Errors from Skeptical debates

[Dr B]

I was at a conference a while back when some skeptics in the audience argued against a well-known UK parapsychologist that there were no sound, empirical demonstrations of ESP (and associated phenomena).

I thought this might be interesting for discussion here as it is a commonly held view.

The reality is different of course (and this was argued effectively by the Parapsychologist). There are demonstrtations of weak effects, under a variety of blinded conditions (see the debate by Ray Hyman et al for good reviews on this). Many of these conditions are stricter than those used elsewhere. So it is quite wrong to say that such demonstrations have never occurred and never been reported.

The proper skeptical position however, is that, these effects do not appear to be reliable and they have not - 'reliably been shown to exist' (that is across a host of studies by various researchers). This means the effects could be statistical blips, false-positives, noise, and so on - but it would be wrong to assume that such demonstrations have not occurred.

I think it is important that skeptics do try to be factually correct when taking a hard line. I see hundreds of these factual errors in many debates (from all sides) - but one glance at forums like the JREF and one can see well worn, factually incorrect statements from skeptical wannabe's. I am not sure this really helps skepticism or science

[Loomer]

I can understand where you are coming from and I found this quote from Ray Hyman...

". . . members of the scientific community often judge the parapsychological claims without firsthand knowledge of the experimental evidence. Very few of the scientific critics have examined even one of the many experimental reports on psychic phenomena. Even fewer, if any, have examined the bulk of the parapsychological literature.... Consequently, parapsychologists have justification for their complaint that the scientific community is dismissing their claims without a fair hearing. . . ." Ray Hyman

...Here...

Ray Hyman appears to be arguing that scientists are guilty of the 'arguement from ignorance' logical fallacy because they have not read the literature...

...but to me that is to miss a central point with regards to the claims made for ESP and I am with Carl Sagan on this because the prior probability of ESP actually being true is such an extraordinary claim it requires extraordinary evidence...

... far beyond what the parapyschologists have thus far produced.

As for the standards for which this extraordinary evidence in support of ESP should meet in order for it to warrant further scientific study, I would say Randi's million dollar challenge would be a good starting point...


Rgds

Jon

[Loomer]

Hmmmm… after re-reading your premise that the people at the conference you attended stated “that there were no sound, empirical demonstrations of ESP” when you contended that “There are demonstrations of weak effects, under a variety of blinded conditions”

Firstly, I think that the quote I chose from Ray Hyman may not encapsulate your point… so a claim ‘straw man argument’ may be applicable…

Secondly, I think I fell into the same problem that the conference attendees did, that of failing to split your premise from that of the central one at the core of ESP...

yes, the studies may exist and I/they have not read them…

...but I/they went onto argue a secondary central premise - that of the validity of ESP itself which is far from proven…

...but you did not say that… so yes, your premise of the ‘argument from ignorance’ logical fallacy (i.e. that there are no studies "demonstrating weak effects") is a trap that must be avoided by skeptics and as such is a valid one…phew...!


Rgds

Jon

[Loomer]

No worries Allo Allo...

Edit trap...... will wait 10 mins... lol...


Rgds

Jon

[Allo Allo]

No worries Allo Allo...

Edit trap...... will wait 10 mins... lol...


Rgds

Jon

Sorry - I removed my post because I thought it inappropriate after your second post which happened to cross over.... sorry! Bit confusing altogether - my mistake!

[Dr B]

Ray Hyman appears to be arguing that scientists are guilty of the 'arguement from ignorance' logical fallacy because they have not read the literature...

I think it is more acurate to say that the perception effects have not occurred is untrue. However, it does not follow that those effects are real for all the reasons I gave above (noise, failures to replicate, false-positives, etc). Statistically speaking you would expect hits with enough experiments run - but it could be meaningless.

The point is about the way the arguments are posed and have nothing to do with the reality of PSi. At no point above did I say that it did!

