Do you have Hume’s Syndrome?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I actually found the OP to be an interesting concept that I had not heard of before.

You mean ...

"One of the obstacles to progress in psychical research is irrational resistance to the phenomena."​

All those opposed to irrational resistance raise your hand.

 

[Falvlun]

You mean ...

"One of the obstacles to progress in psychical research is irrational resistance to the phenomena."​

All those opposed to irrational resistance raise your hand.

To be fair, the OP didn't write that.

And I think that Creationists display an irrational resistance to evolution.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To be fair, the OP didn't write that.

To be fair, the OP promoted it.

And I think that Creationists display an irrational resistance to evolution.

Therefore?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure I see the point of proposing the existence of "Hume's Syndrome", but it stands to reason that it should at worst slow down any conceivable comprovation of psychic phenomena. The scientific method is not really vulnerable to this supposed "Syndrome", not to the extent of leading to false conclusions.

 

[Quiddity]

The problem with humism isn't that it doesn't allow miracles, but that it avoids them at all costs; or rather some do. Even the fact that it's a real thing is met with....umm vitrol resistance.

 

[Falvlun]

To be fair, the OP promoted it.

Insomuch as he was discussing the concept of Hume's Syndrome.

Therefore?

Therefore, I don't think that claiming "irrational resistance" warrants attacks, or should be considered "poisoning the well". It was a rather mild OP, really.

I'm not sure I see the point of proposing the existence of "Hume's Syndrome", but it stands to reason that it should at worst slow down any conceivable comprovation of psychic phenomena. The scientific method is not really vulnerable to this supposed "Syndrome", not to the extent of leading to false conclusions.

I don't think the scientific method is, but I think that people definitely are.

What we have in our favor is that there really hasn't been any substantial evidence provided for which we can be accused of resisting.

 

[Skwim]

As for the publisher of the linked quote: Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 549–556, 2008

"Kendrick Frazier, editor of Skeptical Inquirer and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry fellow has suggested that:

"The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish 'scholarly' articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena."

Clinical community psychologist and professor of social psychology at the University of Connecticut, Seth Kalichman regards the journal as a publisher of pseudoscience, with the journal serving as a "major outlet for UFOology, paranormal activity, extrasensory powers, alien abductions etc".
Source: Wikipedia
​

 

[Falvlun]

The problem with humism isn't that it doesn't allow miracles, but that it avoids them at all costs; or rather some do. Even the fact that it's a real thing is met with....umm vitrol resistance.

"The fact that it is a real thing"? What is? Miracles? I'm pretty sure that no miracle has been really shown to be the real deal. Often there is either poor documentation, something else has been shown the cause, or, like in the case of miraculous healings, can't be ascribed to God or the supernatural or just plain nature either way.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Even the fact that it's a real thing is met with....umm vitrol resistance.

You seem to be rather loose with your definition of "real."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem with humism isn't that it doesn't allow miracles, but that it avoids them at all costs; or rather some do. Even the fact that it's a real thing is met with....umm vitrol resistance.

I think this is an unfair assessment. There's nothing in positivism (or "humism") that says what's a "miracle" and what isn't. At one point, the germ theory of disease was just as fantastic as divine healing claims. However, over the years, evidence built up for germ theory in a way that didn't happen for divine healing.

Complaining about this turn of events smacks of sour grapes, IMO. I suspect that if the beliefs in question were actually supported by evidence, you wouldn't have a problem with evidence-based standards for acceptance of claims.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

nope.
I was tested.

found out I got Diabetes.
Two types even.

or was it the second type?
yeah, I was not even good enough for the first round picks... :sad:

Not you, man

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The problem with humism isn't that it doesn't allow miracles, but that it avoids them at all costs; or rather some do. Even the fact that it's a real thing is met with....umm vitrol resistance.

I see what you're saying but I think in fact you are mistaken. A miracle is, almost by definition, something that is very unlikely to occur. When you do experiments as a scientist, you treat strange observations essentially the same way Hume says we should treat eyewitness testimony of miracles. If you observe something strange which is at odds with previous evidence, the simplest and best hypothesis is that your observations were flawed. This hypothesis should be disproved before one contemplates anything based on the strange observation.

That is why, for example, biologists have strict rules about discovering new species, and particle physicists have rules about declaring the discovery of a new particle. And that is just for discovery. To contradict a previously established law, the bar for evidence is set much, much higher. That is why when the OPERA experiment reported observing faster-than-light neutrinos last year, it was not accepted as sufficient proof that neutrinos *actually do* travel faster than light. First we had to test the hypothesis that their experiment was flawed. Their experiment was tested and it turns out it was flawed. Oops. These things happen and that's why science works the way it does.

Hume's treatment of supernatural miracles is essentially just an extension of the same scientific method we all rely on when it comes to making smartphones, microwaves, nuclear reactors, etc. A truly miraculous event in the conventional sense (e.g. a man being resurrected from the dead) would violate so many laws of physics and biology, one is tempted to say it would violate all of them. Therefore, the standard of evidence for such a claim should be even *higher* than, say, the claim that neutrinos travel faster than light.

Clearly the eyewitness testimony of, let's say, even one thousand illiterate people who saw Jesus resurrected, passed down from the 1st century, is not as powerful evidence as the testimony of one thousand physicists from the 21st century reporting a carefully controlled experiment, with graphs and data and photographs and calculations to back up their testimony. And yet, at the same time, the "miraculous" claim made in the latter case is far less inconsistent with previous evidence than the miraculous claim in the former case. In other words, supernatural miracles are less plausible, and the evidence in support of them is weaker, than some of the weakest scientific claims based on the weakest evidence acceptable in science.

So, actually, Hume's standard of evidence is reasonable and without it science wouldn't work. If miracles actually exist, then such cataclysmic breakdowns of the laws of physics should be easily detectable, and should easily pass Hume's standards--even more easily than the discovery of new particles like the Higgs.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I should add that Hume's approach is bolstered by many psychology experiments and documented mass delusions from history. So in addition to miraculous claims contradicting previous experience, they also have a well-established explanation: human misperception / delusion / illusion. Again, this hypothesis must be falsified before any psychic/miraculous phenomena are treated as "real", using the same rigorous standard of evidence we use elsewhere in science, e.g. the discovery of a new particle. Even particle physicists know they can fool themselves into seeing particles in their own data where none exist. Dumber people, like you and me, should be even more wary of seeing things which are not there.

 

[Quiddity]

I see what you're saying but I think in fact you are mistaken. A miracle is, almost by definition, something that is very unlikely to occur. When you do experiments as a scientist, you treat strange observations essentially the same way Hume says we should treat eyewitness testimony of miracles. If you observe something strange which is at odds with previous evidence, the simplest and best hypothesis is that your observations were flawed. This hypothesis should be disproved before one contemplates anything based on the strange observation.

That is why, for example, biologists have strict rules about discovering new species, and particle physicists have rules about declaring the discovery of a new particle. And that is just for discovery. To contradict a previously established law, the bar for evidence is set much, much higher. That is why when the OPERA experiment reported observing faster-than-light neutrinos last year, it was not accepted as sufficient proof that neutrinos *actually do* travel faster than light. First we had to test the hypothesis that their experiment was flawed. Their experiment was tested and it turns out it was flawed. Oops. These things happen and that's why science works the way it does.

Hume's treatment of supernatural miracles is essentially just an extension of the same scientific method we all rely on when it comes to making smartphones, microwaves, nuclear reactors, etc. A truly miraculous event in the conventional sense (e.g. a man being resurrected from the dead) would violate so many laws of physics and biology, one is tempted to say it would violate all of them. Therefore, the standard of evidence for such a claim should be even *higher* than, say, the claim that neutrinos travel faster than light.

