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 <j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca> wrote: > Hi > > James M. Clark > Professor of Psychology > 204-786-9757 > 204-774-4134 Fax > j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca > >>>> Michael Smith <tipsl...@gmail.com> 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: tipsl...@gmail.com. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f4720fb&n=T&l=tips&o=7893 > or send a blank email to > leave-7893-13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f472...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > -- -- Mike For Sale: Baby Shoes, Never Worn. (Hemingway) --- 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=7913 or send a blank email to leave-7913-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
