Richard Dawkins Going After Faith Healers

[K.J.Healey]

I've always felt that astrology could have some small truth, if only for the simple fact that its basically monthly groupings of what time of year people were born in.
I wish there was a way to see, but I could believe that there's either a trend in personalities, or a trend in the difference between personalities when comparing someone born in the cold of winter and someone in the heat of summer.
Maybe your first developmental memories would be biased depending on whether you're inside with your parents 24 hours a day or outside with them most of the day in the sun.

Of course this could be completely drowned out by the methods of parenting, as well as not-applicable in areas with little to no season change.
What do you guys think? Possible?
(PS I hate astrology)

 

[ZapperZ]

I completely agree, many people take this stuff seriously, even well educated people.

These aren't in order but these are things that were in the show:

1. Discussion of astrology, classic experiment with 20 random people and a random horoscope, around 1/2 believed that the horoscope was true for them. Talks to some astology professor or something (can't remember what the guy's job actually was), asks some awkward questions and gets the guy to hint that he doesn't really believe in it. Compares astrology to astronomy and asks people to go out into the country and look into the vastness of space, or go to an observatory.

2. Segment on dowsing, some professor of psychology (i think!) testing dowsers with bottles filled with sand/water in a double blind experiment, dowsers perform no better than chance. Short interviews with some dowsers who give excuses for why they couldn't perform. Pretty much echoes other experiments by skeptic societies. Has a nice little bit in here about why the double blind is such a magnificent technique.

3. Psychics and cold reading. He's at a psychic/alternative therapy/whatever conference, and sits down with a guy who gets him to select cards, guy guesses at some things until he hits on something that is recognised by Richard and goes on about that. Richard asks him to explain the other things he said that he didnt recognise, lots of excuses. Little segment with Derren Brown about how cold reading is used, how to recognise it etc (Derren seems a little nervous here, no idea why). Richard attends a spiritualist church meeting led by someone who claims to be able to get messages from the "other side". We see a lot of the exact same things that Derren describes with cold reading. The psychic guy makes a few blunders, probably quite a bit of editing in this section. Richard interviews him afterwards and asks him if he really believes in this stuff. Psychic guy says yes. *pan* *hilarious Dawkins face* *laughter*

4. a REALLY NICE section on the discovery of echolocation in bats (at the time, sonar was a top secret military technology), how the initial experiment was disagreed with in the scientific community, then as more scientists tested it, it was found to be true. Great example of science in action. I liked this bit :)

5. He also attends some kind of meeting with the editor of resurgence. I don't really remember much of this bit, The guy made some crazy claims though.

These are the bits that I remember best. Throughout the programme he keeps reiterating the point that these practices are not studied by science because they have no reason behind them, and how we cannot progress if we continue down this path.

I believe he managed to get across what he meant to, that reason is precious and is somethign that we all can and should use in our every day lives.

I'm certain I've missed some of the stuff in this program, it was an hour packed to the brim.

I'll keep tuned for next week's :)

Again, thanks very much. For those of us who haven't had the chance to view the program, this is the best we have right now.

Zz.

 

[RetardedBastard]

In one of the latest http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm#c7s2l2, there was a study done in Europe about astrology and asked the public if they think it was "scientific".

...

So while it may be obvious to most of these reviewers that astrology is quackery, it isn't to a large portion of the public. So Dawkins attack on it, and even his ridicule of it is well justified.

Zz.

And I wonder what percentage of those participating in the survey were confusing astrology with astronomy.

 

[Moridin]

Here is the first Youtube clip =)

Richard Dawkins: Enemies of Reason

9 minutes (on astrology)

 

[TestUser12]

Ah Youtube, what a wonderful resource of clips with questionable legality.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are a few problems with his approach. First of all, the test is to see if subjective interpretations of astrological predictions yield satisfying results. This seems fatally flawed because there is no guarantee that people would be any more accurate if some were given an accurate psychological profile. Yes, the point is partly to show how people are easily fooled, but this doesn't rule out any potentially valid results. A fair test would be to use a number of psychological tests and see how well those agree first with each other, and then compare the common results of those to the astrological predictions. Also, I can’t help but wonder if different and exhaustive personality tests would agree with each other any more than they would the astrological results. Is it possible that psychology would fair no better than astrologers? And I am asking as I have no idea, but I have seen a lot of hype about personality tests passed around the corporate world, and some of it seems like complete bunk. Next, I would tend to look to personality traits as opposed to daily charts as these are two completely separate issues. It would make sense to look at the most general case first, and not to mix that up with the daily fortune telling.

The other problem that I see is that people on both sides of the debate assume that any apparent connection between the motions of the planets and the personalities of people, must be one of cause and effect [well, the astrologer wouldn’t really say anything]. But if we assume for a moment that there might be something to all of this, then it is reasonable to consider that the planets might simply be coincidental time keepers for deeply rooted natural cycles here on earth. Given enough celestial bodies, periods, and complex motions, there are bound to be coincidental alignments between these and other unrelated cycles in nature. In other words, we don't demand that clocks and human hearts are deeply connected somehow just because the tick rates might coincide for some people, but they could coincide nonetheless. It seems conceivable to me that such an assumption might be the true basis for astrology. From there, any genuine relationships get lost in the hyperbole.

I have no reason to believe in astrology, but these seem like valid objections to me.

 

[TestUser12]

The point is to show that astrological predictions coincide with the real state only as much as people making stuff up coincides with the real state.

Whether scientific personality testing coincides with the real state any more than people making stuff up does is a different issue.

The astrological reading for 1/12 of the population actually applied to 1/2 of the population. I believe that this is a powerful result.
It would be interesting to see how much of that 1/2 is in the 1/12 that the reading was meant for, though. I suspect that the result would show no preference for star sign if you split it up this way.

 

[Moridin]

The refutation of the first argument is to compare two astrological horoscopes for the same star sign made by different astrologers during the same period, or several and see how massively they differ. If they are as accurate as they claim, there would little difference. At least none that are openly contradictory.

I agree that astrology is about confirmation bias, but I think that was stated in the clip?

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Richard dawkins seems more "scared" about what he doesn't know. There are faith healers that are just crooks who are there to make money and fame. there are others who do that because they care.. just like our doctors.

its amazing how similar the thinking of the church and the atheists is. When they didnt understand something, the called "foul"! Church called it "heresy" and people like dawkins call it "enemies" and "crooks". Both are guilty of ignorance.

TEST FOR YOURSELF! NEITHER DAWKINS nor THE FAITH HEALERS is authentic unless you test it out for yourself. Mother Evolution gave Dawkins and us similar brains. Unfortunately, one is misusing it, while many others are not using it.

My 2 cents.

DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

There are a few problems with his approach. First of all, the test is to see if subjective interpretations of astrological predictions yield satisfying results. This seems fatally flawed because there is no guarantee that people would be any more accurate if some were given an accurate psychological profile. Yes, the point is partly to show how people are easily fooled, but this doesn't rule out any potentially valid results. A fair test would be to use a number of psychological tests and see how well those agree first with each other, and then compare the common results of those to the astrological predictions. Also, I can’t help but wonder if different and exhaustive personality tests would agree with each other any more than they would the astrological results. Is it possible that psychology would fair no better than astrologers? And I am asking as I have no idea, but I have seen a lot of hype about personality tests passed around the corporate world, and some of it seems like complete bunk. Next, I would tend to look to personality traits as opposed to daily charts as these are two completely separate issues. It would make sense to look at the most general case first, and not to mix that up with the daily fortune telling.

But Ivan, you're using one of the most common trick of attacking the debunking of it, by saying that something else could also be equally faulty and thus, it can't be all that bad. I do not believe that this has addressed any degree of credibility of astrology.

The other problem that I see is that people on both sides of the debate assume that any apparent connection between the motions of the planets and the personalities of people, must be one of cause and effect [well, the astrologer wouldn’t really say anything]. But if we assume for a moment that there might be something to all of this, then it is reasonable to consider that the planets might simply be coincidental time keepers for deeply rooted natural cycles here on earth. Given enough celestial bodies, periods, and complex motions, there are bound to be coincidental alignments between these and other unrelated cycles in nature. In other words, we don't demand that clocks and human hearts are deeply connected somehow just because the tick rates might coincide for some people, but they could coincide nonetheless. It seems conceivable to me that such an assumption might be the true basis for astrology. From there, any genuine relationships get lost in the hyperbole.

I have no reason to believe in astrology, but these seem like valid objections to me.

I don't think it is simply because the "mechanism" that you are proposing has never been supported by anything. It is bad enough that something stronger and closer to us such as EM radiation hasn't had any convincing evidence that it affects our health. Now you are introducing planetary effects where, even their gravitational influence would be extraordinarily miniscule. And since we're making assumption that they are right, I would also say that if we are accepting the influence of these planets via their gravity, then I'd say that this is all washed by the moon that exerts a stronger influence than any of them put together.

But again, this is all moot considering that the mechanism that cause one onto the other doesn't exist. And we haven't gotten yet to the point where someone actually present any credible data of the validity of any of the predictions - assuming that they could make a specific enough prediction rather than some generic one that even *I* could come up with.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Richard dawkins seems more "scared" about what he doesn't know. There are faith healers that are just crooks who are there to make money and fame. there are others who do that because they care.. just like our doctors.

its amazing how similar the thinking of the church and the atheists is. When they didnt understand something, the called "foul"! Church called it "heresy" and people like dawkins call it "enemies" and "crooks". Both are guilty of ignorance.

TEST FOR YOURSELF! NEITHER DAWKINS nor THE FAITH HEALERS is authentic unless you test it out for yourself. Mother Evolution gave Dawkins and us similar brains. Unfortunately, one is misusing it, while many others are not using it.

My 2 cents.

DJ

Huh? It appears that it is you who didn't understand anything. Faith healers HAVE been studied, and in fact, have been challenged to show their validity by careful testing. Now keep in mind that claims of faith healing have been going on for ages! I will go back to Bob Park's list of one of the signs of crackpottery in which, even after a lengthy period of time, the degree of certainty of the existence of something is still being debated, and that no valid evidence has been produced to show that that phenomenon exists.

Now, compare the claim of faith healers to, say, the claim made by Kamerlingh Onnes of the discovery of superconductivity. Study how the former is STILL, after all these years, on first base trying to establish its existence, while the latter not only has a well-formed formulation and mechanism, but also has been applied to do other things.

So no, it has nothing to do with not understanding. Dawkins is a reputable scientist in the first place and is well-aware of all the lack of evidence that accompanies these pseudoscience. In fact, if you read his comment in my blog, he puts out a challenge for anyone to cite these "non-physical" phenomenon that actually have credible evidence to prove him wrong.

Zz.

 

[TestUser12]

I have a notepad for the next episode! :D

 

[Moridin]

its amazing how similar the thinking of the church and the atheists is. When they didnt understand something, the called "foul"! Church called it "heresy" and people like dawkins call it "enemies" and "crooks". Both are guilty of ignorance.

We know how faith healing and astrology (appears to) works. Confirmation bias, placebo effect and the human instinct to recognize patterns. These are well-supported, scientific explanations. If a person wants to claim otherwise, he or she would need to present evidence for his or her claim (and later methodology/epistemology). Even if it is 'outside' of reason, science and observation, he or she still has the burden of evidence to show why the claim is at all relevant.

With the available information, I think that confirmation bias and the recognition of patterns is a more reasonable explanation than undiscovered mystical forces.

 

[ZapperZ]

We know how faith healing and astrology (appears to) works. Confirmation bias, placebo effect and the human instinct to recognize patterns. These are well-supported, scientific explanations. If a person wants to claim otherwise, he or she would need to present evidence for his or her claim (and later methodology/epistemology). Even if it is 'outside' of reason, science and observation, he or she still has the burden of evidence to show why the claim is at all relevant.

With the available information, I think that confirmation bias and the recognition of patterns is a more reasonable explanation than undiscovered mystical forces.

There is also the element of chance, especially when doing pattern recognition. This is something that even in science, we have to be vigilant about, that by chance, we got what we were looking for. That is why there has to be a statistical analysis of the data, and the phenomenon must have a signal way above the "background noise" or random data fluctuation for it to be considered as a candidate for validity. In high energy physics, events are categorize by their "sigma", and usually "5-sigma events" are the ones people will even begin to consider as valid. This is the start of making sure that such a thing occurs not due to some coincidence or random chance.

Zz.

 

[Moridin]

Thank you for explaining it.

Zz, http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22Richard+Dawkins+-+The+Enemies+of+Reason+%28part+1%29%22 link might be interesting for you to check out.

 

[ZapperZ]

Thanks. I'll post this on my blog as well! :)

Zz.

 

[TestUser12]

25:13 into it, that's the face. ahhahahaha. I love him.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But Ivan, you're using one of the most common trick of attacking the debunking of it, by saying that something else could also be equally faulty and thus, it can't be all that bad. I do not believe that this has addressed any degree of credibility of astrology.

The point was that I have never seen a qualified test of astrology, in spite of all of the debunking. The most common approach is to show that people make bad subjective interpretations, which is a test of the people but not of the claim. If the debunkers really wanted to explore this and determine if there could be any validity to it, they would devise a reasonable test, but I have never seen it done. I can't help but wonder if this is because psychology would do no better; ie. we have no reliable way to test the claims.

This speaks to your second point as well. I have never seen a credible test of astrology, so I don't know if there might be anything to it.

