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

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

  • Personal experienced

  • *


Results are only viewable after voting.
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.

[...]

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).
Thanks for the lesson in logic, after the one you gave me on the guidelines I should use to assess information. You have been most enlightening in this thread :).

To answer your question, I have already said it many times--beyond a reasonable doubt. Please tell me that I don't need to explain what I mean by that. And please tell me that you understand that Kennedy, who as you say has written extensively on reliability, did in fact deem that it ("based almost entirely on personal experience") was "enough to justify concluding."

http://jeksite.org/psi/conclusions.htm

Cheers,
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Thanks for the lesson in logic, after the one you gave me on the guidelines I should use to assess information. You have been most enlightening in this thread :).

To answer your question, I have already said it many times--beyond a reasonable doubt. Please tell me that I don't need to explain what I mean by that. And please tell me that you understand that Kennedy, who as you say has written extensively on reliability, did in fact deem that it ("based almost entirely on personal experience") was "enough to justify concluding."

http://jeksite.org/psi/conclusions.htm

Cheers,
Bill

My post to you was serious. The snarky response unnecessary and unhelpful. It goes without saying that people become convinced by these kinds of experiences all the time. But I'm only interested in becoming convinced if I can do so skeptically. Everything I have laid out here has been about controlling for bias. I don't know how to get the evidence you are suggesting I obtain in a reliable manner that I can have confidence in.

Again, I'm trying to push the discussion forward. Otherwise, as you note above, we just go round and round to no one's benefit.
 
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."

I'm sorry, I didn't make that clear. I'm not saying that I don't consider my perceptions to be genuinely psychic. I'm saying that the research shows that perceptions which feel genuinely psychic can be produced by means which we consider non-anomalous. So whether or not something feels genuinely psychic does not distinguish between something which isn't psychic and something which is. "Personal experience" is unhelpful in this case.

It isn't that picking apart my experiences enables me to tell which are or are not psychic. It's that picking apart my experiences shows me that I can't tell the difference.

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

Cheers,
Bill

Regardless of whether or not one agrees that they have done so, they have also clearly demonstrated that they can produce feelings of eery accuracy under conditions which are non-anomalous, and that neither psychics nor their subjects can reliably distinguish whether or not a particular eerily compelling reading was produced under anomalous or non-anomalous conditions. The researchers may be able to say something like, "slightly more eerily compelling readings are produced than we think we can account for under non-anomalous conditions", which could lead to the conclusion you mention above. But nobody can pick out which of those readings represent the slight excess from those which do not, using "personal experience".

Linda
 
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.

I guess that part of my problem is that much of the clinical practice of medicine is like a criminal investigation, so I find it hard to see a clear distinction. But this assumes that clinical practice is science, when perhaps I should be assuming it is skepticism.

What about dropping both terms and just referring to "methods which allow for reliable and valid conclusions", which will vary depending upon the conditions? Sometimes they will look like "scientific methodologies" and sometimes they will look like "skeptical methodologies", but it doesn't set any limits except "validity", which is the limit of interest anyways.

Linda
 
Now Linda is a psychic. Unbelievable. Doctor. Expert on fabrics and looming. First degree lucid dreamer. Now utterly psychic. Am I missing anything? I'm sure I am.

Sometimes I feel like the Linda ID is just someone doing a long, beautiful con. So masterfully paced. It is genius.
Most people here seem to do multiple things. What about our fearless leaders, for example? Or K9! who we just learned was in the military on top of everything else she's told us about. Or Jim Smith who's a biochemist (?) and a psychic involved with the spiritualist church. It's not like many (any?) people have "lucid dreamer" as their only job.

Just because you haven't got any non-fallacious way to address my arguments doesn't give you leave to troll an interesting discussion.

Linda
 
My post to you was serious. The snarky response unnecessary and unhelpful.
Fair enough, I appologise for being snarky. But my responses are serious as well. When I say to you that I've reached a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, I expect you to know what I mean by that, and not continue to insist that I'm avoiding your request to answer "how reliable we should consider the evidence."


It goes without saying that people become convinced by these kinds of experiences all the time. But I'm only interested in becoming convinced if I can do so skeptically.
And I was using Kennedy as an example of someone who has done exactly that. Even with four decades of scientific research that it was the personal experiences that led to this conslusion should tell us something about the nature of what we're dealing with.

Cheers,
Bill
 
Most people here seem to do multiple things. What about our fearless leaders, for example? Or K9! who we just learned was in the military on top of everything else she's told us about. Or Jim Smith who's a biochemist (?) and a psychic involved with the spiritualist church. It's not like many (any?) people have "lucid dreamer" as their only job.

Just because you haven't got any non-fallacious way to address my arguments doesn't give you leave to troll an interesting discussion.

