What is the impact of Michael Shermer's bias on his role as a skeptic?

[Ivan Seeking]

I like Shermer but some of things he says are silly. In fact he often misrepresents issues in order to make his point, which really makes him a debunker with a bias rather than skeptic.

Here is a good example of something I just caught on the History Channel's History's Mysteries. The show was about superstitions, but Shermer uses a poll from the early nineties which indicates that something like 66% of all people in the US believe that they've had a psychic experience. Well, first of all, this is not a superstition. It is a belief based on an experience. The definition of superstition is "an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear". Now, one might argue that it is irrational to believe that anyone ever has psychic experiences, but this is a statement of faith that, in this case, denies about 200 million claims based on nothing more than Shermer's personal opinion.

He then continued to describe how dangerous superstitions are by referencing cults that have committed mass suicide. So here is my question to Mr. Shermer: Of all of the people who have superstitious beliefs, how many commit suicide due to those beliefs? It sounds to me like Mr. Shermer is a little superstitious.

 

[SGT]

...
Now, one might argue that it is irrational to believe that anyone ever has psychic experiences, but this is a statement of faith that, in this case, denies about 200 million claims based on nothing more than Shermer's personal opinion.
...
.

You are using a logical fallacy named appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum). The fact that there are 200 million claims about psychic phenomena says nothing about their existence.
The fact is that, after more then a century of research, no conclusive experiment was performed that confirms the reality of psychic experiences.
To believe in something with no evidence is either religion (if it is your belief) or superstition (if it is other people´s beliefs).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You are using a logical fallacy named appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum). The fact that there are 200 million claims about psychic phenomena says nothing about their existence.

Well, first of all, I am not using the appeal to the popularity. My point is that the claim is common. So it certainly possible that people are experiencing something inexplicable. Would you find it more compelling if only 20 people made such claims?

The fact is that, after more then a century of research, no conclusive experiment was performed that confirms the reality of psychic experiences.
To believe in something with no evidence is either religion (if it is your belief) or superstition (if it is other people´s beliefs).

This only shows that it is not something easily controlled. Take for example Ball Lightning. After more then a century of research, no conclusive experiment was performed that confirms the reality of ball lightning, however most meteorologists now believe it exists.

If something exists which is random, or seemingly so, not reproducible by its very nature, or at least not for now, but still we find hundreds of millions [and really billions if we consider all people alive today] of people who in many cases tell compelling accounts that deny pedestrian and prosaic explanations, science has very little to say about it other than it can't be quantified as yet. To ignore hundreds of millions of testimonials is ludicrous.

Edit: And note also that we don't have to accept any particular belief in order to consider the claims. But to outright deny all claims is outrageous. This is not science or skepticism, this is a faith based reaction by those who don't want to believe that it could be true.

 

[Phobos]

but Shermer uses a poll from the early nineties which indicates that something like 66% of all people in the US believe that they've had a psychic experience. Well, first of all, this is not a superstition.

Context? (I didn't see the show.) Perhaps he was trying to point out that many (most?) people have a belief in the supernatural (aside from mainstream religion)?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, first of all, this is not a superstition. It is a belief based on an experience.

It's a belief based on percieved experience. There is usually no way to prove anything authentically psychic happened.

I've had many an instance where I was thinking about someone and the phone rings and it's them, which it is very hard not to attribute to something like telepathy, but, really, it could have just been coincidence.

I don't actually hear "hundreds of millions" of "testimonies", either. I hear the occasional anecdote, some more convincing than others, none of which is checkable.

SGT is right. The number of claims in a case like this is irrelevant. I would, indeed, prefer 20 really solid reports to hundreds of millions of stories that could be people overreacting to coincidences and other stuff.

 

[kcballer21]

I like Shermer but some of things he says are silly. In fact he often misrepresents issues in order to make his point, which really makes him a debunker with a bias rather than skeptic.

... It is a belief based on an experience.

Would you say that Shermer is helping or hurting the case for critical/skeptical thinking?

Name one person who claims to have a belief that is not based on an 'experience.'

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's a belief based on percieved experience. There is usually no way to prove anything authentically psychic happened.

That is not proof or evidence against the claim either.

I've had many an instance where I was thinking about someone and the phone rings and it's them, which it is very hard not to attribute to something like telepathy, but, really, it could have just been coincidence.

But "maybe" doesn't count any more as proof against than it does as proof for a claim.

I don't actually hear "hundreds of millions" of "testimonies", either. I hear the occasional anecdote, some more convincing than others, none of which is checkable.

That was based on what Shermer said: About 2/3 of everyone in the US believe that they have had a psychic experience. And I already addressed the issue of reproducibility. This is just like ball lightning or "UFO" sightings. If it happens, it happens and then its over.

SGT is right. The number of claims in a case like this is irrelevant. I would, indeed, prefer 20 really solid reports to hundreds of millions of stories that could be people overreacting to coincidences and other stuff.

It is not irrelevant. It shows that the perception is that these experiences are common - first hand experience mind you. The certainly plays a role in evaluating any claim. What you and SGT mean is that this is not proof for psychic claims. I never said that it was.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Most scientists will tell you that anecdotal evidence is the lowest form of evidence in Science. But, as is unavoidably implied, it is still evidence. So then we consider how much evidence we have. It seems that if we could interview everyone in the world, the answer is that we have billions of testimonials. Here in the US, hundreds of millions.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Context? (I didn't see the show.) Perhaps he was trying to point out that many (most?) people have a belief in the supernatural (aside from mainstream religion)?

This was used in the context of superstitions and why people have them. The thing that I find objectionable is to use psychic experiences in the same context as having a fear of black cats, for example. A first hand experience goes far beyond some old wives tale. So context was exactly my objection. This is a error often made by the "skeptics" - lumping many subjects into one discussion so that we can generalize as much as possible - which is really meant to debunk due to personal beliefs but under the guise of skepticism. Now I' not saying Shermer is being dishonest, but I think his personal bias can blind his thinking. And because he is a "skeptic", the utterly failed logic is ignored by his fellow skeptics just as true believers ignore logical failures in their position.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Would you say that Shermer is helping or hurting the case for critical/skeptical thinking?

Name one person who claims to have a belief that is not based on an 'experience.'

I think the skeptics cloud the facts with personal biases just as do the true believers. Not only do skeptics like Shermer often try to discredit claims, no matter how compelling they may be, they also try make any such claim sound silly. It is also common to see the most difficult cases to explain go ignored. Skeptics are great at cherry picking, on this point however the true believers have a great advantage: they are entitled to cherry pick since they only have to be right once, but the skeptics don't get to cherry pick since they have to be right every time.

I think all sorts of people believe all kinds of crazy things for no reason whatsoever other than because someone said so.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I agree with what you're saying, Ivan and personally, I would really like to see more scientific exploration of potential psychic phenomena. Singularity of consciousness seems to be more of an assumption of science rather than a demonstrated fact. If things like ESP existed, it might have consequences for our interpretation of relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

[Vast]

I believe James Randi is willing to offer a “one-million dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.” I would say that Michael Shermer has every right to dismiss 200 million people who claim to posses psychic abilities.

Well, first of all, I am not using the appeal to the popularity. My point is that the claim is common.

Yes, you’re quite right about the phenomenon being common, but I think you’re missing a crucial point, these people have irrational or otherwise delusional beliefs, to say 200 million people can’t be wrong, is no argument at all, 200 million people can be wrong, and in this case they are, in other words they all have irrational, delusional beliefs – superstitions

this is a faith based reaction by those who don't want to believe that it could be true.