 

[ZapperZ]

The point was that I have never seen a qualified test of astrology, in spite of all of the debunking. The most common approach is to show that people make bad subjective interpretations. If the debunkers really wanted to explore this and determine if there could be any validity to it, they would devise a reasonable test, but I have never seen it done.

This speaks to your second point as well. I have never seen a credible test of astrology, so I don't know if there might be anything to it.

But don't you think it is rather strange that the burden of "proof" in your scheme here seems to lie not with those who claim it is valid, but those who claim it isn't? I've never seen a qualified test of astrology that claim that it works either. And as far as I know, usually it is those who claim such a thing that have to prove its validity.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If science has no valid means to test a claim, how can the burden of proof be dumped on laymen? Granted, their's is a statement of faith, but the debunking is pretty much worthless from what I can see. And I don't mean just here, but in every debunking of it that I've seen.

 

[ZapperZ]

If science has no valid means to test a claim, how can the burden of proof be dumped on laymen? Granted, their's is a statement of faith, but the debunking is pretty much worthless from what I can see. And I don't mean just here, but in every debunking of it that I've seen.

There are many things in which science has no means to test a claim, because these things are unfalsifiable. It is not the fault of science. But the public, however, needs to understand that, which is these claims simply have no validity that can be shown and proven. The burden of proof still lies with those who made the claim that these things are real, just like the rest of us when we make our claim. Why would they be any different or special?

Secondly, since when has none of these things been tested? Psychic abilities etc. have been the subject of testing for many years, with nary a well-document evidence. If there is, we'd all won't be talking about its validity Bob Park even highlighted a test done by a high school girl that clearly debunked one of these things and even got published in a reputable journal. So no, I disagree that there are no aspect of any of such pseudoscience that has been tested rigorously.

Zz.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

well,

the burdain of evidence. Evidence can be provided, only if the available science grows up to it.

Heres something I would like to say.

Faith healing, does it work? Absolutely.
All faith healers true? Absolutely not.
How do you know it works? I have seen it.

How did you see it?
Like this. I have seen this man with a tumor on his leg, full of puss and with bandages. he comes to a holy man I know of and asks for curing it. The holy man doesn't budge for a long time. He is one of those recluse kind of guys who doesn't bother with what they make in terms of money. There are many such in India. They don't bother with money or fame, they neither have home nor have job, they live by eating what ever they come across that particular day, most of them don't even talk usually and keep silent and meditative. This is one such guy. So, this guy, this holyman, after some prayers by the sick guy looks at him and says, get me a glass of water.

The sick fellow limps off to the corner of the shed and gets the holy man a glass of water. The holy man drinks it and again keeps silent. After a few minutes, this sick guy realizes that his leg doesn't hurt anymore. He checks out and sees that his bandage is hanging loose and sees that there's no trace of the tumor! he thanks the holy man sitting there and then goes away. I was still sitting in the holy man's presence. After a few minutes, the holy man changes posture, and now i can see his leg and it has the same exact tumor which was not there before when I gave a massage to his legs!

This happened in front of my eyes. I am not a person of blind belief. I look at myself as a guy who searches for explanations. Either in science or otherwise. But this happened at around 11 AM, i was not sleepy nor drowsy, i don't take any intoxicants ever, it was right before me! The same exact tumor! the shape was also unmistakable!

Now, how can I prove that it can happen?
Two ways. One, if the holy man decides to show off and he succeeds or if I can do it in a lab and show that it is possible.
Two, If I can provide a logical basis, a tentative deduction of rational thinking that supports such claims.
The second one is not quite possible, because the logical basis for it is not "found" by science yet, that consciousness is all pervading and that a tune up with that conscious level can enable a man to perform the seemingly super-natural feets. They are not supernatural at all, but are parts of nature's mechanisms, but for this, science needs to grow.

In that case, again, we all have two ways to go.
We can say "the heck with it. I won't believe it until science catches up".
or we can say "may be.. may be not.. I will try and find out myself and make my mind about it."

eitherway, the ugly face of it that we see in the commercialization of faith healing (in evangelism and other ways) must be fought and the correct version must be sought.

Now, with in the above framework, I would be glad if anyone can point me to a methodology that I can use to prove it.

I have a similar experience with astrology, but not as emphatic as this one is.

