Fight Bunk in Schools

[corplinx]

I read the latest commentary about the student who flunked their assignment because they wrote about the load of bunk taught them by their guest speaker a doctor of "naturopathy".

I sent in this story to several news sources as a lead. I am sure someone like Bill O'Reilly would love this.

[Brown]

Just for fun, let's put the shoe on the other foot. What if the subject being taught was evolution?

I mean, assume for the moment that the facts are similar to what Randi reported: A teacher invites a friend of hers to come into the class and lecture the students about evolution. The guest speaker talks about the subject and hands out "information" sheets.

When the teacher asssigns the students a project based upon the lecture, one student writes that the subject was a bunch of quack nonsense.

What should the teacher do?

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
Just for fun, let's put the shoe on the other foot. What if the subject being taught was evolution?

I mean, assume for the moment that the facts are similar to what Randi reported: A teacher invites a friend of hers to come into the class and lecture the students about evolution. The guest speaker talks about the subject and hands out "information" sheets.

When the teacher asssigns the students a project based upon the lecture, one student writes that the subject was a bunch of quack nonsense.

What should the teacher do?

That is accepted science with evidence backing it up. The reason the quack was opposed was for no reason than because what she was saying was not backed up by any sort of evidence (thus it being quackery). Evolution is usually rejected on religious grounds and thus they accept no evidence anyways.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown

What should the teacher do?

Regardless of what shoe we are talking about, the teacher should allow the student to publicly debate the issue with them. If the student refuses to debate why they think the subject is bunk, then they are obviously just being lazy and deserve to be failed. But if they put forth the effort to debate it and follow the proper methods of debating they will either prove the teacher wrong, or realize that they were wrong themselves.

[Brown]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
That is accepted science with evidence backing it up. The reason the quack was opposed was for no reason than because what she was saying was not backed up by any sort of evidence (thus it being quackery). Evolution is usually rejected on religious grounds and thus they accept no evidence anyways.

You know that evolution is based upon science and that naturopathy is not, and I know it, too.

But that distinction does not resolve the problem, at least not in the minds of most people. Many people wouldn't recognize good science if it bit them in the posterior. A large number of them believe that creationism is good science and that evolution is a unscientific notion concocted to further Satan's ends.

These folks would be quick to perceive a double standard. If a student should be allowed to challenge naturopathy as nonsense, then a student ought to be allowed to challenge evolution, too. It would be unfortunate if a dispute involving a student standing up for science were to be used as a precedent for creatrionist protests.

Quote:

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Regardless of what shoe we are talking about, the teacher should allow the student to publicly debate the issue with them. If the student refuses to debate why they think the subject is bunk, then they are obviously just being lazy and deserve to be failed. But if they put forth the effort to debate it and follow the proper methods of debating they will either prove the teacher wrong, or realize that they were wrong themselves.

This I think hits a little closer to a practical solution, but the problem is that the teacher and the so-called expert can intimidate the student, citing various studies and experiments in their favor. The student could not be expected to have that kind of information available. It would not be a fair debate.

It seems to me that the dispute would have to be brought to the principal's attention immediately, and probably to the school board. In my view, the best solution is not a scientific debate, but a combination of good science and politics.

It wouldn't have to be a "live" public debate. Give the student the chance to question the lecturers and teachers "evidence" and provide evidence to the contrary. Put together a well written paper, submit it, and the teacher SHOULD provide a commensurate grade.

But I doubt that teacher would allow it, since she believes in the naturopathy bunk anyway, and the school seems to back her up. (Or is the school just afraid to get involved?)

[Nova Land]

When I responded last night to a different thread about this subject, I had not read this one yet. In that one, I was delighted to think I could disagree with everyone. Here, I see Brown has already made many points I agree with.

I think Brown is right on the mark that the student's response to the assignment (to declare the material presented to be bunk) is similar to the response that some creationist students make to material they disagree with. The obvious question this raises is: if a student disagrees with something being taught, how should they express this disagreement? Two other questions also occur: when should they express this disagreement, and , perhaps most important. why should they need to express disagreement?

Schools should teach us about things. They should not be teaching people what to believe in; that's a decision for individuals to make for themselves, based on what they have learned.

I think it could be quite appropriate for a school to invite a communist to make a presentation, for example, if the class is studying communism, or to invite a rabbi to speak about Judaism if the class is studying that. It should be irrelevant whether the teacher agrees or disagrees with communism, is or is not Jewish, since the purpose is not to convert the students to these beliefs but to inform them what these things are about.

I have no problem with a communist, a socialist, or even a Republican being allowed to teach in public schools, so long as they are able to teach the students rather than indoctrinate them. It is fair to test students to see if they understand the material presented; it is out-of-line to test them on whether they personally agree with the material presented.

