Is There a Standard Method for Debunking Paranormal Claims?

[my_wan]

my_wan


Imagine I said people could walk on water through force of will.
Just like with most claims of this nature, an anecdote is provided in support of this claim.

By one definition, there is evidence for my claim simply because an anecdote was provided.

By another definition, there is no evidence for my claim because you cannot confirm this claim based on an anecdote alone.

No responsible thinker would consider this claim as true based on the anecdote alone, but some would say there is evidence, and others would say there is no evidence.


In my opinion, you were in essence arguing with Ivan over a definition, not over the general trustworthiness of anecdotes.

Yes but his definition come with the accusation of debunker's lying. You now pick up his argument on definitional grounds. He was not allowing a distinction based on definition, he said lying.

Even so billions of dollar are scammed every year on nothing more than this distorted idea of evidence, to the financial and physical detriment of the customers. The use of this way people think about evidence is a science to the people who could care less whether you lived or died. Even then, I only took exception due to the unequivocal characterization of lying. The technical correctness of the remainder of my argument was just collateral.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/26/MN5QTJ8C1.DTL
Yes even Wall Street Traders:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators&id=5945583
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004108648_fortuneteller05m.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/terri_hoffman/terri_hoffman2.html
http://crime.about.com/b/2005/01/03/psychic-charged-with-stealing-100000-from-woman.htm
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9804/psychic-charged-with-theft
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/02/accessresource.shtm
http://skepdic.com/refuge/harmarchive.html

How easy a target are you? This kind of stuff is not possible because everybody is a con but because of the honesty of most believers and a distorted concept of evidence.

 

[H8wm4m]

my_wan,
I have attempted to summarize the argument you are opposing.1. Anecdotes are a form of evidence.
2. Anecdotes are always or nearly always provided in support of paranormal claims.
3. Some debunkers say there is no evidence for such claims.
Therefore, some debunkers lie.Are either of the 3 premises invalid?
If so, then the argument is unsound.

Does the conclusion follow logically from the premises?
If not, then the argument is unsound.

What do you think?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

There's nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence on its own, it's a valid source of evidence. However if you want to prove anything you have to be more objective.

There are no invalid forms of evidence, except out and out lies. Provided you are honestly relating what happened whether it did or not (because you are 1 coconut short of a shy or whatever) that is valid.

 

[CEL]

There's nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence on its own, it's a valid source of evidence. However if you want to prove anything you have to be more objective.

There are no invalid forms of evidence, except out and out lies. Provided you are honestly relating what happened whether it did or not (because you are 1 coconut short of a shy or whatever) that is valid.

The truth about the report of an event needs two conditions:
1. The event must be true.
2. The person reporting it must believe it is true.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The truth about the report of an event needs two conditions:
1. The event must be true.
2. The person reporting it must believe it is true.

Well whether the event is "true" or not, the person could well have seen something anyway. Which is why I say that anecdotal evidence is valid, but it is not the same as proof. If after you examined the evidence you found no reason why the story might not be true, then that is sound anecdotally, and a form of viable evidence. As viable or sound as witness testimony gets anyway.

 

[my_wan]

my_wan,
I have attempted to summarize the argument you are opposing.


1. Anecdotes are a form of evidence.
2. Anecdotes are always or nearly always provided in support of paranormal claims.
3. Some debunkers say there is no evidence for such claims.
Therefore, some debunkers lie.

Are either of the 3 premises invalid?
If so, then the argument is unsound.

Does the conclusion follow logically from the premises?
If not, then the argument is unsound.

What do you think?

1. makes the logical error of being true by definition yet failing to provide evidence for that which is being claimed. You then specify the evidence as pertaining to claims in 3, a specification not contained in 1.

The logic in 1. requires the law of the excluded middle, i.e., it excludes a third possibility, yet you include the "middle" in 3. when you say "evidence for such claims". "Evidence" and "evidence of X" are not even the same logical category.

The truth about the report of an event needs two conditions:
1. The event must be true.
2. The person reporting it must believe it is true.

