View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 06 Sep 2009, 00:40

ProfWag wrote:Then, of course, there is this study: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 8&page=601
I've posted it before, but I don't think you were on the board at that time. It's the study by the National Academy of Sciences that essentially says that in years of research, there is nothing that has been shown to suggest that there is any need for further research into the paranormal.


Excellent, thanks. Of course they would say "there is nothing that has been shown to suggest that there is any need for further research into the paranormal." They don't want to believe it. I'll take a look at this a little later.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA






Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 06 Sep 2009, 00:56

ProfWag wrote:Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
January 2008, Vol. 20, No. 1, Pages 182-192
Posted Online October 25, 2007.
(doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20009)
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Using Neuroimaging to Resolve the Psi Debate
Samuel T. Moulton and Stephen M. Kosslyn
Harvard University
PDF (580.133 KB)
PDF Plus (419.52 KB)


I got permission to paste this:
Using Brain Imaging as a Direct Test for Psi
Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Despite impressive statistical evidence, there are still a number of skeptics and critics of parapsychology who say that they still do not find the case for psi phenomena convincing largely because there is still no developed theory that relates psi to human brain functioning. As a case in point, professional skeptic Michael Shermer (2003) once wrote in his monthly op-ed column in Scientific American that, with respect to telepathy, “Until psi proponents can elucidate how thoughts generated by neurons in the sender’s brain can pass through the skull and into the brain of the receiver, skepticism [that psi exists] is the appropriate response…” (p. 32). While it seems that the mechanism may be a bit more complex than the simple picture Shermer paints of it, he does at least have a fair point in that the search for the neuropsychological correlates of psi should be an important focus for parapsychology if it looks to ever achieve wide mainstream acceptance.


Over the years, the search has largely been limited to using scalp electrodes connected to an electroencephalograph (EEG) in order to look for any brain wave patterns that might be associated with psi functioning (Ehrenwald, 1977). However, with the advent of brain imaging technology, there is the promise of peering through the skull to get a possible glimpse of the brain areas that might be involved. This promise is apparently what spurred the design of a new study just published in the latest issue of the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (Moulton & Kosslyn, 2008), which focused on the attempt to test for ESP using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The study actually represents an attempt by mainstream researchers to experimentally reproduce psi effects, and was conducted by Samuel Moulton, a graduate student in the psychology department of prestigious Harvard University, along with Stephen Kosslyn, the prominent psychologist best known for his brain studies on mental imagery and visual perception (e.g., Ganis et al., 2004).


The premise for the study was based in part on a series of studies by Norman Don, Bruce McDonough, and Charles Warren of the University of Illinois at Chicago, in which they recorded the event-related brain wave potentials (ERPs) [1] of participants engaged in a precognition test disguised as a gambling task (Warren et al., 1992; Don et al., 1998; McDonough et al., 2002). They found that, in cases where they had correctly selected the precognition target, the participants’ ERPs were significantly different in wave structure from the ERPs associated with incorrect selections, suggesting that, on a brain wave level, the participants were sub-consciously “responding” more distinctly to the correct ESP target. Moulton and Kosslyn predicted that the brain as a whole might act similarly, the result of which might be detectable using MRI.


To test this, they gathered 19 pairs of people who were emotionally or biologically related [2] for a telepathy-type test, with one being the sender and the other being the receiver. The receiver’s head was placed into the MRI scanner and they were shown (by way of a mirror) two pictures during each test trial, one of which had been randomly selected as the ESP target. They selected which of the two they thought was the target by a button press and were given feedback (with a 50/50 chance of being right) a few seconds after, all while being scanned by the MRI. In another room, the sender viewed the actual target pictures for each trial, attempting to “send” their contents to the receiver.