If the teacher was trying to persuade the students to believe in naturopathy, then the teacher was out of line. This is quite possibly so, but we do not know that from the anecdote as told. The assignment the teacher gave the class ("list 5 things you learned from the presentation") is a reasonable one. It requires no belief in naturopathy for students to list 5 things they learned from the presentation about naturopathy, just as it requires no belief in communism for a student to list 5 things they learned from a presentation about communism.

What is (or should be) expected as answers are factual statements about the practice of naturopathy. Statements either of belief or disbelief are not what was asked for and should be marked as incorrect if they are given instead of appropriate responses. If a student wishes to fulfill the assignment (i.e. list 5 things from the presentation) and then additionally explain why they think the things are bunk, I think that is admirable. The student is going above and beyond the work assigned, which is good and should be encouraged.

If the student does a good job of questioning the material presented, and the teacher feels there is time, the teacher may choose to devote some class time to allowing the student to present this to the class. This should be a way of rewarding a student for doing extra work, not a way of promoting a particular view. Neither students nor teachers have a right to try to convert the other students to their beliefs during class time. They are free to put forward their views during discussion, but especially in grade school the presentation of material generally takes precedence over discussion of people's opinions about the material.

Some people earlier in this thread argued that this case (a student declaring naturopathy bunk) is different from cases of students declaring evolution bunk, since naturopathy is bunk and evolution isn't. That seems to me to lead to a system that encourages faith in authority and discourages critical thinking. It says that it is all right for a student to raise questions about certain things (things we think are questionable), and not right to questions other things (things that we think are not questionable).

It think it is good for people, especially young people, to be open to questioning everything. That which is true will stand up to scrutiny, and be the better understood for it. An important part of skepticism is learning to question the obvious, especially the things that "everyone knows" and no one checks. Very often the reason "everyone knows" something is true is because it is true. But it's worth learning to find that truth for oneself rather than simply accepting it because everyone else does.

We need an educational system that allows (and encourages) questioning and critical thinking, even on topics where the student will (one hopes) eventually realize the material is correct after all.

This raises a practical question: how much class time and energy can be devoted to questioning of the material presented? In our present system, I think the answer has to be: "Not much."

Holding a formal debate may, occasionally, be an interesting thing to try, but in general it is not a good solution to this problem.

(1) It takes up too much class time to be possible on a regular basis.

(2) The "expert" is likely to be better prepared and more experienced with glib replies that will sound good at the moment; if a creationism-believing teacher were to invite a creationist speaker in to make a presentation, and a student challenged it as nonsense, I would prefer to have someone experienced at debating creationists be brought in.

(3) But the main problem I have with the idea of a debate is that grade school students should not be compelled to express either agreement or disagreement with the material presented. Students should be able to attend classes and learn about various subjects without being put on the spot and made to feel different because of their beliefs. Material should be presented in such a way that a student can learn about these subjects without feeling pressured to express agreement with things the student does not agree with.

The problem with anti-evolutionists is they often feel a need to attack the material being presented instead of learning it, even when no statement of belief is being asked for. Often they go out of their way to find opportunities to start arguments about evolution, regardless of what the subject actually being covered that day is, thus disrupting the class and preventing other students from learning. Any student who refuses to learn the material being covered deserves a failing grade. Any student who attempts to take up class time arguing their pet subject in an attempt to convert other students to their belief deserves to be treated as a discipline problem. That's true regardless of whether they are acting this way on behalf of a correct or incorrect belief.

The boy in the anecdote Randi relates was not behaving this badly. He may have failed to do the assignment (depending on how he answered the questions) but he did not disrupt the class.

One way to fight bunk in the classroom is to keep the fight out of the classroom. Rather than pushing students to provoke arguments in the classroom, I would prefer to push teachers to teach in a way that reduces the need for such arguments.

[Hazelip]

A debate, and striving to improve upon the students' abilities to "think on their feet" is certainly admirable. It is not, however a suitable replacement for time and research in the form of a careful refutation in the form of a written work.

To admonish a student's efforts as applied to a written work of research and the time spent thinking upon the matter of said written work is asinine and short-sighted. Concerned only with the grandstanding and showmanship of an "open debate" and neglectful of the lessons learned through time spent upon research and the application of critical thinking.

The belief that evolutionary teachings should be subjected to the same criticism, and acceptance of such criticism is equally absurd.

While openness dictates that an invitation of criticism is required, criticisms of theories based entirely upon personal belief or religious foundations are not the same as debunking. The paper, as the papers critical of "naturopathy", would have to be judged upon their factual accuracy and the student's ability to present a well-crafted and well-reasoned argument. Discussion of facts in evidence is to be welcomed and encouraged. Invitation to criticism based upon nothing more than religious belief is harmful to the process of teaching critical thought.