Even in the rarer situations where the witness outright lies about the event the anecdote is still evidence of 'something'. The belief of the witness has nothing to do with the truth of what occurred, it is still evidence of 'something'. Courts know that eyewitnesses are 'the most' unreliable form of evidence. It is so easy it is trivial to convince people they said things they didn't say and seen things they didn't see. I do it all the time.

 

[drakkar]

Debunking in graphics.

I've mentioned this guy previously, he's expert in debunking. Why did he take "3 man and baby"? Cause...oh, just look and answer yourself. Somewhere on Youtube)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've mentioned this guy previously, he's expert in debunking. Why did he take "3 man and baby"? Cause...oh, just look and answer yourself. Somewhere on Youtube)

?
Who?

 

[drakkar]

Captain Disillusion

Sorry, missed his name. Captain Disillusion!

 

[serine]

I was impressed with the idea that if there is in fact a viable form of psychic ability, the ability to see images and events of the future, then there would indeed have been an influx of these known persons gifted in the ability spewing warnings and dangers and other actions of the like before the destruction on the world trade centers. How many persons took up a space on the street corners around these now destroyed buildings, to warn of the dangers ahead? Surly if the ability exists in any way, the visions would have run rampant through the cerebral cortex`s of the gifted beforehand.

For me, this is an acceptable form of evidence that the ability of fortune telling has no merit to it.
But I was never one to consider it a verified gift anyways.
I believe this method of observation and questioning the results of an event is a simple form of dubunking in everyday life
that can be accomplished by anybody and if things were more often approached in this manner, could make a more realistic and peaceful world without the notions of mystic oppurtunities and our everyday happenings controlled by good or bad influences. Way off topic.

Serine

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was impressed with the idea that if there is in fact a viable form of psychic ability, the ability to see images and events of the future, then there would indeed have been an influx of these known persons gifted in the ability spewing warnings and dangers and other actions of the like before the destruction on the world trade centers. How many persons took up a space on the street corners around these now destroyed buildings, to warn of the dangers ahead? Surly if the ability exists in any way, the visions would have run rampant through the cerebral cortex`s of the gifted beforehand.

For me, this is an acceptable form of evidence that the ability of fortune telling has no merit to it.
But I was never one to consider it a verified gift anyways.
I believe this method of observation and questioning the results of an event is a simple form of dubunking in everyday life
that can be accomplished by anybody and if things were more often approached in this manner, could make a more realistic and peaceful world without the notions of mystic oppurtunities and our everyday happenings controlled by good or bad influences. Way off topic.

Serine

Not that I'm defending the claims of "psychics", but I wanted to address the logic used: If ESP existed, it would manifest itself for what we consider to be significant events, but since that didn't seem to happen, there are no psychics.

Please provide supporting evidence for your theory that if it existed, ESP would be event-significance dependent.

 

[serine]

Evidence of theory? A simple hypothesis at most, and referring to the methods used in questioning the existence of (ESP) not in any way defending the existence or non existence as this is not the discussion of the topic in which the issue is catagorized under. Would not like to discuss validity of ESP as it is not my fortay. Just wanted to note that I liked how the thought and method of questioning the existence of the stimulation of visions within the said groups were apparent in the times before impending disaster, and if not I (I) (I) would consider it a benifitial way of bearing witness to whether or not the gift of fortunetelling is indeed real. For me, that would be a good basis for a building hypothesis.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You are suggesting that something can be judged based on an assumption that has no supporting evidence or logical motivation.

Given that we don't know if psychic events occur, we certainly can't say how it might work [the characteristics of the phenomenon] if they did.

 

[serine]

I am stating that had there been people standing on the corners warning of impending disaster, I would consider that a sign that there might be something to the whole idea of psychics. Evidence. If there had been any form of seeing that people were indeed picking up images of great flying objects with stiff unmoving wings flying into the two tallest towers of the world, if there HAD been people, then I surley would reconsider psychic ability. Real people. Camped out. Being arrested. Many of them, so as not to consider it a coin flip chance, conventions of them, as many psychics that can fit hand to hand surrounding the two buildings. Evidence. Blood samples to see if they are really human.

Like that answer better? Maybe you didnt understand me the first two times.