Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, it's not reasonable, in my opinion, to expect scientists to approach science from a non-materialist perspective. If you read my blog article, you know that I'm making a distinction between the first and third person approaches to reality, and noting that consciousness can only be dealt with in the first (or second) person, because it IS first-person subjective awareness. However, what that really means in terms of science is that consciousness is not a scientific subject. (Unless we're talking about what Chalmers calls the "easy problems of consciousness," and I'm not.) Science is always conducted in the third person, and anything that can be dealt with in the third person fits into a materialistic framework.

It seems to me that you're advocating things in the third person that are non-materialistic in nature, and I don't think that's appropriate.

We may disagree there, and I note that "materialism" (as traditionally conceived at least) as well as "realism" appears to be on the ropes in quantum physics, even though such physics has not departed from a rational and empirical method. If physics now holds an idealist position, it seems that it is admitting the first-person account (if this refers to "observers") into its equations. But I'm not sure; "first to third person" is an approach which you are introducing into this discussion, and it may not fit with widely-accepted definitions of scientific methods.

I can see a third person account referring to a collection of first-person accounts that agree with each other. That might be a phenomenology approach rather than an empirical or objective one.

In my understanding, the afterlife can be demonstrated or proved in "third person" and empirical terms, through its effects that can't be otherwise explained; even if denied by folks who retain a materialist philosophy with respect to it. But one cannot really experience an "afterlife" except personally.

Another thought relating to the philosophical concept of "epiphenomenalism." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism) This is the idea that went around among proponents of logical positivism that first-person consciousness is an "epiphenomenon," a kind of froth on the waves, something produced by material events in the brain but having no effect on them. Of course epiphenomenalism is counter-intuitive and we don't like to think that way, but at the same time it's impossible to show any measurable effects arising from consciousness; all such effects can be accounted for strictly in terms of brain activity without incorporating consciousness at all. They would be the same if done by a philosophical zombie. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie)

It seems to me that distinguishing between first- and third-person perspectives resolves this problem. It's true that from a third-person perspective we can't show any effect of consciousness, but what that means is that from a third-person perspective we can't show consciousness at all. It exists for us only from a first-person perspective, and from that perspective it has consequences. Consciousness isn't a separate thing from brain functions; rather, it's a perspective on brain functions, and via brain functions on everything else, and we experience that as having intentions and taking deliberate actions, which have consequences.

From a first-person perspective, consciousness has an impact on the world. From a third-person perspective, consciousness doesn't exist. From neither perspective is it an epiphenomenon.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We may disagree there, and I note that "materialism" (as traditionally conceived at least) as well as "realism" appears to be on the ropes in quantum physics, even though such physics has not departed from a rational and empirical method.

You need to make a distinction between quantum mechanics and philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics. QM itself is all mathematics. You can't even express it in words. Philosophical interpretations have to conform to the mathematics but can vary widely. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpr...ntum_mechanics). You may be talking about an aspect of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM here, but that isn't universally accepted, and it's outside the scope of science anyway, part of philosophy instead.

Even with the Copenhagen interpretation, we don't have something that invokes first-person consciousness as part of the picture. True, there's something called the "observer effect," but that's not an effect of consciousness but rather one of light. The most precise tools we have for measuring the position and momentum of a particle involve light, which has an inevitable impact on the thing measured. We can interpret this whole process without resort to consciousness at all, and entirely within a materialistic framework.

It's also important here to distinguish what is logically inconsistent with materialism from what is, for you emotionally inconsistent with it. Indeterminacy, for example, is something that you exclude from your concept of materialism because it doesn't feel materialistic to you -- it doesn't invoke the sense of a clanking, clockwork, soulless mechanism. However, it's perfectly consistent with materialism in any way that can be logically thought about. It doesn't require any invocation of either consciousness or supernatural entities.

Short answer: no, quantum mechanics most definitely does not depart from materialism. Not in the least.