As a history teacher once informed my class in high school, not everyone is entitled to an opinion. Everyone, however, is entitled to an informed opinion.

[Nova Land]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hazelip

As a history teacher once informed my class in high school, not everyone is entitled to an opinion. Everyone, however, is entitled to an informed opinion.

I agree.

I would tend to express it differently, but that's more a difference in language than in the idea, I think. I'd probably say that everyone is entitled to hold an opinion, but that not all opinions deserve equal consideration. An informed opinion should generally carry considerably more weight in helping others to investigate and judge a matter.

It is quite possible for an informed opinion to turn out to be wrong and an uninformed opinion to turn out to be right. The odds, however, are good that there will be more merit in the informed opinion than the uninformed one. Given that time is limited, it generally makes more sense to examine and inquire into the points raised in an informed opinion than the ones made in an uninformed one.

Which raises the question: what is an informed opinion? It is unfortunately common for people to confuse an opinion that comes to the conclusion they believe to be correct with an informed opinion.

Let us take the case of two students, one believing evolution to be bunk, one believing naturopathy to be bunk.

The first student has read numerous articles about the theory of evolution which claim the theory is riddled with errors, based on evidence that has turned out to be false, and that many scientists do not believe in it. These articles give many facts, figures, direct quotations from seemingly knowledgeable people, all heavily footnoted. Further, the student has heard many adults whom she respects say the same things. (The reason they say the same things is because they have read the same articles.) Neither she, nor most of the adults whom she has heard saying these things, has bothered to look up the original sources referred to; she doesn't feel she needs to, since other people have looked these up and documented this stuff for her in these articles.

Question: does she have an informed opinion? Hold off on your answer to that for a moment, please.

The second student has read numerous articles about naturopathy and other new age quackery which claim these ideas are silly and do not actually work. These articles give many facts, figures, and direct quotations from seemingly knowledgeable people, all footnoted. Further, the student has heard many adults whom she respects say the same things. Neither she, nor most of the adults whom she has heard saying these things, has bothered to look up the original sources referred to; she doesn't feel she needs to, since other people have looked these up and documented this stuff for her in these articles.

Does she have an informed opinion? Again, please wait a moment on your answer.

The second student was correct in her belief, and the first one was incorrect. If they had taken the time to look up the original sources being referred to and read these for themselves, the first student would have found things were not quite the way the articles represented things, while the second one would have found the sources cited did back up the claims being made. But neither of my hypothetical students had taken the time time to do that.

I don't think informed and uninformed are black-and-white, either-or matters.

(a) A person who has read or heard nothing factual on a subject, but expresses an opinion, is at one extreme.

(b) A little farther along the line is the person who has read or heard a summary of the facts from a single source, and that source is simply repeating a summary they read.

(c) Almost as uninformed is the person who has read or heard a summary of the facts from several sources, all of whom are simply repeating summaries they've read -- and which turn out to all be based on the same summary.

(d) Somewhat better informed is the person who has read or heard summaries from various sources, all of which were simply repeating summaries they'd read -- but which turn out to be based on different summaries. (At least this person is getting a variety of perspectives to base her judgment on -- unlike the first previous three, who were actually relying on a single source even if they were not aware of it.)

(e) Much better informed, skipping ahead several points on this continuum, is the person who has actually taken the time and effort to track down the primary sources for the significant claims referred to in the the things she has read or heard, and verified for herself that the facts support the claims being made.

Persons b, c and d were informed enough that their opinions would carry weight in raising an issue. If such a person tells me something is true, I am not willing to accept their conclusion but I am willing to think the question may be worth looking into.

If person e were to tell me that something is true, that would carry considerably more weight. I would still hesitate to state for myself that I knew it to be true, but I would be willing to say that others who had looked into it had found it to be true.

If I knew several e-type people, all of whom I knew to be careful in their reading and honest in their evaluation of what they read, who had all looked into a question and all come to the same conclusion, I would be inclined to accept their conclusion as true, and accept it as true unless a reason came up to do otherwise. My opinion would not be as informed as theirs, and thus would not be something on which others should rely too heavily in forming their own opinions, but it would be an informed opinion.

Too often people seem impressed by appearance and numbers. By appearance, I refer to footnotes, credentialed authors, and other things that look authoritative. By numbers, I mean hearing the same assertion many times or from many people. Neither of these is a substitute for actually looking up the primary source material for oneself.

In my hypothetical examples, both students fall at the same point on the uninformed/informed continuum. They are informed enough to pay attention to in raising questions, but not informed enough to give us authoritative answers to the questions they raise. The fact I agree with one and disagree with the other doesn't change that, for me at least.

Now lets go back to the real world.

We do not know whether the student in Randi's anecdote had actually looked up the facts about naturopathy or was simply relying on what he had been told by others. The fact that what he had been told was correct does not, in itself, make his an informed opinion, simply a correct one. If people are reading the anecdote and concluding this student had an informed opinion but a creationist student has an uninformed one, it might be good to ask why and how they are able to glean that from the account as written.

[Hazelip]

Keeerist, Nova Land! Do you have any concept of how to be succinct. This is a message board, not a pulpit.

[Nova Land]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hazelip
Do you have any concept of how to be succinct?

Yes, I can conceive of how to be so.

Sometimes brevity is the soul of wit. However, I'm fond of long-evity as well.

Nova Land-
In any debate, there has to be a source of the issue. So, let's say a new idea comes out, and it is presented in a believable way. It is questioned by some, accepted by others. At the start of this is your b-type, looking at the same results. At what point do they become "informed"?

Granted, though, naturopathy and evolution are nothing new.

[Nova Land]

Quote:

Originally posted by william1165
In any debate, there has to be a source of the issue. So, let's say a new idea comes out, and it is presented in a believable way. It is questioned by some, accepted by others. At the start of this is your b-type, looking at the same results. At what point do they become "informed"?

If there's not enough reliable information available, then no one has an informed opinion.

Regardless of how many people believe this new thing is true or how many people believe it is false, if none of these people has direct experience relating to the matter then their opinions should carry little or no weight. (Summaries of their opinions would likewise carry little or no weight, since what's being summarized has little or none.)

Until there is enough reliable information available to conclude something is true, it's sensible not to conclude anything.

That's not quite the same as concluding that it's false. But it's certainly very different from concluding the new thing is true. A sensible person would not necessarily disbelieve in this new thing, but they would not believe in it until there were reasonable grounds for doing so.

"Reasonable grounds" would consist of tests such as the ones Randi devises to determine if claims of the paranormal are genuine. It's hard to define "reasonable grounds" without a specific topic, but at various times people have mentioned claims (over in the Paranormal and Million Dollar Challenge sections) and Stimpson The Cat (among others) has been good at suggesting good ways to test the claims.

Once sufficient tests such as these have been done, then the people carrying out the experiments (or present when the experiments were carried out) have direct experience and may have informed opinions. Those who read their reports of these experiences may also have informed opinions.

[dharlow]

Very interesting points Nova Land.

I'm wondering if you feel that many "skeptics" are informed, and in that sense I mean by going back to the original reports/experiments and forming a hypothesis in that way? Or do you feel that much of the skeptic literature is simply an interpretation of someone's else's opinion of the evidence produced by paranormalists?

[Nova Land]

Quote:

Originally posted by dharlow

I'm wondering if you feel that many "skeptics" are informed, and in that sense I mean by going back to the original reports/experiments and forming a hypothesis in that way?

Or do you feel that much of the skeptic literature is simply an interpretation of someone's else's opinion of the evidence...?

Instead of talking about skeptical and non-skeptical literature, let me start with a different distinction: belief and non-belief literature. Belief literature is literature which indicates certain things are true; non-belief literature is literature which indicates certain things are false. Non-belief literature is not the same as skeptical literature.

Most belief literature on the paranormal that I have seen tends to be of poor quality. In contrast, most non-belief literature I have seen is of good quality.

I especially enjoy articles where people consider a claim, think about how such a claim could be tested, come up with a method, carry out the test, and report on the test. That, to me, is skeptical literature (as well as usually being non-belief literature). Joe Nickell leaps to mind as an example of an excellent writer of skeptical articles and books, as does Randi.

Non-belief literature has also done a good job of researching and reporting on the work done by paranormalists. Reading the original reports for oneself, when possible, is good, but one can still be reasonably well-informed by reading honest and well-researched summaries by others.

A great deal of non-belief literature is also skeptical literature. However, just because an item comes down in favor of non-belief does not make it skeptical. Likewise, just because a person comes down on the side of non-belief does not make them a skeptic.

I believe that skeptics are by definition well-informed about the subjects they hold opinions on. There are, however, people who reach the same conclusions as skeptics do but who are not well-informed. I would not call such people skeptics -- but many other people would and do.

Confusion occurs because there are 2 ways one can define skepticism. It can refer to (1) the process skeptics apply in trying to discern what is true, or (2) the body of conclusions skeptics arrive at from applying that process.

I define skeptics as people who examine and weigh the evidence before drawing conclusions, and who draw conclusions based on what that evidence will support.

Skepticism (the process) leads people using it to draw certain conclusions. Some people define skepticism as the set of these conclusions.

On many issues, examining the evidence skeptically leads to a conclusion that the claim is false. Hence a skeptic is likely to reach conclusions that homeopathy, astrology, reincarnation, spontaneous human combustion, ghosts, fairies, etc., are bunk. This makes it easy to confuse belief that certain things are false with skepticism.

However: While a skeptic will almost certainly conclude that astrology is bunk, a person who concludes that astrology is bunk is not necessarily a skeptic. It is quite possible to conclude astrology is bunk for non-skeptical reasons: "My parents say it's bunk, and that's good enough for me!"

I am generally more interested in the process people use to reach their conclusions than in the conclusions they reach. This is true for me in regard to politics and religion as well as the paranormal.

If we focus on teaching people to accept skeptical conclusions, we are actually teaching them to be anti-skeptics. The message being sent is that the important things is to hold the correct belief. This is dogmatism rather than skepticism.

If we focus instead on teaching people to be skeptical (i.e. to use the skeptical process), then we are equipping them not only to reach a sound conclusion on whatever situation is at hand at the moment but also on situations that will come up in the future.

One reason some people may prefer to focus on skeptical conclusions rather than skeptical process is that it gives more immediate gratification. By arguing forcefully enough for a skeptical conclusion (for example, that nauropathy is bunk), we may hope to overwhelm the opponents' arguments so that they yield to our superiority and accept our conclusion.

To me, that is actually an undesirable outcome to the argument. In arguing for skeptical process, what I am actually trying to say is: "Here is what I believe on this subject.. Here is why I believe it. However, I would prefer you not reach that conclusion yet until you examine the evidence for yourself."

Arguing for skeptical process means it may be longer before people agree with us on the particular subject at hand (since we want them to reach their conclusion based on their own evaluation of the evidence, not out of mere acceptance of ours). But if others acquire the habit of thinking skeptically, it will help them be more likely to reach sound conclusions in future matters.

Much of the non-belief literature that has been published is of very good quality. It promotes skepticism (the process) while also providing valuable information on specific issues to help people reach informed conclusions on these. It is what I would consider skeptical literature. (I wish more of this literature were published in cheaper, more accessible formats so that it could be more widely read and appreciated. But I'm glad it exists, and is available to those who look for it.)

However, in street-level discussions (and even in many of the discussion in this forum) I generally notice more skepticism-type-2 (belief in skeptical conclusions) and less skepticism-type-1 (belief in skeptical process). Applauding Christa and Devon based mainly on the fact they are standing up for a conclusion we agree with strikes me as an example of skepticism-type-2. If so, it's something worth questioning -- which is why I'm glad Brown raised these issues, and why I chimed in.

(I didn't mean to go on at quite this much length, though.)

I completely missed everything NovaLand had to say. Too long winded.

Sorry.

[Nova Land]

Quote:

Originally posted by william1165
I completely missed everything NovaLand had to say. Too long winded.

I agree -- my answer to dharlow was over-long. In trying to answer the question raised, other questions occurred to me, other thoughts crept in, and I modified what I wrote to include those...

Apologies.

I'm not clear if you found my previous answer (to your question) over-long as well.

I'd be happy to attempt a shorter answer to either or both of these questions. Rather than attempt to do a shorter version in the thread, and take up still more space, I could do this via PM. Just let me know which question you'd prefer a shorter answer to, and how short to keep it, and I'll try to stick within that limit.

[Hunter]

I'm currently taking a college level anatomy course at my high-school; recently we had to give presentations on various topics, one of the topics a class-mate of mine (damn good looking, but she is just a tad on the gullible side) presented was.....reflexology! The ancient art of paying a creepy druggie obscene amounts of cash to rub your feet with oils.

It wasn't her presentation that really upset me though, it was the teachers.Glib, unquestioning acceptance, wherupon she then(the teacher) began to talk about/expound on the "various studies" that proved that this stuff works. On being questioned as to actual names/dates of studies etc. All that turned up was a blank from her and heaps of righteous indignation from my class-mates aimed at me for always wanting "documentation or proof".

Did I mention the time we "discussed" evolution in religion class?.....

-Hunter

[dharlow]

I agree with you in principle Novaland, and many of your points are indeed valid. However, I am of the impression, having studied many of the original reports of parapsychology/psychical research, that most books printed by CSICOP either:

1.) Distort the evidence completely, claiming things happened which clearly did not, or claiming that things that did not occur that actually did.

2.) Mislead in their conclusions: Certainly understandable, as everyone is entitled to their opinions, but even still, their conclusions are rather incomprehensible when they are compared to the results of other scientific fields.

