Re: [tips] Silly season for psychic psychology?
JC: "I'm not sure how people claiming scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena …" Well, I think you switched "claiming an ability" with "claiming scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena". Mediums don't claim to have scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena (SP). Indeed, I don't think believers in SP care about scientific evidence with regard to SP at all. This does not mean they are irrational, just that they think, rightly, that science cannot investigate such matters. Nevertheless, most scientists (and people like Alcock) point to a general lack of evidence for SP. But, perhaps such people should recall that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. JC: I'm not sure how Michael got from educating people about "concepts that are questionable" to "force," Well, I got to it from Beth's response to the original comment which was: " I guess one concern could be that discrediting claims of scientific contact with the supernatural plane might only serve to undermine further people's beliefs." Which means to me that Beth's response could be paraphrased that it should be a goal to undermine people's beliefs. Which has a "subversive, forceful" quality about it. Apologies to Beth if this interpretation is in error. JC's other comments here (e.g. "continental drift is absurd") have nothing to do with SP. JC: "Michael's view would suggest that anytime there is a difference of views in the scientific literature…" etc. I find it curious that JC consistently uses examples from the physical sciences, which are the true sciences, in an attempt, perhaps, to put psychological results on the same sure footing. So I think that JC's statement: "a difference of views in the scientific literature" is misleading here. Results from psychological studies do not carry as much weight in certainty as results reported in the scientific literature of the physical sciences. Results from psychological studies are much less certain than results from the physical sciences and so are much more open to interpretation and debate. --Mike On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Jim Clark wrote: > Hi > > James M. Clark > Professor of Psychology > 204-786-9757 > 204-774-4134 Fax > j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca > Michael Smith 14-Jan-11 8:50 AM >>> > Jim Clark wrote: > ... > "Indeed one of the ironies, perhaps, of claiming such an ability is > that it brings the whole area of the "beyond" under scientific > purview..." > Perhaps, but not really. Such claims do not bring the "beyond" within > scientific purview at all. > > JC: I'm not sure how people claiming scientific evidence for > supernatural phenomena (e.g., precognition, esp, ...) can avoid bringing > the area under scientific scrutiny. Is Michael saying that the claimed > evidence is irrelevant to the belief, is beyond criticism, or what? I > suspect he is correct in the sense that most true believers are never > going to accept contrary evidence. > > MS Continued: > Beth wrote: > "Why would that be a concern? It seems to me that should be a goal. > At least, with the caveat that they begin to disbelieve concepts that > are questionable from a scientific/rational viewpoint." > I wonder why it should be a goal to try to force people to abandon > their beliefs? > Not only that, but especially if one is substituting a limited, > narrow, scientistic set of beliefs about the world. > > JC: I'm not sure how Michael got from educating people about "concepts > that are questionable" to "force," nor how a scientific world view is > limited and narrow given the broad range of phenomena it subsumes. Does > Michael advocate people retaining beliefs like: humans and dinosaurs > walked the world at the same time, continental drift is absurd, humans > do not have similar DNA to other organisms, ...? > > MS continued: > With regard to Joan's comment... > I need only point to the peer-reviewed journal article of Bem's. > Apparently Bem, the people of the journal, and the reviewers don't > share your view. > And they are "scientists" and know all about the scientific method. > (Of course, that's assuming psychology is a science which is > debatable). > > Why should I believe your version of *psychological science* and > not > Bem's, or the reviewers? > > JC: Putting aside the dig about psychology as science (advocated on > Michael's department homepage) being debatable, Michael's view would > suggest that anytime there is a difference of views in the scientific > literature, one is free to choose whichever view one prefers, > irrespective of the weight of the evidence. One "flat earther" counts > just as much as all the contrary evidence. Alcock's response, posted by > others here, documents the sorry history of "breakthroughs" in > parapsychological research. Moreover, it will be interesting to find > out (if we ever do) exactly how the paper came to be accepted. Were > reviewers bending over backwards in a misguided effort to be fair? Were > they naive about the sp
Re: [tips] Silly season for psychic psychology?
Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca >>> Michael Smith 14-Jan-11 8:50 AM >>> Jim Clark wrote: ... "Indeed one of the ironies, perhaps, of claiming such an ability is that it brings the whole area of the "beyond" under scientific purview..." Perhaps, but not really. Such claims do not bring the "beyond" within scientific purview at all. JC: I'm not sure how people claiming scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena (e.g., precognition, esp, ...) can avoid bringing the area under scientific scrutiny. Is Michael saying that the claimed evidence is irrelevant to the belief, is beyond criticism, or what? I suspect he is correct in the sense that most true believers are never going to accept contrary evidence. MS Continued: Beth wrote: "Why would that be a concern? It seems to me that should be a goal. At least, with the caveat that they begin to disbelieve concepts that are questionable from a scientific/rational viewpoint." I wonder why it should be a goal to try to force people to abandon their beliefs? Not only that, but especially if one is substituting a limited, narrow, scientistic set of beliefs about the world. JC: I'm not sure how Michael got from educating people about "concepts that are questionable" to "force," nor how a scientific world view is limited and narrow given the broad range of phenomena it subsumes. Does Michael advocate people retaining beliefs like: humans and dinosaurs walked the world at the same time, continental drift is absurd, humans do not have similar DNA to other organisms, ...? MS continued: With regard to Joan's comment... I need only point to the peer-reviewed journal article of Bem's. Apparently Bem, the people of the journal, and the reviewers don't share your view. And they are "scientists" and know all about the scientific method. (Of course, that's assuming psychology is a science which is debatable). Why should I believe your version of *psychological science* and not Bem's, or the reviewers? JC: Putting aside the dig about psychology as science (advocated on Michael's department homepage) being debatable, Michael's view would suggest that anytime there is a difference of views in the scientific literature, one is free to choose whichever view one prefers, irrespective of the weight of the evidence. One "flat earther" counts just as much as all the contrary evidence. Alcock's response, posted by others here, documents the sorry history of "breakthroughs" in parapsychological research. Moreover, it will be interesting to find out (if we ever do) exactly how the paper came to be accepted. Were reviewers bending over backwards in a misguided effort to be fair? Were they naive about the specific problems associated with the paradigms? Were they aware of and unduly influenced by Bem's fame? Take care Jim --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7893 or send a blank email to leave-7893-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Silly season for psychic psychology?
Jim Clark wrote: "Personally, I believe that Stephen's posting is quite appropriate given the subject matter." It’s not the subject matter which matters. It’s the people who share those beliefs. And yet TIPSTERs apparently get upset when their belief that proper decorum should be observed on this listerv is violated. How hypocritical...but not unexpected. "Indeed one of the ironies, perhaps, of claiming such an ability is that it brings the whole area of the "beyond" under scientific purview..." Perhaps, but not really. Such claims do not bring the "beyond" within scientific purview at all. Beth wrote: "Why would that be a concern? It seems to me that should be a goal. At least, with the caveat that they begin to disbelieve concepts that are questionable from a scientific/rational viewpoint." I wonder why it should be a goal to try to force people to abandon their beliefs? Not only that, but especially if one is substituting a limited, narrow, scientistic set of beliefs about the world. With regard to Joan's comment... I need only point to the peer-reviewed journal article of Bem's. Apparently Bem, the people of the journal, and the reviewers don't share your view. And they are "scientists" and know all about the scientific method. (Of course, that's assuming psychology is a science which is debatable). Why should I believe your version of “psychological science” and not Bem's, or the reviewers? --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7891 or send a blank email to leave-7891-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Silly season for psychic psychology?
Hi I should have stated "one concern FOR BELIEVERS" ... Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca >>> Beth Benoit 12-Jan-11 8:49:59 AM >>> Jim Clark posted: " I guess one concern could be that discrediting claims of scientific contact with the supernatural plane might only serve to undermine further people's beliefs." Why would that be a concern? It seems to me that should be a goal. At least, with the caveat that they begin to disbelieve concepts that are questionable from a scientific/rational viewpoint. I think this is the goal of our critical thinking classes. Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=7861 or send a blank email to leave-7861-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7873 or send a blank email to leave-7873-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Silly season for psychic psychology?
