Michael Shermer has a Paranormal Experience

[Typoz]

The evidence could be presented i.e. the radio in question.

I find myself in agreement with, or at least sympathetic with everything you wrote. Except perhaps this. In my opinion, the radio in isolation tells us nothing. It could be analysed fully and every little detail fully understood. But where would that get us? It is a bit like the sound of one hand clapping. It was the experience as a whole which was significant. Each component of what happened could have a trivial, mundane explanation. But put them all together and then you have an event.

This reminds me a little, though it isn't directly comparable, with how I feel about so-called orbs appearing in photographs. As far as I'm concerned, these always have a well-understood technical explanation. But that doesn't mean that they may not sometimes have significance. Similarly, one of my favourite photographs happened when in some sort of absent-minded blunder I accidentally started to open the back of my camera while it still had film in it. The resulting photo appeared to have flames across the scene due to the stray light, giving a rather powerful visual effect. The fact that there may be a mundane explanation is not the point at all.

 

[steve001]

Shermer clarifies.

UPDATE 2: Michael has written a clarification of his piece for me to put up, and here it is:

I read your commentary, Jerry, and as usual with your critiques in your blog I agree with all your points about my Scientific American column. To clarify matters please see this further explanation of my interpretation, which is that my experience in no way implies something paranormal or supernatural. As I’ve always said (and repeat here), there’s no such thing as the paranormal or supernatural; there is just the normal, the natural, and mysteries as yet unexplained by natural law and chance/contingency.
Much has been made of the subtitle of the original column (stating that my skepticism was shaken to the core), a variation of which was used for the Online title of the essay. As is common in all magazine and newspaper articles, essays, and opinion editorials, the editors write the title and subtitle in a way that will make the article seem more compelling to read, and that is the case here. My Scientific American editors give me much freedom in choosing my own titles and subtitles, but when they have done rewrites for previous columns I have always felt they were better than my original, and this one seemed good to me at the time. But now I see that many readers took it in a way I had not intended. My skepticism is in fine shape.

Hopefully this clarification in Slate will clear up matters. I guess if I had to sum it up even briefer it would be this: Weird things happen. We can’t explain everything. Enjoy the experience. But don’t abandon science or the natural worldview.
Michael​

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...perience-admits-there-may-be-something-to-it/

 

[tim]

What does he mean by "Don't abandon science " ? Science is a method not a collection of commonly held assumptions that are there to be held or abandoned. What he means is "Don't abandon materialism because there is always a materialistic explanation"

This guy's opinion is not something I give two figs for personally after listening to his stupid statements about Pam Reynolds NDE.

 

[Bertha Huse]

I find myself in agreement with, or at least sympathetic with everything you wrote. Except perhaps this. In my opinion, the radio in isolation tells us nothing. It could be analysed fully and every little detail fully understood. But where would that get us? It is a bit like the sound of one hand clapping. It was the experience as a whole which was significant. Each component of what happened could have a trivial, mundane explanation. But put them all together and then you have an event.

I think we are in agreement here. My original analogy was comparing evidentiary material and testimony used in court cases where it is the accumulation of testimony, credibility of witnesses, and corroborating facts that support testimony. And I agree, the radio alone in isolation would tell us nothing; but presenting the radio as physical evidence, would support the veridicality of Shermer's story, and his wife, and anyone else who might have been present.

I think this is where I find considerable frustration with the general line of argument from Skeptics like Shermer, that no matter what other corroborative facts may be present, the amount of different testimonies, the credibility and objectivity of those providing first hand accounts, it ends up all being dismissed as anecdotes and simply unacceptable as evidentiary. How do you counter this kind of dismissiveness?

I am reminded by a quote I read from Myers, Gurney and Podmore's seminal work "Phantasms of the Living" below:

"We must suppose that some people have a way of dating their letters in indifference to the calendar, or making entries in their diaries on the wrong page and never discovering the error; and that whole families have been struck by the collective hallucination that one of their members has made a particular remark, the substance of which has never entered that member's head; and that it is a recognised custom to write mournful letters about bereavements which have never occurred..."