And here is this funny statement appearing again, ironically by another moderator. Does it occur to those who make such attacks on people who are skeptical of such claims that, we simply don’t have any evidence? We are not simply saying “We Don’t Want to Believe” we’re looking for evidence, that unfortunately never comes, and I’m afraid if you investigate from a psychological perspective, you’ll understand that it is more to do with a persons psychological makeup. To spell it out clearly; people fool themselves into believing they have psychic abilities, why? How? Pick up any womans magazine, or UFO magazine, flick through and look at how many adds there are for psychic hotlines, astrology, numerology etc. It’s a billion dollar industry, and they’re ripping off billions of people, not to mention screwing with they’re beliefs.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That is not proof or evidence against the claim either.

I'm not trying to disprove it.

But "maybe" doesn't count any more as proof against than it does as proof for a claim.

Again, I'm not trying to disprove it.

That was based on what Shermer said: About 2/3 of everyone in the US believe that they have had a psychic experience.

Which is a lot milder than saying there are 200 million "testimonies".

It is not irrelevant. It shows that the perception is that these experiences are common - first hand experience mind you. The certainly plays a role in evaluating any claim. What you and SGT mean is that this is not proof for psychic claims. I never said that it was.

No, the number is really irrelevant. In 1000 A.D. you could round up millions people who could give good faith testimony that the Earth is flat.

Or take Galileo: his one good claim that objects of different weight fall at the same rate backed by evidence, overturned thousands of other claims that heavier objects fall faster.

I realize you're not trying to prove psychic phenomena, but you're wrong about the weight that should be given to the number of claims in a case like this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Which is a lot milder than saying there are 200 million "testimonies".

That is what the survey concluded. 2/3 X 300,000,000 = 200,000,000

No, the number is really irrelevant. In 1000 A.D. you could round up millions people who could give good faith testimony that the Earth is flat.

This has nothing to do with direct experiences. Edit: sorry, I see where you were going here. This only speaks to the possibility that everyone is wrong, but it doesn't imply that they are.

Or take Galileo: his one good claim that objects of different weight fall at the same rate backed by evidence, overturned thousands of other claims that heavier objects fall faster.

I don't see what this has to do with the discussion... [edit] Okay trying again here, I think this has the same answer as the last question. All that any of this says is that 200,000,000 testimonials is not proof. We already established that fact.

I realize you're not trying to prove psychic phenomena, but you're wrong about the weight that should be given to the number of claims in a case like this.

What weight did I say they should be given? I simply stated that they exist and they can't be completely ignored. To ignore them outright for no reason other than because we don't want to believe it, has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with intellectual censorship based on personal bias.

------- Late Edits --------

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I believe James Randi is willing to offer a “one-million dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.” I would say that Michael Shermer has every right to dismiss 200 million people who claim to posses psychic abilities.

You obviously didn't read the posts. It helps to do that first. I already said that if it exists, psychic abilities are not easily controlled or available upon demand. ,

to say 200 million people can’t be wrong,

I didn't say that.

I wish some of you people would learn to read before posting.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another common tactic of the debunkers is to misquote anyone they disagree with. That way we get to argue all day long about something that was never said.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That is what the survey concluded. 2/3 X 300,000,000 = 200,000,000

Yes, which is still quite a bit weaker than "testimonies".

This has nothing to do with direct experiences.

Sure it does. You go out, have a look at the world around you, and your direct experience of it is that it's flat.

I don't see what this has to do with the discussion.

It addresses quality of testimony, rather than quantity.

What weight did I say they should be given?

This weight:

My point is that the claim is common. So it certainly possible that people are experiencing something inexplicable. Would you find it more compelling if only 20 people made such claims?

The commoness of the experience is equated with it being possible in your argument. You think that 20 claims would be less convincing.

Without arguing for or against the existence of psychic phenomena, SGT and I are just pointing out that the number of claims do not make it more possible. You are claiming that the more people who say they've had it, the more foolish it is for anyone to ignore it. That's not correct. As vast pointed out, it is quite faddish to believe in psychic stuff and there is, in fact, an industry fostering belief in it, so, in this case, the number of reports is irrelevant.