I was studying astrology (Vedic Astrology -- called "Jyotisha" meaning "lighting up"), a basic study. My teacher is a young guy, quite un-assuming guy who was open that he himself was not at adept and that astrology itself can't accurately predict anything, but its combination with other sciences like palmistry and with mental abilities of intuition can greatly increase the chances. He was teaching at around 3 pm in the afternoon and in the middle of the class, while explaining certain configuration of stars and planets, he said, "this config will occur at around 4 PM. It should drizzle at that time most probably. It happens 75 percent of the time. It rains atleast a little everytime this configuration occurs in the sky" and then he went on with his class. We were absorbed in the class when suddenly it started raining! He looked at the watch and said "See? Its 4.05!" And then we realized how accurate his prediction was.

it was a sunny day, not a cloudy one. Its India and it doesn't rain much in these parts. It might, but not so predictably.

It happened three more times confirming its validity TO ME.

This one is more provable. One can look up the configuration and see if it will rain more than 70 percent of the time and see if it happens. I will try and find out exactly when it happens, say in the city I stay (prediction vary based on longitudes and lattitudes) and some other cities. I am in the process of doing it.

Now what can science say about this? Not a peanut!

DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

Then what are you waiting for? James Randi has $1 million waiting to award to you!

Again, as I've illustrated, most people have no clue on the difference between anecdotal evidence and actual, scientific evidence. This is one clear example.

Zz.

 

[Moridin]

Was that anecdotal evidence? Yes.
Can meteorologists do it? Probably, but with certain error bars.
How do I know? Because the evidence says so.

Generally, science can damage supernaturalism in two ways:

- Come up with an experiment that falsifies the idea (if it turns out that it is indeed a natural causality).
- Replace the supernatural explanation with a natural one and explain the natural origin of said supernatural belief (such as rain dance, the Sand Man and so on). Of course, this does not in any way disprove the supernatural idea, but it does make it obsolete.

If science has no valid means to test a claim, how can the burden of proof be dumped on laymen? Granted, their's is a statement of faith, but the debunking is pretty much worthless from what I can see. And I don't mean just here, but in every debunking of it that I've seen.

It does not matter if the claim can be tested by science, is outside science, reason or logic or what have you. The burden of proof/evidence is still on the one making the assertion to show why it is relevant, by which ever means is applicable.

On another subject, this was only briefly addressed at the very end, probably a build-in trailer for the second part. It was the clip with that funny postmodern relativist. Their basic claim is that science is orthodox and that the evidence might support one idea for one person and another idea for another person, thus attempting, in a way, to reduce science to an arbitrary social construction. I do hope this will be debunked in the second part.

I have a few objections to their claims.

1. If science is an arbitrary social construction, how come it has been enormously successful in such areas as medicine, technology and so on, whereas voodoo, astrology and so on has not shown any progress at all if we look at the advancement of society? This is where the relativistic distortion falls to it knees. This argument is generally enough to debunk their claims, but why stop when you are having fun?

2. Science knows that cognitive biases exists and attempts to remove or limit them by double blind studies, peer-review and a valid method of self-correction (doing more tests), whereas voodoo, astrology and so on does not.

3. Certain aspects of science is hard-wired into our genes. Indeed, this can be demonstrated by babies, how and by which means they explore the world around them.

4. Lack of testability, repeatability, falsifiability, evidence, methodology and epistemology for pseudoscience. These are valid obstacles and they are welcome to try and overcome them (by logic or otherwise). They have not done it so far.

I may have over interpreted his stance. Oh well.

 

[ZapperZ]

The social relativists as advocated by some postmodernists have been thoroughly debunked by Alan Sokal. In fact, many aspects of postmodernism suffered a severe blow of respectability when Sokal pulled off his hoax in Social Text. It revealed that these people were adapting physics concepts with very little knowledge beyond a superficial understanding of what they are, i.e. they were using something based on ignorance.

Zz.

 

[Moridin]

Right, by publishing the 'Transgressing' article because it sounded scientific and appeared to agree with their ideology?

I should add some books by him and others on the subject to my reading list. Thanks.

 

[asterias]

Then what are you waiting for? James Randi has $1 million waiting to award to you!

Again, as I've illustrated, most people have no clue on the difference between anecdotal evidence and actual, scientific evidence. This is one clear example.

Zz.

d_jnaneswar said that he has seen supernatural workings ( and not that he is one who can do it ). Does Randi give award even to them ? Huh ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are many things in which science has no means to test a claim, because these things are unfalsifiable. It is not the fault of science. But the public, however, needs to understand that, which is these claims simply have no validity that can be shown and proven. The burden of proof still lies with those who made the claim that these things are real, just like the rest of us when we make our claim. Why would they be any different or special?

Well, first of all, part of the point is that anyone who claims that astrology is all rubbish is likely blowing smoke since AFAIK no one has ever done a good test of it. At the least no one seems to point to a good test showing that serious astrological claims are falsified. So from what I see, the typical attacks are unfounded even if correct. But the real question is why people believe in astrology. I think the answer is that people perceive truth in what they read or hear [I'm talking about serious astrologers and practitioners, and not tabloid stuff]. Now, this may be due to nothing but gullibility and word games, but in many cases it seems that having tried it, many people are left believing that it works. That may not be evidence for you, but it is for them. If scientists are going to demand scientific evidence, they need to provide a fair test and quit pointing to subjective stooges as evidence that astrology doesn’t work.

Secondly, since when has none of these things been tested? Psychic abilities etc. have been the subject of testing for many years, with nary a well-document evidence. If there is, we'd all won't be talking about its validity Bob Park even highlighted a test done by a high school girl that clearly debunked one of these things and even got published in a reputable journal. So no, I disagree that there are no aspect of any of such pseudoscience that has been tested rigorously.

We were talking about astrology. I never said anything about psychics here – not even the ones who find bodies when the police can’t.

What has been tested rigorously in the lab is the assertion that psychic phenomena can be produced on demand in the lab. That might rule out one class of claims - namely the obvious charlatans - but it hardly settles the point.

Speaking of pseudoscience; the effort to prove that nothing non-physical exists? Isn’t that a philosophy 101 error?

 

[siddharth]

Well, first of all, part of the point is that anyone who claims that astrology is all rubbish is likely blowing smoke since AFAIK no one has ever done a good test of it. At the least no one seems to point to a good test showing that serious astrological claims are falsified.

So from what I see, the typical attacks are unfounded even if correct. But the real question is why people believe in astrology. I think the answer is that people perceive truth in what they read or hear [I'm talking about serious astrologers and practitioners, and not tabloid stuff]. Now, this may be due to nothing but gullibility and word games, but in many cases it seems that having tried it, many people are left believing that it works. That may not be evidence for you, but it is for them. If scientists are going to demand scientific evidence, they need to provide a fair test and quit pointing to subjective stooges as evidence that astrology doesn’t work.

There was a test that Shawn Carlson did on astrology which was published in Nature. Also, there have been other tests which have repeatedly shown that astrology has no greater predictive power than what is expected by chance. I think James Randi had also done experiments which proved the same thing.

Here are the references

- A double-blind test of astrology, Nature 318, 419 - 425 (05 December 1985)
- Treating astrology's claims with all due gravity, Nature 447, 528 (31 May 2007)
- http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10 No. 6-7, 2003, pp175-198

What has been tested rigorously in the lab is the assertion that psychic phenomena can be produced on demand in the lab. That might rule out one class of claims - namely the obvious charlatans - but it hardly settles the point.

I disagree. Claiming that psychic phenomena cannot be reproduced when tested under proper controls, yet somehow may exist otherwise seems very analogous to the God of the gaps argument

 

[ZapperZ]

d_jnaneswar said that he has seen supernatural workings ( and not that he is one who can do it ). Does Randi give award even to them ? Huh ?

Randi only needs someone who can prove to him that such a thing exists. He doesn't have to be the one having such supernatural ability. So if he thinks such anecdotal evidence is sufficient to establish validity, how come he hasn't applied for the prize?

That was my point.

Zz.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Well,

Why didnt I apply to randi? The answer is :

1. I didnt know much about randi until very very recently.
2. randi seems to be biased on debunking rather then seeing the truth.
3. randi seems quite obviously deluded about his views on homeopathy that works. IT simply works! Yet randi is hell bent on saying that it is not logically possible, which is true. If randi were looking for a case to find the truth, he can just walk out and find it, practically, around the world!
4. The issue of homeopathy working on so many patients, including me (i got rid of ailments ranging from common cold to typhoid to malaria with homeo alone) shows that there's is enough "survey" type evidence out there, which randi appears so blind towards.
5. There is no point in applying when one knows that the tester is plainly blind to what ever he thinks is not possible.
6. I am from india, and I don't need some randi to give me money, i can earn it.
7. randi's claims of 1 million dollars don't allure me enough. An opportunity for scientific study, in the shade of adept scientists would probably encourage me enough to apply.
8. all randi has to do is come to India and see things for himself with an open mind. I am open to show him such people, but granted that such holy people don't give a peanuts worth to 1 million dollars, randi couldn't "make them" do what they do.
9. i am testing out those astrology claims myself, and once i am sure that it works, i might apply to randi regarding the astrology issue.

