For Skeptics - What would you need as proof of psi?

[Vault313]

you (or any other proponent

Why do you keep saying this? Where have I ever stated what my "beliefs" are? Just because I don't dismiss claims of psi or anything else "supernatural" right out of the gate, doesn't make me a "proponent" of anything. Unless you want to call me a proponent of keeping an open mind and never being so arrogant as to think I could even begin to have any of this all figured out, then go ahead.

 

[billw]

For the "skeptics" who consider themselves as never having had a psi experience, it may be worthwhile to consider this as comparable to what it is like being someone without kids discussing aspects of parenting with someone who has kids:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152745816906512

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Arouet]

Why do you keep saying this? Where have I ever stated what my "beliefs" are? Just because I don't dismiss claims of psi or anything else "supernatural" right out of the gate, doesn't make me a "proponent" of anything. Unless you want to call me a proponent of keeping an open mind and never being so arrogant as to think I could even begin to have any of this all figured out, then go ahead.

So by my asking you what your beliefs are (in this case, about skepticsm) this is somehow my making assumptions? That's why I asked! I was also interested about other members views on this are, so I opened it up.

I've seen you make negative comments about skeptics and I wondered what skepticism meant to you, and conversely what you thought skepticism means for me (especially that you insinuated in your next post that I was an atheist fundamentalist).

 

[fls]

I thought that you meant using reason, logic, and all tools/means at our disposal to come to the best and most objective conclusion possible (regardless of what we may wish to be true). This includes devised and controlled experiments as well as analyzing situations that occur "in the wild" (our own, or those of others). This method needs to be applied regardless of which side of the "have had" or "have not had" personal experience you fall on. Discounting personal experience, because it has been shown to be unreliable X percent of the time, and throwing it all out and assuming that 100 percent of the anecdotal accounts must be due to "the usual suspects" is as bad as drawing conclusions based on "I experienced it." Having personal experiences, at the very least, enables you to rule out deliberate fraud (one of the usual suspects).

Cheers,
Bill

Agreed. I think the next step (and I'm pretty sure this is what Arouet is referring to) is to establish which accounts are valid, or which parts are valid, and to move forward from there.

I think that we see some differences in the extent to which people reserve judgement until that has taken place.

Linda

 

[fls]

For the "skeptics" who consider themselves as never having had a psi experience, it may be worthwhile to consider this as comparable to what it is like being someone without kids discussing aspects of parenting with someone who has kids:

Cheers,
Bill

LOL. That was why I found Shermer's account a bit annoying - like it wasn't until he had an experience that he realized that they feel compelling. What did he think people were going on about?

Linda

 

[David Bailey]

LOL. That was why I found Shermer's account a bit annoying - like it wasn't until he had an experience that he realized that they feel compelling. What did he think people were going on about?

Linda

Some while ago, I did have what one incident of what seemed like precognition that helped be avoid something that would have been awful. I wrote about it here. What I notice, is that a single event like that seems to recede with time, and one forgets how startling it was.

Shermer has possibly done the same - just slid back to unwavering skepticism - even after a series of events that he couldn't begin to explain - you couldn't even use a statistical argument to 'explain' his experiences.

Now I think you (and I, since I am not psychic) should think about what it must be like for people who have these experiences regularly. For them to dismiss such experiences, would be like doing an experiment over and over and then saying, "Nah - I don't believe that!".

OK, others can dismiss such people as being mentally deranged, but should we dismiss you because you have had OBE's, and should we dismiss Shermer because of what he reported?

David

 

[fls]

Some while ago, I did have what one incident of what seemed like precognition that helped be avoid something that would have been awful. I wrote about it here. What I notice, is that a single event like that seems to recede with time, and one forgets how startling it was.

Shermer has possibly done the same - just slid back to unwavering skepticism - even after a series of events that he couldn't begin to explain - you couldn't even use a statistical argument to 'explain' his experiences.