-Phantasms of the Living

 

[Bertha Huse]

What I find ironic here, is Shermer comes up with an anecdote himself, and everyone including Skeptics without question believe him, I assume based on his own credibility (which some have questioned). And yet this kind of "first hand account" is regularly dismissed by Skeptics as a line of argument against psi research. Given the Skeptic's own attitude and line of reasoning toward these kind of accounts, why should they or anyone else believe Shermer?

 

[DasMurmeltier]

Shermer is basically applying logic that goes kinda like that: Everything than we can explain and that we will be able to explain (doesnt matter how we explain it) is natural. Therefore there isnt anything paranormal/supernatural; anything that can be explained in some way is natural(and he assumes that we will be capable of explaining everything at some point, right?). Oh my. So if there ever is a explanaition for anything paranormal out there that would involve inmaterial things and we make the assumption for now that we know it to be absolutely true, it wouldnt be paranormal anymore. That is a way of argumentation that cant be wrong at any time. That hes claiming though that materialism is the way to explain that stuff - i dont know how he can be so sure about that. But that point is more of a philosophical thing.

 

[tim]

What I find ironic here, is Shermer comes up with an anecdote himself, and everyone including Skeptics without question believe him, I assume based on his own credibility (which some have questioned). And yet this kind of "first hand account" is regularly dismissed by Skeptics as a line of argument against psi research. Given the Skeptic's own attitude and line of reasoning toward these kind of accounts, why should they or anyone else believe Shermer?

Absolutely on the nose !

 

[Types With Fingers]

If Mr. Shermer has denied that the experience was supernatural or such, then didn't that render the article as essentially a very long tweet in a respected, scientific publication? Page 5: "binary planets may exist;" page 9: "algae may provide new source of food;" page 13: "my old radio woke up today and played music;" page 16: "maglev elevators may replace escalators."

If the article was really intended to be about appreciating the emotional significance of anomalous events, then he could've at least used that opportunity to tell his fan base to go a bit gentler on folks who have had spiritually-transformative experiences, which are emotionally significant, anomalous events. Calling someone "woomeister," shouting down their testimony, etc., negatively impacts their experience, which is in direct opposition to what Mr. Shermer has repeatedly claimed was the basis of his own article.

 

[nbtruthman]

I think it is interesting to look at the radio coming on spontaneously like this from the engineering standpoint. It must have involved actual physical events occurring in the circuits and components of the radio at precisely the right time for the witnesses, with perhaps a couple of faulty transistors being temporarily repaired at their base, emitter or collector junctions, electrolytic capacitor winding layers repaired, corroded circuit board trace breaks bridged, tuning circuit readjusted, and other events of the like.

Of course Shermer could claim that this or something like this combination of mechanical events in the circuitry happening simultaneously at just the right time was just a truly remarkable (in fact astronomically improbable) coincidence of chance physical events. Events that would also seem to be opposed to the normal natural processes of corrosion and decay. I would think he would be better off just claiming a momentary collective hallucination.

In the absence of coincidence or collective hallucination, this event would seem to involve some sort of highly analytic mind(s) outside of this physical world figuring out the best engineering solution to the problem, then implementing it. An external entity apparently paranormally exerted work and energy to physically alter some of the components and circuits of the radio.

It would have been carefully planned and was probably made possible by the radio's particular failure points happening to be temporarily repairable using minimal energy introduction from outside. Minimal energy as for instance it is hypothesized in the production of paranormal "raps" through the exertion of small forces to release the already-stored stress energy trapped at certain wood beam to wood beam or wood beam to nail interfaces in ceilings and walls (requiring the intelligence doing this looking into the detailed physical structure of the ceilings and walls to find the most strategic contact points).

