Science and philosophy gave him something he never thought he’d find… respect for religion |312|

Yeah, I understand, but I don't know why you're asking me if I agree or disagree with the "Initial experimental design," because even Wiseman disagreed with it and attempted to modify it.
Yes, I know he modified it. I wrote that the protocol discussion "starts" with the initial experimental design section. I was trying to clarify that I wasn't referring to that general discussion at the beginning. It didn't occur to me that I also needed to tell you where it ended. To be clear, I meant all the bits of the paper that dealt with protocol. As well as the same discussion in Sheldrake's.
Unfortunately, he didn't stick around long enough to evaluate the modifications or get any useful data (that's not going to change, as was obvious from his long Email exchange with Alex).
Wiseman was invited by Sheldrake and Smart to do his investigation. I'm not aware (or can't recall) if there were restrictions put on him, or why there were so few trials. Are you?

Thanks for reminding me about the email exchange with Alex. I'm going to give them a look.

Sheldrake's paper discusses the noisey vs non-noisy trials.
And I'd be interested in talking about that as well!

Exactly, and the negative impact of his claims and behavior outside the paper greatly outweigh any 'contributions' in his paper.
But it shouldn't. Not from the perspective of evaluating the protocols. The experiment must speak for itself. No one has a monopoly on interpreting the results. Even Wiseman doesn't have a monopoly on interpreting his results. His conclusions become one person's opinion. Others may reach different ones. Same with Sheldrake's. That's what I'd like to accomplish in the type of discussion I'm proposing. Let's start from scratch, got through it all, and reach our own conclusions!

I get that it's not everyone's cup of tea. It's something I would enjoy doing and would find personally challenging and rewarding. That's what I find interesting. I'm not particularly interested in the skeptic/proponent/us/them angle.
 
Wiseman was invited by Sheldrake and Smart to do his investigation. I'm not aware (or can't recall) if there were restrictions put on him, or why there were so few trials. Are you?
Actually, it was Wiseman who initiated contact, because the "media were making strong claims" (from here: http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/psychicdogreply.pdf):

"Because the media were making strong claims for Jaytee’s psychic abilities, the
first author (RW) contacted RS in early 1995, and expressed an interest in his
research. RS and PS kindly invited him to conduct his own investigations of
Jaytee, and so the authors carried out four experiments between June 1995 and
December 1995."


As far as I can tell, there were no constraints. Your guess is as good as mine as to why he only did 4 trials. It makes no sense to me. Perhaps he figured he had enough to write a 'paper' that could be used to debunk the media claims, and could milk that for the next 15 years?

Thanks for reminding me about the email exchange with Alex. I'm going to give them a look.
They are at the bottom of this page:

http://www.skeptiko.com/rupert-sheldrake-and-richard-wiseman-clash/

You may want to discuss the protocols, but clearly Wiseman doesn't! He prefers a one shot deal.

Cheers,
Bill
 
Bernardo seems to be subscribing to a position I also hold, if I understand him correctly, which is the elevation of the symbolic to a higher position than an analogous, culturally agreed totem, and something more like a fundamental property. The fact symbols can only be referred to indirectly is because they transcend language and occupy something closer to the figurative, and even then at a remove. It's as though they are the square roots of existence, the engine house of a mindful and proliferating universe. Such descriptions are always reaching, as they must necessarily be in a state defined by referentiality. We may not come to grips with symbols, but intuitively recognise their power.

I hope I have not imposed a definition on Bernardo's own views. It's among the best practical interviews on philosophy I've heard.
 
Actually, it was Wiseman who initiated contact, because the "media were making strong claims" (from here: http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/psychicdogreply.pdf):

"Because the media were making strong claims for Jaytee’s psychic abilities, the
first author (RW) contacted RS in early 1995, and expressed an interest in his
research. RS and PS kindly invited him to conduct his own investigations of
Jaytee, and so the authors carried out four experiments between June 1995 and
December 1995."


As far as I can tell, there were no constraints. Your guess is as good as mine as to why he only did 4 trials. It makes no sense to me. Perhaps he figured he had enough to write a 'paper' that could be used to debunk the media claims, and could milk that for the next 15 years?
Well, I was just retreading Alex's interview with him and he certainly didn't suggest there that his 4 trials was enough. He also agrees that it would have been good for him and Sheldrake to have collaborated more. Who knows, maybe they can get past their differences one day and do it! Would be great!

Or maybe others will pick up where they left off. Hope so!

Thanks!

You may want to discuss the protocols, but clearly Wiseman doesn't! He prefers a one shot deal.
Ok.

In any event, if you're interested in digging into these papers with me, let me know!
 
Perhaps he figured he had enough to write a 'paper' that could be used to debunk the media claims, and could milk that for the next 15 years?
That sounds like a witty summary, but I think it reflects a deeper truth. In the establishment position represented by Wiseman, all that is required is to huff and puff, bluster with only a token gesture towards demonstrating actual support for that position. It isn't entirely his fault, in a sense, he is a mere puppet, acting out the role which society demands. However, there might be a point where the participant in such a role might question their own gullibility at being so used.
 
A little late to the party here, but would like to recommend a few resources that I thought pertained to the excellent discussion from this show. A few of them coming from an author/former professor of history and literature of religion named James P. Carse. He is the author of the interesting sounding book Finite and Infinite Games, which delineates between games that are "played to win" (finite games) and those that are "played to be played" (infinite games...which he suggests religious views offer). It's central thesis very much reminded me of Dr. Kastrup's emphasis on moving "beyond the constraints of the game" we have forced upon us/find ourselves embroiled in and accept (wittingly or unwittingly). Carse has a few great lectures worth checking out on YouTube (with some overlap between them, but each largely standing on their own):



And here is a much shorter clip where he touches on "the religious case against belief":


If willing, he might actually make for a fantastic guest!

Lastly is a book I may have mentioned sometime ago on this site, which deeply explores/examines the ineffable principles that religious scripture/works point towards (i.e. those connections between the foundational symbols of religions that Alex was pressing Dr. Kastrup to explain). It's called A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe: Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science and is an absolute must-read for anyone.



This book will pry open your eyes, and blow those boundaries/constraints (and your mind) clean out of the water. The author - Michael Schneider - would also make for a phenomenal guest. I believe he can be reached at either of these emails:

michael@constructingtheuniverse.com

geoman@pb.net
 
Carse has a few great lectures worth checking out on YouTube
I look forward to watching your longer YouTube links, the shorter one was intriguing. One of the things religions do well is offer a view of the world as good versus evil. This is a compelling reflection of the way things appear to be that resonates deeply. Avoiding the reality of evil in particular as "a state of neurotic irresponsibility" (Barbarella!), or suggesting millions of people were exterminated in the most unspeakable ways because Hitler wasn't properly potty trained, or had difficult maternal relationships or whatever, really do no justice to the manifest reality of the polar opposites for exactly what they appear to be.

In the same way proponents get annoyed by physicalists trading on "what is real" questions through perpetual deferral in the face of the evidence, I believe religion contains the power to spotlight these absolute alternatives in a clear way. We may disagree on the interpretation of their roots and consequences, but the fact of good and evil are easily evidenced, and religious belief reflects them in a way that retains their importance in a way alternatives rarely do.
 
Top