...but to me that is to miss a central point with regards to the claims made for ESP and I am with Carl Sagan on this because the prior probability of ESP actually being true is such an extraordinary claim it requires extraordinary evidence...

... far beyond what the parapyschologists have thus far produced.

I could not agree more but your point is untterly tangential to whether or not effects have occurred under reasonably good experimental conditions. I never made any claims over the quality of that evidence (indeed the fact it cannot be reliably replicated should be an indication) so you are generating something of a tangent here. It's an interesting one - but it has nothing to do with the original point.

As for the standards for which this extraordinary evidence in support of ESP should meet in order for it to warrant further scientific study, I would say Randi's million dollar challenge would be a good starting point...

Rgds

Jon

I think you need to read the post again and try to avoid the common skeptical pitfalls. My original post is about a debate I saw and about getting some basic facts straight first. You are talking about completely independent stuff relating to what those facts mean. This was never in question.

[Cuddles]

no sound, empirical demonstrations of ESP (and associated phenomena).

not appear to be reliable and they have not - 'reliably been shown to exist' (that is across a host of studies by various researchers).

But as far as I (and most people) are concerned, those are both exactly the same thing. When people say that there is no evidence for ESP they don't mean there has never been a single study that showed positive results, what they mean is that the few studies that may show something positive simply don't mean anything given the lack of repeatability, the much larger number of negative studies and the extremely low prior probability.

I think your problem here is really the use of "ESP". If you had said that there have been sound, empirical studies demonstrating that something unusual may be going on and more study could be interesting, I'm pretty sure no-one could argue with you. However, it's simply not true that there have been sound, empirical demonstrations of ESP, since ESP has absolutely not been proven to exist and therefore cannot have been demonstrated.

[Dr B]

Hmmmm… after re-reading your premise that the people at the conference you attended stated “that there were no sound, empirical demonstrations of ESP” when you contended that “There are demonstrations of weak effects, under a variety of blinded conditions”

Firstly, I think that the quote I chose from Ray Hyman may not encapsulate your point… so a claim ‘straw man argument’ may be applicable…

I know - I corrected you above. But no worries it is common in the field for both skeptics and woo's to dive in....that's kind of the point of this thread really.

Secondly, I think I fell into the same problem that the conference attendees did, that of failing to split your premise from that of the central one at the core of ESP...

yes, the studies may exist and I/they have not read them…

...but I/they went onto argue a secondary central premise - that of the validity of ESP itself which is far from proven…

No - no one argued for ESP / PSi - the debate was over whether or not good quality experiments have prodcued positive effects - and they have. It's no more than that really. So rather than skeptics saying - it has never happened and therefoe there is nothing to explain - there have been demonstrations and there is something to explain.

However, do not interpret that 'something' as necessarily meaning 'paranormal' - as i have listed a host of factors above more than once as to what it could mean.

...but you did not say that… so yes, your premise of the ‘argument from ignorance’ logical fallacy (i.e. that there are no studies "demonstrating weak effects") is a trap that must be avoided by skeptics and as such is a valid one…phew...!

Phew indeed....you got there in the end.....but i think many will have enjoyed reading your journey through the discussion

[Dr B]

But as far as I (and most people) are concerned, those are both exactly the same thing.

Not quite and not always, and it misses an important point in the types of explanations one needs to consider to explain something. You see, you need to generate an explanation for the studies showing the effects. I have suggested some above, others have suggested different ones - but at the moment even Hyman does not know which accounts are most likely. You would not have had this debate if you clumped the two together.

When people say that there is no evidence for ESP they don't mean there has never been a single study that showed positive results,

Actually, they do - in many conversations I have had this is exactly what many people mean (indeed - it was an apparent attitude at the conference as discussed above). I agree, it may not be what you and I mean - but when i hear other people come out with this I want to know why they hold those beliefs (even if i agree with them).

what they mean is that the few studies that may show something positive simply don't mean anything given the lack of repeatability, the much larger number of negative studies and the extremely low prior probability.