3.) Show no evidence whatsoever that they have examined the "best" evidence that parapsychology has to offer.

This has left me wondering whether any of these books should be taken seriously. I have read many books from CSICOP contributors (even those who are not, including Randi/Shermer/etc...). They do not deal with the real issues (nor should they necessarily), but they extend their conclusions to mean that all of the paranormal is 'bunk".

I began my own inquiry with an honest quest for the truth. As that is still the case, let me explain where I am coming from (since I believe it is important to know who one is when discussing the subject with them). I had been told of several "paranormal" events in my family, all first hand, by people who 'I' know to be intelligent (for whatever that is worth). The skeptic theory invokes the "will to believe" strongly, but I do not feel that such is the case with members of my own family, at least at the surface. Nevertheless, I began my inquiry leaning towards the skeptic side. How could intelligent people (many of them professors at learned universities) be completely wrong about the conclusion that the paranormal was bunk, I asked myself? I admit that I didn't believe that they could theoretically disprove anything, but I did feel that there would be a good critical analysis of the best evidence that parapsychology had to offer... to the point that only the most ardent believer would continue to believe in such things.

I was wrong... dreadfully wrong. My approach to the subject was not in regards to the experimental aspect, but rather to where it originated. If the evidence for "psi" in spontaneous cases was weak, then the evidence for psi in experimental parapsychlogy (no matter how sophisticated it was and no matter how thoughtfully it was carried out) meant little more than wishful thinking and a desire to look for anomalies. However, I have found that the evidence for spontaneuous psi is rather striking, and not explainable, at the surface, to normal factors. This doesn't mean it is completely immune to such explanations, but it implies further inquiry in my mind. Following that thinking, so to were the best parapsychological experiments.

Having researched some of the original reports of parapsychology/psychical research, I find that many (all?) of the "skeptic" (and when I say skeptic books, I mean CSICOP/Prometheus) books do not deal with the original reports at all, which would contradict your point of them being "informed". I find extraordinary distortions of the evidence (almost to the point where I am compelled to consider either complete stupidity of the author or a remarkable ignorance of the original reports themselves). This begs the question...are these books in any way qualified to speak on this subject whatsoever?

I have found but two books ( and I have read many)published from CSICOP which I consider useful to any student of parapsychology. One is the Skeptics Handbook of Parapsychology, and the other is The Elusive Quarry, by Ray Hyman. Hyman is a reputable critic, and his statements on the evidence furnished for psi are rarely misleading or (most importantly ) distortive. However, his conclusions sometimes are, and he concludes by saying that parapsychologists have an anomaly (which he considers to explained by normal factors and indeed not an anomaly at all) but that scientists should take no interest in it. The Skeptic HP is a collection of essays, some good,, some not so good, but it will give a fair interpretation of the belief factors of both sides, and it does show that when we get down to brass tacks and put everything on the table, some good debate can come of it.

I didn't mean to make this post so long. I thought your intelligent post on referencing original source material was important. In fact, a recent study I saw suggests that many scientists in other fields no longer consult the original sources. I feel that many skeptic books from CSICOP are extraordinarily misleading. You mention Joe Nickell, but he coauthored a book (Missing Pieces) which contains many erroneous or highly misleading remarks. To put it charitably, "skeptics" are not checking the original source material, and are naive about what they are explaining. A cynic, though, might suggest that they have indeed consulted this material, and in an attempt to prevent the "woo-woos from winning" (as intimated in Dennis Rawling's Starbaby), committed a cover-up.

For me, true skepticism is displayed in parapsychology research itself. Very few are naive enough to devote their lives to something which is nonexistent (though yes there are a few fringe parapsychologists, if you can believe the term, who are out for personal gain, just as there are in any scientific field). There are many debates within the subject that are highly technical and get down to real issues. Parapsychologists do not need a bunch of uninformed, biased people to defame their field of inquiry.

Dharlow, I was wondering if you would give us some examples? Thanks in advance.

[dharlow]

I am more than happy to oblige Denise.

I posted three different statements, so rather than go through everything which I have encountered (which could take days I'm afraid), I will simply state several examples:

1.) Distort the evidence completely, claiming things happened which clearly did not, or claiming that things that did not occur that actually did.

"Since a number of tiny mouth organs were found among Home's belongings when he died, and he wore a very full 'soup-strainer' moustache, it might be suspected that he was able to play the music by means of such an instrument hidden in his mouth." - Randi Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural....pg 120.

No such instrument was ever among Home's belongings. Martin Gardner originated the story (1988), then said he got it from Randi. Randi said he got it from William Gresham (who died in the early 1960s). Regardless of who got it from who (and it is remarkable that none of these gentleman tried to verify this source whatsoever), someone lied. I don't know who it was....but someone lied, and this must cast serious doubt on the objectivity of these writers.