You mean, it feels inexplicable using a statistical argument. Mediumship research shows us that these seemingly "statistically inexplicable" experiences happen fairly frequently. So there should be millions of stories for us to regard as "there's no way to explain how they knew that" just due to familiar or ordinary reasons. The trick will be separating out those which were not due to familiar or ordinary causes to see what they have to tell us.

Now I think you (and I, since I am not psychic) should think about what it must be like for people who have these experiences regularly. For them to dismiss such experiences, would be like doing an experiment over and over and then saying, "Nah - I don't believe that!".

I don't think that's it. I have the same experiences that psychics have. The difference seems to be that people who go on to regard themselves as "psychic" treat their subjective perceptions as valid, whereas I pick mine apart and test their validity.

OK, others can dismiss such people as being mentally deranged, but should we dismiss you because you have had OBE's, and should we dismiss Shermer because of what he reported?

David

I don't know what you mean by "dismiss". The question isn't whether Shermer and others have experiences which are strange or compelling. The question is to what extent conclusions based on intuitions (like intuitions about likeliness) and subjective perceptions are valid, given that we already know that they tend to be invalid under these conditions (http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555).

Linda

 

[billw]

I don't think that's it. I have the same experiences that psychics have. The difference seems to be that people who go on to regard themselves as "psychic" treat their subjective perceptions as valid, whereas I pick mine apart and test their validity.

Unless you're willing to give specific examples, we'll just have to take your word for it that a) your experiences are no different (in terms of type and frequency) from others who consider themselves psychic and b) that you've managed to find normal explanations (coincidence, law of large numbers, cryptomnesia, etc.) for all your impressions that seemed could have been psychic. Are you implying that this likely implies to people who regard themselves as psychic also, except that they lack your ability for critical thinking and analysis?

Cheers,
Bill

 

[fls]

Unless you're willing to give specific examples, we'll just have to take your word for it that a) your experiences are no different (in terms of type and frequency) from others who consider themselves psychic and b) that you've managed to find normal explanations (coincidence, law of large numbers, cryptomnesia, etc.) for all your impressions that seemed could have been psychic. Are you implying that this likely implies to people who regard themselves as psychic also, except that they lack your ability for critical thinking and analysis?

Cheers,
Bill

This isn't about me, per se. I brought up my experiences just to let you know that I know what it feels like. But regardless of whether or not someone personally has these experiences, we can look at what the mediumship research tells us - familiar and ordinary causes are at least partly responsible for the perception that these experiences are eerily accurate. So why are we calling that "psi"?

Linda

 

[billw]

This isn't about me, per se. I brought up my experiences just to let you know that I know what it feels like.

I see. It seemed like you brought it up specifically to make the point that you didn't consider the perceptions to be genuinely psychic as your critical thinking and analytic skills enabled you to "pick [it] apart."

we can look at what the mediumship research tells us - familiar and ordinary causes are at least partly responsible for the perception that these experiences are eerily accurate. So why are we calling that "psi"?

Actually some of the medium researchers are calling it "anomalous information reception" as they claim to have eliminated ordinary causes.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Arouet]

Right, if their minds are changed by a single incident, no matter how uncanny it seems, like Shermer's experience, then it's doubtful they are using the skeptical methodology. But if it involves repeated occurrences that were carefully analyzed and witnessed by other people, as E.Flowers mentions above, then it is certainly possible to do so.

Cheers,
Bill

Yes, careful analysis is required - but the devil is in the details:

• Is the data collected in a manner that should be considered sufficiently reliable given the question we are asking?
• Do we have enough information to make a reliable conclusion?
• How have we controlled for bias?
• What role might confounding factors play?
• How are we determining the answer to each of these questions?
• What are we basing it on?

What assessment have we done of our capacity for accuracy here?

What is required will vary according to the question being asked so it is difficult to generalise.

The other thing that is important is to separate one's perception of the experience itself from the underlying nature/cause of the experience.

 

[Arouet]

There was a time when I would have distinguished between skeptical methodology and scientific methodology. But there has been a lot more attention paid over the last 10+ years, within the field of science, to how our practices can create the appearance of an effect when none is present, in addition to more attention paid to fraud and quasi-fraud. So I suspect that skeptical methodology is becoming part of scientific methodology.