To ignore them outright for no reason other than because we don't want to believe it, has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with intellectual censorship based on personal bias.

I agree with this, but I don't think skeptics are ignoring the number of reports because they don't want to believe them. There is a long history of all kinds of psychic scams going back to ancient times that leave any thinking person...skeptical. You, yourself, don't believe in those TV guys who contact dead relatives, ot Uri Geller et al, yet you fail to make the connection with the millions who interpret coincidences and whatever as "psychic" experiences with having been primed to do so by these scam artists, and by popular culture in general.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, which is still quite a bit weaker than "testimonies".

Well, I see this as nitpicking since it was the point of the study to determine the truth about what people believe.

Sure it does. You go out, have a look at the world around you, and your direct experience of it is that it's flat.

See late edits to my last post.

It addresses quality of testimony, rather than quantity.

Again, late edits above

This weight:

The commoness of the experience is equated with it being possible in your argument. You think that 20 claims would be less convincing.

Without arguing for or against the existence of psychic phenomena, SGT and I are just pointing out that the number of claims do not make it more possible. You are claiming that the more people who say they've had it, the more foolish it is for anyone to ignore it. That's not correct. As vast pointed out, it is quite faddish to believe in psychic stuff and there is, in fact, an industry fostering belief in it, so, in this case, the number of reports is irrelevant.

There is a huge difference between events rare to the point of absurdity, and something believed to be true due to personal experience in a large percentage of the population. Strictly speaking, no doubt about it, the number of claims does not increase the chances that the beliefs are true, however it establishes as fact the most people believe that it's true. So one implication is that in fact psychic events are common. And no one is in position to say that everyone is wrong here, so the demand on science is of a social and not statistical nature. Science has a responsiblity to listen. There may not be much to be done, but denial based on personal bias is certainly not an option.

I agree with this, but I don't think skeptics are ignoring the number of reports because they don't want to believe them. There is a long history of all kinds of psychic scams going back to ancient times that leave any thinking person...skeptical. You, yourself, don't believe in those TV guys who contact dead relatives, ot Uri Geller et al, yet you fail to make the connection with the millions who interpret coincidences and whatever as "psychic" experiences with having been primed to do so by these scam artists, and by popular culture in general.

That is another issue all together. I agree completely that the scam artists are well targeted by the debunkers, but 2/3 of the country are not scam artists, yet the skeptics almost always fail to make this distinction. we are not talking about Cleo here, we are talking about your family, friends, and neighbors.

edit: These beliefs have been around a lot longer than Cleo.

 

[Vast]

Ivan, you said:

My point is that the claim is common. So it certainly possible that people are experiencing something inexplicable.

Once again, you’re implying that some people are experiencing something, implying that some may be legitimate, based solely on the phenomenon being common. Which is the same as saying 200 million people can’t be wrong. But wait a minute, you also said inexplicable, meaning that some of these people’s experiences are difficult to explain. Well sure, difficult for them to explain to themselves, take for example the situation used by zooby with the so called telepathic phone call, many people find that difficult to explain, but to many its nothing more than a coincidence. People do fool themselves very easily, and a situation similar, but a little bit more inexplicable, will no doubt convince a person they have psychic abilities.

Similarly, the difficulty you’re suggesting in reproducing these experiences, is I believe a bit over overrated. Wouldn’t you agree that a significant percentage of people receiving a phone call, just when they were thinking of that person, would convince themselves they might possesses psychic abilities? Wouldn’t this be something reproducible? I’m not hundred percent certain whether it is a reproducible experiment or not, and if you disagree, fine. But I seem to recall an experiment done which showed that out of hundreds of millions of people in one day, a significant percentage would indeed receive a phone call by those they were thinking of that very moment, law of large number or something I think it was.

