to have it? This is the kind of statement that gets flaunted around the groups people that is inexcusable. 'Skeptics' go around and type similiar statements just to flex what they think is muscle, when it's just the semblence of it, under which lies a weak foundation of information, and an unwillingness to even consider any new evidence. How do you justify making such statements, only to turn around to say that you are just interested in fraud anyway, and not the serious evidence.

Why did you post to this cited thread, then? To expose a fraud - you certainly didn't do that. You tried to with a flimsy cardboard tactic like shooting out illogical statements about what Keen proposed, when you didn't even read his statement carefully enough to see he was not proposing a proof of a negative. Is this how you investigate all you claim is fraud? Why did you post to this thread?

>>>>>>I could turn it around and say "Hey, why waste time on something that isn't there?

You couldn't if you wanted to maintain any respectable amount of sense. You don't know that. Understand that. If you want to go after frauds that are hurting people, taking their money, then do so, it is a more than worthwhile cause, as you know. But if this is what you choose to do, do it well and thoroughly. If you can't even point out something as simple as when a claim is negative or not, how well do you investigate other fraud, I ask myself. And why post to a thread that is discussing the more serious information, why not just keep to threads about John Edwards, etc. who ARE taking other peoples money. Montague Keen certainly is not going after peoples wallets/purses.

>>>>>Why not spend the time on something we know hurts people?"

You're right about this being important, as long as it is done thoroughly, and honestly. Because otherwise you are spreading falsity.

>>>>>If Keen has such a good case, why does he rely on others to show him wrong?

He is not 'relying' on anyone. I think he is frustrated with people attacking the claims of evidence as you did in this string, and challenges those same people to try and 'debunk' the evidence, out of frustration that no one will even listen to him because of posts like yours that, if someone like Mike D. isn't there to make sense, possibly influence people to no longer listen.

Exposing fraud incorrectly is a horrible thing, and can lead impressionable people in false directions just like fraud itself. It is hardly better than most of the fraud: the difference being that instead of taking people's money, you take away an avenue to truth they may have had.


>>>>>Why doesn't he just pick up his Nobel Prize?

This is absurd. The information he presents is valuable intrinsically or it isn't. Whether he recieved a Nobel Prize or not has nothing to do with the veracity of his claims or the evidence he claims to have.

[thaiboxerken]

He is not 'relying' on anyone. I think he is frustrated with people attacking the claims of evidence as you did in this string, and challenges those same people to try and 'debunk' the evidence, out of frustration that no one will even listen to him because of posts like yours that, if someone like Mike D. isn't there to make sense, possibly influence people to no longer listen.

He wants people to try and debunk his evidence. I thought you just said that he doesn't want people to prove a negative.


Exposing fraud incorrectly is a horrible thing, and can lead impressionable people in false directions just like fraud itself. It is hardly better than most of the fraud: the difference being that instead of taking people's money, you take away an avenue to truth they may have had.

How does one expose a fraud "incorrectly"?



This is absurd. The information he presents is valuable intrinsically or it isn't. Whether he recieved a Nobel Prize or not has nothing to do with the veracity of his claims or the evidence he claims to have.

True, but the fact that his "evidence" has not withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community does.

[lekiotr]

>>>>>>He wants people to try and debunk his evidence. I thought you just said that he doesn't want people to prove a negative.

Debunking evidence is not proving the negative. A negative existential claim is as such: "X does not exist" and can not be proven. Showing flaws in proposed evidence is not the same as making a negatinve existential claim.

>>>>>How does one expose a fraud "incorrectly"?

The same way anyone can perform an experiment incorrectly.

>>>>>True, but the fact that his "evidence" has not withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community does.

Show me how the evidence he claims in his cited article have not withstood scientific scrutiny. Show me. Point me to articles that scrutinize over the cited work. I am not asking you to prove there paranormal X does not exist (a negative existential claim) but am asking you to show evidence for your positive claim that his evidence has not withstood scrutiny.