And how remarkable it is, that this moving speech by Graham Hancock, with its passionate calls to change the course our planet is on by changing our consciousness, coincides with my signature line, and this great song by none other than the young teen superstar Justin Bieber; remember Bieber and Hancock both refer to hunger and to "lungs" not breathing, and to the needed cures of imagination and spirituality (and though Bieber is not asking us to drink Ayahuasca in this song, he has we know taken up the noble weed). Brings tears to my eyes; once again my siggie is so appropo to what I post!

I've given this Hancock video my "like" of approval.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You need to make a distinction between quantum mechanics and philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics. QM itself is all mathematics. You can't even express it in words. Philosophical interpretations have to conform to the mathematics but can vary widely. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpr...ntum_mechanics). You may be talking about an aspect of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM here, but that isn't universally accepted, and it's outside the scope of science anyway, part of philosophy instead.

Even with the Copenhagen interpretation, we don't have something that invokes first-person consciousness as part of the picture. True, there's something called the "observer effect," but that's not an effect of consciousness but rather one of light. The most precise tools we have for measuring the position and momentum of a particle involve light, which has an inevitable impact on the thing measured. We can interpret this whole process without resort to consciousness at all, and entirely within a materialistic framework.

It's also important here to distinguish what is logically inconsistent with materialism from what is, for you emotionally inconsistent with it. Indeterminacy, for example, is something that you exclude from your concept of materialism because it doesn't feel materialistic to you -- it doesn't invoke the sense of a clanking, clockwork, soulless mechanism. However, it's perfectly consistent with materialism in any way that can be logically thought about. It doesn't require any invocation of either consciousness or supernatural entities.

Short answer: no, quantum mechanics most definitely does not depart from materialism. Not in the least.

I don't think I agree; I think that video on the end of materialism shows pretty convincingly that quantum physicists are quite-recently ditching materialism and realism, in every respect that you mention, in fact. We'll see; it's true that science and philosophy are not the same thing, and science rolls on with its work.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't think I agree; I think that video on the end of materialism shows pretty convincingly that quantum physicists are quite-recently ditching materialism and realism, in every respect that you mention, in fact.

I haven't watched the video, but let me ask you this, in order to determine whether it would be worthwhile doing so. Does it argue that quantum mechanics presents any results that cannot be interpreted in the third person? Let me clarify that we don't even have any aspects of human behavior that require interpretation in the first person, and here we're talking about non-living subatomic particles.

If it actually says we have to abandon third-person perspective to understand QM (and I can't even imagine what that would mean), then yes, we also have to abandon materialism. Otherwise, no.

Does it?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The phenomenon is describable as an alteration of probability involved in the indeterminate firing of synapses in the brain of the telepath. The "sender" impacts the brain of the "receiver" in this way and produces an effect, which can manifest in two ways. One, it increases the chance of the receiver "guessing" what the sender is sending from a fixed set of possibilities, producing a statistically significant but not terribly useful outcome. And two, it produces an emotional impact on the receiver which corresponds with the emotional state or sensory experiences of the sender, allowing the receiver to know what the sender is feeling with much higher reliability than the cognitive effect on tests such as card-guessing.

This is a model.

A definition is a describe that allows one to detect the thing being defined. In order to work with an object, one needs to know how to distinguish it from something else. For example an apple has a shape, texture, taste and smell that allows one to distinguish it from other objects that resemble it.

An electron is a particle too small to see that makes up a cathode ray.

The same phenomenon may allow for further applications such as psychological healing, since it appears to be a brain-to-brain effect and not something like vision or other passive perception.

One should be able to define telepathy without having to reference psychological healing since they are apparently different things.

The placebo effect is a well-documented, real effect that could be considered as an example of psychological healing. Another is use of meditation for preventive treatment of cardiovascular disease.

No model was needed to document the existence of the placebo effect or the benefits of meditation. No model should be necessary to establish the existence of telepathy, assuming a suitable definition can be determined.

This is not a trivial undertaking. One might think telepathy as "mind reading.* Examples of mind reading are documented, but none of these would be considered as true telepathy by a parapyschologist.