" Born in southern Italy, spirit medium Palladino was accepted by many scientists, particularly those like Charles Richet and Schrenck-Notzing, who were devout believers in spiritualistic claims." - pg. 171

Yet in the same book Randi writes " However, Richet was not at all convinced by the performances of medium Eusapia Palladino, whom he also witnessed". - pg. 203.

First of all, neither of the two scientists were believers in "spiritualistic claims". They believed the phenomena could be produced by some form of psychokinetic power, not by spirits. However one wishes to regard their conclusions, Randi's summary is incorrect, and he remarkably contradicts his points in other parts of the book as I have shown above.

" He (William James) was initially impressed by the private details she was able to disclose about himself, although he may not have known that a maid in his household was friendly with a maid in Ms. Piper's."

This is from Massimo Pallidoro's book "Final Seance" (pg. 34). It certainly sounds plausible, except that James, at least to anyone's knowledge, never retracted on his belief that Piper was genuinely psychic (disputing his "initially"), nor, and more importantly, is there any evidence whatsoever that James' maid ever knew Ms. Piper's servant (if she even every employed one).

These are distortions, which go beyond any sort of critical reasoning whatsoever. Where do they come from? I will charitably say that they orignated from an ignorance of the original reports. I have seen many, many more such distortions, but detailing them here would make this letter tedious. I may say that if skeptics are so confident that "psychic abilities" are bunk, then why resort to silly, erroneous statements.

2.) Mislead in their conclusions: Certainly understandable, as everyone is entitled to their opinions, but even still, their conclusions are rather incomprehensible when they are compared to the results of other scientific fields.

Ray Hyman has been a formidable and useful critic of psi research for more than 25 years. His book, The Elusive Quarry" is one of more important critiques on psi research that CSICOP has published. He has argued that criticisms of parapsycholgoy are generally unfounded, that " I am now willing to admit that something important might be going on, something that may reward the attention of outsiders", yet he concludes that psi research is not worthy of "the attention of the rest of the scientific community". While everyone is entitled to their opinions on anything, Hyman's points do not add up to his conclusions with regards to other scientific inquiry. If there is an anomaly, which Hyman has fluctuated between admitting and discrediting, then it demands serious inquiry, whether it is ultimately due to normal means or not. Hyman's technique is actually one of suppresion, performed to give others the impression that he is a "fair-minded" critic while simultenously suppressing parapsychology from the rest of science.

3.) Show no evidence whatsoever that they have examined the "best" evidence that parapsychology has to offer.

Terence Hines book "Pseudoscience and the Paranormal" claims to "examine the evidence behind all types of the paranormal". It is used by many college courses which teach "critical thinking". If his stated purpose were true, I imagine his book would have consisted of thousands of pages. As it is, in this paltry book of 350 pages, Hines devotes no little attention to that which parapsychologists consider their strongest evidence. Indeed, many other topics are covered, such as UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, etc... Has Hines truly examined the evidence? To me, if one considers the subject bunk, then one should at least examine what the proponents consider to be their strongest evidence and expose that as "weak" evidence. Hines takes the easy way out of parapsychological research....he ignores most of it. One will find no mention of Ms. Piper, Ms. Leonard, D.D. Home, Palladino, etc..., and only a superficial knowledge of the experimental literature.

On a more specific note with regards to deliberate ignorance, I have a book by Trevor Hall called "The Enigma of Daniel Home". The subtitle states "The mystery of Britain's most famous Spiritualist unraveled."
This would be a very interesting conclusion, given that one would assume that Hall discussed Home's phenomena, with plausible ways in which he could have cheated. Hall does not. In fact, Hall comes up with shotty research designed to case doubt on Home's character (irrelevant ultimately to his production of "telekenesis") and never discusses any of Home's phenomena. Now I think that some of Hall's work is of interest to students of Home. But the conclusion as to the book "unraveling" the mystery is grossly erroneous, and I do not know whether it was Hall or CSICOP who put it there.


I have given a few examples of what I talking about. I could come up with dozens, perhaps hundreds more. I can only speak on what I have studied, and will not extend my conclusions beyond that Hence, when Targ and Puthoff point out dozens of errors in Randi's "Flim Flam", that means nothing to me because I am not familiar with their work. I confine my conclusions to my own research. I will say that I find a disturbing trend for recent skeptic books to quote older skeptic books directly. Many of the older skeptic books are of an even greater level of distortion. This begs the question of whether at least some skeptics have formed their conclusions based on bad information. I dont know. All I want is the truth. I do not know if psychic abilities exist, or even if they did, what they would mean. I do know that I began this investigation with a search for truth, and as such, I naturally leaned heavily on "skeptic" research to guide me, believing that they had indeed studied the original reports and were qualified to speak (since CSICOP states that they "scientifically" investigate this subject). I could not have been more horribly mistaken or mislead.

