More near-death nonsense

[Graham Lappin]

Years ago when i was a young teenager interested in science, it was all books. No Interweb....yet i still found the relevant material after some effort. These days less effort is needed to find the most useful material but some still dont want to find it or ignore it when they do

Oh how I lament that age. It's perhaps too easy to get information today and sort out the reliable from the fiction, the science from the nonsense. It seems that you can search out something on the web to support virtually any answer you want.

What a couple of old codgers, we must sound (or should I just speak for myself ).

[Dr B]

Let's just say I am too old to be "down with the kids"

Coming from a part of the UK that had no University or visible tradition of psychological / brain science etc, I had to make a lot of effort to get hold of the type of information i was interested in. I still remember spending hours upon hours digesting book upon book, argument upon argument, and so on. What little money i had as a yongster tended to go on science literature and my feeding my amateur academic interests in the field of anomalous cognition. Fond memories indeed.

My despair today is at those who make no effort to engage with contrary information (skeptics as well as the woo). This is reflected, in my opinion, in their poor arguments for their opinions.8)

[Tony Williams]

My despair today is at those who make no effort to engage with contrary information (skeptics as well as the woo). This is reflected, in my opinion, in their poor arguments for their opinions.

Hmm. A lot of people seem to believe that some sort of global catastrophe is going to strike on 21 December 2012, because that's when the Mayan "long count" calendar ends. Just how seriously am I supposed to "engage" with that, rather than dismissing it as a delusional fantasy?

Skeptics on this board are so used to reading about notions which are entirely unsupported by any hard evidence that it does seem to be a waste of time to take each one seriously and investigate it. There is the possibility, of course, that we might thereby miss something genuine, but if there is solid evidence we do look at it (see the debate in the thread on the "big cat" sighting).

[Trinoc]

Hmm. A lot of people seem to believe that some sort of global catastrophe is going to strike on 21 December 2012, because that's when the Mayan "long count" calendar ends. Just how seriously am I supposed to "engage" with that, rather than dismissing it as a delusional fantasy?

Is this an argument from selected instances I see before me? Very little of what we should be skeptical about is anywhere near as clear-cut as this.

[Tony Williams]

Is this an argument from selected instances I see before me? Very little of what we should be skeptical about is anywhere near as clear-cut as this.

Most of what is categorised on this site as "woo" (the term used by the poster I was responding to) consists of beliefs which are unsupported by any objective, testable evidence - either for their existence or indeed for any known mechanism which could account for their existence. From that perspective, all such beliefs are delusional fantasies, since people hold them for no reason whatsoever, so reasoned argument with them is futile.

There are other issues for which the evidence is debatable (cold fusion would have come into that category, when the argument was at its height), but these are not what I would categorise as "woo".

[Trinoc]

Most of what is categorised on this site as "woo" (the term used by the poster I was responding to) consists of beliefs which are unsupported by any objective, testable evidence - either for their existence or indeed for any known mechanism which could account for their existence. From that perspective, all such beliefs are delusional fantasies, since people hold them for no reason whatsoever, so reasoned argument with them is futile.

There are other issues for which the evidence is debatable (cold fusion would have come into that category, when the argument was at its height), but these are not what I would categorise as "woo".

There is, though, a tendency to lump things together as "woo" just to make them a convenient blanket target. Why, for example, is osteopathy (the normal stuff, not the cranio-sacral variety) lumped together with woo-based chiropractic and yet, say, sports physiotherapy and massage is regarded as perfectly acceptable? Why are herbs taken as medicines regarded with the same disdain as homeopathy and faith healing, yet things like "walk a mile a day and eat five portions of fruit and veg" are accepted uncritically?

There is a sort of knee-jerk skeptic mindset which is not really skeptical at all. It sticks to just as many ill-thought-out dogmatic ideas as the fields which it claims to criticise.

[Tony Williams]

There is, though, a tendency to lump things together as "woo" just to make them a convenient blanket target. Why, for example, is osteopathy (the normal stuff, not the cranio-sacral variety) lumped together with woo-based chiropractic and yet, say, sports physiotherapy and massage is regarded as perfectly acceptable? Why are herbs taken as medicines regarded with the same disdain as homeopathy and faith healing, yet things like "walk a mile a day and eat five portions of fruit and veg" are accepted uncritically?

