Jim wrote:
> 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?
Far from it.
On the other hand, what is appropriate for a student isn't necessarily
appropriate for a professor.
While I wouldn't expect an undergrad student to withhold an extended
opinion until s/he had examined the original sources, I _would_ expect a
graduate student to do so--wouldn't you???
> 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).
Here, we agree.
OTOH, what we tend to see in the list when _controversial_ issues are
raised concerning research is either a highly skeptical (bordering on
ridicule at times) appraisal or complete acceptance--often based on the
agreement of the "research" with their own religious beliefs.
Obviously, we--as professionals and educators--cannot criticize one set
of opinions as being essentially "supernatural mumbo-jumbo" while
simultaneously claiming that another equally--or more--improbable set of
claims is NOT supernatural mumbo-jumbo but is a legitimate subject of
inquiry and should be treated as potentially true.
In other words, if we choose to validate creationism in any manner
whatever, we have an equal obligation to validate such spiritual beliefs
as spiritualism, etc. Michael Sylvester often accuses us of being
Euro-centric, and as most people here know, I tend to disagree with that
view. But in the case of Christianity and it's claims there IS a very real
element of Euro-centricity involved. Ask a Buddhist psychologist, for
example, if claims of a supreme being who watches our every movement and
who created the world in six very "waffled" days is even slightly more
probable than the concept that a person can accurately provide information
about the deceased relatives of a stranger and you _won't_ get the same
kind of response you would get in 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 behavior.
True--but by that standard the concepts outlined in the Christian Bible
are at least as easily viewed as "likely-nonsense" as any view of
Schwartz--the entire point of my post.
> 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.
Two points:
1. There is no intrinsic reason one researcher would be unable to achieve
a result which eluded others; look at Teller's and Sakarov's [sp?] work
with the Fusion bomb--they succeeded at a time that all other researchers
had made it clear that it couldn't be done.
2. Simply because Schwartz' results supported his hypothesis doesn't make
that hypothesis the correct explanation. For example, he assumes that the
mediums were "talking to the spirits of the dead," where in fact he may
have actually been testing for telepathy in that ALL the information they
revealed was available to the subjects who were related to the "spirits."
Previous research by most others focused on revealing information known
only to the deceased, a completely different criteria (simply because I
can demonstrate that it is possible to teach a pigeon to turn in a circle
and peck a bar for food does NOT mean that the pigeon can also be taught
to eat with a fork!).
> Schwartz has also put himself squarely in
> the camp of the alternative [pseudo-]sciences (e.g., homeopathy,
> energy psychology).
True.
But to draw negative conclusions by that standard we must:
1. Prove that none of the "pseudo-sciences" have any validity--where in
fact many of the more "naturopathic" treatments are now being recognized
by Oncologists and Hepatologists (among others) as having legitimate
scientific validity (e.g., seen the studies on Milk Thistle or Gingko
Baloba?).
2. Apply the same standard to ALL researchers: i.e., a researcher who
puts him-/her-self squarely in the camp of Christians or any other
religious group that believes in supernatural beings should be viewed with
at least as much skepticism as one who believes in homeopathy.
> 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.
Again, his interpretation of the _reason_ for his results may well be
skewed by his belief in supernatural events while another, objective,
researcher may see the same results as indicative of a successful
parapsychological experiment.
A close parallel would be the research that has been done on the effect
of prayer on ill subjects. If the researcher believes in a religion that
teaches prayer s/he is likely to credit the prayer itself with the effect,
while if s/he is an atheist or a member of a religion which does NOT
credit prayer with "magical" properties, s/he is far more likely to
interpret the results in terms of the additional attention paid to the
subject or to a placebo effect. Yet we accept the integrity of the
researchers who conduct this research while discounting those, such as
Schwartz, whose biases lead to a different set of potentially inaccurate
conclusions.
> > 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).
Name a _single_ religion that worships a deity that does NOT include
punishment as one of it's primary responses. To the best of my knowledge,
the religions that emphasize enlightenment (Buddhism, which HAS no deity,
excluded) _also_ emphasize arbitrary moralities that include "divine"
punishment for those who disagree with them. In the case of the
Judeo-Christian religions (including Islam, of course) punishment is
emphasized to a FAR greater degree than enlightenment and while
"forgiveness" is part of Christian theology (but not necessarily that of
Islam or the Jewish faith, particularly in their orthodox or
fundamentalist forms), it is reserved for those who capitulate to the
religion and accept its values without reservation--while the primary
thrust is STILL one of scaring people into submission (demonstrated most
clearly by the Inquisition--or the genocide of the people of Sodom if a
Biblical example is needed).
And so far the lightening hasn't struck--although we DID get an
unseasonable snowstorm yesterday--a warning? :-)
Rick
PS
Believe it or not, I DO respect the deeply religious individual, and I
respect the beliefs of all religions.
What I _don't_ respect is the individual who insists that because S/HE
believes in something it has to be pushed down the throats of others (as
in teaching creationism in the public schools--I notice that
fundamentalist churches aren't willing to do their part and teach
evolution in their Sunday schools in return), treated as being
"scientifically sound," or given special consideration because they DO
believe in it. A good example: in this list several people have supported
the discussion of creationism in the classroom--yet NONE has either
suggested that it be treated as mythology (a la Joseph Campbell) or asked
WHICH creation story is the appropriate one (each religion has it's own
creation myths--none even slightly more probable than any other).
A college classroom--theological, philosophical, and historical classes
excepted of course--is not the appropriate place to present religious
views or teachings; that role belongs to the Churches and other religious
organizations. In a psychology classroom the rational question is not
whether the Earth was created by some supernatural entity 6,000 years
ago--but rather what forms of socialization or mental disorders would lead
someone to _accept_ such a concept in the first place. If it were a
non-religious belief, the discussion would focus on thought disorders--the
fact that it is a religious one shouldn't influence that a bit.
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
