More near-death nonsense

[Mulder]

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.

It is not a valid argument, decisive or otherwise. The fact that you can't think of an explanation makes no difference whatever to a reliable observation. The perihelion precession of Mercury had no known mechanism in the days before relativity. You could not have argued, even pre-Einstein, that therefore the observation was nonsense.

If you want to argue that there are theories that better explain some observations, or that the observations themselves are unreliable, that is fine. But you cannot dismiss an observation on the basis that you can't think of a mechanism for it. If we ever did this, science would stop!

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.

If you are using argumnents like 'there is no known mechanism', I'm not surprised you've no success convincing people of their error. Indeed, I would doubt you!

[Tony Williams]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on some issues. However, it may be helpful if I explain my position more clearly.

How significant the absence of any known mechanism may be depends on the circumstances. First of all, it depends on how improbable, in terms of known science, such a mechanism needs to be. I chose astrology as my example mainly because there are two levels of improbability involved: first, that the positions of the stars and planets at birth can influence people's futures; second, that (AIUI) the astrological charts have actually drifted way out of line with the actual positions of the planets. That alone should be a strong enough argument to convince any rational person that it's a load of nonsense. There is, of course, another very powerful argument, which is that no properly conducted studies have shown astrology to work. However, the argument against the sheer improbability of any mechanism remains a valid one as a part of the case against it, IMO.

To look at a case from the other end of the probability curve, I have no real problem with not knowing the mechanism for a well-observed phenomenon. Take, say, ball lightning (I think this is the example I'm looking for, but I'm not a physicist). I believe that no-one knows the mechanism by which it is formed, but there is masses of evidence that it does occur. There is no suggestion here that ball lightning somehow breaches the laws of science in the way that astrology does. The mechanism should be a relatively straightforward, physical problem to resolve, it's just that we don't yet have enough information.

As far as the "skeptics or not" issue is concerned, the way I look at it is that there is a gradation between those at one extreme who are skeptical about everything and those at the gullibility end who will unquestioningly believe anything they've read or heard. As with any distribution pattern, very few people occupy either extreme, most are somewhere in between.

[Floppit]

First of all I want to thank you Dr.B for responding it has helped me understand better where your coming from. Secondly, if these interludes get to annoying in this thread I'd be just as happy to start a different one.

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.

I would agree with that wholeheartedly, especially the latter aspect.

I am not talking about all skeptics here and you extend my argument to areas i did not make it (tut ).

Bear with me and show me where you've seen me do that. I think there is some degree of misunderstanding that hopefully this post may help clear up. If you still feel I've stretched it too far give me another nudge and I'll come back to it.

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.

I agree with what your saying but would add that on those instances it's also more elegant to keep the criticism to the actual argument presented rather than whether or not the person is a real skeptic. (I will quote later where I got that real skeptic bit from). It is the malformed argument that has no skeptical approach demonstrated by the person but on another day, in another subject, the same person may produce a clear and concise point.

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.

I totally agree, it's worth pointing out that before I came here I spent exactly zero time on any skeptic forum, only some at a blog where I hadn't encountered what you describe. Of course, given the quality of the place I just presumed UK Skeptics lead the way.

What exactly is 'unskeptical' about choosing which topics you want to investigate further?(me)
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.

Apologies for not figuring how to quote a quote - hope I've left it making sense!

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.

The above was where I got the impression you saw not investigating ghosts as foolish if a person also holds the view that they don't exist. On rereading it I will happily concede that isn't exactly what you said.

Ask me to make a bet on whether ghosts exist I'm going to bet no. Tell me that there is now a definitive answer and then ask how much I would bet (say for the same return) I'd be eager to bet high, perhaps not so high as to leave myself destitute but high! However, I don't expect others to listen to me as I haven't done the research - my being clear about not personally believing in ghosts is about honesty rather than an attempt to sway another. My opinion is based on the respect I give to a variety of sources, which in turn is based on real world attributes of those sources - I'd listen less to my MIL explaining the neurology of hallucination than I would if you were doing the same. In turn those decisions are based on beliefs I have regarding peer review, universities, qualifications. However, the above would not mean I'd hold forth solely because you had said it was so. What I'm making a hash of saying is that there are well founded reasons to increase or decrease the amount of trust that another person has their facts straight and therefore saved me the time!

On the subject of whether someone is or isn't truly a skeptic here is one example of where I got that impression from:

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

What I was challenging is the notion of a true skeptic as opposed to a genuinely sketical approach (the latter strictly contained within the faulty argument rather than extending to the arguer). In your response you said:

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.

I agree fully and honestly think this approach is aided by restraining critique to the issues rather than person.

On that last score, issue versus person.

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.

You suggested I'd made sweeping statements about you that were untrue - I'd like you to do me the courtesy of rereading what I wrote. I don't know you and I know that I don't. My statements contain a lot of IF's rather than being written from a point of utter confidence in my own impressions. I'm far too blunt to use 'if' just to placate I wrote them because they accurately reflect that what I was going on to say maybe totally inaccurate. If it weren't though, if the comments had been accurate, then would you still consider the statements to be sweeping and why?