I think its more that science is an example of a skeptical methodology. I think the set of skeptical methodologies is broader than science, particularly because there are situations where science doesn't really apply. Think about criminal investigations, for example. There are scientific elements, such as forensic analysis, but would we really say that the investigation of a crime is a scientific pursuit? I'm not sure.

Is examining any single event considered science? Sometimes yes, but probably often enough no. But we investigate all sorts of things, experiences, events.

Is logical reasoning considered science? It's used in science but it can be used in non-scientific areas as well.

There is no reason in principle that there can't be other methods of investigation that are similarly reliable to science.

The question is whether the method is reliable, whether or not its science.

So I think equating the two is unnecessarily limiting, and potentially closes doors that should remain open.

 

[Max_B]

Yes, careful analysis is required - but the devil is in the details:

• Is the data collected in a manner that should be considered sufficiently reliable given the question we are asking?
• Do we have enough information to make a reliable conclusion?
• How have we controlled for bias?
• What role might confounding factors play?
• How are we determining the answer to each of these questions?
• What are we basing it on?

What assessment have we done of our capacity for accuracy here?

What is required will vary according to the question being asked so it is difficult to generalise.

The other thing that is important is to separate one's perception of the experience itself from the underlying nature/cause of the experience.

We've got enough evidence to show oscillating field effects on organisms that are of such a weak intensity, that they already exceed our current understanding. Heck, even the quantum theories put forward so far, to try and explain such observations would need ridiculously long spin relaxation times of one second or more. Those sorts of times are not even up for consideration within condensed matter physics, never mind within a biological organism.

We've already crossed into new territory...

 

[Arouet]

We've got enough evidence to show oscillating field effects on organisms that are of such a weak intensity, that they already exceed our current understanding. Heck, even the quantum theories put forward so far, to try and explain such observations would need ridiculously long spin relaxation times of one second or more. Those sorts of times are not even up for consideration within condensed matter physics, never mind within a biological organism.

We've already crossed into new territory...

I've seen your posts on this. Will be interesting to see where the research leads.

 

[billw]

Yes, careful analysis is required - but the devil is in the details:
Is the data collected in a manner that should be considered sufficiently reliable given the question we are asking?
Do we have enough information to make a reliable conclusion?
How have we controlled for bias?
What role might confounding factors play?
How are we determining the answer to each of these questions?
What are we basing it on?
What assessment have we done of our capacity for accuracy here?

What is required will vary according to the question being asked so it is difficult to generalise.

The other thing that is important is to separate one's perception of the experience itself from the underlying nature/cause of the experience.

Thanks for reminding us of goals for research studies striving to meet Cochrane-grade criteria. The context of this post was specifically about assessing personal experiences which happen outside of formal studies. We're talking about individuals trying to make intelligent assessments, using critical thinking, of repeated occurrences they've personally witnessed--like fls "picking apart" her own experiences and deciding they've got normal explanations or J. E. Kennedy coming to the conclusion that "paranormal phenomena beyond current scientific understanding sometimes actually occur." And I was specifically talking about repeated incidents with specific individuals, not like Shermer's experience that "shook his skepticism to the core" (WTF? Get a grip man, it only happened once!).

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Arouet]

Thanks for reminding us of goals for research studies striving to meet Cochrane-grade criteria. The context of this post was specifically about assessing personal experiences which happen outside of formal studies. We're talking about individuals trying to make intelligent assessments, using critical thinking, of repeated occurrences they've personally witnessed--like fls "picking apart" her own experiences and deciding they've got normal explanations or J. E. Kennedy coming to the conclusion that "paranormal phenomena beyond current scientific understanding sometimes actually occur." And I was specifically talking about repeated incidents with specific individuals, not like Shermer's experience that "shook his skepticism to the core" (WTF? Get a grip man, it only happened once!).