*examples I am thinking of include poker players "reading" others (looking for tells) and a new technique that appears to allow limited communication with vegetative patients using an MRI, and more tenuously an EEG.

How would you detect that telepathy is present or absent in a situation?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This is a model.

Yes. Others have already defined telepathy operationally. I see no need to reinvent the wheel. A model is exactly what's missing from the picture.

One should be able to define telepathy without having to reference psychological healing since they are apparently different things.

No, if my model works, then psychic healing of mental or behavioral disorders would be a specific application of telepathy. They're different things only insofar as "telepathy" is a broader category.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Pretty good description of Vandal, I'd say

You mean you watched Gumby as well?



So who's J?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Graham in the second half of the talk revs up his prophetic tale. He asks, what is death? Materialist science says we are just meat; there is no life after death, we just rot. But some scientists know that consciousness is the great mystery in science; the brain is more like a TV set receiving a signal than a generator. We are immortal souls incarnated into these physical forms to learn, grow and develop.

Okay, here's the problem. You recognize correctly that consciousness cannot be accounted for in the third person. But you make a flying leap from that incontrovertible truth to affirm the literal truth of a lot of myths whose truth isn't literal. That consciousness isn't accounted for in the third person does not imply that the brain is like a TV receiver (if anything, it's more like a transmitter, since its activity fully explains the CONTENT of consciousness even though it doesn't explain consciousness itself), and there is no evidence there at all for the individual soul. As far as post mortem survival is concerned, the first-person nature of consciousness, along with the illusory nature of the usual concept of the self, does indeed suggest that consciousness continues after death, but "my" consciousness is an illusion from the get-go and this personality will not. Or at least, we have no reason to believe otherwise.

EDIT: I'm listening to the talk you linked and it's kind of amazing how much crap is in it. To start:

It was perfectly appropriate for TED to pull that talk if they felt it was not appropriate to what they wanted to communicate. TED does not rule the world and this isn't a sign of the Beast of the Apocalypse strangling thought. It isn't silencing anyone except in the context of their own network, where they have a right to do that.

The idea that ideas like this are being censored and aren't available is such obvious claptrap that it's phenomenal they thought they could possibly get away with claiming that.

The Gnostics? Hermetic Christians? These systems are "Earth-based"? News to me!

No, that which is not Christian is not therefore Gaian, nor is Christianity automatically non-Gaian, either. Granted that Gaian thought is on the upswing, and it's perfectly understandable given the environmental problems we face, but he mixes this up with his own anti-Christian attitude and loses the reality.

I'm about halfway through and don't see any reason to continue.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Okay, here's the problem. You recognize correctly that consciousness cannot be accounted for in the third person. But you make a flying leap from that incontrovertible truth to affirm the literal truth of a lot of myths whose truth isn't literal. That consciousness isn't accounted for in the third person does not imply that the brain is like a TV receiver (if anything, it's more like a transmitter, since its activity fully explains the CONTENT of consciousness even though it doesn't explain consciousness itself), and there is no evidence there at all for the individual soul. As far as post mortem survival is concerned, the first-person nature of consciousness, along with the illusory nature of the usual concept of the self, does indeed suggest that consciousness continues after death, but "my" consciousness is an illusion from the get-go and this personality will not. Or at least, we have no reason to believe otherwise.

I understand that is your view, and I accept that, although my view is different; being more spiritualist in my outlook than you, as is obvious. "We" have no reason, does not include me and lots of evidence I know. I am interested in those questions, and take them as inquiries into reality, not as myths, metaphors, illusions, etc. as I mentioned before. We differ on that, so viva la difference. I my own view, I am a spiritualist, but also interested in what from our point of view we call the manifest world. As Hancock said, the interdependence of the material and spiritual, and a connection with spirit.

I like better your statements that materialism is a philosophy that can't be scientifically proven, and "Most scientists are not believers in traditional concepts of God, but a substantial chunk of them are spiritual people without labels (as I now call myself)." Given that, I don't know why you then say that science must be conducted in a materialist framework. I think we are on common ground in saying science is conducted according to certain protocols, and those methods should be preserved and used. Given that, there is no need for scientists to be "materialists," or to conduct science in accordance with "materialism."