The overall results indicated that the receivers had correctly chosen the ESP target about 50% of the time, exactly at the level expected by chance alone, thus indicating no evidence of ESP. As a group, the receivers’ MRI scans also did not reveal any difference in brain activity between correct and incorrect trials, although at least one participant had shown less activity in several brain areas (with most reduction being in the temporal lobe) during correct trials as compared to incorrect trials. Given that this participant was the only one to show this reduction, as well as the scanning artifacts that can potentially occur in MRI, it is difficult to tell whether this result was meaningful or not. In all, Moulton and Kosslyn conclude that their study constitutes strong evidence against ESP.


Although the study was innovative and thus seemed promising, there were a few issues about psi that may account for the reason no clear brain correlates were found. Moulton and Kosslyn seemed to assume from the outset that ESP is fundamentally different from normal sensory perception, in that it should evoke neural patterns distinct from those for sensory perception (p. 183). This does not seem to fit well with what ESP may be trying to tell us when looked at up close. Unlike normal sensory perception, ESP has no characteristic experience to call its own; there is nothing in the ESP experience that clearly tells us that any (sensory) part of the experience is a feature of ESP only. Instead, ESP is multi-sensory, and seems to incorporate the same sensory modes that we use in normal perception, only in the absence of stimuli (e.g., people say that they see or hear things during an ESP experience, just as they would in normal perception). In other words, ESP appears to be sensory perception in borrowed garb. If ESP really does “borrow” the sensory modes of ordinary perception, then we might expect the same brain areas active in ordinary perception to be active in ESP. This possibility may be indicated by the results of two MRI studies focusing on the telepathy-related phenomenon of sensory stimulation at a distance (Richards et al., 2005; Standish et al., 2003). In the studies, a sender was presented with an intense stimulus (a bright flash) in one room, which was expected to activate the main visual regions in the occipital cortex in the back of the brain. In the MRI room, the receiver in the scanner had shown activation of that same visual region at the same time that the sender saw the flash, despite the fact that the sender’s main visual pathway was blocked (their eyes were covered by opaque goggles). Since the stimuli in Moulton and Kosslyn’s study were pictures, we might also expect the visual regions to be active. A look at the MRI images published in their report indicates that they were, both in the psi and non-psi conditions. If the above view has any merit, then it may have been the case that the psi-related activity was simply “masked” by its shared functional regions with visual perception (this also assuming that some degree of ESP was present in their data despite being statistically undetectable; recall that the results on the ESP test were at chance). Also, it is possible that the psi signal is so weak that it is barely indistinguishable from the wide degree of noise that may be present in MRI scanning, again assuming that there was any ESP at all. Given the chance results, we can hardly expect a brain correlate to be visually apparent if there was no evidence for ESP in the study. For these reasons, using brain imaging itself as a direct test for psi may not be a good choice use of the technology.


Furthermore, to really seek out the possible brain correlates of psi, we may have to instead turn to those who have them more often than ordinary people (psychics), and see how their brains may differ (if they do at all) from ordinary people. Some preliminary results seem to suggest very slight structural differences (Persinger et al., 2002; Roll et al., 2002), but this work needs to be followed up on in order to give clearer answers. As much as I admire Kosslyn, it seems that any studies he does in this area will need to take a bit more careful consideration of their underlying assumptions.


- Bryan Williams


**********************************************************


Bryan Williams is a Native American student at the University of New Mexico, where his undergraduate studies have focused on physiological psychology and physics. He is a student affiliate of the Parapsychological Association, a student member of the Society for Scientific Exploration, and a co-moderator of the Psi Society, a Yahoo electronic discussion group for the general public that is devoted to parapsychology. He has been an active contributor to the Global Consciousness Project since 2001, and was the recipient of the Charles T. and Judith A. Tart Student Incentive Award for Parapsychological Research from the Parapsychology Foundation in 2003. As of August 2007, he is the author of seven articles (two co-authored with William G. Roll) that have appeared in the Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association Convention. His native ancestry lies with the Laguna Pueblo in western New Mexico, and the tribe’s long-held beliefs in survival and the concept of spirits is one of the things that spurred his interest in parapsychology.


*********************************************************

Notes

[1] Event-related potentials are tiny changes in electrical voltage detectable along the surface of the scalp, which are usually the result of sensory stimulation.