Show me.

[lekiotr]

Corrections:

My first paragraph:

Not 'negatinve' but 'negative'

Last paragraph:

Not 'to prove there paranormal X' but 'to prove that paranormal X"

[Clancie]

Hi Pelopre,

You won't get anywhere with Claus. He'd rather spend time trashing me, than actually investigating the sources Keen mentioned. Go figure.

P.S. If you want to "edit" a post, click on the "edit" button at the bottom right of your original post. It'll open the box and you can change the original.

If you want to offset a quote, type the following before and after it (but no spaces, doesn't need to be bolded):

[ QUOTE]

Then put the quoted text below it like this. After your quote, type in [ /QUOTE]



Your quote should look like this:


Then paste the quoted text below it.

You can also use the "Quote" button above the text box, but I find this way faster somehow.

If it doesn't work, click on the "edit" button at the bottom right and change it. (There's also a "delete" feature at the top once you're there and you can delete the entire message and start over if you want).

[thaiboxerken]

Show me how the evidence he claims in his cited article have not withstood scientific scrutiny. Show me. Point me to articles that scrutinize over the cited work. I am not asking you to prove there paranormal X does not exist (a negative existential claim) but am asking you to show evidence for your positive claim that his evidence has not withstood scrutiny.

LOL. My claim is negative. If you show me that it has withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community, I'll admit my mistake. Why do you believers always try to shift the burden of evidence to the doubters? You could do your own research and show me where in the scientific, peer-reviewed journals that his work shows up. How about in Nature magazine? No, not there eh?

[Whomp]

Now TBK,

You stated as a "fact" that his data had NOT "withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community".

How is asking for some kind (hell, ANY kind) of evidence to support your statement " shift(ing) the burden of evidence"?

He didn't make the assertion of fact.

You did.

Whomp!

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You have to pick your fights, especially if you are not a full-time skeptic.
I always considered being a skeptic to be more a personality trait, you cant get away from it, I'm not sure anyone can be a "part-time skeptic".

[CFLarsen]

Pelopre,

I know that there is no evidence of any paranormal phenomenon. You see, it's not just me who looks at the data. I have a whole world full of scientists who do it for me. In any area imaginable.

Sure, I can investigate the claims of the newest cloning technology myself. Just as I can investigate any other claim out there. But I don't necessarily have to.

Does that make me an armchair skeptic? No. I do work, in my own ways, as a skeptic. Also to investigate claims. In SkepticReport, in the media. I just don't do what you want me to do.

You see, it isn't just the quest for knowledge that drives scientists. It's also ego. Competition. Money. Do you have any idea how famous the scientist, who discovers a real paranormal phenomenon, will be? He can pick and choose his grants (he will be paid just to consider which grants he should acccept). He can pick up any prize, be it Nobel, Pullitzer, whatever is out there.

Discovering a real paranormal phenomenon is such a huge event. It would completely change the way we look at the world.

Just one single piece of evidence that holds up to scientific scrutiny, and we would have heard about it. Can you imagine the headlines?

I can. I don't see any.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi Pelopre,

You won't get anywhere with Claus. He'd rather spend time trashing me, than actually investigating the sources Keen mentioned. Go figure.

Hi, Clancie.

I thought you didn't like it when people butted in and started attacking people personally. And here you are, doing exactly that...:rolleyes:

[Quinn]

I apologize for this slight derailment, but I have to know: how many people read this thread's subject and thought, "Panama!"?

Quinn

[Floyt]

I did.
Now get thee hence, evil derailer. Shoo shoo. ;)

[lofgoernost]

Claus,

Your hypothetical scientist may have his pick of prizes, but he may have to do a little more work to receive the Pulitzer, such as write a novel, play, or jazz piece about his discovery (or I suppose some journalistic work in a scientific magazine would do the trick). I don't think it is awarded for scientific work alone.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by lofgoernost
Claus,

Your hypothetical scientist may have his pick of prizes, but he may have to do a little more work to receive the Pulitzer, such as write a novel, play, or jazz piece about his discovery (or I suppose some journalistic work in a scientific magazine would do the trick). I don't think it is awarded for scientific work alone.