Any further questions?
Oh.. by the way.. if you didnt read it yet, read this in your spare time. A life sketch of a Holy Man in India who lived in the 19th and early 20th century. The book is written based on personal interview who lived along side the Holy man, and also based on a biography that was written during His lifetime. here's the link ... Its free for online reading.
http://www.divyajanani.org/saibharadwaja/books/SaibabaTM/Introduction.html

Does it prove anything? Well, for me, it proves of a possiblity. For randi and folks, God knows whether it would do any good or not.

DJ

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Regarding the anecdotal evidence vs scientific evidence, its a strange thing!

Sure that i gave only anecdotal evidence. But its evidence none the less. Such evidence is ample for all those issues such as miracles.

How can I provide "scientific evidence" when I am not even sure of the vocabulary of science? I am not a qualified scientist, not even educated to be a professional scientist, all my science studies are based on query rather than anything else. How can I provide proper scientific evidence?

Besides science itself is not much more than experimentation and verification. How do you verify claims such as this when you yourself can't do them? I mean, I can't cure someone of their tumors. I can't make this man do it at my will. Then how can such claims be proved scientifically?

Only one option. One has to walk the walk. Try and achieve that level of ability oneself and try and do it oneself and that's the only sure way to go about it. But the so called scientists are so "blind" that they don't want to spend time experimenting, and rather go about calling any thing "foul" that they don't understand.

Mysticism is a classic example. There are numerous mystics who have claimed to have achieved meditational states where they stated to have found God. All of them separated by time/space/tradition. Yet each of their descriptions of such an existence as God seem to be perfectly in accord with one another. Now, how can we "scientifically" prove what they experienced in deep meditation?

Reading brainwaves during meditation is much like searching for alphabets in a shakespear play. Its not the alphabets that matter, but the way they are put together and their portrayal of story and emotion that matters.

Now, with that brain wave thing out of the way, how can one claim that such a God exists? How can one scientifically prove that all those amazing feets that such mystics did were possible?

ONLY ONE SURE WAY. One has to sit and meditate the prescribed way and see if such a state is attainable or not. Unfortunately, most scientists who call these claims "foul" seem to lack the fortitude to do so. They arent willing to experiment the right way, and still claim to be "scientists" and "debunkers" and go about calling such claims as "non-sense". So much for their scientific outlook.

I am myself testing it, experimenting it myself. Trying to do the meditation in the prescribed way to see if it all happens or not. If it doesnt, I would happily agree that it might not. but before that, I would not claim to "DEBUNK" things.


DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

Well,

Why didnt I apply to randi? The answer is :

1. I didnt know much about randi until very very recently.
2. randi seems to be biased on debunking rather then seeing the truth.
3. randi seems quite obviously deluded about his views on homeopathy that works. IT simply works!

And that is where we differ.

This is still a "physics" forum, and you should realize by now that just saying it works just doesn't cut it. It also shows that you continue to not understand the difference between such anecdotal evidence and what is a scientific, valid evidence. Your view on homeopathy is one such example, because you have discounted the possibility of other reasons for what you perceive to be its effects. In science, such cause-and-effect is an important ingredient that is investigated and identified. Correlation does NOT imply causation!

As for Randi, he has never passed himself as anything else. No one will confuse him as someone who doesn't not have a skeptical view of such things. So this isn't a surprise. Still, what better subject you can get to prove wrong? If you are THAT convince of what you believe, then prove it to him. It can't be that difficult if it is that obvious to you, can it? After all, physicists like Millikan were out to prove Einstein's photoelectric effect model wrong. Yet, their results turns out to make verification of the model. There's nothing more convincing that someone who is skeptical of your idea to come out and verify that it really is true.

I would also like to point out to you that the PF Global Guidelines applies even in here. Please review it before proceeding any further, and pay particular attention to the type of links that are allowed.

Zz.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Hey zz,

I didnt think the link I provided was wrong. Its just a link to a book about a man. No strings attatched. Still, if you think its not meant to be, then by all means, take it down. I would take it down if its any way problematic.

This is still a physics forum. Debunking and talking about theories is what I expected. I was just pointing out that homeo seems to work! Thats all! The hundreds and hundreds of people getting cured by homeo is something I see everyday. And Randi's comments on homeo never touches it. Thats what I wanted to point out.

Secondly, I am not a medical guy. I have no clue how homeo works. I was hoping for a discussion on how it might. I know how it might not, thanks to randi.

Very clear that correlation doesn't imply causation. But it doesn't deny it either. It is obvious for me that its working, based on the effects that I see in people. Its not obvious for me as to how it works. I mentioned Homeo to point out one of the reasons of me not bothering with randi. Skepticism is fine, but confirmed skepticism is as bad as blind faith. I have neither. All i have is my natural tendency to believe what seems reasonably right. Thats all.