Cheers,
Bill

I was talking about questions to ask ourselves when assessing personal experiences - if we're assessing them skeptically in order to draw reliable conclusions. The reason scientists like those with the Cochrane collaboration have developed methods to address these questions is that without them we find that reliability drops. It's the reason why the scientific method was developed at all! If we can't adequately address them then how do you think that should affect our assessment of the experience?

Like I said, the devil is in the details: just alluding to "intelligent assessment, using critical thinking" is pretty vague. The questions I raised I submit are part of intelligent, critical analysis. If you don't think the questions are relevant to personal experiences I'm curious as to your reasoning. If you don't think the intelligent, critical analysis involves the issues I raised I'm curious as to what you suggest should be involved in such analysis.

 

[billw]

Like I said, the devil is in the details: just alluding to "intelligent assessment, using critical thinking" is pretty vague. The questions I raised I submit are part of intelligent, critical analysis. If you don't think the questions are relevant to personal experiences I'm curious as to your reasoning.

fls describes here analysis as "picking it apart" and you say I'm being vague, LOL. I'm simply noting that there are differences in analyzing spontaneous cases vs, setting up controlled experiments, so you do the best with what you have.You're terminology ("controlling for bias," "collecting data in a manner...") sounded like you were specifically talking about controlled experiments. Let me ask you--do you think its possible for you, Arouet, to put your bias aside in order to make a fair assessment of a situation involving possible psi, or do you think that would be impossible?

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Arouet]

fls describes here analysis as "picking it apart" and you say I'm being vague,

I'm trying to move the discussion in the direction of specifics.

LOL. I'm simply noting that there are differences in analyzing spontaneous cases vs, setting up controlled experiments, so you do the best with what you have.

Right. You do the best with what you have. The question then becomes: is that enough to justify belief? The answer in many cases may be: no its not, and we have to keep on searching...

You're terminology ("controlling for bias," "collecting data in a manner...") sounded like you were specifically talking about controlled experiments. Let me ask you--do you think its possible for you, Arouet, to put your bias aside in order to make a fair assessment of a situation involving possible psi, or do you think that would be impossible?

I think bias is pretty inherent in the human condition, and probably impossible to remove completely. That said, I think it can be controlled to a good extent in order to provide a sufficiently fair assessment. I've written many times about the methods to attempt to control my own biases as applied to coming to a conclusion about psi. I'll try and list them here:

• I expose myself to a good extent to the parapsychology literature: primarily original studies but also some of the popular books.
• When reading I try and take detailed notes or at least highlight with margin notes.
• I involve myself in Skeptiko, which is a community with diverse views and a more intelligent than average membership base
• I force myself to write out my arguments, as clear as I can, setting out my premises and conclusions. This forces me to really analyse my own positions.
• I invite constructive critique of my positions, and try and force myself to address as much of the response as I can, often going line by line to make sure I don't miss anything, or let myself off the hook for a response. This forces me to identify/address weaknesses in my own positions.
• I ask questions when I feel I do not sufficiently understand something and try and answer questions when I feel I do.
• I try not to dismiss any claim out of hand and engage in respectful discussion.
• I try and assess my capabilities and level of understanding, reflecting on areas I feel comfortable drawing conclusions and others where I don't.

I fully recognise that even with all of this I do not fully succeed in controlling for my biases, and I certainly don't adhere to it perfectly, but this is what I've come up with. I assume improvements can be made. As always, I invite suggestions for improvement/constructive critique.

What do you think?

 

[billw]

Right. You do the best with what you have. The question then becomes: is that enough to justify belief? The answer in many cases may be: no its not, and we have to keep on searching...

And in some cases the answer may also be yes, because no reasonable altenative can be discerned.

That said, I think it can be controlled to a good extent in order to provide a sufficiently fair assessment.

Good, so do I.