The other major problem for psychic proponents, is that they have no theory of mechanism; how thoughts generated in one persons brain can transmit themselves out of their skull into another persons. Personally, my opinion along with most other scientists, is that there is no mechanism, there is no theory, in other words its simply not possible, which is quite different from the misconception that “we don’t want to believe” isn’t it? Its similar to how we would treat claims of someone levitating above the ground in India just say. Millions will tell you they’ve seen for themselves people levitate, and millions will tell you that levitation is possible, but we know that levitation is impossible, because it simply defies the laws of nature.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, you said:


Once again, you’re implying that some people are experiencing something, implying that some may be legitimate, based solely on the phenomenon being common. Which is the same as saying 200 million people can’t be wrong.

Well if you take a look at my last post, which I admit you probably haven't had the chance yet, I make this distinction clear. But I did go out of my way to say not only that this does not constitute proof, but also that anecdotal evidence is the lowest form of evidence.

But wait a minute, you also said inexplicable, meaning that some of these people’s experiences are difficult to explain. Well sure, difficult for them to explain to themselves, take for example the situation used by zooby with the so called telepathic phone call, many people find that difficult to explain, but to many its nothing more than a coincidence. People do fool themselves very easily, and a situation similar, but a little bit more inexplicable, will no doubt convince a person they have psychic abilities.

Or maybe not. That is just one possibility, but it also ignores the fact that not all claims are so vague. However, even if this were the only type of example, "maybe" is not proof either. Can you prove the statistics or only shoot from the hip and argue that this could be the correct explanation?

Similarly, the difficulty you’re suggesting in reproducing these experiences, is I believe a bit over overrated. Wouldn’t you agree that a significant percentage of people receiving a phone call, just when they were thinking of that person, would convince themselves they might possesses psychic abilities? Wouldn’t this be something reproducible? I’m not hundred percent certain whether it is a reproducible experiment or not, and if you disagree, fine. But I seem to recall an experiment done which showed that out of hundreds of millions of people in one day, a significant percentage would indeed receive a phone call by those they were thinking of that very moment, law of large number or something I think it was.

So how often does this happen? We don't know, do we? So we could just as well find that if we could measure for this, these events happen much more frequently than is statistically likely.

The other major problem for psychic proponents, is that they have no theory of mechanism;

We are getting hints from QM, but this doesn't matter. Casual observers are usually not scientists. And I have never said a thing about how this might be possible. But this is also a common error made by the skeptics and debunkers: They wish to assign the responsiblity for proof on everyone except scientists. Now that doesn't make much sense, does it? In other words, it is the position of science that you're lying or wrong about what you say happened, that is anyone and everyone, unless you can prove it?

how thoughts generated in one persons brain can transmit themselves out of their skull into another persons. Personally, my opinion along with most other scientists, is that there is no mechanism, there is no theory, in other words its simply not possible, which is quite different from the misconception that “we don’t want to believe” isn’t it?

So we should exclude any potential for new frontiers?

Its similar to how we would treat claims of someone levitating above the ground in India just say. Millions will tell you they’ve seen for themselves people levitate, and millions will tell you that levitation is possible, but we know that levitation is impossible, because it simply defies the laws of nature.

They were tricked. The fact that people can be tricked by con artists does not apply here except to say as I have already many times, everyone could be wrong, but that doesn't imply that they are all wrong.


I don't hear one skeptic admitting that people could be right about this. Now why is that? Do you see the bias here?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

To me the most important point of of all: To say that we shouldn't investigate or seriously consider any claim that we can't explain with our current physcial models is just about the defintion of being anti-science. Science is about exploration, not keeping things tidy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the correct answer to the question of psychic phenomena goes as follows: Presently there is no physical model to account for many claims of personal experience. We assume that statistical arguments, misperceptions, and logical errors account for many sincere claims, but it is not known that these explanations are correct in all cases, and none seem to be consistent with the detailed nature of some claimed experiences, so the question remains open unless new evidence is found. There is little or no scientific evidence that suggests that any such phenomenon exists.