This whole topic came about because of "Debunking" and "faith healing". I was just pointing out areas where there's no debunking happening. All people are doing is to debunk false people, people with false claims, and I am all for it. I don't accept it on "blind faith" that just because a few nut-cases got debunked, it means that the whole thing is wrong. I feel there's more to it, because I have seen it. I want to find it and research into it.

I am open to the possiblity, completely open to possiblity that it might all be poof. But I am against blind faith, and against blind skepticism. I am on these "physics" forums to study and discuss and improve "MY" view of the world.

I am happy to just read these forums, but can't help but ask questions that don't seemed to be touched on. This is an amazing forums that gives me knowledge of several people who might have read several books, helping me think of concepts without having to wade through mountains of books to find just that one argument. I don't want to make this forums an ugly debate any ways. I was just talking of randi, because its mentioned.

Anyways, let's get one with it!

DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

Hey zz,

I didnt think the link I provided was wrong. Its just a link to a book about a man. No strings attatched. Still, if you think its not meant to be, then by all means, take it down. I would take it down if its any way problematic.

This is still a physics forum. Debunking and talking about theories is what I expected. I was just pointing out that homeo seems to work! Thats all! The hundreds and hundreds of people getting cured by homeo is something I see everyday. And Randi's comments on homeo never touches it. Thats what I wanted to point out.

Secondly, I am not a medical guy. I have no clue how homeo works. I was hoping for a discussion on how it might. I know how it might not, thanks to randi.

Very clear that correlation doesn't imply causation. But it doesn't deny it either. It is obvious for me that its working, based on the effects that I see in people. Its not obvious for me as to how it works. I mentioned Homeo to point out one of the reasons of me not bothering with randi. Skepticism is fine, but confirmed skepticism is as bad as blind faith. I have neither. All i have is my natural tendency to believe what seems reasonably right. Thats all.

This whole topic came about because of "Debunking" and "faith healing". I was just pointing out areas where there's no debunking happening. All people are doing is to debunk false people, people with false claims, and I am all for it. I don't accept it on "blind faith" that just because a few nut-cases got debunked, it means that the whole thing is wrong. I feel there's more to it, because I have seen it. I want to find it and research into it.

I am open to the possiblity, completely open to possiblity that it might all be poof. But I am against blind faith, and against blind skepticism. I am on these "physics" forums to study and discuss and improve "MY" view of the world.

I am happy to just read these forums, but can't help but ask questions that don't seemed to be touched on. This is an amazing forums that gives me knowledge of several people who might have read several books, helping me think of concepts without having to wade through mountains of books to find just that one argument. I don't want to make this forums an ugly debate any ways. I was just talking of randi, because its mentioned.

Anyways, let's get one with it!

DJ

But see, this is where I see the consistent double standards. You expect science to clearly and succinctly debunk these claims, yet, you never require those who made these claims in the first place the same requirement. Because if you do, we won't be having this conversation, and there's no need to debunk anything, because the burden of proof is on the proposer, not the objector, and the proof is just isn't there! This whole discussion is then moot!

People like Dawkins and Bob Park (I suggest you read his book "Voodoo Science") should NOT have to go out and have to reveal to the public what a bunch of quackery this is. When there are claims being made that this thing is as effective as any medical treatment, then the burden for it to be tested in the same rigorous manner as any medical treatment falls on the claimer. Yet, they don't! You continue to claim that it works (now, you are saying it SEEMS to work. What changed?) but you have provided no concrete evidence that it does. And when I say concrete evidence, I mean as in a scientific study that has been verified independently. Considering how long homeopathy has been claim to work, and yet we are still now questioning whether it really is real or not, this is a clear sign of voodoo science. Real, scientifically-verified evidence doesn't evolve this way.

The fact that homeopathy has been claimed to "work" without any reputable evidence and study has never been disputed. Again, Bob Park listed several of the "best" of the dubious claims made about it. In the US, they try to fly under the radar of the Food and Drug Administration by claiming that they are an "alternative, natural" medicine and not subjected to the same rigorous standards as conventional medicine. So what are they afraid of? That they really can't show that the diluted water they're using truly has a "memory"? This would crumble their whole empire since this is what they based everything upon! Somehow, people who buy these things never cared about how nonsensical and unproven the foundation of this whole thing is. This is not something conventional science is allowed to get away with!

Until there is clear clinical evidence of the effectiveness of anything, no one should put anything on the same degree of certainty with something that has gone through and been verified via such process. We do not put String Theory on the same degree of certainty as the BCS Theory of Superconductivity, and neither should you.

Zz.