 

[malf]

Shermer is basically applying logic that goes kinda like that: Everything than we can explain and that we will be able to explain (doesnt matter how we explain it) is natural. Therefore there isnt anything paranormal/supernatural; anything that can be explained in some way is natural(and he assumes that we will be capable of explaining everything at some point, right?). Oh my. So if there ever is a explanaition for anything paranormal out there that would involve inmaterial things and we make the assumption for now that we know it to be absolutely true, it wouldnt be paranormal anymore. That is a way of argumentation that cant be wrong at any time. That hes claiming though that materialism is the way to explain that stuff - i dont know how he can be so sure about that. But that point is more of a philosophical thing.

This seems consistent with the views of paranormal researchers, such as forum member Johann.

 

[Bertha Huse]

I think it is interesting to look at the radio coming on spontaneously like this from the engineering standpoint. It must have involved actual physical events occurring in the circuits and components of the radio at precisely the right time for the witnesses, with perhaps a couple of faulty transistors being temporarily repaired at their base, emitter or collector junctions, electrolytic capacitor winding layers repaired, corroded circuit board trace breaks bridged, tuning circuit readjusted, and other events of the like.

You ask an interesting question here, the physical state of the radio. Given Shermer's report, assuming it is authentic, the radio was quite old, was not operating, then coincidentally began to operate at a psychological meaningful time, and the two events (psychological and physical) appear to be not causally related.

The radio would be worth examining by a qualified engineer. Although from my limited knowledge of solid state mechanics, and radios, the lasting power of integrated circuits can be quite a long time. I may be wrong, I am not an expert in this area. You would think if Michael were as skeptical as he claims, he would have had the radio taken apart and examined by an engineer, right?

By a close inspection of the radio, it could be established whether there were any faulty transistors, circuits etc. from an engineering standpoint. And just how much fault exists in the radio (or damage due to length of time of disuse and so on).

By the way: this kind of hypothetical follow-up is exactly what one does encounter in account after account of collected spontaneous cases in psi i.e. in addition to the "first person" accounts provided, corroborative details are provided including physical evidence (such as letters written, newspaper publications, time of death, etc)

 

[fls]

I think the use of the word "anecdote" is a clever but misleading word used often by Skeptics, that usually obfuscates evidentiary facts and corroborating data. For example, when holding a court case, and lawyers put people on the stand, do they use the word "anecdote" or do they use the word "testimony"? Notice the subtle difference between the two words, and that even though both do point to the same idea of essentially obtaining "first person accounts", the use of the word "anecdote" tends to imply that of a "made up" story, that really cannot be verified or corroborated, while testimony points to not only a "first person account" but also additional data that supports and buttresses a first person account, including additional testimony from other sources.

One big difference between testimony used for court cases and stories purportedly about psi, is that testimony is often collected under blind conditions while stories about psi are not. Eyewitness accounts become notoriously unreliable under conditions where feedback is given.

http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/ET.whitepaper.pdf

In Shermer's "anecdote" he had a corroborative witness present, his wife. He has his own credibility as a well-known Skeptic who would hardly lie about such an event. His wife probably could be considered an honest broker here as well which "testimony" could be taken. The evidence could be presented i.e. the radio in question. Other related data could be collected etc. And yet the blanket accusation we often here from Skeptics (and did here from Shermer days later) is it's all just an anecdotes! Including his own experience!! I agree entirely with his conclusion that in no way should his personal experience be considered of evidentiary value, but not on the argument that it is just another anecdote.

I agree that Shermer's account is as much of an anecdote (undocumented story) as any psi story. But on the other hand, I don't think there is anything unexpected or remarkable about his story (it covers much the same content/meaning as any other psi story), so there isn't much point in worrying about its accuracy.

Linda

 

[Bertha Huse]

One big difference between testimony used for court cases and stories purportedly about psi, is that testimony is often collected under blind conditions while stories about psi are not. Eyewitness accounts become notoriously unreliable under conditions where feedback is given.