What I do think is 1). that the methods of science depend on the quest for objective (verifiable, repeatable, impartial, unbiased) knowledge. It is ultimately a fruitless quest, in an absolute sense, since all experience is subjective or "first person;" nevertheless we learn a great deal in the attempt, and we avoid a lot of personal bias of various kinds. And 2), that seeking knowledge with objective methods (empirical, rational testing of correctly-stated hypotheses, etc.) tends to draw people toward a materialist and realist view; a view that objectivity might be possible, that real entities exist that are beyond our's or anyone's consciousness; in other words, toward materialism. That is only a tendency, and it's similar to people engaged in a mystic quest might tend toward spiritualism for the same reason; working with the methods tends to convince you in that direction. So it is with philosophy itself and rationalism, or the arts and an experiential philosophy such as existentialism. So there's a correspondence, an analogy, between science and materialism, but no necessity for scientists to be materialists in their belief or conduct. Quite the contrary; it's better if they aren't, and I appreciate it when they leave their philosophy out of their accounts.

EDIT: I'm listening to the talk you linked and it's kind of amazing how much crap is in it.

I don't remember all those points, and there may well be things to disagree with depending on one's views, but of course I disagreed with TED's censorship of those 2 other talks just because some skeptics told TED it was unscientific. That's the kind of materialist media monopoly that I deplore. I don't think the educated public gets enough exposure to alternative views at all.

But just to clarify, FWIW, I don't think that was the video that I "liked" on you tube; I "liked" Sheldrake's and Hancock's talks, and Sheldrake's interview video. So I don't know if I like the one you watched (was it an interview with Hancock? I'm not sure what it was; I don't remember any of the stuff you say being part of the "end of materialism" video either; maybe they were, but the important parts of that video were the information on quantum physics research over almost a century now. But FWIW I didn't click "like" on that one either).

The End of Materialism

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

One thing that's important to understand, and that I don't think you do, Eric, is that the skeptical community and the scientific community aren't the same thing, and there isn't a lot of overlap. I've seen polls of scientists on the subject of paranormal powers, and while full-on belief that they exists is very low (something like two percent), acceptance of the possibility is quite high. This is definitely appropriate, in my opinion, since as I said all we have evidence for at this point is an unexplained anomaly, and the only "explanations" being offered are those like, well, yours, to put it bluntly, and those simply can't fit into the framework of science. Similar results obtain on the idea of God, or on religious belief generally. Most scientists are not believers in traditional concepts of God, but a substantial chunk of them are spiritual people without labels (as I now call myself). That's the way to describe Einstein's position: he wasn't a theist, and yet his approach wasn't congruent with that of most people who call themselves "atheists," either (although technically he was one -- but then, technically, so am I).

So most real scientists aren't skeptics. I believe that goes back once again to the important role of imagination in science. There was a study done recently (unfortunately I can't seem to find it to link it) that showed skeptics to have higher internal interrupts -- there's a technical term for this that I don't recall -- it means that they stop themselves from thinking certain things that don't make sense to them, more so than a control group of non-skeptics. Someone presented this over on G+ as if it were a good thing, and my thought was that it was a creativity-killer. If you stop yourself from entertaining ideas that are outside the pattern, you will never discover anything new. That's not just the death of science, but the death of art as well.

What I'm saying here is that a lot of the time, I see hostility on your part towards scientists, and what you're talking about isn't actually scientists but the skeptical community. Real scientists are motivated in many cases (and all of the best ones) by a sense of wonder about the natural world, which is the antithesis of the skeptical mind-set. Skepticism, in the sense of scientific criticism, is for real scientists a tool, not a way of life. Make it a way of life, and your curiosity dies, and then you do no more science. I can't think of a single scientist whose name I know (meaning they discovered something important or developed important advances in theory) who was a skeptic in the sense that they would join an organization such as SCICOP, with the possible exception of Carl Sagan, who was a member, but a dissident one in that he thought many of the positions taken by SCICOP were anti-scientific. For example, he refused to sign the "Objections to Astrology" paper, not because he believed in astrology -- he obviously didn't -- but because it argued that since astrology has no basis in physics, it can't possibly work. Sagan's point there was simply that we don't know everything, and to dismiss something simply because we can't explain it is unscientific.

(Also, I can't think offhand of any theoretical or empirical work done by Sagan. He was more a science popularizer than anything else. A good one, though.)

By the way, you might want to check out my latest blog entry. My thinking's evolved to the point where I have rejected materialism as an ultimate philosophy; it's not compatible with first-person consciousness. That doesn't mean I'm prepared to accept a lot of your ideas, of course.

Vandal-72, if you're reading this, sorry, but I put you on ignore.

Yep. Most pseudo-science enthusiasts run away from the tough questions.

I simply don't have the time or inclination to deal with rude, obnoxious assholes,

Says the guy who belittles actual researchers and couldn't even be bothered to find out that Carl Sagan was a preeminent researcher before he became a popularizer of science.

EDIT: Forgot to include Brian's claim to know that I am just a frustrated failure as a scientist. The very height of polite and respectful behavior.

and it's perfectly clear that the only reason you participate here is to be a cyber-bully,

Don't use words you don't really understand. Nothing I have done can be construed as cyber-bullying. And your accusing me of said behavior is a deep insult to real victims of cyber-bullying everywhere.

browbeating,

Asking you to back up your claims with real evidence is not browbeating.

intimidating,

Pointing out that your claims and arguments are fallacies is not being intimidating.

and making things so unpleasant for people that they'll shut up in order to avoid more aggravation.

Or, you could choose to stop pretending to understand things better than you really do.

I can't be bothered with crap like that.

I'm sure Aesop has got a relevant fable to highlight your attempt to lie and dissemble to everyone and then feign moral superiority when called on your crap.

If I hear that you've changed your approach and become civilized, I'll remove you from ignore.

Well gosh! I don't think my life will ever feel complete until you deign to honor me with your attention again.

I want to make it clear that what I'm silencing and refusing to deal with here is not your thoughts and arguments, but your behavior.

Hypocritical concern troll is concerned.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No model was needed to document the existence of the placebo effect or the benefits of meditation. No model should be necessary to establish the existence of telepathy, assuming a suitable definition can be determined.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

You mean you watched Gumby as well?



So who's J?

Gumby? Is that who Vandal is? I wouldn't know. Probably Gen X-era pop culture....

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I haven't watched the video, but let me ask you this, in order to determine whether it would be worthwhile doing so. Does it argue that quantum mechanics presents any results that cannot be interpreted in the third person? Let me clarify that we don't even have any aspects of human behavior that require interpretation in the first person, and here we're talking about non-living subatomic particles.

If it actually says we have to abandon third-person perspective to understand QM (and I can't even imagine what that would mean), then yes, we also have to abandon materialism. Otherwise, no.

Does it?

I have never heard scientists speak in those terms one way or the other. What the results appear to prove is that an observer is required to produce the "reality" from the potential, and recent experiments have refuted all interpretations that omit the observer (including Bob Butler's favorite, the "many worlds interpretation"). I assume in your terms that means "first person," at least in their findings, but it does not mean abandoning scientific research methods. The video however might have leaped to some conclusions at the end that not all quantum physicists today could go along with as proven; I'm not sure, as I am not well-informed on the most recent quantum experiments myself (these include findings reported in the "end of materialism" video from as recently as 2011).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I
I like better your statements that materialism is a philosophy that can't be scientifically proven, and "Most scientists are not believers in traditional concepts of God, but a substantial chunk of them are spiritual people without labels (as I now call myself)." Given that, I don't know why you then say that science must be conducted in a materialist framework.

The problem here is that "materialist" is such an ambiguous, imprecise word. Science is based on observation. That means it has to be undertaken in the third person, because observation is always third-person: the observer stands back and watches something happen. That's pretty much what I mean by "materialist." The world we observe is the world of science (as long as we're asking questions of fact about it). The world as we experience it subjectively is a different viewpoint on the same world. Immersive knowledge systems (e.g. morality and art) approach things from the first person rather than the third person, and ask different questions than science does, ones that science is incompetent to address, but they're questions about the same world, just looked at from a different perspective with different ends in mind.

From a first-person perspective, experience happens in four distinct (but often mixed) modes: sensation, imagination, thought, and emotion. Most of the so-called spiritual realities you are talking about are encountered in the second mode: they are imagined. Now, after my reaction to Vandal's disparaging of the imagination above, you should know that I don't consider this a derogatory comment; imagination is the font of creativity, and it can also reveal truth to us, particularly through symbol and myth. But it's a serious mistake to confuse the imaginary mode of experience with the sensory mode. We don't observe imaginary entities in the same sense we observe sensory ones. I can't point to my vision of, say, the Goddess, and have you see it and verify my observations. I can describe the Goddess to you, and you can then imagine something similar, and connect with the same cosmic principle through your imagination that I connect with through mine, but you can't simply look at it in a shared reality.

There's a lot of stuff in occult literature that makes the mistake of materializing the imaginary. Talk about other planes, spirits, etc. is often of this type. There is no evidence for the concrete existence of any of this stuff, although in the imagination it is full of meaning and significance, and although there may be phenomena connected with them that can be better described in other ways. For example, people often see spirits or ghosts in locations that are associated with some important (usually traumatic) event. The event was real, and its psychic or magical impact is real, and the vision of a spirit is a manifestation of that, but that doesn't mean the spirit itself is real in any simplistic, crude sense. Certainly it doesn't mean we should regard the "spirit" as a conscious entity, especially when it behaves more like a video recording.

If I was watching the wrong video, would you please re-link the one you were talking about? Thanks.

The reason no model was needed for the placebo effect or the benefits of meditation is because the way they work is obvious. Even so, the placebo effect remains controversial and I have encountered physicians who argue that it doesn't exist beyond pain relief. In fact, their reasoning is a precise mirror of what is used to reject the evidence for psi.

Watching an interview with Sheldrake and he mentioned his belief that the idea of the brain as a storage for memory is wrong. I recalled medical studies in which electrical stimulation of the brain caused memory flashbacks to occur, and a Google search led me to this: http://www.brain-and-mind.com/2012/0...-memories.html.

So clearly Sheldrake is wrong about that, and honestly should have known he was wrong.

EDIT The evidence for conservation of mass/energy is smaller scale than Sheldrake is talking about, and very strong. The cosmological problems he's talking about don't really comment on that; cosmology is the most speculative area of physics and astronomy and it's not appropriate to base criticism of basic physical principles on something like that. To put it simply, it's unlikely we're wrong about conservation of mass/energy and extremely likely that we're wrong about the makeup of the universe in general, so you don't use ideas or findings about the second, which is very probably wrong at this point, to critique the first, which is almost certainly right.

ANOTHER EDIT: It occurs to me that many of the effects he's talking about using the term "morphic resonance" can be modeled using probability shifts, and would therefore constitute a psi effect and not "memory" in the usual sense, even though it could sometimes function in a memory-like way.

ONE MORE EDIT: I will completely agree with what he says about the organized skeptical community, that they're not skeptics at all but true believers trying to root out heresy.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Watching an interview with Sheldrake and he mentioned his belief that the idea of the brain as a storage for memory is wrong. I recalled medical studies in which electrical stimulation of the brain caused memory flashbacks to occur, and a Google search led me to this: http://www.brain-and-mind.com/2012/0...-memories.html.

So clearly Sheldrake is wrong about that, and honestly should have known he was wrong.

EDIT The evidence for conservation of mass/energy is smaller scale than Sheldrake is talking about, and very strong. The cosmological problems he's talking about don't really comment on that; cosmology is the most speculative area of physics and astronomy and it's not appropriate to base criticism of basic physical principles on something like that.

Cosmology is not speculative. It is a robust, experimental and observational based field of research.

ANOTHER EDIT: It occurs to me that many of the effects he's talking about using the term "morphic resonance" can be modeled using probability shifts, and would therefore constitute a psi effect and not "memory" in the usual sense, even though it could sometimes function in a memory-like way.

What a shock. The pseudo-science advocate latches onto the nonsense of Sheldrake's ideas as confirming his own wishes about the natural world.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The reason no model was needed for the placebo effect or the benefits of meditation is because the way they work is obvious. Even so, the placebo effect remains controversial and I have encountered physicians who argue that it doesn't exist beyond pain relief. In fact, their reasoning is a precise mirror of what is used to reject the evidence for psi.

The vast majority of physicians are not actually scientists. "Reasoning" and personal anecdotes are not evidence of anything.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

The vast majority of physicians are not actually scientists. "Reasoning" and personal anecdotes are not evidence of anything.

Well that's not entirely true. As a scientist, I would argue that personal experiences can lead one to form hypotheses. For example, back in the day when I was doing chemical research we would sometimes come across unusual results in our reaction products. This can easily lead one to say, "What if I tried 'x'?" and trying "x" can sometimes lead one to actual evidence of something new.

Originally Posted by TnT

Well that's not entirely true. As a scientist, I would argue that personal experiences can lead one to form hypotheses. For example, back in the day when I was doing chemical research we would sometimes come across unusual results in our reaction products. This can easily lead one to say, "What if I tried 'x'?" and trying "x" can sometimes lead one to actual evidence of something new.

Yep, and that's how it's supposed to work, of course. But what I meant was that the physicians in question (or other people that they'd read, more likely) had gone over studies showing the placebo effect, nit-picked them for flaws, and then referenced other studies where no placebo effect was found.

When evaluating psi experiments, we should begin by recognizing that within parapsychology the standards for experimental rigor are incredibly tight. For example, the standard statistical test in psychology is a 5% probability that the results are from chance; in parapsychology it's 1%. Experimental protocol is critiqued inside the field, not by outsiders, for far-fetched and extremely unlikely possibility of data contamination given what is actually being done (a good example is the original "ganzfeld" research). Realistic evaluation of whether or not the subject of the experiment could have acquired information through sensory channels need not apply. If we can imagine a way it might have happened, however ridiculously unlikely, the experiment is considered flawed. Again, this is internal critique I'm talking about. These are much tighter standards than apply in psychology or any other field. The assertion that parapsychology research is sloppy is completely without foundation in fact.

As I said, it's all due to the lack of a coherent theory that would avoid the supernatural. The existing evidence would be more than sufficient to support something that could fit into 20th-century paradigms. An actual working model, such as mine involving non-fixed probability or something like Sheldrake's morphic resonance, would of course be more controversial than that, because necessarily it would be ground-breaking, but would permit the phenomenon not to be dismissed out of hand, but pursued more vigorously (and in fact, it's likely that Sheldrake's work will do exactly that). Without any model at all, though, we are left with something that is either an unexplained anomaly, or else calls for belief in the supernatural. No amount of evidence will ever be sufficient to support an idea like that.

Originally Posted by TnT

Well that's not entirely true. As a scientist, I would argue that personal experiences can lead one to form hypotheses. For example, back in the day when I was doing chemical research we would sometimes come across unusual results in our reaction products. This can easily lead one to say, "What if I tried 'x'?" and trying "x" can sometimes lead one to actual evidence of something new.

Yes. But, Brian is not describing physicians forming a hypothesis for testing. He said that physicians are using their experiences to draw a conclusion that hasn't actually been tested. Well, it has been tested by others and the tests show that the placebo effect does occur in many medical situations.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yep, and that's how it's supposed to work, of course. But what I meant was that the physicians in question (or other people that they'd read, more likely) had gone over studies showing the placebo effect, nit-picked them for flaws, and then referenced other studies where no placebo effect was found.

When evaluating psi experiments, we should begin by recognizing that within parapsychology the standards for experimental rigor are incredibly tight. For example, the standard statistical test in psychology is a 5% probability that the results are from chance; in parapsychology it's 1%.