Thank You so much. I will look into it further. It's always nice to have another voice on this.

Given the number and lenghth of the previous replies, I'm afraid I may stray off topic, but whatev. You only live once, on a forum.

Quote:

A teacher invites a friend of hers to come into the class and lecture the students about evolution. The guest speaker talks about the subject and hands out "information" sheets.

When the teacher asssigns the students a project based upon the lecture, one student writes that the subject was a bunch of quack nonsense.

What should the teacher do?

The teacher should question the student for a reasoned reply. If the student fails to give one, he/she is failed. In any case, if the reason for rejecting the theory of evolution is faith-based, the teacher should make that clear, so that the rest of the class does not go off with the notion the theory is factually arguable.

This is based on the idea that the teacher will have a working notion of science. It's useless if said teacher merely accepts the "scientific" explanation for things blindly.

My apologies to Denise and dharlow for taking this off-topic.

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
I read the latest commentary about the student who flunked their assignment because they wrote about the load of bunk taught them by their guest speaker a doctor of "naturopathy".

I sent in this story to several news sources as a lead. I am sure someone like Bill O'Reilly would love this.

I'm not sure that it would get much press. Particularly in Oregon. Oregon is host to a school touted as the "nation's oldest naturopathic college in the nation": NCNM http://www.ncnm.edu. Oregon in general is a very "homeopathic-friendly" region. Its populated, particularly around Portland, by dope-smokin'-hippie-hiker-granola-eaters, as my father puts it. I have little faith in journalists to actually go after real news stories with bite because, in my experience, they cater to their audience.

JP

As a college student, I am insulted that this student could not debate with the teacher about the preented material, and failed solely due to the fact that they did not agree.

In college, you have to question things and learn. Is this person telling them to just accept whatever you're told or else you'll fail? Like one of my professors liked to say "It's utterly stupid!"

Anyway, I have a teacher in high school that had us write an essay what we thought on evolution and the theories we discussed in class. But, she included that if you didn't believe in it, and could articulate why in the paper, you would get credit because you told what your views were and attempted to support them. But, she made sure to say that you had to find evidence why you believed whatever you did, and also had to write a well thought out piece about it.

Why is this not acceptable practice? If something is bunk, why not be able to challenge it? In this case, she said we could write what we wanted to, since it was mainly an opinion piece, so long as we thought it out and tried to answer it with evidence.

In this case, the teacher just acted close minded. Sure, it might be polite to not call it flat out bunk, but that's what school is for. Questioning, learning, not being a dittohead.

And those students will be shocked when they get to college and discover that they need to think for themselves.

[DrMatt]

Quote:

Originally posted by william1165
It wouldn't have to be a "live" public debate. Give the student the chance to question the lecturers and teachers "evidence" and provide evidence to the contrary. Put together a well written paper, submit it, and the teacher SHOULD provide a commensurate grade.

But I doubt that teacher would allow it, since she believes in the naturopathy bunk anyway, and the school seems to back her up. (Or is the school just afraid to get involved?)

In a science classroom, doing good science is paramount. In an English class, writing good pursuasive writing is more important, even if the subject matter is bunk.

Alas, it's very difficult to come up with any examples of good pursuasive writing for bunk. Choir-preaching, circular arguments, ad hominems, and special pleadings are the rule.

I know somebody who teaches pursuasive writing at a university, and she reports that she regularly gets papers arguing bunk--poorly. She tries hard to teach solid argumentation, and often has to be satisfied with getting college seniors to at least identify a topic sentence.

My theory is that, for advocates of bunk, the exercise of trying to build a solid argument exposes the lack of reasonable support for their bunk, and they have a stronger emotional bond to the bunk than to reason, so they reject reason.

Quote:

Originally posted by DrMatt


My theory is that, for advocates of bunk, the exercise of trying to build a solid argument exposes the lack of reasonable support for their bunk, and they have a stronger emotional bond to the bunk than to reason, so they reject reason.

Can you back that up with evidence? Or do you have a strong emotional bond to your theory.

[DrMatt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nova Land
...
Schools should teach us about things. They should not be teaching people what to believe in; that's a decision for individuals to make for themselves, based on what they have learned.
...

Alas, there is a shortage of teachers who are capable of independent thought themselves, and there's strong political pressure from the far Right, which already resents paying taxes for public schooling anyhow, to make the public schools serve as indoctrination centers.

That's why groups like JREF are so important.