I've written many times about the methods to attempt to control my own biases as applied to coming to a conclusion about psi. I'll try and list them here:
I expose myself to a good extent to the parapsychology literature: primarily original studies but also some of the popular books.
When reading I try and take detailed notes or at least highlight with margin notes.
I involve myself in Skeptiko, which is a community with diverse views and a more intelligent than average membership base
I force myself to write out my arguments, as clear as I can, setting out my premises and conclusions. This forces me to really analyse my own positions.
I invite constructive critique of my positions, and try and force myself to address as much of the response as I can, often going line by line to make sure I don't miss anything, or let myself off the hook for a response. This forces me to identify/address weaknesses in my own positions.
I ask questions when I feel I do not sufficiently understand something and try and answer questions when I feel I do.
I try not to dismiss any claim out of hand and engage in respectful discussion.
I try and assess my capabilities and level of understanding, reflecting on areas I feel comfortable drawing conclusions and others where I don't.
I fully recognise that even with all of this I do not fully succeed in controlling for my biases, and I certainly don't adhere to it perfectly, but this is what I've come up with. I assume improvements can be made. As always, I invite suggestions for improvement/constructive critique.

What do you think?

What I think is what I suggested to you a while ago--you don't lack anything except for personal, ongoing involvement with someone who can demonstrate psychic ability, if not in a controlled manner, at least in a regularly recurring manner. And with all the effort that you have devoted to this, I strongly suggest you make this a priority for yourself.

I say this, because over the past 17 years I've involved myself in many of the activities you have, everything from reading much of the literature and criticisms on both sides to having personal Email discussions with people like Susan Blackmore, George Hansen, Ed May, people involved in remote viewing research, and others. The debate over the studies and statistics is never ending, and while I suspect ultimately psi will be proven beyond a doubt, I don't expect it to occur in my lifetime. You have to ask yourself how this could be, and why there are so many intelligent people on both sides of the fence. I am in the same situation as J.E. Kennedy, in that nothing in that 17 years would have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt if I removed the component of repeated personal experiences. This may not be a satisfactory answer, but it's the only one I can honestly give.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Arouet]

And in some cases the answer may also be yes, because no reasonable altenative can be discerned.

Careful though to avoid the logical fallacy here of arguing from ignorance. Even if there is no reasonable alternative that can be discerned, that doesn't mean that the evidence is reliable enough to justify concluding. Sometimes we have to say: here are the possibilities we've identified (perhaps only one), but the evidence still isn't strong enough.

In other words: "This is interesting but I don't know what the explanation is" should not be shied away from.

What I think is what I suggested to you a while ago--you don't lack anything except for personal, ongoing involvement with someone who can demonstrate psychic ability, if not in a controlled manner, at least in a regularly recurring manner. And with all the effort that you have devoted to this, I strongly suggest you make this a priority for yourself.

With all due respect, you keep on avoiding my response: which is asking you to address how reliable we should consider the evidence in doing so? Again: this is only if we are concerned about that. Many people aren't. Are you arguing that this can be done sufficiently skeptically? That is, in a sufficiently reliable manner to allow confident conclusions to be drawn (not: confident does not mean certain).

No one ever seems to want to comment on this.

The debate over the studies and statistics is never ending,

So long as new studies are produced I suppose this is true. But anyone who finds continued discussion fruitless probably isn't doing it right. Personally, I've felt a pretty steady progression in myself through these discussions. Not with everyone of course - some people aren't really interested in fruitful discussion. But there's plenty of good ones that go on. They are more difficult. They take more work. They take more effort. But if one is doing it right, it is worth it, in my opinion. It's not for everyone though.

and while I suspect ultimately psi will be proven beyond a doubt, I don't expect it to occur in my lifetime. You have to ask yourself how this could be, and why there are so many intelligent people on both sides of the fence. I am in the same situation as J.E. Kennedy, in that nothing in that 17 years would have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt if I removed the component of repeated personal experiences. This may not be a satisfactory answer, but it's the only one I can honestly give.

Well, Kennedy has written extensively on ways to produce more reliable results. And groups like Cochrane and the Stanford one have really made great strides over the last few decades in research methodology.

So perhaps you're just pessimistic that parapsychologies will actually perform that quality of experiment. I hope we do get to see such studies. No matter the result![/quote]