Says you. But, you repeatedly refuse to actual link to the publication of one of these so-called studies.

Experimental protocol is critiqued inside the field, not by outsiders, for far-fetched and extremely unlikely possibility of data contamination given what is actually being done (a good example is the original "ganzfeld" research).

Yep. And the protocols of the pseudo-scientists has repeatedly been shown to be inadequate.

Ganzfeld experiment

Realistic evaluation of whether or not the subject of the experiment could have acquired information through sensory channels need not apply. If we can imagine a way it might have happened, however ridiculously unlikely, the experiment is considered flawed. Again, this is internal critique I'm talking about. These are much tighter standards than apply in psychology or any other field. The assertion that parapsychology research is sloppy is completely without foundation in fact.

Never mind that pesky not-replicable problem with the pseudo-science.

As I said, it's all due to the lack of a coherent theory that would avoid the supernatural. The existing evidence would be more than sufficient to support something that could fit into 20th-century paradigms. An actual working model, such as mine involving non-fixed probability or something like Sheldrake's morphic resonance, would of course be more controversial than that, because necessarily it would be ground-breaking, but would permit the phenomenon not to be dismissed out of hand, but pursued more vigorously (and in fact, it's likely that Sheldrake's work will do exactly that).

No it won't. Sheldrake's morphic resonance idea is a laughing stock in biology and physics.

Without any model at all, though, we are left with something that is either an unexplained anomaly, or else calls for belief in the supernatural. No amount of evidence will ever be sufficient to support an idea like that.

There is no "something". Confirmation bias and wish expression are not evidence of something needing explaining.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Or perhaps you are completely clueless to the fact that this thread makes me laugh my ass off.

Yeah, it's hard to get a beam on how you *feel*. That's because I spin some humor into my snark. Ie.


"The only way cap and trade will work is if we sprinkle some unicorn horn dust and pixie dust on it to keep the banksters away."

Nice analogy. Any idea when Brian and Eric will learn to use the pruning shears (science)?

Well dunno. But I'm aware of some theories that needed stump level pruning via chain saw. That sort of event happened when someone's theory of pecan variety X would get through ice storms OK. We'd get an ice storm proving that theory wrong due to numerous broken limbs. We'd send pictures of the field trial to the OSU extension service. If they got enough evidence they'd pull the variety and re label it as "does not handle ice storms well". Ie. Major fail.

Speaking of theories, I have one:

Originally Posted by Brian

Vandal-72, if you're reading this, sorry, but I put you on ignore. I simply don't have the time or inclination to deal with rude, obnoxious assholes, and it's perfectly clear that the only reason you participate here is to be a cyber-bully, browbeating, intimidating, and making things so unpleasant for people that they'll shut up in order to avoid more aggravation. I can't be bothered with crap like that. If I hear that you've changed your approach and become civilized, I'll remove you from ignore. I want to make it clear that what I'm silencing and refusing to deal with here is not your thoughts and arguments, but your behavior.

Now here's a nice long paragraph. I've read 13th gen. S&H have 5 words that can substitute for that paragraph :
"Boom to X , shape up!"

Then in this thread you posted

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Thanks. Having spent my entire adult life studying, engaging in and teaching about science, I was completely clueless about how it works. [/snark]

Yup. X to Boom , shut up!

Artist generated stereotype rears its smarmy head again. Other scientist, who understand the ideas, do not see them as "esoteric" or "crazy".

I was thinking of people like Galileo. Yes, other scientists may not think of a particular colleague as [esoteric,crazy,heretics] but folks' whose world views get fucked over think that.

Trust me. He hasn't got the nuts.

So you have the king of hearts , there's 4 hearts out on the board, and Brian must have the king of hearts to make a royal flush?

Prepare to be bored. Brian is just like all the other psi enthusiasts. They are all bluster and no rain.

No. This thread is very entertaining. It's generation gap 2.0

EDIT:

Eric, Brian, sorry, but ya'll have been caught on Candid Camera with Alan Funt, replaying the generation gap game. Surprise!