Derren Brown investigates

[Jules]

Channel 4 tonight, 10 pm. Worth a look.

His blog gives a nice summary of what being a sceptic (as opposed to a cynic) is all about.

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2010/0...taries-10th-2/

[Drop Bear]

Seldom read Blogs,especially ones with walls of text.

I consider myself both a skeptic and a cynic.

A skeptic in the sense of leaving everything open to question. I demand evidence,rejecting the Neo Platonist notion that truth may be inferred from reason alone.


A cynic in the modern sense,of one who is jaded,distrustful of all forms of authority and genuinely misanthropic.


I refer to myself as a realist and certified reprobate. Those who know and love me refer to me as "a grumpy old man. (I even have a t shirt). If miffed with me,my sibs call me 'a miserable old cunt'

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Channel 4 tonight, 10 pm. Worth a look.

His blog gives a nice summary of what being a sceptic (as opposed to a cynic) is all about.

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2010/0...taries-10th-2/

Preview on the Guardian site.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-rad...n-investigates

I think this is going to be worth watching.

[Admin]

His blog gives a nice summary of what being a sceptic (as opposed to a cynic) is all about.

So even Derren Brown has fallen victim to the "we're skeptics as opposed to cynics" meme!

The opposite of skepticism is dogmatism.

Cynicism has nothing to do with "pre-supposing [the] falsehood" of a claim. Cynicism is about suspecting the self-serving motivations/actions of others.

e.g. If a psychic is claiming that they use their gift to 'help people' (a claim they often make) and they charge £40 a reading, someone being cynical would doubt the claim assuming that the psychic's money-making is actually more important than 'helping people'.

I'm a skeptic and I'm also quite often cynical of the claims of others.


Sorry. I don't mean to derail the thread, but this "we're skeptics not cynics" false dichotomy is a bugbear of mine.

[DrS]

I agree, though it's perhaps as well that he does so, because I've found myself that this is the confusion in most people's mind.

[Jules]

Yes, good point about cynicism, although the blog is more about confirmation bias than being cynical. It's actually only mentioned once:

One curious point is the way that scepticism is absolutely seen as the enemy by many of these practitioners. Possibly this is a point of confusion on their part: scepticism is only about reserving judgement until the evidence is weighed, as opposed to cynicism, which is blinkered by pre-supposing falsehood.

I disagree with him on this point:

As the spotlight falls on the importance of evidence, many people who mock believers imply that those who work with the ‘paranormal’ are not interested in the importance of evidence, as if it were something only the ‘rational’ side of the argument is capable of understanding. I think this is patronising and unfair. We all form our beliefs based on evidence and according to some private rationale: the question is more about the type of evidence being used.

But surely something only counts as "evidence" if it can be used to give weight to the truth of an assertion. I can believe in something merely because it feels good to do so, which is a subjective fallacy: "This is true because I want it to be"

[Harryprice]

But surely something only counts as "evidence" if it can be used to give weight to the truth of an assertion. I can believe in something merely because it feels good to do so, which is a subjective fallacy: "This is true because I want it to be"

Taking the paranormal as an example, there is lots of evidence in its favour. However, it is indeed of the wrong 'type'. The evidence is almost wholly subjective and irreproducible. It doesn't stop being evidence because of that. In fact, it is probably good evidence of something else, like misperception and hallucination.

There is no doubt that people have what they believe are paranormal experiences. However, there is little, if any, evidence that such experiences are caused by the paranormal.

[Jules]

It doesn't stop being evidence because of that. In fact, it is probably good evidence of something else, like misperception and hallucination.

Yes, but that's evidence with respect to a different proposition ("this individual is hallucinating and misperceiving"), but not "The paranormal is a real phenomenon". I agree that subjectivity is evidence of something, but not objectivity.

The issue of what counts as evidence is tricky and takes you to epistemology, which I'm going to stay away from. However, as skeptics we are only concerned with scientific evidence.

[Harryprice]

Yes, but that's evidence with respect to a different proposition ("this individual is hallucinating and misperceiving"), but not "The paranormal is a real phenomenon". I agree that subjectivity is evidence of something, just not objectivity.