There is a sort of knee-jerk skeptic mindset which is not really skeptical at all. It sticks to just as many ill-thought-out dogmatic ideas as the fields which it claims to criticise.

I'm a bit dubious about the examples you give, but then I rarely get involved in debates over medical issues because I don't know much about them. The one clear case of woo, to me, is homeopathy, although I understand that certain claims made by some osteopaths fall into that category. Acupuncture is an interesting subject, since they may be something of value buried in the mysticism. My understanding is that some herbs do have measurable effects - I'm surprised that anyone would doubt that. After all, that's where many medicines came from originally.

[Trinoc]

My understanding is that some herbs do have measurable effects - I'm surprised that anyone would doubt that. After all, that's where many medicines came from originally.

Herbs seem to be the area of medicine where the knee-jerk skeptical reaction is most noticeable. It's worth looking up Edzard Ernst's views on the matter ... as he said at the end of the Skeptics in the Pub meeting when the last questioner poured cold water on herbs (you should use hot water for an infusion ...): "British doctors know bugger all about herbal medicines".

There's a thread over on the SGU forum where a poster is highly derisive about a (conventional) doctor who advised him to take saw palmetto for a mild case of BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia - in other words the difficulty peeing that affects most middle-aged men at some time). It seems skeptics defer to doctors as long as they talk the prescribed medicine party line, but feel qualified to say they know better when anything the slightest bit "alternative" is mentioned.

I use saw palmetto myself, having first had the tests to make sure I don't have prostate cancer, of course. The effect is gradual and no big deal -- it just means I can drive about twice as far as I used to without having to look for a place to go for a pee, for example. Certainly nothing I would want to be taking prescription medicines for. It might not work for everyone -- I don't care -- it's just something simple I can do and it's under my own control. I don't plan to become one of those old folks rushing (or hobbling) to the doctor's surgery all the time. Not quite yet, anyway.

[Mulder]

... or indeed for any known mechanism which could account for their existence. From that perspective, all such beliefs are delusional fantasies, since people hold them for no reason whatsoever, so reasoned argument with them is futile.

The fact that there is no 'known mechanism' for something is not an argument against it. If something is reliably observed, it happened, whether it was predicted by a known mechanism or not.

Many people who believe in the paranormal do so on the basis of evidence, albeit usually subjective, they have collected themselves. I have often had fruitful discussions with such people, pointing out the weaknesses in the evidence they find so convincing and pointing out plausible natural explanations, which they have accepted. I do not, therefore, think they are either delusional nor resistent to reason.

[Dr B]

Hmm. A lot of people seem to believe that some sort of global catastrophe is going to strike on 21 December 2012, because that's when the Mayan "long count" calendar ends. Just how seriously am I supposed to "engage" with that, rather than dismissing it as a delusional fantasy?

Skeptics on this board are so used to reading about notions which are entirely unsupported by any hard evidence that it does seem to be a waste of time to take each one seriously and investigate it. There is the possibility, of course, that we might thereby miss something genuine, but if there is solid evidence we do look at it (see the debate in the thread on the "big cat" sighting).

Its a point i've made many times here before - but many skeptics talk nonsense about areas they know nothing about. For example, many think ghosts are nonsense and not worth any time at all. While i agree that it is unlikely the paranormal interpretation is correct - the idea there is nothing to learn at all (i.e., psychologically, neurologically, socially, culturally) by investigating this area is foolish to say the least.

I have had debates with skeptics who do not make arguments anywhere near as logical, or well researched as they would like to think. Now these people, are not 'true' skeptics - but usually followers of celebrity skeptics - but nonethless some people are going under the guise of common sense and yet they display nothing of the sort. That was the point i was making - i never once said anything about accepting anything uncritically or denouncing everything out of hand

[Dr B]

The fact that there is no 'known mechanism' for something is not an argument against it. If something is reliably observed, it happened, whether it was predicted by a known mechanism or not.

