SCEPCOP Forum

I want to ask who else here you think needs the lessons? But that would be impolite. So I'll just ask, do you think I need it?

It's a nice idea, but my experience is that it doesn't save anyone from cognitive dissonance. A denier is a denier by any other name.

You'd have to consult a psychologist, but I think understanding critical thinking does help one identify cognitive dissonance which is the first step in saving oneself from it. Most people don't even know the term. Learning about logical fallacies can help one avoid them.

That said: cognitive dissonance is a pretty inbred natural inclination, and is not easy to shed.

Actually, critical thinking doesn't do much good against it. The reason is that cognitive dissonance is a fear based response and it reaches the brain before anything else, short circuiting anything that gets in its way.

To evade those effects, you have to be emotionally aware of your reactions, otherwise your logic will be warped without you having the slightest idea that it happened.

For instance: If I ask you the question: "What will it take for you to agree that psi exists? And you can't find a way to answer it, you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. Try it; it's a good mental exercise. You don't have to share the answer with me, I don't care. I just want to show you what happens when you're forced to think differently and how hard it can be.

I've stated on this forum and others some tests that I would think would be pretty convincing to me (most recentlly being a simple test for OBEs).

But i do think that simply knowing about cognitive dissonance and asking yourself if you think your reaction may be because of CD can help overcome it and when you do this you are thinking critically.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Tart experiment (and we're actually discussing it currently over on skeptiko). That's what's so bizarre: you have one potentially amazing experiment in the 60s and its never repeated by Tart. He apparently tried with robert munroe years later but failed. This is an topic that could blow the lid of OBEs and its not terribly well followed up on!

Now, I hadn't heard of the Krippner one. I've trying to find a link to the actual paper. Do you have it somewhere?

What I don't understand is why if both Tart and Krippner had some basic success why they didn't make this the primary focus of their research, finding people to replicate it again and again? A skeptiko member (fls- also on JREF) is an OBEr and we've been trying to come up with a basic protocol that she might test on her own, that could lead to further research (and $1M for her if she's successful!)

Found not the original, but him describing it in another report: http://www.urigeller.com/content/research/dreams.htm

Again, interesting stuff. Not as clear in this case, but still intriguing.

We need more! We need repetition!

Look at the recent possible discovery at the LHC of nutrinos that might go faster than the speed of light. They had 15,000 trials, and still so suspicious of their results that they've invited the greater scientific community to try and find mistakes they might have made! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44629271/ns ... ?gt1=43001

This is an exceedingly small effect. So we can't be sure of it. We can never really rule out researcher bias no matter how many different people do the test. We need to know how the test was done and question the legitimacy of every step of the experiments. This needs to be doubted until we have absolute proof.

Exactly!

Well, not exactly- I don't think we can ever have absolute proof. But we want high degree of confidence.

Your problem with this study is the same as my problem with many psi studies - the effect sizes are so small! But look at the attitude of the CERN guys: hey! we have something potentially extroadinary! We've wracked our brains to eliminate any possible type of bias or error. But we still fear that we've made errors - so science community- scrutinize our work and try to identify even more possible errors!

I don't see that attitude from parapsychologists even though the implications are just as extraordinary.