Linda
I'm not trying to troll you. I genuinely doubt that you are all these things that you say you are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
I'm not trying to troll you. I genuinely doubt that you are all these things that you say you are.
So what? Your doubts are based on prejudice only, and add nothing to the actual discussion. There's no reason for you to participate except to sow discord.

Linda
 
So what? Your doubts are based on prejudice only, and add nothing to the actual discussion. There's no reason for you to participate except to sow discord.

Linda
Actually there is good reason to bring this up. I am not merely trying to sow discord. It is nearly beyond the credible that after so many years of posting on this forum, you just now drop a nugget that says you are also psychic. At this point I, and I am sure some other forum members, think you are playing a con for some bizarre reason. If you are psychic, then prove it. Prove you are a doctor. You are smart. You should be able to come up with some way to prove these things.
 
Actually there is good reason to bring this up. I am not merely trying to sow discord. It is nearly beyond the credible that after so many years of posting on this forum, you just now drop a nugget that says you are also psychic.

I agree. I've mentioned this going back several years - when I joined the old Skeptiko forum, in extensive fruitful private conversations with proponents, and then occasionally on this and the old forum. I'm not sure how your ignorance of this somehow makes me a liar.

At this point I, and I am sure some other forum members, think you are playing a con for some bizarre reason. If you are psychic, then prove it. Prove you are a doctor. You are smart. You should be able to come up with some way to prove these things.

Like I said, prejudice. Why ask this information of me when you don't ask it of anyone else and my arguments don't depend upon it anyways?
 
I agree. I've mentioned this going back several years - when I joined the old Skeptiko forum, in extensive fruitful private conversations with proponents, and then occasionally on this and the old forum. I'm not sure how your ignorance of this somehow makes me a liar.



Like I said, prejudice. Why ask this information of me when you don't ask it of anyone else and my arguments don't depend upon it anyways?
At the very least you can point to a thread on this or the old forum where you have specifically stated that you are psychic.

The only other poster that has made such strong claims is Andy. And he has put up. His real identity is know. He has published a book detailing his experiences as well as several published articles. As well, he has been been interviewed and is seemingly completely open about his experiences.

Craig, who also claimed to be psychic was a public figure. Jim/anonymous has an entire website detailing his psychic development where anyone can go and read his material and interact with him if desired.

You on the other hand are nearly completely unforthcoming. When lucid dreams come up, you are a natural. When medical studies are the subject, you are a doctor with experience in medical trials. When the Shroud of Turin comes up, you are a fabric expert. Now you are a psychic.
 
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.

If there is any validity to this line of thought, I guess you should be looking an nuclear spins (but only those with spin 1/2).

David
 
Fair enough, I appologise for being snarky.

Apology accepted!

But my responses are serious as well. When I say to you that I've reached a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, I expect you to know what I mean by that, and not continue to insist that I'm avoiding your request to answer "how reliable we should consider the evidence."

With respect, all that tells me is that you are convinced to a high degree. I think we can probably agree that people come to strongly believe in various propositions for all sorts of reasons - some skeptically obtained, others not-skeptically obtained.

It doesn't say whether that belief is justified according to valid, reliable evidence. It doesn't state how you determine just how valid and reliable the evidence (in this case your personal experience) is.

Skepticism is a methodology. It is an approach to evaluating claims and evidence.

I call myself a skeptic because I want my beliefs to be based on valid, reliable evidence.

Are you arguing that one can analyse these kinds of experiences in valid, reliable ways? If so, then let's discuss how you come to that conclusion. How do you determine that any doubt is unreasonable? And why do you consider it a sound analysis?

I'm asking seriously. If its just gut instinct and intuition, as fls noted above, we have pretty good scientific reason to question the reliability of our intuitions - especially when it comes to pattern recognition, which plays a big part in the analysis of many of these personal experiences.

And I was using Kennedy as an example of someone who has done exactly that. Even with four decades of scientific research that it was the personal experiences that led to this conslusion should tell us something about the nature of what we're dealing with.

On a practical level though Kennedy and I are at roughly the same place. He believes in psi overall because of an experience he had that had a great impact on him but which he recognises is unreliable, and so seeks valid, reliable evidence and looks to parapsychology to get it.

I'm at the same place, just from the opposite side. I don't believe in psi overall but recognise that there is unreliable evidence that supports it and am looking for valid reliable evidence. and in particular to parapsychology, to find it.

Kennedy draws on his personal experience as motive to explore these issues. I've drawn on the personal experience of others (and to a lesser extent my own) to get to the same place. Our goals are the same. (Not entirely coincidental as Kennedy's papers helped me form my current views).
 
I guess that part of my problem is that much of the clinical practice of medicine is like a criminal investigation, so I find it hard to see a clear distinction. But this assumes that clinical practice is science, when perhaps I should be assuming it is skepticism.