Yes, this is well known and has been well known by scientific researchers in psi. In fact, that is why every effort is often made to uncover corroborative testimonies and other evidentiary material to support accounts provided. By simply asserting eyewitness accounts are unreliable, does not reasonably justify dismissing large amounts of well corroborated and investigated testimonies by credible sources and the scientists (many of who have been highly respected scientists if not leaders in their field) who have provided the research.

Going back to my original quote that I provided from "Phantasms of the Living" (have you read this massive study by the early SPR?), one would have to assume families have been struck by mass hallucination, and people are in the custom of writing mournful letters about bereavements that have never occurred, among a long list of other corroborative facts that supplement well documented "testimonies". The argument could be made that a single report of this kind would not be sufficient for evidentiary value, but given the large amounts of cases that have been investigated and published by a scientific organization such as the SPR (and others), to dismiss all of it on the flimsy polemic that "eyewitness accounts are notorious" is, in my opinion, unreasonable.

I agree that Shermer's account is as much of an anecdote (undocumented story) as any psi story. But on the other hand, I don't think there is anything unexpected or remarkable about his story (it covers much the same content/meaning as any other psi story), so there isn't much point in worrying about its accuracy.

It was remarkable enough to Shermer and his wife to have an emotional reaction to the event and write about it. That in itself stands out to me. I don't believe Shermer is someone who would be predisposed to just post it unless it had some unusual impact on him. Regarding psi evidentiary value, yes there is nothing outstanding about his account that doesn't seem like it might have some reasonable explanations. Although I would be curious regarding the actual physical state of the radio in question.

 

[billw]

He messed with the batteries, jiggled some wires, and a delayed connection caused it to play, by chance coinciding with a special occasion. Now, If it happens again on their anniversary then he might want to consider it significant. It's all about "reproducibility." But not in the sense of reproducing it under "controlled" conditions "in the lab," but in the exact same way that people we label as psychics have an uncanny ability to produce such "coincidences" spontaneously, or make "lucky guesses" day after day, far beyond what most of us experience in everyday life.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Reece]

Why would the influence of meaning, if that's the way one labelled Shermer's experience, be against what they claim they believe: physicalism?

If I'm correct in saying that it isn't, then their ruling out the mere possibility of events ruled by meaning, akin to synchronicity, which is what appears to be happening here, just drives home the grip their ideology has on them.

 

[Arouet]

Yes, and that is why corroborative testimony and corresponding evidential material is entered into court records. If testimony had no value at all, (which it appears Skeptics religiously would like to be true), there would obviously be no testimonies given in cases at all. This same criteria could also applied to scientific surveys, and repeatable observed behavior in psychology and social science studies. In fact a good deal of empirical dream research depends on reports by subjects. A good deal of social science studies depends on statistical analysis of scientific surveys and/or collected reports.

Well, first of all, I never said testimony had no value - I said it was often unreliable. Incidentally there are times where that testimony is given no weight at all. In science, anecdotes play an important role - that of identifying and providing a starting point for interesting areas of study. They are less suited towards confidently solving questions. It also depends on what question you are asking - anedotes may play a more useful role depending on what you're trying to figure out.

But remember, law and science are asking different questions and following different standards of evidence.

The legal system is a dispute resolution system. It is designed to resolve disputes between individuals, and decide whether someone should be considered guilty of a crime. These are situations where a decision has to be made - even when the case is based on unreliable evidence. All parties recognise the limitations of the system, and supports large error bars re: the results. An appeals system was created to help mitigate the errors.

Science is about figuring stuff out. No decision has to be made. When the evidence isn't strong enough we can wait until it becomes more valid or reliable before drawing firm conclusions. When a case is based on unreliable evidence, we can take what we can from the experiment (such as identifying promising areas to research) and continue working at it until we reach sufficiently reliable and valid results before drawing firm conclusions.

