|
Aswad -> RE: Are you Psychic and how does this affect your relationships? (9/8/2007 7:35:31 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tsherpet
The observable reality of people making claims and not being able to live up to them.
Which is a level of abstraction that is far past the hard sciences.
quote:
The scientific method is what one uses to test the validity of the hunches and guesswork.
~nods~
quote:
People make a claim, money is offered for anyone who can back up such a claim, money is still on offer as all attempts have failed. Where is the fallacy?
The implication that absence of proof constitutes proof of absence is a well-known fallacy. You say you do not want people to leave it at agreeing with you, so why bring up an argument that is only valuable as an element of rhetoric, rather than staying with the logical and pertinent arguments with scientific basis?
quote:
Also none of the excuses for not trying to prove ones abilities make any sense, unless one is admitting selfishness or shortsightedness.
Needing to fork over a few million to test a hypothesis in order to gain one million or less is not so much a lack of altruism as a lack of means, I would imagine. That said, I've no problem with the assertion that selfishness or shortsightedness would be the dominant factor in such a decision as most, going by the social and cognitive sciences.
quote:
Rubbish. The intent is for psychics to get away from heavily edited tv shows and books and anecdotal "evidence" and to back up their own claims.
Such is not the stated intent of the Randi challenge, for instance.
quote:
And lets not forget the complete absecence of any scientific methodology from the psychics.
I do not dispute that.
I am addressing your argument, not the wish-wash of the new age movement.
quote:
And why shouldn't the claimant's identity be known? We don't want them failing the test then stealing money with self promotional books.
Assuming there was a healer somewhere who could deal with something outside the range of conventional medicine, just for the sake of argument, why would this person want to disclose their identity and address to a bunch of people who are desperate for just such a thing? Not everyone wants to be a celebrity, you know.
Besides, disclosing up front is a brilliant way to get yourself into trouble with anything from future employers to mental hospitals, even in cases where one is rational enough to take a failure result as valid and thus should not carry around that burden. Also, people who have practiced something or other for financial gain would stand to risk counterclaims.
As for the concern that people could make off with money, or misrepresent their result, that is a matter of not paying them for failure, and using a simple contract that makes them financially liable if they misrepresent the test results. Thus, you wouldn't end up risking people claiming to have passed the test when they hadn't actually done so.
quote:
And why shouldn't they pay their own exspense if they are confident their abilities exist?
Some claims cost more to test than the prize money. For trivially debunked claims, that is a different matter, but those are generally caught before making it to the stage where actual scientific testing occurs anyway, so don't really figure into it. Most people don't have huge savings to burn on something they're probably not even confident in themselves, but I do, however, agree that the TV celebs etc. are in a different position, and should generally put up or shut up, as none of the concerns I've listed apply to them.
quote:
The challenge is not to explain psychic abilities, just to prove their existence. That is not outside the scientific body of knowledge, it is in fact exactly what science is all about.
You misinterpret me. My point was, in some instances, claims cost a fair bit to test in a scientifically satisfactory manner, i.e. meeting the burden of proof for a claim that is not possible according to the scientific body of knowledge. That requires extraordinary proof.
quote:
The terms are to discourage every nut from trying, and only those who think they are the real deal. It is also so any famous money making psychics who have a go will be exposed to their victims.
Among other things, yes. Those two points are laudable goals, but not scientific in nature.
quote:
Rubbish [...] What absolute garbage
Stick to the point, please.
quote:
The money is an incentive, but the real selling point for psychics is credibility.
Clearly, but you are making my point here. This is a forum, not a proving ground. If anyone here takes a claim here as credible without doing their own research, they're beyond your help. And the organizations in question are not in the business of research, but in the business of (understandably) undermining the credibility of hucksters, which is laudable enough, but has nothing to do with scientific inquiry into the matter, making their mention in connection with Susan's post rather beside the point.
quote:
Well you gave a nice speech, but you didn't do much to my correct arguements.
I'm not seeking to "do" anything to your arguments. I simply addressed the points that (a) scientific method itself has limitations, and (b) an organization whose agenda is not science is not relevant to addressing the scientific side of things and does nothing to advance a rational approach to reality, rather tarnishing the immeasurable value of science and rational thinking; two things people should be educated in, and shown how to apply to their lives, rather than continuing to use the same flawed reasoning. That's the only way we'll eradicate the nuisance of pop science and sensationalist media coverage that diminishes the value of hard science.
Perhaps that makes my intentions clearer?
quote:
I'm sure that impresses some people, and good luck to you, but your views on the scientific method suggest you are out of your depth.
Whether it impresses people living in an entirely different country from myself is really the last thing I'm concerned with. What I am concerned with, however, is whether it makes anyone read up on epistemology- a field that is of critical importance, in my opinion- which would be good.
You may take my insistence on correct application of science, and the separation of science and rhetoric, as suggesting that I am out of my depth. That would be a quite erroneous assumption, but one you are entitled to make, despite not according the OP the same respect. Not that I find the OP credible, mind you.
Mixing science, quotes, logic and rhetoric does nothing to raise public understanding of either.
That is my gripe with your posting.
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
