Robert McLuhan's New Anti skeptic Movement Book

Steve001 · 29th December 2010, 05:30 AM

While visiting the Skeptiko site I noticed a new podcast. Alex interviews author Robert McLuhan about his new book titled: Randi’s Prize: What Sceptics Say About the Paranormal, Why They Are Wrong, and Why It Matters
http://www.skeptiko.com/randi-prize-...d-in-new-book/

A transcript is available.

Personally I think this fellows misses the point.

Kuko 4000 · 29th December 2010, 05:35 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=173466&page=3

Ron_Tomkins · 29th December 2010, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Steve001

Personally I think this fellows misses the point.

Yes, all the way.

I remember the name McLuhan barely from my college days at Venezuela, where we were studying methods of communication and McLuhan's "The media is the message" theory. I barely, scarcely remember McLuhan as a very intelligent and hard to comprehend individual... but when it comes to arguing what science is and what the scientific method is, he's just all over the place.

Take this, for instance:

Quote:

Robert McLuhan: I think that’s actually the skeptics’ big complaint. They come to the data looking for really hard-core results in black and white and such, as I understand it, one would find in physics and chemistry but there aren’t any sort of gray shades.

How can such an educated man claim that science has no "gray shades"? Science is filled with gray shades, with uncertain areas, with areas where we have to round things up the best we can. The descriptions we have of the universe are, of course, inaccurate and still evolving. Thus, there are more gray shades than defined shades.

The only difference is that, in the scientific methods, the gray shades are left as what they are: Areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty is treated with respect, without assuming that the correct answer behind the question is the one we find more comfortable with, but rather, whichever the answer is, we do not know at the moment. The woo on the other hand fills the gap with "It's magic", "God did it" or any other supernatural claim.

This alone proves Mc Luhan's poor understanding of science, and once can see he's basically trying to dress it up with semantics and sophistry.

D'rok · 29th December 2010, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I remember the name McLuhan barely from my college days at Venezuela, where we were studying methods of communication and McLuhan's "The media is the message" theory. I barely, scarcely remember McLuhan as a very intelligent and hard to comprehend individual... but when it comes to arguing what science is and what the scientific method is, he's just all over the place.

You're mixing up your McLuhans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan

Ron_Tomkins · 29th December 2010, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

You're mixing up your McLuhans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan

Oh God.... thank you. Thank God. One less intelligent person to feel disappointed by.

D'rok · 29th December 2010, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Oh God.... thank you. Thank God. One less intelligent person to feel disappointed by.

Glad to be of service!

Ersby · 1st January 2011, 10:05 AM

Read it. Well, I skimmed the bits I wasn't interested in (anything before 1974, really) and read in more detail the stuff I know more about.

I'm not impressed. By fixing his focus on the skeptic-proponent dichotomy, he misses out a lot of criticisms of parapsychology, which often come from other parapsychologists, not skeptics. Recent references to papers others concerning meta-analyses of remote staring (Schmidt, Schneider, Utts, Walalch), Rhine's work (Bosch) and PK on random number generators (Bosch, Boller) are all missing.

Plus, for such a thoroughly researched book, McLuhan refers too often to books aimed at the popular market rather than scientific literature. This makes it tricky to double check a couple of things.

Steve001 · 3rd January 2011, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Ersby

Read it. Well, I skimmed the bits I wasn't interested in (anything before 1974, really) and read in more detail the stuff I know more about.

I'm not impressed. By fixing his focus on the skeptic-proponent dichotomy, he misses out a lot of criticisms of parapsychology, which often come from other parapsychologists, not skeptics. Recent references to papers others concerning meta-analyses of remote staring (Schmidt, Schneider, Utts, Walalch), Rhine's work (Bosch) and PK on random number generators (Bosch, Boller) are all missing.

Plus, for such a thoroughly researched book, McLuhan refers too often to books aimed at the popular market rather than scientific literature. This makes it tricky to double check a couple of things.