Yes - absolutely it is a logical error i see many people make. I cover this in an article somewhere on here on a guide of logic and reason. The lack of a mechanism for an effect is no evidence against it - however, there is debate over what constitutes ' a real effect' here and i think this is where confusion creeps in (too many value judgements being made and too many sweeping statements over what counts as evidence and what 'evidence' is)

Many people who believe in the paranormal do so on the basis of evidence, albeit usually subjective, they have collected themselves. I have often had fruitful discussions with such people, pointing out the weaknesses in the evidence they find so convincing and pointing out plausible natural explanations, which they have accepted. I do not, therefore, think they are either delusional nor resistent to reason.

It's interesting as i teach a course covering delusions and hallucinations. Now, some people argue that delusions are normal reasoning processes (logical) applied to explain sensory anomalies - and hence, there is nothing wrong with the actual reasoning processes of deluded individuals. This approach assumes the presence of sensory anomalies in the observer in the first place - and as such, weird experiences require wierd explanations.

Others differ and argue that there are reasoning biases (or even deficits) in deluded individuals. The interesting thing is that the evidence for reasoning deficits in say schizophrenia is no where near as apparant as you might think. Yes some studies show effects, but others fail to replicate.

The current consensus is the truly wierd beliefs do reflect brain damage of sorts (i.e., cotard delusion / capgras sydrome) but milder ones may not.

Where the paranormal sits in all this is up for argument - but its an argument many wannabe skeptics will never have because, as i have said above, they don't think there is anything to explore here.....shame really...

[Tony Williams]

The fact that there is no 'known mechanism' for something is not an argument against it.

Yes it is. The fact that there is no known mechanism by which the notional positions of the stars and planets at people's birth could influence their future is a very strong argument against astrology. The same applies to many other forms of woo. It may not be a decisive argument, depending on the circumstances, but it is certainly a valid argument to use.

If something is reliably observed, it happened, whether it was predicted by a known mechanism or not.

Depends on how you define "reliably observed", given the well-established tendency for misperception. People may believe they have seen something, but may be wrong - they may have completely misinterpreted what they saw.

Many people who believe in the paranormal do so on the basis of evidence, albeit usually subjective, they have collected themselves. I have often had fruitful discussions with such people, pointing out the weaknesses in the evidence they find so convincing and pointing out plausible natural explanations, which they have accepted. I do not, therefore, think they are either delusional nor resistent to reason.

I would say that there is a distinction between people who have no preconceived ideas about what they've seen and are struggling to explain it (by all means argue with them), and the lovers of woo who start with the assumption that anything that cannot instantly be identified as mundane just has to be paranormal. I have frequently engaged with the latter and found that it is almost always impossible to convince them that there may be a simpler explanation.

[Dr B]

Yes it is.

Actually, no it is'nt. Dont get me wrong - it provides no evidence for the argument either but it is not a strong or even the strongest argument against it (similar to the argument to ignorance).

The way that it does work is on a point of argumentative logic (which I think is what you are kind of saying). For example, if (i) there are no empirical observations suggesting your mechanism is true (ii) there are no comparative mechansisms from other areas even hinting that your mechanism could be true in your context (iii) for your mechanism to be true - there would need to be major refutations of other well established mechanisms. This 'suggests' a weakness in an argument (no problem with that) and is a problem and a failing in an argument - but it is not a strong argument (or the strongest) against the initial proposition (a matter of degree ).

Ideally we want a mechanism, but the lack of one, particularly during early periods of investigation, is not evidence against the existence of an effect. The story might be different after 150 years of investigation however (as with psychical research) - but again one must leave the logical possibility of an unknown mechanism open (but this does not make it any more probable - which is what the woo woos fail to understand).

The fact that there is no known mechanism by which the notional positions of the stars and planets at people's birth could influence their future is a very strong argument against astrology.

No it is not - see above discussion. It is not a very strong argument in context with other arguements against it. It is the lack of any conceivable mechanism that is more damming - but this is never an absolute thing. Dont get me wrong - the lack of a mechanism is certainly problematic for astrology and other woo, but its not the strongest argument against it and I would agree with Mulder's conception given above.

I think we are all agreeing - we are just highlighting different aspects of the debate and placing a different emphasis on different aspects

Where I agree is that the lack of a mechanism is concerning and problematic, particularly for areas which have been around for decades. It should be highlighted in an argument - but it is not the strongest argument and in effect, can be easily countered on a point of logic if the woo's only knew how.....