Clearly the eyewitness testimony of, let's say, even one thousand illiterate people who saw Jesus resurrected, passed down from the 1st century, is not as powerful evidence as the testimony of one thousand physicists from the 21st century reporting a carefully controlled experiment, with graphs and data and photographs and calculations to back up their testimony. And yet, at the same time, the "miraculous" claim made in the latter case is far less inconsistent with previous evidence than the miraculous claim in the former case. In other words, supernatural miracles are less plausible, and the evidence in support of them is weaker, than some of the weakest scientific claims based on the weakest evidence acceptable in science.

So, actually, Hume's standard of evidence is reasonable and without it science wouldn't work. If miracles actually exist, then such cataclysmic breakdowns of the laws of physics should be easily detectable, and should easily pass Hume's standards--even more easily than the discovery of new particles like the Higgs.

I suspect you thought my comment was aimed at the methods of science when I aimed at no such thing. Empericism has merit without it interfering with classical metaphysics. I mean, how in the world are theistic physcists able to do anything at all while still believing in God?

 

[Student of X]

I actually found the OP to be an interesting concept that I had not heard of before. I don't see anything in there that was particularly nasty. I mean, no more nasty than one of us claiming that someone who believes in miracles has been duped.

I wasn't intending to be particularly nasty. Thanks for realizing that. It was indeed a rather mild OP. I was unpleasantly surprised by the reactions to it.

I will finish up this thread by addressing some points you made and then I'll delete my account and move on to another forum. Shouldn't take long.

I think that if Hume’s syndrome is anything, it's an ingrained disposition toward the paranormal. It's a posture toward the very idea of it. It's a posture that holds people back. It keeps people from taking the proper approach to the idea of the paranormal.

Science is too limited to be the only method of approach, because one must approach the idea of the paranormal as if the very possibility of it occurring is greater than zero (otherwise you short-circuit your investigation). The scientific method can't do that. Not without changing the rules.

Mysticism is also too limited to be the only method of approach. Only a combined approach will work.

Of the people I have known who call themselves atheists, skeptics, or rationalists none take a combined approach. They think that science alone is sufficient. Nope, science it too limited. 'Miracles', that is to say psi phenomena, are real yet belief-dependent. That's why there are experimenter psi effects plaguing parapsychology and why the sheep-goat effect is a consistent ESP scoring pattern.

So in a nutshell. There is more than enough evidence of paranormal functioning in humans. Otherwise known as miracles. The body of parapsychological evidence alone is more than enough. Hume’s syndrome keeps people blind to that evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So in a nutshell. There is more than enough evidence of paranormal functioning in humans.

Where?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So in a nutshell. There is more than enough evidence of paranormal functioning in humans. Otherwise known as miracles. Hume’s syndrome keeps people from seeing that and allowing it to be seen in turn.

Irrationality keeps people from accepting there is no objective evidence which supports such claims. Ta-ta.

 

[freethinker44]

What do we call the syndrome for people who irrationally accept the paranormal?

 

[dust1n]

"The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is a professional organization of scientists and scholars who study unusual and unexplained phenomena. Subjects often cross mainstream boundaries, such as consciousness, unidentified aerial phenomena, and alternative medicine, yet often have profound implications for human knowledge and technology.

The SSE was founded in 1982 and has approximately 800 members in 45 countries worldwide. The SSE publishes a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), and holds annual meetings in the USA and biennial meetings in Europe. Associate and student memberships are available to the public, and everyone is encouraged to attend meetings and participate with the society."

Society for Scientific Exploration



"Hume then criticizes (we are still in his footnote) the Molinist (Jesuit) party
for unfairly repudiating the case of Mademoiselle le Franc, but who ‘‘soon found
themselves overwhelmed by a cloud of new witnesses, one hundred and twenty
in number, most of them persons of credit and substance in Paris, who gave oath
for the miracle.’’ Again, to underscore this: one hundred and twenty witnesses,
most of whom were creditable persons and all who testified under oath that
something inexplicable had occurred."

-Michael Grosso

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_22_4_grosso.pdf

I can't believe this guy is at the University of Virginia.


Seriously, 120 people say something... the assumption that because 120 people said something it must be true.

 

[Willamena]

Hume resisted superstition. I am indeed suffering from that same affliction.