I know. "How To Talk To Dead People For Dummies" would win... :)

[thaiboxerken]

Now TBK,

You stated as a "fact" that his data had NOT "withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community".

And it is, otherwise the evidence would be in peer reviewed journals.


How is asking for some kind (hell, ANY kind) of evidence to support your statement " shift(ing) the burden of evidence"?

Because it's a negative assertion, he claims that there is scientific evidence. I'm saying that I don't believe him because it hasn't withstood peer review.


He didn't make the assertion of fact.

You clearly don't understand logical rules about burden of evidence. By claiming that there is scientific evidence of the paranormal, that also includes the claim that the evidence has been peer reviewed by the scientific community. I'm simply stating that I don't believe him. My claim is totally dependant on his initial and positive claims.

He said the evidence is scientific, he should be providing evidence that it is.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Quinn
I apologize for this slight derailment, but I have to know: how many people read this thread's subject and thought, "Panama!"?No, I thought "sualc citcat adaerhta!"

[Whomp]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[I'm simply stating that I don't believe him.
It seems to me you stated a fact, not a belief.
But you are right. I don't understand the logical rules of burden of evidence.

So, in the interests of furthering the JREF mission, could you help me out? (The "E" in JREF :) )

Keen puts forth 10 articles. Lets even stipulate that he puts them forth as scientific evidence, although I can't find anywhere on this site that says this. Let's even say he claims it as a fact.

One person says " The fact is, these cases are scientific evidence."
The other person says, "The fact is, these cases have never been peer reviewed."

What you are saying is that person one needs proof to back up his "fact", but person two doesn't. Person one, because he is the "claimant" assumes the burden of proof not only for his fact, but for person two's fact as well?
If person two's fact included "There were no experimental controls, the test was not double blind, the math was wrong, and the researchers' didn't eat lunch that day, so they were weak from hunger.", would person STILL not need any evidence to back up his "fact"?

It was always my understanding that a fact was someting that was known to be true, and an opinion or belief was something that I believed to be true.

I understand that if person two is wrong, person one should have an easy time providing evidence that proves him wrong.
But shouldn't the second person have some basis for his fact other than belief? Shouldn't he be able to explain why he has elevated his statement from "belief" to "fact"?

Anyone please feel free to jump in here. This isn't about Keen, or TBK, or whatever the hell it is that Keen is claiming. I couldn't care less.
I'm new here and trying to learn. Maybe eventually I'll be able to contribute to the discussions here without making an a** of myself.

Thnks,
Whomp!

[Thanz]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Because it's a negative assertion, he claims that there is scientific evidence. I'm saying that I don't believe him because it hasn't withstood peer review.
Huh? Doesn't "not withstanding peer review" involve other people writing articles that disagree with his research? If no one has done this, why do you assume that he hasn't withstood peer review?

I could be wrong, but I don't think that peer review generally consists of scientists writing a bunch of "yep, I agree" articles.

[thaiboxerken]

It seems to me you stated a fact, not a belief.
But you are right. I don't understand the logical rules of burden of evidence.

I'm not here to educate you. Go take a course on critical thinking. You can also learn online if you google it.


What you are saying is that person one needs proof to back up his "fact", but person two doesn't. Person one, because he is the "claimant" assumes the burden of proof not only for his fact, but for person two's fact as well?

Yes. Because person one's claim implies scientific review has been done.


If person two's fact included "There were no experimental controls, the test was not double blind, the math was wrong, and the researchers' didn't eat lunch that day, so they were weak from hunger.", would person STILL not need any evidence to back up his "fact"?