When faced with any evidence, you have to examine all likely possible causes. So it is not really a question of setting up a single proposition. The fact that the witness reports their experience as paranormal is neither here nor there. A (serious) paranormal investigator's job is not to prove that an experience is paranormal (or not) but to to establish, if possible, what has really happened.

Experiences are, by definition, subjective but they have objective causes, either external (like misperception) or internal (like hallucination). Unless the witness is lying, there is definitely an experience to be explained objectively.

So there certainly IS evidence of experiences that are regarded by the experiencer as paranormal. However, because there are alternative explanations for such experiences, which don't require novel phenomena, the evidence is simply of the wrong type, because it fails to exclude all other possibilities.

[DrS]

as skeptics we are only concerned with scientific evidence.

I can't agree with this. There are other interpretational, perhaps cultural, sources of evidence that skeptics use. It's not all about science necessarily.

[Jules]

I can't agree with this. There are other interpretational, perhaps cultural, sources of evidence that skeptics use. It's not all about science necessarily.

Ok, but this is what UK Skeptics has to say about the type of evidence required (from the home page):

What is evidence?


When talking about evidence, skeptics are referring to tangible or empirical evidence. That is, evidence that can be inspected or examined by third parties. It is the quality, or robustness, of supporting evidence that determines whether a claim is accepted or rejected.


It is because of the importance of the high quality of evidence required to support claims that one of the most popular forms of general evidence, personal testimony (or anecdote), is not accepted as being satisfactory to support a claim. Psychologists have identified many cognitive errors (of reasoning, perception, memory, etc.) that we all possess which means that we can form many incorrect conclusions about things no matter how sincerely we may believe them.

Harry, you said:

Experiences are, by definition, subjective but they have objective causes

This doesn't make sense to me. Not all experiences are subjective, and how can an experience be subjective if it has an objective cause? If it has an objective cause, then it can be also be experienced by a third party, so presumably is not subjective.

You go on to say:

So there certainly IS evidence of experiences that are regarded by the experiencer as paranormal.

But if all experience is subjective, then you're saying that there is evidence of subjectivity... Again, I'm confused. Isn't the very nature of evidence to be concerned with objectivity? Roughly speaking, objective evidence is fact, subjective evidence is opinion - ie; evidence for nothing.

Derren Brown seems to be implying that evidence is just "out there"; a believer and a scientist both encounter basically the same evidence, but it's the way they deal with it which makes the difference:

Here is an important difference between the way that a scientist and a believer classically approach evidence: the ‘true’ scientist tries to disprove what he believes, whereas the ‘true’ believer tends to look for evidence that confirms it. This allows us to be comfortable that the scientist’s conclusions are based on more solid ground.

This seems muddled to me. Evidence isn't an object, it's a relation between sets of propositions. I think a more useful concept would be to talk about the strength of evidence, rather than "types" or "kinds" of evidence.

[DrS]

Ok, but this is what UK Skeptics has to say about the type of evidence required (from the home page):

When talking about evidence, skeptics are referring to tangible or empirical evidence. That is, evidence that can be inspected or examined by third parties. It is the quality, or robustness, of supporting evidence that determines whether a claim is accepted or rejected.

I have no quibble with that, but I fully question the idea that such "tangible or empirical evidence" must and can only be scientific.

[Admin]

What an absolutely excellent programme.

I hope this series continues in the same vein as it will be worth writing it up along the lines of Britain's psychic challenge and The Baby Mind Reader.

It will be at least a couple of weeks before I could even think of doing that though.

I wonder if Derren is thinking of stepping into the shoes of Randi?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Derren has completely regained all the credibility that he lost from his dodgy stunts shows last summer. He really needed this and the format was great. Good to see him doing something different as he was running out of ideas for things that worked on telly without camera tricks

In the past he seemed reluctant to perform this kind of role, but it was excellent. And none of this 'BBC fairness' nonsense we got on the Mannion programme, Derren was prepared to set him up in a situation he knew he would fail and challenge him properly. And Joe deserved it for that explanation of why he couldn't be tested - what an arse!

[bindeweede]

It's a pity Derren didn't bring Joe back to see the woman who said originally 5 in the family, (a "hit" he kept coming back to,) and later realised it was 6. I think Derren was very patient. Personally, I'd have liked a bit more confrontation, but perhaps that is not his style.