[2] This is based on findings suggesting that psi experiences tend to be more common among people who are emotionally close or are members of the same family (e.g., Broughton & Alexander, 1997).


References:

Broughton, R. S., & Alexander, C. H. (1997). Autoganzfeld II: An attempted replication of the PRL ganzfeld research. Journal of Parapsychology, 61, 209 – 226.


Don, N. S., McDonough, B. E., & Warren, C. A. (1998). Event-related brain potential (ERP) indicators of unconscious psi: A replication using subjects unselected for psi. Journal of Parapsychology, 62, 127 – 145.


Ehrenwald, J. (1977). Psi phenomena and brain research. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.) Handbook of Parapsychology (pp. 716 – 729). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.


Ganis, G., Thompson, W. L., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2004). Brain areas underlying visual mental imagery and visual perception: An fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 226 – 241.


McDonough, B. E., Don, N. S., & Warren, C. A. (2002). Differential event-related potentials to targets and decoys in a guessing task. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16, 187 – 206.


Moulton, S. T., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2008). Using neuroimaging to resolve the psi debate. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 182 – 192.


Persinger, M. A., Roll, W. G., Tiller, S. G., Koren, S. A., & Cook, C. M. (2002). Remote viewing with the artist Ingo Swann: Neuropsychological profile, electroencephalographic correlates, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and possible mechanisms. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 927 – 949.


Richards, T. L., Kozak, L., Johnson, L. C., & Standish, L. J. (2005). Replicable functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence of correlated brain signals between physically and sensory isolated subjects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 11, 955 – 763.


Roll, W. G., Persinger, M. A., Webster, D. L., Tiller, S. G., & Cook, C. M. (2002). Neurobehavioral and neurometabolic (SPECT) correlates of paranormal information: Involvement of the right hemisphere and its sensitivity to weak complex magnetic fields. International Journal of Neuroscience, 112, 197 – 224.


Shermer, M. (2003). Psychic drift. Scientific American, 288, 32.


Standish, L. J., Johnson, L. C., Kozak, L., & Richards, T. (2003). Evidence of correlated functional magnetic resonance imaging signals between distant human brains. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 9, 128, 122 – 125.


Warren, C. A., McDonough, B. E., & Don, N. S. (1992). Event-related brain potential changes in a psi task. Journal of Parapsychology, 56, 1 – 30.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 06 Sep 2009, 07:38

If there's one thing I'm beginning to realize about discussing parapsychology, Newton's Third Law of Motion is most definitely correct... :-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 06 Sep 2009, 08:08

ProfWag wrote:If there's one thing I'm beginning to realize about discussing parapsychology, Newton's Third Law of Motion is most definitely correct... :-)


Fantastic rebuttal! :-)
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 07 Sep 2009, 03:44

ProfWag wrote:Then, of course, there is this study: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 8&page=601
I've posted it before, but I don't think you were on the board at that time. It's the study by the National Academy of Sciences that essentially says that in years of research, there is nothing that has been shown to suggest that there is any need for further research into the paranormal.


I've been working on an analytical reply to this study. The study is based on the research of just a handful of investigators and only pertains to psychokinesis and remote viewing, not the other various forms of psi, so I don't see how they can come to the biased conclusion that "there is nothing that has been shown to suggest that there is any need for further research into the paranormal," since such a conclusion is based on such a limited set of data, but I will compile a somewhat detailed response to it nonetheless. This will take up many pages, so please be patient. I've even go so far as to include footnotes so that you have the opportunity to research on what I base my arguments and facts. I can only hope that a pseudo-skeptic would do the same to support his or her assumptions.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 07 Sep 2009, 04:33

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Then, of course, there is this study: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 8&page=601
I've posted it before, but I don't think you were on the board at that time. It's the study by the National Academy of Sciences that essentially says that in years of research, there is nothing that has been shown to suggest that there is any need for further research into the paranormal.