Your response has changed some of my impressions on how you view the community that surrounds skepticism - I am grateful for that because it has left me (at least) feeling as though you are perhaps more approachable. While I might not be able to evidence it - I actually wanted these posts to lead to better understanding because I'd learn from it.

I've quoted where I got the impressions from because I think that's fair and helpful not because I'm trying to 'prove' what I may have thought about your opinions is True. The if's are really quite important - I think in ifs!

[Mulder]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on some issues. However, it may be helpful if I explain my position more clearly.

Your 'argument' is not even an argument. Instead it is a statement that you cannot explain an observation. This is completely irrelevant to the that observation. It doesn't even affect the validity of the observation - that is controlled by other factors to do with the observer and the observation itself, not some abstract argument about a possible mechanism.

Indeed, it the same 'argument' used by some believers. They see something they can't explain, and conclude it must be paranormal! They believe that the fact that they cannot explain it means that it cannot be explained!

First of all, it depends on how improbable, in terms of known science, such a mechanism needs to be.

Niot at all! Science is ruled by evidence and evidence alone. Scientific theories can predict observations. However, theories can be (and in the long term, always are) not complete. A new observation can overturn an existing theory AT ANY TIME!

First of all, it depends on how improbable, in terms of known science, such a mechanism needs to be. I chose astrology as my example mainly because there are two levels of improbability involved: first, that the positions of the stars and planets at birth can influence people's futures; second, that (AIUI) the astrological charts have actually drifted way out of line with the actual positions of the planets.

Since you have no idea how astrology works, if it does, then you cannot know if the actual positions of the planets is the mechanism. Astrology, like other such fortune telling, developed empirically. The planets may just be convenient labels for some underlying mechanism.

To look at a case from the other end of the probability curve, I have no real problem with not knowing the mechanism for a well-observed phenomenon. Take, say, ball lightning (I think this is the example I'm looking for, but I'm not a physicist). I believe that no-one knows the mechanism by which it is formed, but there is masses of evidence that it does occur. There is no suggestion here that ball lightning somehow breaches the laws of science in the way that astrology does. The mechanism should be a relatively straightforward, physical problem to resolve, it's just that we don't yet have enough information.

Ghosts are well observed. There are probably millions of observations of them, some really compelling. Ball lightning, by contrast, has only very rarely been observed.

The simple fact remains, what you, or anyone else, thinks about whether an observation is credible or not has no actual affect on that observation or its validity. The observation, and its implications, is determined by factors other than the beliefs of third parties. If this were not the case, science would die!

[Mulder]

Ask me to make a bet on whether ghosts exist I'm going to bet no. Tell me that there is now a definitive answer and then ask how much I would bet (say for the same return) I'd be eager to bet high, perhaps not so high as to leave myself destitute but high! However, I don't expect others to listen to me as I haven't done the research - my being clear about not personally believing in ghosts is about honesty rather than an attempt to sway another.

People have experiences of ghosts (I bet you'd agree with that!). It is a simple fact. You must not confuse these experiences with the common interpretation of ghosts as spirits.

I do research into ghosts and I examine these experiences. While many people believe ghosts are spirits, there really is little, if any, evidence to back that up. It is an assumption which presumably comes from culture.

So if you say you don't believe in ghosts, that is probably because of their common interpretation as spirits. That people see figures that aren't physically there, however, is beyond any reasonable doubt. Indeed, I've seen such figures myself, several times.

[Tony Williams]

Your 'argument' is not even an argument.

As I said, we will have to agree to differ.

[Mulder]

As I said, we will have to agree to differ.

And I'll continue to persuade believers they might be wrong, using science and logic.

[chaggle]

People have experiences of ghosts (I bet you'd agree with that!). It is a simple fact. You must not confuse these experiences with the common interpretation of ghosts as spirits.

I do research into ghosts and I examine these experiences. While many people believe ghosts are spirits, there really is little, if any, evidence to back that up. It is an assumption which presumably comes from culture.

So if you say you don't believe in ghosts, that is probably because of their common interpretation as spirits. That people see figures that aren't physically there, however, is beyond any reasonable doubt. Indeed, I've seen such figures myself, several times.

I've had a quick look round the on-line dictionaries and my trusty Oxford Concise and the first definition given is always something like "The Soul or Spirit of a dead person".

So it's not a "Common Interpretation", a Ghost is a Spirit according to every authority I can find. Mulder, why don't you find an alternative term instead of Ghost? It always confuses when you use it the way you do and, according to my sources, it is at best an ambiguous term and at worst, simply wrong.

I think what you term a ghost would better be labelled as something else - maybe "apparition" would be better.

(Just playing devils advocate, you understand)

[Mulder]

Mulder, why don't you find an alternative term instead of Ghost? It always confuses when you use it the way you do and, according to my sources, it is at best an ambiguous term and at worst, simply wrong.

a) People see ghosts - enough evidence to say that this is a simple fact.
b) Taking evidence from such experiences ALONE (ie. not including cultural or fictional representations or dictionary definitions) there is little or no support for the idea that they are spirits
c) Truth and science are more important than memes!
d) Conclusion - ghost exist but they are not spirits!

Simples!

I feel it is important not to surrender the word ghost to fiction. It is better to get the real meaning out there. We once thought thunder was Thor getting upset. You won't find that meaning in many dictionaries nowadays!

As DrB said earlier, it is far better to become familiar with the actual evidence, which decides such matters, than to indulge in trite arguments based on semantics and ignorance, which do not.

[polomint38]

I spent most of my childhood truanting to spend time blagging free rides on other peoples horses,

[Floppit]

I'm not the ruddy cow though! When I was really young (about 11) I did used to sneak into fields and sit on ponies loose - I had to walk across the local tip to a field with gypsy vanners in it and I would climb aboard scared to death of getting caught.

[chaggle]

a) People see ghosts - enough evidence to say that this is a simple fact.
b) Taking evidence from such experiences ALONE (ie. not including cultural or fictional representations or dictionary definitions) there is little or no support for the idea that they are spirits
c) Truth and science are more important than memes!
d) Conclusion - ghost exist but they are not spirits!

Simples!

I feel it is important not to surrender the word ghost to fiction. It is better to get the real meaning out there. We once thought thunder was Thor getting upset. You won't find that meaning in many dictionaries nowadays!

As DrB said earlier, it is far better to become familiar with the actual evidence, which decides such matters, than to indulge in trite arguments based on semantics and ignorance, which do not.

What is the evidence that people see ghosts? The fact that they call them ghosts maybe? Sorry! Fallen at the first fence therefore the rest is irrelevant. People do not see ghosts (which are souls/spirits) they see something else.

[Mulder]

What is the evidence that people see ghosts? The fact that they call them ghosts maybe?

Precisely! If someone sees a human figure that, for whatever reason, they think is not really physically there, they will usually call it a ghost. I've seen ghosts myself, it isn't difficult when you know how! The fact that may think it is a spirit is an interpretation of their experience, based on culture.

People do not see ghosts (which are souls/spirits) they see something else.

You are talking about the ghosts of fiction rather than real experiences. Real ghost sightings have many different causes but they are all called ghosts by their viewers. Since the people who see ghosts call them ghosts, I see no reason to argue with them. Where we differ is in what causes the sighting. I believe we should educate people to understand that ghosts have many causes and there is little or no evidence that spirits are one of them.

I'm happy for fictional ghosts to be spirits but it is important that the public understands that, yes real ghosts exist but they are different!

[chaggle]

Precisely! If someone sees a human figure that, for whatever reason, they think is not really physically there, they will usually call it a ghost. I've seen ghosts myself, it isn't difficult when you know how! The fact that may think it is a spirit is an interpretation of their experience, based on culture.

You are talking about the ghosts of fiction rather than real experiences. Real ghost sightings have many different causes but they are all called ghosts by their viewers. Since the people who see ghosts call them ghosts, I see no reason to argue with them. Where we differ is in what causes the sighting. I believe we should educate people to understand that ghosts have many causes and there is little or no evidence that spirits are one of them.

I'm happy for fictional ghosts to be spirits but it is important that the public understands that, yes real ghosts exist but they are different!

You are deliberately misunderstanding what people mean what they say ghost. They mean spirit/soul and they are wrong. Merely explain that what they have seen is not a spirit but an apparition and you, they, I and the guardians of our language who write the dictionaries will all be happy.

Believers think that what woo medicine does is "cure" people? Maybe we should change the meaning of the word "cure".

[Mulder]

You are deliberately misunderstanding what people mean what they say ghost.

No, ghost witnesses are really seeing ghosts and then misinterprteting them as spirits. Given that they are human figures that aren't really there it is an understandable misunderstanding. It doesn't affect the phenomenon itself.

They mean spirit/soul and they are wrong.

So, you agree then that a ghost is not a spirit! Excellent!

Merely explain that what they have seen is not a spirit but an apparition ...

Nobody, apart from a tiny and ever diminishing number, of academics uses the word apparition. It means nothing to the general public. It is a dead word and deservedly so!

... and you, they, I and the guardians of our language who write the dictionaries will all be happy.

Firstly, many words have multiple meanings. I've already conceded that there is also a fictional meaning for the word ghost, which obviously isn't going to go away, but we also need a literal one for a very real phenomenon! There really ARE ghosts and they already have a name - ghost!

Secondly, languages evolve all the time. The idea that the word ghost should evolve away from its fictional meaning to a factual one seems like the way to go! I would have thought most people would welcome it! The most common use of the word 'gay' has helped to reduce homophobia by 'softening' the public image of homosexuals, showing the positive effects word evolution can have. Any 'guardians of the language' that might exist are wasting their time - no one can stop language evolution.

Oddly enough, I have found that believers readily see the value of my additional definition of ghosts. They are perhaps more open minded than they are given credit for!

Believers think that what woo medicine does is "cure" people? Maybe we should change the meaning of the word "cure".

So what would be your alternative definition of 'cure' be in this case?