 

[Bertha Huse]

Well, first of all, I never said testimony had no value - I said it was often unreliable. Incidentally there are times where that testimony is given no weight at all. In science, anecdotes play an important role - that of identifying and providing a starting point for interesting areas of study. They are less suited towards confidently solving questions. It also depends on what question you are asking - anedotes may play a more useful role depending on what you're trying to figure out.

I said "it appears" most Skeptics religiously would like it to be true that "testimony" has no value. Given this talking point I encounter among Skeptics repeatedly, I have no reason to believe differently at this time. Incidentally, regardless of what Skeptics would like to be true, testimony can be valid and possess scientific evidential weight. Your use of the word "anecdote" belies and ignores the corroborative elements that have been included in a plethora of psi studies. Not to mention first hand accounts by well qualified scientific investigators themselves.

But remember, law and science are asking different questions and following different standards of evidence.

I find it unfortunate a good number of other scientific disciplines fall far short from the rigorous and astute standards used in many of the para-psychological studies that have been published. Those unacquainted with the studies often assume this is not the case.

The legal system is a dispute resolution system. It is designed to resolve disputes between individuals, and decide whether someone should be considered guilty of a crime. These are situations where a decision has to be made - even when the case is based on unreliable evidence. All parties recognise the limitations of the system, and supports large error bars re: the results. An appeals system was created to help mitigate the errors.

You have misconstrued my original comments and assumed I said the two were the same. I did not. I was pointing out similarities and the use of terminology, which Skeptics have a well-known appetite for using derogatory nomenclature (such as "pseudoscience" or "woo woo").

Science is about figuring stuff out. No decision has to be made. When the evidence isn't strong enough we can wait until it becomes more valid or reliable before drawing firm conclusions. When a case is based on unreliable evidence, we can take what we can from the experiment (such as identifying promising areas to research) and continue working at it until we reach sufficiently reliable and valid results before drawing firm conclusions.

You have a remarkably simplistic (in my view) conception of science. Decisions for example are made all the time. For example, the credibility and objectivity of those performing scientific studies. The kind of controls that are suited for a study. In psychological studies and psi research, much importance is placed on the veridicality of reported accounts, because obviously, you are dealing with the outward manifestations of subjective behavior and experiences that can never be directly observed (at this time). As I stated earlier, in both psychological and social sciences, there is a very large dependence on reported subjective experiences because of the increasing knowledge of the characteristics of consciousness. This also includes being aware of well known psychological states, unconscious processes, characteristics of hallucinations, long term memories, and especially the characteristics of deception and fraud, which plenty of well-known psi researchers were/are well versed in.

In Science, what is real is consistently seen among many different observations. Skeptics make a serious mistake when they insist the only acceptable science is that which can be replicated in the laboratory. Some phenomena simply cannot be replicated in a laboratory and does depend on repeated observations outside of a lab. Psychological phenomena (especially) commonly falls in this category. Unless you wish to dismiss a good portion of psychology and the social sciences as "unscientific", which I have (remarkably) heard some Skeptics argue.

Science also is not materialism. It is not an ideology. It is a methodology. A methodology based on repeated observation and models built on collected scientific evidentiary data that can be tested through predictive power and independent verification. Those many intelligent scientists who have practiced the scientific method in psi research have been well aware of what science is and is not.

 

[Arouet]

I said "it appears" most Skeptics religiously would like it to be true that "testimony" has no value. Given this talking point I encounter among Skeptics repeatedly, I have no reason to believe differently at this time.

I dunno - seems like an odd wish to me.


Incidentally, regardless of what Skeptics would like to be true, testimony can be valid and possess scientific evidential weight.[/quote]

Like I said: depends on the question being asked, the manner it was recorded, etc.

Your use of the word "anecdote" belies and ignores the corroborative elements that have been included in a plethora of psi studies. Not to mention first hand accounts by well qualified scientific investigators themselves.