It is not so much the lack of a mechanism for woo, but the presence of alternative mechanisms, making fewer necessary assumptions, that can be tested and falsified, that is the stronger and more logical argument to make.

Depends on how you define "reliably observed", given the well-established tendency for misperception. People may believe they have seen something, but may be wrong - they may have completely misinterpreted what they saw.

This is where you get into the philosophically demanding area of what counts as real delusion - and its far more complicated than this.

I would say that there is a distinction between people who have no preconceived ideas about what they've seen and are struggling to explain it (by all means argue with them), and the lovers of woo who start with the assumption that anything that cannot instantly be identified as mundane just has to be paranormal. I have frequently engaged with the latter and found that it is almost always impossible to convince them that there may be a simpler explanation.

I agree, see the thread on a taxonomy of woo....you might find that interesting.

[Floppit]

Its a point i've made many times here before - but many skeptics talk nonsense about areas they know nothing about. For example, many think ghosts are nonsense and not worth any time at all. While i agree that it is unlikely the paranormal interpretation is correct - the idea there is nothing to learn at all (i.e., psychologically, neurologically, socially, culturally) by investigating this area is foolish to say the least.

Ok, as the thread is already profoundly derailed I won't worry about being off topic.

Its a point i've made many times here before - but many skeptics talk nonsense about areas they know nothing about.

If someone waxes lyrical about a subject they haven't researched then, fair point but if someone is just beginning to engage with a subject it's likely that they will have moments of saying things that are not entirely accurate - however, IF they acknowledge their own lack of background information then that has little bearing on whether they have a skeptical mind.

For example, many think ghosts are nonsense and not worth any time at all. While i agree that it is unlikely the paranormal interpretation is correct - the idea there is nothing to learn at all (i.e., psychologically, neurologically, socially, culturally) by investigating this area is foolish to say the least.

Are you sure you haven't jumped to an 'if then' conclusion? the assumption being that a lack of interest denotes a belief that there is 'nothing to learn at all'. It may have a whole host of roots including that there is plenty to learn, but plenty MORE to learn elsewhere, or that while there is plenty to learn it's simply more enjoyable to learn it while talking to others who play by the same rules rather than believers, or that any person is more likely to give time to a subject they find intrinsically interesting rather than just following suit with other's interests.

What exactly is 'unskeptical' about choosing which topics you want to investigate further?

I spent most of my childhood truanting to spend time blagging free rides on other peoples horses, making my own opportunities that eventually meant by the time I was 15 I was paid to ride, by 16 I was paid to ride horses worth 5 figures, by 21 horses worth up to £100,000, all with only a single riding lesson. I know what hard work means, I know what effort means and I know what it feels like to be angry at those who appear as pretenders (like hobby riders). I believe while not studying at all I displayed very skeptical thinking, I evaluated it wasn't a hopeless cause for an inner city kid to want to ride for a living, I had to learn from what was real not what I was told, ie that X horse was impossible to ride, I had to test theories for methods which would work and I had to bet my very life on my decisions. Right at the start I knew I needed time on horses more than O levels to get where I wanted to. I have no regrets, nothing on earth could replace what I learned while making childish dreams absolutely real. (Sorry Tony - I was a teachers nightmare, the ultimate in cunning RHINO's).

People have different interests, for you academia is much more than just a hobby, it's how you earn your living - that is about choice not just being more skeptical. I'm not suggesting that it's unconnected to skeptical thinking, just that the choice to be an academic is inherently distinct from the choice to look at issues critically, or perhaps more accurately an additional factor beyond skeptical thought. IF you want (as I did with horses) just a tiny group who eat, breathe and live the same choices as you, then displaying your contempt may be effective as a means to an end. But IF you want critical thought to grow, whether from none to some, or some to expert then the contempt is counter productive.

I will never again choose to devote as much time to any one factor in life as I did in my teens because the cost now would not make sense. Then I was ok with being a late starter in steady relationships, having few friends outside the same interest group, working 100 hour weeks, and measuring myself against only one skill. These days I have a more eclectic life, one which is not being sacrificed. As long as I know that I see no reason why it should bar me from a productive hobby, even if things do take a little longer to achieve.