The answer that I keep hearing is: No it can't be true.

Says who?

 

[Vast]

So how often does this happen? We don't know, do we? So we could just as well find that if we could measure for this, these events happen much more frequently than is statistically likely.

No, these events don’t happen more frequently than is statically likely, they happen very often precisely because of the law of large numbers. Law of large numbers

But this is also a common error made by the skeptics and debunkers: They wish to assign the responsiblity for proof on everyone except scientists. Now that doesn't make much sense, does it? In other words, it is the position of science that you're lying or wrong about what you say happened, that is anyone and everyone, unless you can prove it?

And this is not an error on our part. From a neurophysiology point of view the ability to transmit thoughts telepathically is just not possible. We know how neurons transmit information to neighboring neurons, we know there structure, there functions, and nothing! therein provides a mechanism to transmit information telepathically. What is meant to provide a theory of mechanism applies just as well to neuroscientist as it does to proponents of telepathy. But unlike the proponents of telepathy, neuroscientist know of no such mechanism, no possible way to send signals out of the brain other than using the know senses. This is why those who study parapsychology have NO theory whatsoever of mechanism even from a quantum mechanical position, which is a whole other area of misconception that the New Age seem to have adopted rife with quantum physics mumbo jumbo. And it is there responsibility to prove it, if you claim it you prove it!

So we should exclude any potential for new frontiers?

Parapsychology doesn’t come anywhere near new frontier, it remain a superstition as its always been.

I don't hear one skeptic admitting that people could be right about this. Now why is that? Do you see the bias here?

Yes, I admit to being biased, but you can hardly suggest that its because there’s no reason to be so, skeptic have every right to be biased with such claims, especially because there is overwhelming evidence to show that psychic phenomenon is not possible.

The answer that I keep hearing is: No it can't be true.

Who would you trust? Neuroscientist who study the brain and cognitive functions and have an authority on such matter. Or parapsychologists which don't do science and have no theory?

 

[somasimple]

Hi,

We know how neurons transmit information to neighboring neurons, we know there structure, there functions,

just no!

 

[Vast]

My point is that we know that neurons transmit information with neighboring neurons only, there’s nothing there to show that they propagate out of ones head into another persons.

I wasn't suggesting we know how the brain works completely.

 

[somasimple]

Hi,

My point is that we know that neurons transmit information with neighboring neurons only

That's true but we don't know what kind of information.

 

[Vast]

but we don't know what kind of information.

which is irrelevant because we’re talking about a mechanism by which neurons can transmit to other neurons in other peoples brains, understand?

 

[somasimple]

Irrelevant, not sure!

Vast,

it seems that your proposal is illogical.

If we do not know the functionning of a subsystem (how a neuron is sending information to its following?) thus the understanding of brains (neurons population/networks) speaking directly to other brains becomes not solvable.

if a complex system functions with components/sub-systems that you do not understand, you have no chance to understand the whole story! Right?

 

[SGT]

You obviously didn't read the posts. It helps to do that first. I already said that if it exists, psychic abilities are not easily controlled or available upon demand. ,

If psychic abilities didn't infringe known laws of nature, I could agree with you. But telepathy is independent of distance, while gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclear interactions are all distance dependent. So, you must assume an effect still unknown by science to accept its possibility.
Clairvoyance infringe the principle of causality. To see events in the future implies in backwards time travel of information.
Psychokinesis infringes the Law of Conservation of Energy. Work is done without expenditure of energy.
I can only believe our present knowledge of physics is wrong if some controlled experiment shows it. Anecdotes will not change my mind,

 

[somasimple]

I agree,

Psychic skills are often reflexions of intuition and innate knowledge of human behaviour. It remains in the court of known Sciences.

 

[SGT]

Vast,

it seems that your proposal is illogical.

If we do not know the functionning of a subsystem (how a neuron is sending information to its following?) thus the understanding of brains (neurons population/networks) speaking directly to other brains becomes not solvable.

if a complex system functions with components/sub-systems that you do not understand, you have no chance to understand the whole story! Right?

What do you mean by not knowing the functioning of a subsystem? We know that neurons send information to their neighbors by chemical reactions. Can you envisage a means for a chemical reaction to process at distance?

 

[somasimple]

We know that neurons send information to their neighbors by chemical reactions.

Yes, it is true, neurons uses neurotransmitters but we do not know the rules used with them. BTW, there is neurons connected with gap junctions which are certainly speaking another language

Can you envisage a means for a chemical reaction to process at distance?

yes, pheromons. (just kiddin') And also body postures, facial expression... There is many non verbal communication between people.

 

[Vast]

If we do not know the functionning of a subsystem (how a neuron is sending information to its following?) thus the understanding of brains (neurons population/networks) speaking directly to other brains becomes not solvable.

The understanding of the brain is known quite well to a certain extent. In context to the discussion, neurons send signals to one another using electrical impulses which can be seen using an electroencephalogram (EEG)

The EEG can record patterns of electrical activity which correspond to different states such as sleep, eye movement etc. But an EEG has a poor spatial resolution because electrodes are placed on the head, generally about forty or so. Thus activity in the brain is reduced to about an inch or across.

A Positron emission tomography (PET) is a more precise technique, a person is injected with a radioactive chemical that travels through the bloodstream and into the brain. When a neuron sends a signal to another neuron, it causes blood to flow to different parts of the brain, this is then imaged which can produce a three dimensional model of the brain. A PET scan has a resolution of about 1 cm across.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) on the other hand is a much better technique for looking at what’s happening in the brain. It can pinpoint activity to an area of about 2mm. It can be used to see which parts of the brain are active when we recall a memory, or recognizing a face for example.

yes, pheromons. (just kiddin') And also body postures, facial expression... There is many non verbal communication between people.

Verbal communication is not the only communication remember. One of the other senses is sight, and unfortunately body language and facial expression require a person to see such expression.

 

[somasimple]

Well Vast,

I may say that neuron is one of my old horses...

The understanding of the brain is known quite well to a certain extent.

No, the activity of brain is well seen but remains quite unknown.

neurons send signals to one another using electrical impulses which can be seen using an electroencephalogram (EEG)

No, neurons use ionic solitons that may seen as electrical spikes by electrical units (inappropriate apparatuses) but messages remain ionic flows which are not decyphered. EEG sees compound messages that do not relate if they are activating or inhibitions... EEG do not see neurotransmitters.

Thus activity in the brain is reduced to about an inch or across.

Ditto, activity is not information neither understanding just observations.

PET has the same limitations and fMRI too, you see neurons that are working but that's all.

BTW, a cube of 2 mm side contains... millions neurons

At last, a colored image shows an area that is working but I can't take my colours and translate them to a comprehensive human thing.

 

[SGT]

Yes, it is true, neurons uses neurotransmitters but we do not know the rules used with them. BTW, there is neurons connected with gap junctions which are certainly speaking another language

We do not know the rules, but we can be quite sure that neurons can't propagate information at a distance. The gap between two firing neurons is quite small.

yes, pheromons. (just kiddin') And also body postures, facial expression... There is many non verbal communication between people.

I am glad you are kidding. Pheromones can communicate very basic informations like: Get out of my territory! or I want to mate with you! or You can find food this way. , but nothing complex. Anyway the recipient of the information must have physical contact with the molecules of the pheromone.
Body and facial language can be used for transmitting information. Animals are very good at it. Most of the anecdotes of human-animal telepathy can be explained by body language. The most famous case was the horse named Clever Hans, who could read imperceptible clues transmitted by his owner.
In an ancient episode of the Simpsons, little Maggie was considered a genius because she could read clues given unknowingly by her sister Lisa. But, as Vast said, there must exist visual contact between receiver and sender to make body language work.