Hi
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Rick Adams wrote:
> 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???
Not at all. How does one go about teaching about all of those
topics for which we hardly ever get a chance to read the original
articles.
> > 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.
But many topics that are presented as though they were
controversial are in fact largely resolved as far as the
empirical data and theoretical models are concerned. Yet they
somehow continue to be presented as though they still deserve
consideration.
> 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.
I don't recall making any such claim.
> > 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.
I would certainly put them in the same camp, except that I
suspect relatively few Christians would claim that they could
bring a corpse into the lab and have the person brought back
to life on demand. Schwartz is not only making extraordinary
claims about the supernatural, but also about his ability to
produce such effects in the lab.
> > 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.
Two points. (1) I assume there were some technical issues that
needed to be solved and that Teller and Sakarov found the
solution. I know of no such requirement for Schwartz's type of
research. (2) And I assume that Teller and Sakarov were then able
to tell everyone else how to produce the effect? I won't hold my
breath until Schwartz's effects have been replicated in numerous
labs, but I invite all open-minded people to do so.
> > 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?).
Being recognized in the medical field is not always the highest
scientific endorsement, in my mind. Examples such as therapeutic
touch come to mind.
> 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.
When those views become part of their scientific agenda, exactly
so. I don't really see why we need to care what anyone's private
religious beliefs are (or sexual practices, or political views,
or whatever), unless it becomes clear that those beliefs have
been brought into the scientific (or educational) domain.
> > 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.
Personally, I would wonder whether anyone who could come to that
conclusion is being objective considering the overall lack of
positive results and plausible theory. And I would expect
someone promoting such a view to be familiar with the many
negative findings and lack of theory.
> 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.
Again that was the point of the article. Also, placebo effects
are one thing. Putative effects (e.g., of blind prayer at a
distance) that violate much natural science and that have trouble
being replicated (just like most parapsychological phenomena) are
a whole other kettle of fish.
> > > 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,
...
> And so far the lightening hasn't struck--although we DID get an
> unseasonable snowstorm yesterday--a warning? :-)
I was just making a joke about the misspelling of "lightning." I
agreed pretty much with Rick's closing remarks that followed.
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
============================================================================