Nope. Person one still has the burden to show that the experiment was controlled, double-blind, had correct math and the rest of the protocols involved with science.


It was always my understanding that a fact was someting that was known to be true, and an opinion or belief was something that I believed to be true.

Person two is not stating a fact, he's stating a doubt.


I understand that if person two is wrong, person one should have an easy time providing evidence that proves him wrong.
But shouldn't the second person have some basis for his fact other than belief? Shouldn't he be able to explain why he has elevated his statement from "belief" to "fact"?

Nope.


Anyone please feel free to jump in here. This isn't about Keen, or TBK, or whatever the hell it is that Keen is claiming. I couldn't care less.
I'm new here and trying to learn. Maybe eventually I'll be able to contribute to the discussions here without making an a** of myself.


My doubts and statements against Keen's claims are entirely dependant on Keen's claims. Since Keen's claims are not established facts, the burden of evidence is upon him.

[thaiboxerken]

Huh? Doesn't "not withstanding peer review" involve other people writing articles that disagree with his research?

No.

If no one has done this, why do you assume that he hasn't withstood peer review?

Because the articles and research haven't appeared in peer
reviewed scientific journals.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that peer review generally consists of scientists writing a bunch of "yep, I agree" articles.

You're right.

[Whomp]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I'm not here to educate you. Go take a course on critical thinking.
Thanks ever so much.
I never would have thought of that myself.
That's why I enjoy coming here, because of the sense of camraderie and educational spirit.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Whomp
Thanks ever so much.
I never would have thought of that myself.
That's why I enjoy coming here, because of the sense of camraderie and educational spirit.

Then you have misunderstood what this board is about.

No, it is not about "camraderie". It is, however, about "educational spirit". Something that requires two participants, a student and a teacher.

If you ask, you will get an answer. If you ask to cause a stir, you will be told to shove it where the sun don't shine. You can learn a lot of things here, but it starts with yourself.

This is a rough, tough board. Here, we seek reality, truth, facts. Blood on the dance floor? Yeah. But, after the moderators have swept the floor clean (a more rare occurrence than Lucianarchy admitting to lunacy), we end up with something that is closer to truth.

Not bad for an Internet message board, me thinks.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I always considered being a skeptic to be more a personality trait, you cant get away from it, I'm not sure anyone can be a "part-time skeptic".

Actually that is not necessarily true. I am by nature a very credulous person. I had to learn to be skeptical. As a matter of fact I am the kind of person who feels like running to the phone every time an infomercial comes on. I have to consciously make an effort to not to be credulous about almost everything.

[lekiotr]

Thai,

"The article "Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons" was published by Dr. Stevenson in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Because it is copywrited material, we can no longer include it here on our site. You can find it by contacting the Journal. "

from:

http://www.childpastlives.org/stevenson_articles.htm

the Journal of Scientific Exploration:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/

Is peer reviewed.

How, then, has it not withstood scientific scrutiny?

And this is one of the sources.

Other than that, I'm done here. For now.

[c0rbin]

I am no scientist, I freely admit that, but Birth Marks and the wounds of dead people?

Even I can see how impossible it would be to verify something like this. Talk about shoe-horning!

Is this the "missing link" of continued consciousness!?!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

This is a rough, tough board.

Not really.

Most of it is bull sessions.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Pelopre
Thai,

"The article "Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons" was published by Dr. Stevenson in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Because it is copywrited material, we can no longer include it here on our site. You can find it by contacting the Journal. "

from:

http://www.childpastlives.org/stevenson_articles.htm

the Journal of Scientific Exploration:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/

Is peer reviewed.

How, then, has it not withstood scientific scrutiny?

And this is one of the sources.

Other than that, I'm done here. For now.

I meant a real scientific journal.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by c0rbin
I am no scientist, I freely admit that, but Birth Marks and the wounds of dead people?

Even I can see how impossible it would be to verify something like this. Talk about shoe-horning!

Is this the "missing link" of continued consciousness!?!

Some time ago, I posed this very question to Michael Steffano, owner of birthmarks.com. Although Michael is very knowledgable about the subject, he had never - ever - heard of such a thing.

Sylvia Browne also peddles this fantasy that birthmarks are the wounds of dead people. There is nothing to support this whatsoever.

Except wishful thinking. Never underestimate that one...

[lekiotr]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I meant a real scientific journal.

Why is this not a real scientific journal? What is your definition of a real scientific journal, what are the requisites?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Pelopre
Thai,

"The article "Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons" was published by Dr. Stevenson in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Because it is copywrited material, we can no longer include it here on our site. You can find it by contacting the Journal. "

from:

http://www.childpastlives.org/stevenson_articles.htm

the Journal of Scientific Exploration:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/

Is peer reviewed.

How, then, has it not withstood scientific scrutiny?

And this is one of the sources.

Other than that, I'm done here. For now.
From' The mission 'of the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) (http://www.scientificexploration.org/mission.html) ...topics which are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science.

I wonder if any of those ' various ' reasons, might be because the exploration of these topics, fails to produce any useful results..

Just a guess..

Does anyone else have a problem with presenting an organization, that pursues questions that ' mainstream science ' has abandoned, as evidence of something that has ' withstood scientific scrutiny '..:confused:

[Thanz]

Diogenes -

Some fairly selective editing there. They also state this:
The Society encourages such investigations for several reasons that may appeal to different communities.

To the research scientist, we commend the intellectual challenge of explaining away an apparent anomaly or seizing the new knowledge presented by a real one.

To the student scientist, we point out that science does not begin with textbooks: it begins with the unknown and ends with textbooks.

To the nonscientist, we acknowledge that deep public interest in some of these topics calls for unprejudiced evaluation based on objective research.

To the policy-maker, we point out that today's anomaly may become tomorrow's technology.

I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think that we can conclude that an organization that studies things outside of mainstream science are automatically not "real scientists". They seem to be genuinely interested in the truth.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Thanz
Diogenes -

Some fairly selective editing there. They also state this:


I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think that we can conclude that an organization that studies things outside of mainstream science are automatically not "real scientists". They seem to be genuinely interested in the truth.

Creationists have also created their own "peer-reviewed" journal.

When I said scrutinized by the scientific community, I don't mean a select group of believers that torture data to support their beliefs. JSE is not a scientific journal.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Thanz
Diogenes -

Some fairly selective editing there. They also state this:


I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think that we can conclude that an organization that studies things outside of mainstream science are automatically not "real scientists". They seem to be genuinely interested in the truth.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Society encourages such investigations for several reasons that may appeal to different communities.

To the research scientist, we commend the intellectual challenge of explaining away an apparent anomaly or seizing the new knowledge presented by a real one.

A contradiction: What is the ' knowledge ' presented by a ' real ' anomaly

To the student scientist, we point out that science does not begin with textbooks: it begins with the unknown and ends with textbooks.

More nonsense.. Formal education ( in this day and age does begin with textbooks ( the work that has proceeded us, that we must draw upon)..


To the nonscientist, we acknowledge that deep public interest in some of these topics calls for unprejudiced evaluation based on objective research.

Fallacious.. Appeal to popularity ..

To the policy-maker, we point out that today's anomaly may become tomorrow's technology.

Another fallacy, but I'm not sure what the fallacy is when you ' hope ' something may be true someday.. Maybe someone can help me out...


Being ' genuinely ' interested in the truth, is commendable, but hardly a credential..

[Thanz]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

When I said scrutinized by the scientific community, I don't mean a select group of believers that torture data to support their beliefs. JSE is not a scientific journal.
But what are you basing this on? So far, all you have done is claimed it is not a scientific journal. Why not? Just because you say so?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Diogenes

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Society encourages such investigations for several reasons that may appeal to different communities.

To the research scientist, we commend the intellectual challenge of explaining away an apparent anomaly or seizing the new knowledge presented by a real one.

A contradiction: What is the ' knowledge ' presented by a ' real ' anomaly
How the heck am I supposed to know? It would be a new discovery. We get knowledge from discovering new things. How hard is that to understand?

To the student scientist, we point out that science does not begin with textbooks: it begins with the unknown and ends with textbooks.

More nonsense.. Formal education ( in this day and age does begin with textbooks ( the work that has proceeded us, that we must draw upon)..
A fluffy statement to be sure, but remember this is a mission statement, not a thesis. They are just making the point that the most important idea in science is to be able to say you don't know about something, and then study it systematically until you do know something. And then put it in a text book.

To the nonscientist, we acknowledge that deep public interest in some of these topics calls for unprejudiced evaluation based on objective research.

Fallacious.. Appeal to popularity ..
Not an appeal to popularity at all, in terms of the validity of any phenomena. They are saying that stuff like ghosts, or homeopathy, or esp or whatever have taken root in the minds of the public. Because of this, we need "unprejudiced evaluation based on objective research". Heck, I'd expect even Randi himself to agree with this sentiment!

To the policy-maker, we point out that today's anomaly may become tomorrow's technology.

Another fallacy, but I'm not sure what the fallacy is when you ' hope ' something may be true someday.. Maybe someone can help me out...
You don't know what the fallacy is, but it must be fallacious because.... you don't like them?

All they are saying here is - real scientific research into these sorts of things is important. Just imagine the possibilities if something real is found............

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Thanz

But what are you basing this on? So far, all you have done is claimed it is not a scientific journal. Why not? Just because you say so?

No, because of the nature of their research and the claims.

Also, there is no "mainstream" science. There is only science that uses correct scientific method.

[thaiboxerken]

All they are saying here is - real scientific research into these sorts of things is important. Just imagine the possibilities if something real is found............

Just an appeal to rewards. This is not justification to spend time, money and resources on the many claims that have no evidence or science associated with them.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


No, because of the nature of their research and the claims.
Which are what exactly, and what is your problem with them?

Also, there is no "mainstream" science. There is only science that uses correct scientific method.
Bull. Mainstream science is what happens in labs across the world on mundane topics every day.

Non-mainstream science would be, for example, an experiment to see if talking to the dead was real. Such an experiment could be done with proper controls and the proper scientific method. It would still be non-mainstream science.

[thaiboxerken]

Which are what exactly, and what is your problem with them?

Pretty much all of them. They seem to promote a distrust of "mainstream" science, (aka real science).


Bull. Mainstream science is what happens in labs across the world on mundane topics every day.

No, that's real science. Only woo-woos call it "mainstream".


Non-mainstream science would be, for example, an experiment to see if talking to the dead was real. Such an experiment could be done with proper controls and the proper scientific method. It would still be non-mainstream science.

There is no "mainstream" science, only real science. Experiments in mediumship is fine, but there has been no evidence of afterlife, spirits, ghosts or ability to hold 2 way conversations with the dead.

The JSE is not a scientific journal. You might like it, but it's not science, it is just a bunch of believers with an agenda. It's as "scientific" as the creationists and their own "peer-reviewed" journal.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Thanz

How the heck am I supposed to know?

Once you do (know), it is no longer an anomaly...



I'll try to get back with a better rebuttal, after I have done some research..


'Real' scientists do not spend time on psi because there is no money in it.. i.e. no grants..

I am sure there are any number of undiscovered truths, but it is evident that ' wishing ' it were so, or complaining that there is not enough serious research being done in the field, and that this is all that stands in the way of some stupendous discovery, is not going to yield any results any time soon.


And for all of those who want to point to the past and all of the things that were misunderstood or unexplained, I will remind you, that what was not understood or unexplained, was not without evidence that there was something substative that needed explaining.