Wow, I'm with Jim and Stephen on this one. Some times there is not a reasonable alternative perspective, as per the existence of ESP as well as the very tragic history of the vaccine leads to autism scam. For both of these stories, there is little room for what Michael refers to as the "scientific attitude," as both of these perspectives have been shown to be scientifically fraudulent over and over and over; i.e. innumerable times. So of course those of us with an understanding of valid scientific methodology become angry and and use irony and ridicule as we see how they reveal how poorly these stories are covered by the media and how little understanding the media and public understand what it means to have valid scientific proof for a theory. And now we have to battle not only so-called lay folks but our own psychological journals. It's so very frustrating and demoralizing. Joan jwarm...@oakton.edu > Hi > > Personally, I believe that Stephen's posting is quite appropriate given > the subject matter. But putting my naturalistic biases aside, I would > assume that even believers in a supernatural realm would have some issue > with claims that certain people are able to communicate with the deceased > (or whatever immaterial elements are left of them). Indeed one of the > ironies, perhaps, of claiming such an ability is that it brings the whole > area of the "beyond" under scientific purview, whereas large numbers of > believers appear to prefer that the two domains remain separate (i.e., > Gould's separate magisteria). I guess one concern could be that > discrediting claims of scientific contact with the supernatural plane > might only serve to undermine further people's beliefs. > > Take care > Jim > > James M. Clark > Professor of Psychology > 204-786-9757 > 204-774-4134 Fax > j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca > Michael Smith 11-Jan-11 9:49:02 PM >>> > In reading your post, it seems as though your posting is riddled with > sarcasm, ridicule, and a-priori assumption. > > > When reading it, a scientific attitude is not what comes to mind. > > > --Mike > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=7848 > or send a blank email to > leave-7848-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: jwarm...@oakton.edu. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752d0d&n=T&l=tips&o=7850 > or send a blank email to > leave-7850-49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7871 or send a blank email to leave-7871-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Silly season for psychic psychology?
On 11 Jan 2011 at 22:49, Michael Smith wrote: > In reading your post, it seems as though your posting is riddled with > sarcasm, ridicule, and a-priori assumption. Thanks! I was worried that perhaps my post had been too subtle for people to notice. > When reading it, a scientific attitude is not what comes to mind. My scientific attitude ends where the claims for the supernatural begin. Besides, I'm allergic to ectoplasm. Stephen Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca - --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7864 or send a blank email to leave-7864-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Silly season for psychic psychology?
Jim Clark posted: " I guess one concern could be that discrediting claims of scientific contact with the supernatural plane might only serve to undermine further people's beliefs." Why would that be a concern? It seems to me that should be a goal. At least, with the caveat that they begin to disbelieve concepts that are questionable from a scientific/rational viewpoint. I think this is the goal of our critical thinking classes. Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7861 or send a blank email to leave-7861-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Silly season for psychic psychology?
Hi Personally, I believe that Stephen's posting is quite appropriate given the subject matter. But putting my naturalistic biases aside, I would assume that even believers in a supernatural realm would have some issue with claims that certain people are able to communicate with the deceased (or whatever immaterial elements are left of them). Indeed one of the ironies, perhaps, of claiming such an ability is that it brings the whole area of the "beyond" under scientific purview, whereas large numbers of believers appear to prefer that the two domains remain separate (i.e., Gould's separate magisteria). I guess one concern could be that discrediting claims of scientific contact with the supernatural plane might only serve to undermine further people's beliefs. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca >>> Michael Smith 11-Jan-11 9:49:02 PM >>> In reading your post, it seems as though your posting is riddled with sarcasm, ridicule, and a-priori assumption. When reading it, a scientific attitude is not what comes to mind. --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=7848 or send a blank email to leave-7848-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7850 or send a blank email to leave-7850-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Silly season for psychic psychology?
In reading your post, it seems as though your posting is riddled with sarcasm, ridicule, and a-priori assumption. When reading it, a scientific attitude is not what comes to mind. --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7848 or send a blank email to leave-7848-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