I poke around the interwebs for any information specific to this statement,

Quote:

criticisms of parapsychology, which often come from other parapsychologists

but I couldn't find any yet. Could you point me to these criticisms ?

Ersby · 4th January 2011, 12:30 AM

Well, there are the three meta-analyses I mentioned earlier. Then there’s papers on the flaws of early ganzfeld experiments from Kennedy (Methodological Problems in Free Response Experiments, JASPR 73, 1979) and Parker & Wiklund (The Ganzfeld Experiments: Towards An Assessment, JSPR 1987) and an article on fraudulent subjects in parapsychology from George Hansen (http://www.tricksterbook.com/Article...ySubjects.html )

Lobach and Bierman’s work of the remote detection of staring (“The Invisible Gaze: Three Attempts To Replicate Sheldrake’s Staring Effects”, PA Convention 2004).

And the work of Soal had long been suspected, but it was Markwick who finally ended the speculation with her analysis of his data ("The Soal-Goldney Experiments with Basil Shackleton: New Evidence of Data Manipulation", Proceedings of the SPR, 1978)

The “Critique of the PEAR remote viewing Experiments” by Utts, Markwick and Hansen (http://www.tricksterbook.com/Article...ARCritique.htm )

Add to this Charles Akers’ “Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology”, and Stanford’s “Recent Ganzfeld-ESP Research: A Survey and Critical Analysis” which were both in Advances in Parapsychological Research 4 , 1984 (although I know little about Akers – he may have self-identified as a skeptic, I don’t know).

So McLuhan focuses on criticisms from certain people or published in certain journals, while missing out on a whole chunk of the debate.

29th December 2010, 05:30 AM	#1
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 533	Robert McLuhan's New Anti skeptic Movement Book While visiting the Skeptiko site I noticed a new podcast. Alex interviews author Robert McLuhan about his new book titled: Randi’s Prize: What Sceptics Say About the Paranormal, Why They Are Wrong, and Why It Matters http://www.skeptiko.com/randi-prize-...d-in-new-book/ A transcript is available. Personally I think this fellows misses the point.
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 533	Last edited by Steve001; 29th December 2010 at 05:31 AM.

29th December 2010, 05:35 AM	#2
Kuko 4000 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 1,550	http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=173466&page=3
	__________________ Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM."

29th December 2010, 05:52 AM	#3
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,003	Originally Posted by Steve001 Personally I think this fellows misses the point. Yes, all the way. I remember the name McLuhan barely from my college days at Venezuela, where we were studying methods of communication and McLuhan's "The media is the message" theory. I barely, scarcely remember McLuhan as a very intelligent and hard to comprehend individual... but when it comes to arguing what science is and what the scientific method is, he's just all over the place. Take this, for instance: Quote: Robert McLuhan: I think that’s actually the skeptics’ big complaint. They come to the data looking for really hard-core results in black and white and such, as I understand it, one would find in physics and chemistry but there aren’t any sort of gray shades. How can such an educated man claim that science has no "gray shades"? Science is filled with gray shades, with uncertain areas, with areas where we have to round things up the best we can. The descriptions we have of the universe are, of course, inaccurate and still evolving. Thus, there are more gray shades than defined shades. The only difference is that, in the scientific methods, the gray shades are left as what they are: Areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty is treated with respect, without assuming that the correct answer behind the question is the one we find more comfortable with, but rather, whichever the answer is, we do not know at the moment. The woo on the other hand fills the gap with "It's magic", "God did it" or any other supernatural claim. This alone proves Mc Luhan's poor understanding of science, and once can see he's basically trying to dress it up with semantics and sophistry.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 29th December 2010 at 05:56 AM.