I think you're correct that strictly speaking clinical medicine is not science (though hopefully it is based on science, and funnels science).

What about dropping both terms and just referring to "methods which allow for reliable and valid conclusions", which will vary depending upon the conditions? Sometimes they will look like "scientific methodologies" and sometimes they will look like "skeptical methodologies", but it doesn't set any limits except "validity", which is the limit of interest anyways.

I often do try and avoid using the term "skeptical" given the baggage it has on this forum. But just note that it's not either or:
All science is skepticism, but not all skepticism is science. Science is a subset of skepticism, imo.
 
Apology accepted!
Thank you :)

With respect, all that tells me is that you are convinced to a high degree. I think we can probably agree that people come to strongly believe in various propositions for all sorts of reasons - some skeptically obtained, others not-skeptically obtained.
Agreed.

It doesn't say whether that belief is justified according to valid, reliable evidence. It doesn't state how you determine just how valid and reliable the evidence (in this case your personal experience) is.
Right. That would require us to discuss the specifics of each and every case that I've observed.

Skepticism is a methodology. It is an approach to evaluating claims and evidence.
I hope you mean all claims and evidence, not just those that occur within controlled studies.

Are you arguing that one can analyse these kinds of experiences in valid, reliable ways? If so, then let's discuss how you come to that conclusion. How do you determine that any doubt is unreasonable? And why do you consider it a sound analysis?
In exactly the same way that you have seen skeptics apply critical thinking and analysis to individual case reports of the paranormal a thousand times. I'm assuming you've been at this a long time, and in addition to just research studies of paranormal phenomena that you have at least familiarized yourself with a good portion of discussions involving individual/spontaneous/annecdotal cases. You certainly don't need me to lay out the kinds of questions one needs to ask, how you assign weighting to various possibilities, etc. Indeed, years of reading and studying skeptical analyses of many paranormal cases has strengthened my conviction that some of what I've observed was genuine psychic phenomena, rather than weaken it.

Asking me to tell you exactly how I arrived at my conclusions "beyond a reasonable doubt" would necessarily involve detailed discussions of each event that I've observed. While I certainly would love to discuss the analysis with you, it simply is not possible in a public forum, and doesn't seem to be inline with your interests anyway.

Cheers,
Bill
 
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).
I succinctly pointed out you labeling me a "proponent". I asked "proponent of what?". I assume it meant proponent of psi/the supernatural, at which I'm questioning why you would think that. I've never really stated my beliefs on anything, and certainly not my views on psi other than I'm keeping an open mind, but I am not fully convinced. Is proponent the same as agnostic? No, it's not.

And yes, I have "talked bad" (which actually means I've pointed out their flawed thinking and their own dickish behavior) about some famous so called skeptics because they are quite literally the exact opposite of a skeptic. Skepticism is agnosticism. Plain and simple. Once you "believe" anything, you are no longer skeptical about it. I also think that while science should always remain skeptical (even in regard to so called laws, facts and theories) being skeptical doesn't ONLY apply to that which can be quantified by the scientific method. Belief forms the basis of dogma. And once dogma sets in, you are so far from being a skeptic it's heretical to claim such.

And no, I wasn't referring to you as THE atheist fundamentalist. I don't know really what you are or what you really believe. I was speaking in vague definitions.
 
I succinctly pointed out you labeling me a "proponent". I asked "proponent of what?". I assume it meant proponent of psi/the supernatural, at which I'm questioning why you would think that. I've never really stated my beliefs on anything, and certainly not my views on psi other than I'm keeping an open mind, but I am not fully convinced. Is proponent the same as agnostic? No, it's not.

Ok, I see what you were getting at, I said "you (or any other proponent). I apologise for associating you with being a proponent.

And yes, I have "talked bad" (which actually means I've pointed out their flawed thinking and their own dickish behavior) about some famous so called skeptics because they are quite literally the exact opposite of a skeptic. Skepticism is agnosticism. Plain and simple. Once you "believe" anything, you are no longer skeptical about it.

I was talking about your comments about the skeptics on this site. Here's an example:

The most informative posts come from the "proponents" (which is an idiotic term anyway, I'd prefer to call them the open minded ones, but that would only confuse the so called "resident skeptics").

I'm pretty sure I've seen you refer to us in scare quotes more than once.

In any event, in this post you're using the "doubt" definition of skeptic here but that's actually not the definition that self-identified skeptics tend to use. It's more this one from Merriam Webster: "the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics." Or the way I put it: a skeptic withold's judgment absent sufficient, reliable evidence.

I also think that while science should always remain skeptical (even in regard to so called laws, facts and theories) being skeptical doesn't ONLY apply to that which can be quantified by the scientific method.

Agreed, as I wrote above. It can apply to absolutely any claim.