I was talking about anecdotes generally and their role in science.

I find it unfortunate a good number of other scientific disciplines fall far short from the rigorous and astute standards used in many of the para-psychological studies that have been published. Those unacquainted with the studies often assume this is not the case.

There are a lot of sciences, and a lot of scientists. Issues abound and standards vary. Also: a low quality study is not necessarily a bad study. Pilot level studies will by design be of lower standard than higher quality confirmatory studies. It would be impractical and unaffordable to test every new idea with the highest validity and reliability methods.

Parapsychology has produced some interesting results that merit further research to be sure. Unfortunately, there really haven't been that many higher quality, more expensive, lower risk of bias studies. Personally, I'd like to see more of them!

You have misconstrued my original comments and assumed I said the two were the same. I did not. I was pointing out similarities and the use of terminology, which Skeptics have a well-known appetite for using derogatory nomenclature (such as "pseudoscience" or "woo woo").

Ok, I see what you were getting at. We say "testimony" in legal cases when they are sworn or affirmed statements. It's a technical term - not meant to imply reliability in itself. It is not meant to incur legitimacy. Lawyers attack testimony as unreliable all the time.

You have a remarkably simplistic (in my view) conception of science. Decisions for example are made all the time. For example, the credibility and objectivity of those performing scientific studies. The kind of controls that are suited for a study. In psychological studies and psi research, much importance is placed on the veridicality of reported accounts, because obviously, you are dealing with the outward manifestations of subjective behavior and experiences that can never be directly observed (at this time). As I stated earlier, in both psychological and social sciences, there is a very large dependence on reported subjective experiences because of the increasing knowledge of the characteristics of consciousness. This also includes being aware of well known psychological states, unconscious processes, characteristics of hallucinations, long term memories, and especially the characteristics of deception and fraud, which plenty of well-known psi researchers were/are well versed in.

Of course decisions are made in science all the time. Don't read too much in my use of that term. I meant only to compare the fact that in a legal matter we must bring the case to a final resolution - one way or the other. That's not the case in science.

In Science, what is real is consistently seen among many different observations. Skeptics make a serious mistake when they insist the only acceptable science is that which can be replicated in the laboratory. Some phenomena simply cannot be replicated in a laboratory and does depend on repeated observations outside of a lab. Psychological phenomena (especially) commonly falls in this category. Unless you wish to dismiss a good portion of psychology and the social sciences as "unscientific", which I have (remarkably) heard some Skeptics argue.

Well, aside from the fact that psychology has its own methodological challenges (like I said - issues abound) - I don't personally care if findings are technically in labs or not. What we want are methods that allow us to drive valid and reliable results. That's not always easy!

Science also is not materialism. It is not an ideology. It is a methodology.

I agree - as is skeptism.

methodology based on repeated observation and models built on collected scientific evidentiary data that can be tested through predictive power and independent verification. Those many intelligent scientists who have practiced the scientific method in psi research have been well aware of what science is and is not.

And many of them agree that parapsychology hasn't yet produced high quality, low risk of bias confirmatory studies. Read J.E. Kennedy for example.

That doesn't mean that parapsychology hasn't produced some intriguing results that merit - IMO - further research![/quote]

 

[DasMurmeltier]

This seems consistent with the views of paranormal researchers, such as forum member Johann.

Idk who Johann is, but thats its not wrong to have that view. Paranormal stuff would still be possible with it - it just wouldnt be labbeled paranormal anymore. A play with words.

 

[DasMurmeltier]

And many of them agree that parapsychology hasn't yet produced high quality, low risk of bias confirmatory studies. Read J.E. Kennedy for example.

That doesn't mean that parapsychology hasn't produced some intriguing results that merit - IMO - further research!

[/quote]

That rises another question though - is it even possible to create studies to satisfy those needs to make parapsychological research 'high quality'?