29th December 2010, 06:01 AM	#4
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,233	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins I remember the name McLuhan barely from my college days at Venezuela, where we were studying methods of communication and McLuhan's "The media is the message" theory. I barely, scarcely remember McLuhan as a very intelligent and hard to comprehend individual... but when it comes to arguing what science is and what the scientific method is, he's just all over the place. You're mixing up your McLuhans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

29th December 2010, 06:06 AM	#5
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,003	Originally Posted by D'rok You're mixing up your McLuhans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan Oh God.... thank you. Thank God. One less intelligent person to feel disappointed by.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

29th December 2010, 06:13 AM	#6
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,233	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins Oh God.... thank you. Thank God. One less intelligent person to feel disappointed by. Glad to be of service!
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

1st January 2011, 10:05 AM	#7
Ersby Fortean Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 1,837	Read it. Well, I skimmed the bits I wasn't interested in (anything before 1974, really) and read in more detail the stuff I know more about. I'm not impressed. By fixing his focus on the skeptic-proponent dichotomy, he misses out a lot of criticisms of parapsychology, which often come from other parapsychologists, not skeptics. Recent references to papers others concerning meta-analyses of remote staring (Schmidt, Schneider, Utts, Walalch), Rhine's work (Bosch) and PK on random number generators (Bosch, Boller) are all missing. Plus, for such a thoroughly researched book, McLuhan refers too often to books aimed at the popular market rather than scientific literature. This makes it tricky to double check a couple of things.
	__________________ "Once a man admits complete and unshakeable faith in his own integrity, he is in an excellent frame of mind to be approached by con men." David W. Maurer, "The Big Con" Updated: History of Psi in the Ganzfeld 1974-2010

3rd January 2011, 07:31 PM	#8
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 533	Originally Posted by Ersby Read it. Well, I skimmed the bits I wasn't interested in (anything before 1974, really) and read in more detail the stuff I know more about. I'm not impressed. By fixing his focus on the skeptic-proponent dichotomy, he misses out a lot of criticisms of parapsychology, which often come from other parapsychologists, not skeptics. Recent references to papers others concerning meta-analyses of remote staring (Schmidt, Schneider, Utts, Walalch), Rhine's work (Bosch) and PK on random number generators (Bosch, Boller) are all missing. Plus, for such a thoroughly researched book, McLuhan refers too often to books aimed at the popular market rather than scientific literature. This makes it tricky to double check a couple of things. I poke around the interwebs for any information specific to this statement, Quote: criticisms of parapsychology, which often come from other parapsychologists but I couldn't find any yet. Could you point me to these criticisms ?
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 533

4th January 2011, 12:30 AM	#9
Ersby Fortean Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 1,837	Well, there are the three meta-analyses I mentioned earlier. Then there’s papers on the flaws of early ganzfeld experiments from Kennedy (Methodological Problems in Free Response Experiments, JASPR 73, 1979) and Parker & Wiklund (The Ganzfeld Experiments: Towards An Assessment, JSPR 1987) and an article on fraudulent subjects in parapsychology from George Hansen (http://www.tricksterbook.com/Article...ySubjects.html ) Lobach and Bierman’s work of the remote detection of staring (“The Invisible Gaze: Three Attempts To Replicate Sheldrake’s Staring Effects”, PA Convention 2004). And the work of Soal had long been suspected, but it was Markwick who finally ended the speculation with her analysis of his data ("The Soal-Goldney Experiments with Basil Shackleton: New Evidence of Data Manipulation", Proceedings of the SPR, 1978) The “Critique of the PEAR remote viewing Experiments” by Utts, Markwick and Hansen (http://www.tricksterbook.com/Article...ARCritique.htm ) Add to this Charles Akers’ “Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology”, and Stanford’s “Recent Ganzfeld-ESP Research: A Survey and Critical Analysis” which were both in Advances in Parapsychological Research 4 , 1984 (although I know little about Akers – he may have self-identified as a skeptic, I don’t know). So McLuhan focuses on criticisms from certain people or published in certain journals, while missing out on a whole chunk of the debate.
	__________________ "Once a man admits complete and unshakeable faith in his own integrity, he is in an excellent frame of mind to be approached by con men." David W. Maurer, "The Big Con" Updated: History of Psi in the Ganzfeld 1974-2010