I've been working on an analytical reply to this study. The study is based on the research of just a handful of investigators and only pertains to psychokinesis and remote viewing, not the other various forms of psi, so I don't see how they can come to the biased conclusion that "there is nothing that has been shown to suggest that there is any need for further research into the paranormal," since such a conclusion is based on such a limited set of data, but I will compile a somewhat detailed response to it nonetheless. This will take up many pages, so please be patient. I've even go so far as to include footnotes so that you have the opportunity to research on what I base my arguments and facts. I can only hope that a pseudo-skeptic would do the same to support his or her assumptionsquote]
No, a pseudo-skeptic would not bother.
Although, I might, depending on what you said. it will be interesting since the results from that study are from the highest science committee in the US. You may be able to debate some, but it would be interesting to see how you would convince them to overturn their decision. Truthfully, over the course of the next 10 days or so, I'll have no time for research at all so feel free to take your time if you still want to undertake it.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 07 Sep 2009, 05:18

ProfWag wrote:it will be interesting since the results from that study are from the highest science committee in the US. You may be able to debate some, but it would be interesting to see how you would convince them to overturn their decision. Truthfully, over the course of the next 10 days or so, I'll have no time for research at all so feel free to take your time if you still want to undertake it.


I guess I should've expected such a response. Belonging to the "highest committee in the US" does not demonstrate psi does not exist. It's the data and its meaning that might, although how can you prove a negative? There are many highly educated and well-regarded scientists who have conducted empirical parapsychological research. This doesn't mean, however, that their conclusions are correct or incorrect. No. What institution or organization a researcher belongs to does not qualify as evidence for or against psi. It's their research, their data, that demonstrates support for or against psi, not their social status. Belonging to a prestigious body does not prove anything. Data does. Your argument is inductively weak, logically incorrect.

On its face, it's obvious they are biased given they urge not conducting any further research into paranormal phenomena given the fact they analyzed only a small subset of the outstanding psi research data, a very biased approach to reaching a conclusion on the subject, but I noticed you don't bother to address this fact. You simply believe them because they belong to the "highest science committee in the US." The fact they have done this (i.e., not analyzed the complete body of psi data/evidence) shows they have committed the scientific "crime" of selective reporting (aka the file-drawer problem), the very thing they accuse parapsychology researchers of doing; very hypocritical.

I wonder how much, if any, of that paper you read in detail and whether or not you bothered to determine if it contains valid, unbiased arguments and data. I'm going to guess you didn't and rather believe them outright simply based on their "highest science committee in the US" status.

I have no intention of "overturning their decision," nor yours. I have the intention of laying out the data, the evidence, and showing how and why it demonstrates true psi effects, as well as explaining why many of the counter-psi arguments are without merit and have been addressed in the various analyses and research. I cannot change people's beliefs. That's up to the individuals to change if they want, but some will hold on to their convictions no matter how much valid evidence there is in contrast to those beliefs. That's just psychology at work. Such people need to evaluate why it is they need to hold on to a belief that has little, if any, factual support.

It seems you are hell-bent on believing psi is not possible, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, so I don't see much point in posting any data, evidence to the contrary. You are simply going to believe what you want no matter what. I respect that, although it's unfortunate.

Even so, I will complete my analysis of their study. As time goes by, more and more will be added. You can see its progress here: http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddhvgqsk_68gx4p34fr
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 07 Sep 2009, 19:45

quantumparanormal wrote:[


It seems you are hell-bent on believing psi is not possible, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, so I don't see much point in posting any data, evidence to the contrary. You are simply going to believe what you want no matter what. I respect that, although it's unfortunate.

Even so, I will complete my analysis of their study. As time goes by, more and more will be added. You can see its progress here: http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddhvgqsk_68gx4p34fr

And it seems you are hell-bent on believing psi is possible so why do you single my view out? If you believe it's possible, I respect that. I don't have to agree with you, but I can respect that. It doesn't appear that I receive the same courtesy, but agan, I won't lose sleep over that.
I read what you have so far. No comment as of yet.
As for my personal time, that is not your concern, though if I must, I'll explain. I have a full time job that I often write on this forum while doing. Unfortunately, next week is only 3 days long for me and I will be extra busy. Next weekend I will be out of town. I also have a part-time teaching position and I will have mid-term exams that I must grade next week. As such, if you are going to post a long rebuttal that you are looking for a similar response from me, I won't be able to provide for some time. I will submit a rebuttal if it's necessary, however, if you're convining enough, there would be no need for me to submit a rebuttal. I will simply agree with what you've said. It appears you continue to forget that I've never said psi is impossible. If I have, please refer me to it. I have said that I don't believe it's possible. However, as you state, I can't prove a negative so all skeptics can do is review, question, and challenge, if necessary, the experiments presented.
I'm not really concerned with how psi works, however, part of my belief in psi not being possible is that I don't see how it could work. There are many more examples than what you provided on knowing something works without knowy how so if psi is proven to be possible, then learning the how will be researched at that time.
I do look forward to seeing what you come up with. And yes, I read the entire report (Chapter 6 anyway.) We've agreed, I believe, that when conducting research, we must consider the source. It appears you consider Dean Radin to be a higher source than the National Academy of Sciences. I don't.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 08 Sep 2009, 00:09

ProfWag, Like I said, you're set in your ways. If you don't want to analyze and discuss the data, the evidence, that's fine. There's no point in debating with you about this any further, though, as a consequence, especially since all you can do is argue based on a publisher's and author's social and organizational status (i.e., I don't go around saying psi is real because Radin says so and belongs to this or that organization; that would be ridiculous of me to do so), not the actual data, the evidence being discussed and the arguments laid forth. So be it.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby ciscop » 08 Sep 2009, 00:28

quantum
do you have some links about studies that proof psi
that doesnt involve radin ?

i still dont understand
why you think we dont want to believe
its not a matter of belief
is a matter of proving it does exist
and so far nobody has proven that

NAS said that in 150 of studying psi, esp and all that it didnt found anything relevant
and harvard just did a study last year with the same results

if you only have studies from a guy that is sour to skepticism for doubting his results
then you dont have much and obviously you need less data than we do to believe in xmen stuff
personally i would love esp to exist
is damn cool
so please do share your best link proving that
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 08 Sep 2009, 00:39

ciscop wrote:quantum
do you have some links about studies that proof psi
that doesnt involve radin ?


I'm not out to prove anything, and, yes, there are many other researchers other than Radin who have conducted parapsychological research. Here are just some of them: http://parapsych.org/member_index.html

Wait a minute.. oh, those individuals don't belong to the NAS. Damn. They have no credibility. Shucks. :roll:

ciscop wrote:i still dont understand
why you think we dont want to believe
its not a matter of belief
is a matter of proving it does exist
and so far nobody has proven that


Because you don't bother to analyze and debate the data, the evidence. You simply want to believe it does not exist. That's readily obvious. It's really that simple. You guys post links to "prestigious" organizations (organizations, by the way, who don't want to believe psi doesn't exists either, which is a biased source) and conclude because they say psi doesn't exist, it must not. You don't use critical thinking and logical deduction to come to your conclusions. You simply believe psi doesn't exist outright, and that's convenient for you. Don't bother being analytical. Just believe it. That's fine with me.

ciscop wrote:NAS said that in 150 of studying psi, esp and all that it didnt found anything relevant
and harvard just did a study last year with the same results


Please post links to the published articles. Oh, and since they say psi doesn't exist, it must be true, correct? Forget about the data. It's true!

ciscop wrote:if you only have studies from a guy that is sour to skepticism for doubting his results
then you dont have much and obviously you need less data than we do to believe in xmen stuff
personally i would love esp to exist
is damn cool
so please do share your best link proving that


You don't want psi to exist. You often laugh at it. Hell, you once said "the paranormal is quite funny." You see it as a joke. You're not fooling anyone with your bias. If you want evidence, read Radin's book. It's loaded with actual data, not unsubstantiated opinions.

All you seem able to do is call people names and give insults, not discuss and analyze the underlying data:

ciscop wrote:i think scescop is a good guy but he is just really naive and gullible

you are a friking wacko my friend

you are just a loony guy

what the hell is wrong with you??

i love rednecks


An to think these are the people I have to debate psi with. Jeesh. I'm waisting my time. :roll:
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 08 Sep 2009, 01:14

Once you're ready to discuss actual data, evidence, send me a message; otherwise, it's futile debating non-data, non-evidence.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 08 Sep 2009, 03:29

quantumparanormal wrote:Once you're ready to discuss actual data, evidence, send me a message; otherwise, it's futile debating non-data, non-evidence.


Until that day comes (i.e., the day we discuss actual data/evidence, not which "prestigious" body[ies] one belongs to), I'll leave you with this:

Stacy Horn wrote:The results were so impressive that when referring to later versions of this test, the scientist and skeptic Carl Sagan would grudgingly concede that "by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers," unable to resist pointing out that modern PK tests, like the telepathy tests, indicate a weak effect, as if weak effects are trivial or unimportant. The effect of aspirin in reducing heart attacks is even weaker but nonetheless life-saving. (Horn, Stacy. Unbelievable. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2009, p. 75,76)
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby ciscop » 08 Sep 2009, 03:35

that was so low of you
to edit my comments and taking them out of context
but is ok, thats one of the tacticts of the believers like you

so to put it in context:
scescop is naive and gullible and i put like an example homeopathy and uri geller (which is a freaking magician)

i love rednecks is about a woman in alabama with a haunted broom
she has the accent and is damn ignorant
she is a redneck and i dont care about americans being scared of language
words like redneck exist for a reason just like midgets and orientals, they arent derogatory is just a friking word

and the other insults are to highflyer
a believer like you
but he was in a mental institution and thinks he has telekinetic powers
which is awesome
he is on your side, claim it at yours
seems to me your side is full of those wackos no matter how much you want to distance yourself
science, institutions and data is on my side
wackos, bad data, cheaters and scam artists are on yours

and stop saying i dont care, i do care, but i guess
i can say the same thing about you
you dont care about what NAS said or harvard or mit.. you only care about questionable data provided by quacks that hasnt been replicated and when it has, it failed the test
yes, thats so skeptic of you
well done

i guess there is a big conspiracy out there
of evil scientists that wants to hide psi and esp evidence from the world
right?? is gotta be that! those damn scientists are hiding the real evidence everywhere in the world!!
why you think CIA closed his stargate program?? it didnt work!
but nah.. lets dismiss the evidence
lets just focus on what quacks have said to sell book
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 08 Sep 2009, 05:58

See? You don't bother to discuss the actual data/evidence. Rather, you resort to arguing your case against psi by using name-calling (e.g., "you quacks," "those wackos," etc) and making irrelevant references to non-evidential data, such as closed CIA programs, conspiracy theories, "what quacks have said to sell book," etc. You continue to prove my point. You don't want to critically analyze and discuss the actual data, the experiments, the research involved. And it's no wonder why. It's convincing. Consequently, it seems a fruitful, analytical discussion with you would be elementary at best, not incorporating critical, objective, detailed analyses of the data involved. If you think "we are wackos," tell us why, but don't base your opinions on speculation. Base them on facts. Show us where the evidence and arguments are "bad." Otherwise, you are the faith/dogma-based "wacko," not me. Send me a message once you do decide to discuss the actual data, if at all. Until then, continue your name-calling. Perhaps it will convince others. Who knows? Regardless, there will be no more replies from me unless you decide to discuss/debate the actual evidence.

And regarding the obviously biased NAS section on psi, here are my comments (so far): http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddhvgqsk_68gx4p34fr Not that you will use objective judgment in assessing it, but I've posted it here for completeness regardless.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

PreviousNext

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests