Richard Dawkins Going After Faith Healers

[phyzmatix]

Showing the validity of A is the primary responsibility of those who think that Phenomenon A is valid.

Which brings us yet again to Ivan's question. If proving the validity of A is the responsibility of the claimant, what proof would be acceptable to the skeptics?

 

[ZapperZ]

Which brings us yet again to Ivan's question. If proving the validity of A is the responsibility of the claimant, what proof would be acceptable to the skeptics?

There is no way to answer this without knowing the nature of Phenomenon A.

Homeopathy claims need to be tested under standard double-blind clinical trials (which I believe has been done with negative results). Psychic claims need to be tested under controlled environment AND with other subject that do not claim to be psychics as the control group. Etc... etc.

But even this still will not be sufficient because these effects can be small. This is not the problem, because in physics, we are familiar with looking for a needle in a haystack. Once we find some evidence of what to look and where to look, we aim in into that phase space and improve our detection/observation. So if there is some evidence of someone being possibly psychic, then more rigorous tests must be done to improve the degree of certainty. Again, this is what is done in science. In other words, it is a continuous process, from discovery, to refinement of the discovery, and then on to the mechanism responsible for the discovery, i.e. the cause and effect. It is not just one thing, it is a process.

Zz.

 

[dx]

The scientist seems to demand that anything real be reproducible in the lab.

No, science doesn't demand that. Astronomy and Cosmology are real sciences, but their objects of study are never produced in a lab.

 

[phyzmatix]

There is no way to answer this without knowing the nature of Phenomenon A.

Homeopathy claims need to be tested under standard double-blind clinical trials (which I believe has been done with negative results). Psychic claims need to be tested under controlled environment AND with other subject that do not claim to be psychics as the control group. Etc... etc.

But even this still will not be sufficient because these effects can be small. This is not the problem, because in physics, we are familiar with looking for a needle in a haystack. Once we find some evidence of what to look and where to look, we aim in into that phase space and improve our detection/observation. So if there is some evidence of someone being possibly psychic, then more rigorous tests must be done to improve the degree of certainty. Again, this is what is done in science. In other words, it is a continuous process, from discovery, to refinement of the discovery, and then on to the mechanism responsible for the discovery, i.e. the cause and effect. It is not just one thing, it is a process.

Thanks for that Zz, you're making a very valid point and it pains me to admit that I haven't considered the problem in this particular light before. And so we learn

 

[seycyrus]

Wouldn't you say that your reasoning closely resembles an argument of "guilty until proven innocent"? (In law, the accused doesn't have to provide evidence of his/her innocence. In fact, it's exactly the other way around).

Guilt and innocence are not being discussed here and are not analagous to the positions of skeptic and claimant.

Surely "innocent until proven guilty" does not imply "all things are true until proven untrue".

Furthermore, your argument cuts both ways. If the onus is on the claimant to define the nature of the evidence, this allows the skeptic an infinite number of loopholes in which to retreat when faced with "proof".

If the skeptic performs the experiment or analyzes the data in aquiesence with the claimaints definition, such a retreat would be immediately revealed as deception on his part.

We are considering both claimain and skeptic to be honest.

 

[Count Iblis]

Is there much point?
You aren't going to convince the practioners; the ones that are crooks arent' going to admit it and the idiots aren't going to understand.
As for the general believers - if they understood statistics, clinical trials and the scientific method they wouldn't believe in this junk anyway.
Is it a worthwhile crusade or just a publicity stunt/ego trip fro the author?

What is needed is nore science education in primary and secondary school. The argument why homeopathy cannot work should be as much common knowledge of why your car can't run on water. In booth cases you cannot expect lay people to know about the preciuse argument based on fundamental physics. But in case of a car that can allegedly run on water, the average lay person knows that this is not plausible based on what he/she does know about how cars work.

With a little more science education, we can get people to reject things like faith healing out of hand too.

 

[seycyrus]

seycyrus, your post is littered with strawmen, so I'll limit my response to the less ridiculous attempts at reason.

Right.

Are you a scientist? Do you know what a falsifiable theory is? Please demonstrate how a theory can be falsifiable if aspects of the theory are not defined.

Which studies can be done to create aspects of ball lightning?

Which aspect would you care to discuss?

That was exactly Ivan's point: It can't be reproduced in a lab, so other than

Aspects of ball lightning can.

anecdotal evidence (I'm no ball lightning guru so I speak under correction here)

At this point, you haven't even demonstrated that you are a "casual reader" of ball lightning.

there is no hard and fast evidence for the phenomenon and therefore it falls in the same category as "ghosts" (from a proven/disproven point of view

I accept your statement that you believe that the experimental evidence for ball lighting is equivalent to the experimental evidence for ghosts. I also extend my sympathies.

Oh hogwash! How do you "analyse ghost sightings

In the same manner that sightings of ball lightning were analyzed.

And on what grounds do you clump this fictional analysis together as hallucinations?

Hallucinations are a verified product of various conditions. I believe I showed the logic behind my reasoning.

This is no answer, you're still side-stepping the question.

I am elucidating the situation and and demonstrating that the exact requirements that we require for scientific inquiry should be used for "paranormal" inquiry.

I'm sorry if it offends you.

Have the cojones to state what would convince you as the skeptic of the validity of my claim if I (for the sake of this argument) had observed/experienced some non-physical phenomena.

Something more than people saying "I saw something. It was a ghost." People see things in the hospital, on desert islands, in the arctic etc., all the time. Hallucinations are a documented reality. Certainly you would not claim that all hallucinations are ghosts. Since you are playing the part of skeptic, what separates your ghost sighting from documented hallucinations?

If you cannot understand the necessity of defining what we are talking about AND the necessity of the claimaint and skeptic agreeing upon terms, then this discussion is ended.

If you would like to be more civil please be my guest. Perhaps you became riled at me do to some other postings.

 

[seycyrus]

No, however he is no position to say the claims aren't true either.

You do not going around believing everything everyone says, simply because you have not performed the experiment yourself, and are not in "a position to do so". It is ridiculous to make such an assertion.

As for me, I'm not the one denouncing the claims made. I'm not the one demanding evidence when even I can't define what would be acceptable

However you are the one who is accepting a theory that does not meet the same criteria that you apply to other investigations.

Call the Ghost Busters. Watch the videos. Not acceptable?

No, me watching a video is not acceptable. Certainly not. I believe the ghost busters carry some sort of monitoring equipment. I'd like a record of their logs, please.

Then go out with them.

If I saw something, what would that prove. I saw kitten in my office yesterday, it turned outto be a brown paper bag. I am not so arrogant to believe that I am not susceptible to hallucinations or misconstructions on what I see/saw.

I don't know if the are faking it or not. Also, there is an organization that includes many scientists that has investigated this stuff for over a century.

I'd like to see their hard data.

I also wonder about their criteria for judging whether somethign is a "legitimate" paranormal activity, v.s. a hoax. We do accept that people make things up right? How do these scientists differentiate between the two?

http://www.spr.ac.uk/expcms/index.php?section=41

Not scientific enough? Of course not. What science journal would publish such things? It is circular logic at work again.

I'll have to look into that.

Where did I say scientific standards should be changed?

By requiring the skeptic to disprove the claimaint, you are applying a different set of standars than used in virtually every scientific field.

I know that. Everyone knows that. So what evidence could be used in its place?

Do claimants claim that they can moitor paranormal activity through other non-visual means?
How about a a correlation between that and visual observances? How about one guy holding the scope where he can't see the other guy ...[/QUOTE]

That has no bearing on whether a claim is true or not.

I never claimed it did. I claim that we should use the same set of criteria across the board.

Again, you are forgetting that the challenge was to post evidence for unreal things. I am simply asking how one is supposed to do that.

Err, I wasn't responding to your challenge. Rather I introduced myself into the thread by asking about on which party lies the onus.

They do. Try learning about the subject before jumping to conclusions.

Where's the data?

What have you studied wrt this subject?

With respect to the standards of scientific theory? Quite alot.

That is not an answer. You are being a smart *** which only shows that you have no answer.

Oh I see. You don't have to answer any questions. Only *I* do?

My answer demonstrated a concept. One that you will not address.

I am saying the even if a scientists claims to have good field date, no mainstream journal is going to publish it.

That sounds very much like a conspiracy theory.

Anyway, show me the field data. Not just a claim of field data. I can guarantee that provided data that showed a strong correlation, people would take notice.

Okay, so field data is not acceptable and no one can get published. What next?.

I didn't say anything that would suport either of those conclusions.

Show me the evidence for ball lighting. Show how this differs from the evidence for ghost reports. You are making a false claim.

You are making a false challenge. You know very well that for any evidence that I produce that supports the conclusion that ball lightning is a form of lighting, you will claim "that's not an example of real ball lightning".

I'll be posting some links in a moment, after I dig though my cabinet. I hope you can read Russian, because some of these papers are translated.

And by the way, we have no idea what ball lighting may be. What people have produced in the lab only vaguely resembles the phenomena reported over the centuries.

We've got a good idea, thank you.

How many centuries have you been talking to people?

 

[phyzmatix]

Unsubstantiated claims, sweeping generalisations, more strawmen etc etc

ZapperZ stepped in and did a very decent job at clarifying the issue at hand so your opinions are no longer of interest to me. Thanks though for playing and have a good day.

 

[seycyrus]

ZapperZ stepped in and did a very decent job at clarifying the issue at hand so your opinions are no longer of interest to me. Thanks though for playing and have a good day.

Too bad you you felt the need to speak strongly on a subject in which you were confused.

Let me know if I can educate you further in the future.

 

[seycyrus]

"Microwave generation of stable atmospheric-pressure fireballs in air" Karl D. Stephan, Physical Review E 74, November 2006

"Fireball Ejection from a Molten Hot Spot to Air by Localized Microwaves" Vladimir Dikhhyar and Eli Jerby, PRL 96 20006

"An Observation of Synthetic Ball Lightning" Igor Alexeff et al., IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol 33 No. 2 April 2005

"Spherical Plasmoids Formed upon the Combustion and Explosion of Nanostructured Hydrated Silicon" S.K. Lazarouk et al., JETP Letters 2006, Vol 84, No. 11

I've got a few more in hand and could go on, but this should be sufficient for a start.