I'm fascinated where you got the belief that a person is either a 'real' skeptic or not, surely for all of us there are only ever grades of skepticism? Do you honestly believe that some become so skilled as to counter all their own bias' while others remain utterly incapable of a single logical thought? How do you calibrate your own perception of the exact level of skepticism needed to be real? What measure do you use to avoid your judgements of others being hasty and distinctly bias?

[Dr B]

If someone waxes lyrical about a subject they haven't researched then, fair point but if someone is just beginning to engage with a subject it's likely that they will have moments of saying things that are not entirely accurate - however, IF they acknowledge their own lack of background information then that has little bearing on whether they have a skeptical mind.

The problem is many people i have spoken to wax lyrical as if it were fact. This does little to promote a rational understanding as the process (i.e., its what i believe because my fav TV skeptic says so) is not rational.

Are you sure you haven't jumped to an 'if then' conclusion? the assumption being that a lack of interest denotes a belief that there is 'nothing to learn at all'.

I am utterly positive. I am not talking about all skeptics here and you extend my argument to areas i did not make it (tut ). I look at the argument people present and quite often the arguments are found seriously wanting and umtimately people simply say - well, thats what Dr X thinks so therefore, I think its true. This is not a particularly elegant approach. Again - it is not skepticism as a whole and I would argue that these people are not practicisng true scientific thinking or skepticism with these arguments - but i am concerned when i encounter them.

Here is a classic one. Skeptics (take a look at the JREF for numerous examples) always claim there has never been a methodologically sound experiment that has demonstrated the apparant existence of PSI in the laboratory. This is completely wrong and even Ray Hyman / Chris French acknowledge cases where (above chance effects interpreted by some as PSI) have been documented in studies which appear methodological sound in most respects. Indeed, statistically speaking you would predict some false positives and you should be suspicious if these do not occur. However, what these wannbes should say is that there has never been a reliable (i.e., across numerous observations of a similar high standard) demonstration of PSI to the extent that would suggest something is really there. The effect is borderline and according to most - exactly what one would predict as chance / noise. So these wannabe are not familiar with the debate, studies, issues and arguments, yet they pronounce great facts by merely shouting loudly. I remain unconvinced by this approach.

What exactly is 'unskeptical' about choosing which topics you want to investigate further?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. It is not a rational position to take to denounce things out of hand (as many do). The irony is, that there is plenty of evidence out there that will serve the skeptic well and make their case for them - but it will require some work and effort to go through it and think for themselves. It is odd how ill-informed some seem to be thats all.

I'm not suggesting that it's unconnected to skeptical thinking, just that the choice to be an academic is inherently distinct from the choice to look at issues critically, or perhaps more accurately an additional factor beyond skeptical thought.

I would disagree with the first part of the statement, but perhaps not so much with the second part.

IF you want (as I did with horses) just a tiny group who eat, breathe and live the same choices as you, then displaying your contempt may be effective as a means to an end. But IF you want critical thought to grow, whether from none to some, or some to expert then the contempt is counter productive.

These unsubstantiated value judgements are unecessary and unfounded. I made a side point some posts ago that many so-called skeptics are ill informed on issues they pass off as being their area of expertise. They can make sweeping statements (as you just did), not be familiar with facts, debates, issues, etc and end up only arguing with their own confusion. I do not want people around me to agree with me per-se - it is the wannabe skeptics following (blindly) their heroes that want to be surrounded by nodding dogs. I could not give a toss.

Only by exploring and being critical of when self-claimed skeptics 'fall off the wagon' so to speak can you truly develop critical thought. Just apply that which they claim to promote to themselves that is all. 8)

This is not usually a problem - but sometimes it is.

I'm fascinated where you got the belief that a person is either a 'real' skeptic or not, surely for all of us there are only ever grades of skepticism?

I am equally fascinated you think this statement is true....its not based on my position at all.

Do you honestly believe that some become so skilled as to counter all their own bias' while others remain utterly incapable of a single logical thought?

eerrrr no, indeed please tell me what evidence should a sweeping view is based on? I think you need to read around this forum a little more

How do you calibrate your own perception of the exact level of skepticism needed to be real? What measure do you use to avoid your judgements of others being hasty and distinctly bias?

There is no such thing as no bias - but the peer- community keeps you on your toes. Constantly ask yourself, what else might this be evidence of?

That's a good starting place.