This is my position, and yours, but usually comes from people that have taken the time to consider the evidence on balance. I am not arguing against that. I am saying, many skeptics don't do this - and are not aware of many of the studies - as such they are not aware of how methodologically sound they are. Now, it appears to me that their (the skeptics) conclusions are true, but not for the right reasons. We should always try to use the right reasons. 8)

I think your problem here is really the use of "ESP". If you had said that there have been sound, empirical studies demonstrating that something unusual may be going on and more study could be interesting, I'm pretty sure no-one could argue with you. However, it's simply not true that there have been sound, empirical demonstrations of ESP, since ESP has absolutely not been proven to exist and therefore cannot have been demonstrated.

What I meant to say was there have been demonstrations of ESP / PSi under double-blinded controls and from studies I can find few, if any, methodological flaws in (neither can Hyman or French for that matter - and see Hyman and French debates on the matter). In that sense the independent experiments are methodologically sound. However, in the broader context - an on balance view would suggest a different interpretation of the effect. One can have sound methods and an unsound conclusion. I am not discussing the conclusion and this is what many here seem to be getting confused about.

[median]

This is my position, and yours, but usually comes from people that have taken the time to consider the evidence on balance. I am not arguing against that. I am saying, many skeptics don't do this - and are not aware of many of the studies - as such they are not aware of how methodologically sound they are. Now, it appears to me that their (the skeptics) conclusions are true, but not for the right reasons. We should always try to use the right reasons.

As an observation I think that if we don't know or use the right reasons then we risk coming across as holding a priori assumptions as to the nature of a particular subject.

In that sense the independent experiments are methodologically sound. However, in the broader context - an on balance view would suggest a different interpretation of the effect. One can have sound methods and an unsound conclusion

Question (slight digression): Is it not that part of the trouble with such experiments is that by using the term ESP you almost set yourself up to presuppose a paranormal conclusion if results look favourable?

[Dr B]

Question (slight digression): Is it not that part of the trouble with such experiments is that by using the term ESP you almost set yourself up to presuppose a paranormal conclusion if results look favourable?

Yes. Their logic (not unquestionnable) is that if you get statistical effects and can rule out the five senses - then you must be left with some form of PSI based explanation. I do not think this logic has ever really flowed (but that is off-topic).

[Loomer]

I know - I corrected you above. But no worries it is common in the field for both skeptics and woo's to dive in....that's kind of the point of this thread really.

Phew indeed....you got there in the end.....but i think many will have enjoyed reading your journey through the discussion

Yep... I could not reconcile parts of my initial responce logically and then I realised that I had answered my own preconception (that of ESP being unproven) not your actual premise...

...this is the common mistake of confirmation bias which makes us human... of course it was too late to delete or edit my first post by then...

Still, I am glad I realised my mistake and corrected it by myself though...

Thanks for your thoughts on both my posts...


Rgds

Jon

[Admin]

Good point. This is not about ESP (or whatever) but how we debate about such issues.

I think Loomer's quotation of Hyman is apt.

I think the crux of this issue is that in order to debate (at a high level) issues it really does require a good understanding of the issue and the relevant supporting evidence.

It's all too easy to fall into a trap of concluding that because something like ESP has never been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community that therefore there must be no evidence at all supporting the hypothesis.

Of course not all skeptics are scientists nor do they have a deep interest in every area that we look at so we can't all be well read in every type of claim but we should be aware that dismissing claims of various types is not always as straightforward as we might think.

A related, and fascinating, subject is 'experimenter effects'. Why do 'believer' researchers get positive results and 'skeptical' researchers get negative results even under the same double-blind conditions? But I digress....

[Allo Allo]

A related, and fascinating, subject is 'experimenter effects'. Why do 'believer' researchers get positive results and 'skeptical' researchers get negative results even under the same double-blind conditions? But I digress....

Please digress !

[Matt]

Please digress !

http://skepdic.com/experimentereffect.html