Hi
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Rick Adams wrote:
> Not that I necessarily support Schwartz' "research" or
> opinions (I don't have the primary source material in front
> of me to evaluate objectively),
Should we be teaching students that they should/must remain
agnostic on certain issues unless they can examine the original
source material for themselves and must make themselves experts
in any domain that they wish to promote some opinion about? I
don't think so. Indeed I think that this would be a road to
disaster for any discipline that wanted to have some impact on
the wider world. It is simply impossible for us as faculty to
evaluate every piece of potential evidence and idea for even
small areas of our discipline (witness the debates on this list).
How can we expect that students and other consumers of
psychological knowledge will obtain the requisite skills and
information? But lack of specific knowledge should not prevent
people learning to differentiate likely-nonsense from
possibly-not-nonsense with respect to human behaviour. With
respect to the present topic of discussion, for example,
Schwartz's work is completely extraordinary given all the
previous efforts to evaluate mediums and other parapsychological
phenomena. It is extremely improbable that mediums could
function as well as Schwartz is claiming without any prior
researcher having been able to produce this effect in an
unquestionable manner. Schwartz has also put himself squarely in
the camp of the alternative [pseudo-]sciences (e.g., homeopathy,
energy psychology).
> but isn't it rather interesting to note that the responses to claims of
> "after death" communications have been 100% skeptical here in TIPS (with
> Jim's message the most erudite of the responses so far) while responses to
> the concept that a supernatural being exists who "created" the earth are
> treated with respect and some measure of acceptance? Maybe I'm
> unreasonable, but I can FAR more easily accept the concept of telepathy
> (which, ultimately, is what the depicted research was examining as the
> subjects were present and had the correct information available to them)
> than I can the concept that some kind of a "super Santa Claus" exists who
> is watching all the time to see if I've been "good or bad" before giving
> me my presents. If claims of psychic or "spiritualistic" phenomenon are of
> value to us as teachers only for the purpose of demonstrating bad research
> or faulty conclusions, it would seem that creationism or the concept of a
> deity should enjoy the same role in our classrooms.
A large part of the New Yorker essay that provoked this
discussion was addressed to this "privileged" status of religion
in North America (especially the USA ... but I would say the
same is pretty much true in Canada). At least in Schwartz's
case, it appears that there might be some relationship in his
mind between parapsychological effects and supernatural effects
of the religious kind.
> Rick <--waiting for the stroke of lightening . . .
Depends on whether the supreme being you are questioning is prone
towards punishment (i.e., striking you with lightning) or
education (i.e., [en]lightening you).
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