Belief forms the basis of dogma. And once dogma sets in, you are so far from being a skeptic it's heretical to claim such.

Skeptics should indeed be on guard for that.

Remember, being a skeptic doesn't magically insulate someone from bias. It is part of the human condition and skeptics are as prone to it as anyone. However, adopting a skeptical approach can help combat bias.

Bias is a tough mofo. Maintaining a skeptical approach is difficult, and often mentally exhausting and time consuming. Even if someone identifies as a skeptic, they are unlikely to always apply it effectively - and will no doubt often succumb to bias and even dogma. People are flawed and skeptics no exception.




And no, I wasn't referring to you as THE atheist fundamentalist. I don't know really what you are or what you really believe. I was speaking in vague definitions.
 
Right. That would require us to discuss the specifics of each and every case that I've observed.

I didn't mean to suggest that. I've been talking generally and didn't expect you to do otherwise. I was asking about your general approach.

I hope you mean all claims and evidence, not just those that occur within controlled studies.

Absolutely.

In exactly the same way that you have seen skeptics apply critical thinking and analysis to individual case reports of the paranormal a thousand times. I'm assuming you've been at this a long time, and in addition to just research studies of paranormal phenomena that you have at least familiarized yourself with a good portion of discussions involving individual/spontaneous/annecdotal cases. You certainly don't need me to lay out the kinds of questions one needs to ask, how you assign weighting to various possibilities, etc. Indeed, years of reading and studying skeptical analyses of many paranormal cases has strengthened my conviction that some of what I've observed was genuine psychic phenomena, rather than weaken it.

I think you're talking about the kind of speculating and armchair analysing that tends to go on in a lot of these discussions. I'm not convinced most of those let us get to anything close to what I'd consider confident conclusions about what is going on in a particular scenario. At best, its a mismash.

Most of what we see there is brainstorming, raising issues that should be addressed. It's an important part of skeptical reasoning, but its the beginning of analysis, not the end!

In any event, I'm not speaking for some guys who call themselves skeptics somewhere else. I'm talking about my views and asking you for yours.

I view your suggestion to me as well intended. I hope you view mine as well. I think we can probably get someone with this discussion, but we have to push past generalities and get to the good stuff!

If you're not interested, that's ok too - but please don't consider me obstinate in not immediately accepting your suggestion (at least more than I have already been doing, in terms of meditation, seeking to induce lucid dream, OBEs, astral projection, etc.) I've stated my concerns with it, and hopefull in enough detail that you know I'm taking it seriously.
Asking me to tell you exactly how I arrived at my conclusions "beyond a reasonable doubt" would necessarily involve detailed discussions of each event that I've observed. While I certainly would love to discuss the analysis with you, it simply is not possible in a public forum, and doesn't seem to be inline with your interests anyway.

You may be referring to my comments about deliberately not engaging in discussions about forum members personal experiences. The reason I have this policy is that it tends to almost universally lead to hurt feelings, which isn't my intention. I'd be open to cautiously having a private discussion - on the assumption that we go into it in good faith, keep it civil, and each promise not to really make an effort to not take what each other says personally. It's not easy though, and I would prefer to maintain good relations. Let me know!
 
pretty sure I've seen you refer to us in scare quotes more than once.
"Us"? I had no idea there was an us/them here. I will grant you certain threads can evolve that way, but I've seen everyone agree and disagree with one another at some point (with the exception of Linda). I use scare quotes because I'm sorry, but I don't buy it at all that the likes of Paul, Malf, Linda or you (the, I suppose, self-described resident skeptics) are really skeptical at all. I will grant that you seem more open minded than the others, but seriously. None of the other three are skeptical. They are dogmatic in their beliefs, and I get the strong impression they are here for laughs. But, maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time, and I'm humble enough to admit I know practically nothing. I also used them to emphasize the proponent/skeptic dynamic some like to believe exists here. I think it's not nearly so black and white as that.

In any event, in this post you're using the "doubt" definition of skeptic here but that's actually not the definition that self-identified skeptics tend to use. It's more this one from Merriam Webster: "the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics." Or the way I put it: a skeptic withold's judgment absent sufficient, reliable evidence.

Ok "systematic doubt", yes, in other words, agnostic.

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
  1. 1.
    a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
    synonyms: skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, cynic;More
I have but one quibble with your personal definition added at the end there, and that is reliable evidence.

Who decides what "reliable evidence" means?
Remember, being a skeptic doesn't magically insulate someone from bias. It is part of the human condition and skeptics are as prone to it as anyone. However, adopting a skeptical approach can help combat bias.
Agreed. Did I ever claim I was beyond bias?

I still maintain that far too often, those who self proclaim themselves to be Skeptics (especially those in the media spotlight) are in all actuality nothing of the sort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Back
Top