I'm an expert and it's impossible...

[MRT]

No, not me! I sometimes get told by self proclaimed experts that a certain phenomenon must be paranormal because it is technically impossible. They are, of course, talking about a phenomenon that ought to be well within their technical expertise. The problem is, I can often find a natural explanation for the phenomenon with a little research or an experiment.

I come across this 'I'm an expert in electronics / physics / chemistry / whatever and I'm telling you that's not possible ...' kind of statement quite a lot and it always leaves me wondering what to say. If I venture my opinion it is dismissed (though, curiously, it is never explained exactly WHY my theory is incorrect!). If I persist, I am reminded that they are the expert (again, no explanation forthcoming), not me. On the other hand, if I say nothing it is assumed I am agreeing with their pronouncement even when it is obviously dubious.

Anyone got any advice on how to handle this kind of situation?

[Admin]

Well, speaking as an expert ^-^, I just press their weakness(es).

The burden of proof requires people to back up, or justify, their position. If they are talking nonsense then they won't be able to do it.

You can usually tell when they can't justify their position when the insults and anger start showing through.

[bobdezon]

Yeah, expert or not they can easilly be mistaken and confused. Look at the american legal system. Lawyers quite frequently both bring in legal expert testimmony witnesses to prove a point. They will sit there screaming at each other how the other side is wrong because they are both experts , they cannot both be right.

Ive found perhaps perversely that experts can sometimes be easier to fool than a believer, because they are so arrogantly sure they are right. This observation worked well in making project alpha such a success.

The onus or burden is on them to prove they are right if they make a claim. They can declare themselves as expert as they like and tell you that you are wrong, but they still have to supply information as to why you are wrong.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I come across this 'I'm an expert in electronics / physics / chemistry / whatever and I'm telling you that's not possible ...' kind of statement quite a lot and it always leaves me wondering what to say.

Anyone got any advice on how to handle this kind of situation?

Not that I'm any sort of expert, but I notice that very few surgeons resort to paranormal explanations when they go to the ( non-medical) theatre to see young ladies sawn in half and put back together in a minute. Probably because they have spotted that, if it is impossible, it can't have bloody well happened.

Farfetched, I accept. But worth a try... :-)

[drj]

The problem is, I can often find a natural explanation for the phenomenon with a little research or an experiment.
…Anyone got any advice on how to handle this kind of situation?

My preferred methods are of two choices; to do nothing (the topic is not worthy of my time to waste with such nonsense), or to do similar to John Jackson’s suggestion: press their weaknesses. Some of the methods claimed by neo-skepticism are worth fighting for, and if the methods can begin being used by neo-skepticism, then the time is worth the effort.

First, however, make sure you are sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to know what weaknesses to press. If the individual pressing is later found to have been mistaken, it will reinforce the opponent’s belief that he is correct.

It is invariably an error to do “little research” and then believe one’s self usefully knowledgeable about a topic. If the topic is important enough to discuss, then it is worth the several years needed to gather a primary comprehension of the topic. Nevertheless, often it is found that even when you provide irrefutable evidence, the opponent can still be so unknowledgeable of the topic that the person cannot comprehend what the evidence implies.

It has been my personal observation that anyone who claims to be an expert of a philosophical or scientific topic is by the very act validating that they are ignorant of the topic. It requires an insufficient understanding of a topic for a person to believe himself an expert.


You can usually tell when they can't justify their position when the insults and anger start showing through.

That is one of the several items I was pointing to on the What is Skepticism thread. In religions it is referred to as “do as I say, not as I do”, and often termed “hypocrisy.” What is the fallacy termed when neo-skepticism does it? Reading the many posts on this forum shows an almost continuous stream of negativity, insults, and anger, all of which create serious problems for neo-skepticism while blemishing the value of scientific method. The evidence of neo-skepticism’s bias and “can't justify their position” is openly observable for the whole public. I for one would enjoy seeing neo-skepticism acquire the behavior of a “do as I say, and as I do” that is based on scientific method.

[Admin]

Reading the many posts on this forum shows an almost continuous stream of negativity, insults, and anger, all of which create serious problems for neo-skepticism while blemishing the value of scientific method.

Really?

DrJ, why don't you reveal to us your real identity, explain your qualifications, and, crucially, reveal what flavour of nonsense it is that you believe in? ;)

You're coming over as a self-appointed guru here who feels justified in attacking (neo) skepticism and skeptics, so I can only assume that you believe in something unjustifiable.

Come on pal, put your cards on the table and cut out the pretentious crap. ;)

[MRT]

Thanks for the advice folks. It's obvious from what the 'experts' I encounter say that they are not as knowledgable as they think. I suspect many have very conventional training and rather one- dimensional thinking. They would never dream of trying something, they believed to be 'impossible'. Personally, I just see 'impossible' things as a challenge! :smiley:

Neo-skepticism? Can someone please explain what this please?

[Admin]

Neo-skepticism? Can someone please explain what this please?

I suspect it's DrJ's attempt to make modern (hence the 'neo' designation) skepticism look like some sort of radical ideology - that seems to have been his intention from his first posting onwards.

It's quite common for paranormalists to refer to themselves as 'True Skeptics' and to refer to skeptics as 'pseudo-skeptics'. I think that's what we're being set up for.

I strongly suspect that DrJ believes in the afterlife, or at least thinks that NDEs are good evidence for it - something close to that anyway.

I'd like DrJ to stop pussyfooting around and actually state what it is he believes in up front so that we can discuss it properly.

[Cuddles]

Neo-skepticism? Can someone please explain what this please?

It refers to people who didn't like the Matrix trilogy and are skeptical that Keanu Reaves was actually the messiah. Neo-skepticism - skeptical of Neo.;)

[Dr B]

There is no such thing as neo-skepticism and the type of skepticism being discussed by this person here (and in another thread currently being ignored) does not actually exist ;D. Did you notice the lack of any specific examples from science?

However, I do like the position outlined above by Cuddles...;D

[MRT]

It is invariably an error to do “little research” and then believe one’s self usefully knowledgeable about a topic. If the topic is important enough to discuss, then it is worth the several years needed to gather a primary comprehension of the topic. Nevertheless, often it is found that even when you provide irrefutable evidence, the opponent can still be so unknowledgeable of the topic that the person cannot comprehend what the evidence implies.

I'm not so sure about that. I have often been told by an 'expert' that something is impossible, only to find (with a 'little research':smiley:) that it is nothing of the sort. I think some experts can fail to keep up with latest developments and tend to go on doing the same things they were taught years ago. Also, of course, some (often self proclaimed) experts are nothing of the sort.

I don't think you need to have years of training and experience in a subject in order to engage with an expert. If that were true, we'd never challenge them ever, which I suspect that would be a disaster. If an expert is what they claim, they should be able to explain to you, in words that you understand, why they are right and you are wrong. if they can't, I would suspect they are phoney.

[Mongrel]

I'm not so sure about that. I have often been told by an 'expert' that something is impossible, only to find (with a 'little research':smiley:) that it is nothing of the sort. I think some experts can fail to keep up with latest developments and tend to go on doing the same things they were taught years ago. Also, of course, some (often self proclaimed) experts are nothing of the sort.

It may also be that "It's impossible" is used in place of "It's theoretically possible but not feasible\practical" with a dash of "It's complicated to explain and I'd need 2 hours and a whiteboard" O0

[MRT]

It may also be that "It's impossible" is used in place of "It's theoretically possible but not feasible\practical" with a dash of "It's complicated to explain and I'd need 2 hours and a whiteboard" O0

In the field of the paranormal, I find that 'it's impossible' more frequently means 'I think this is paranormal ...':smiley: