Do you have Hume’s Syndrome?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’m not clear on what argument you think I’m making except that I discussed a telepathy experiment that I thought was compelling.

You were making this one, for starters:

I believe studies/experiments have 'proved it' but as I said before there's no official person or organization that declares 'proof'. With Hume Syndrome so rampant in mainstream science, any positive results can forever be obfuscated by criticism sometimes fair, sometimes unfair and sometimes petty. It can go on forever if they want it to.

When asked to support your position, you cited this set of experiments that we're talking about now.

There’s no such thing as ‘overwhelming, unquestionably valid evidence’ in this field. If even one skeptic validly or invalidly (yes, in other people’s opinion) questions something it no longer can be called unquestionable.

My point was just that I can only judge your claims by the evidence and reasons you provide. And so far, you haven't given any evidence. You've suggested that the evidence you're privy to (or maybe more accurately, evidence that people you trust claim to be privy to) is compelling enough that we should accept that paranormal phenomena are real, but you haven't actually given any evidence directly.

Again, it’s not clear what argument you say I’m making. There is certainly 1,001 experiments, studies, compilations of anecdotal stories, phenomena, researchers, etc. in this field and I just presented one set of experiments I found compelling. Your statement ‘the chain supporting your arguments is entirely supported by these experiments’ doesn’t really make sense.

Again: you're the one who started out complaining that "Hume Syndrome" was rampant in scientific fields and this is why the scientific community hasn't accepted paranormal phenomena.

When we dig a bit deeper, though, it turns out that when we examine the experiments that you claim are so compelling that people who don't accept them are unreasonable, to the extent that we can find out anything at all about them, we find that they're full of methodological holes.

I can’t say I have all possible information there is to know about any of the 1,001 items of evidence mentioned above. I never said the paranormal is proven beyond all question.

You kinda did. Earlier on, you argued that your experiments weren't accepted because of "Hume's Syndrome"... IOW, that the paranormal has been effectively proven beyond all reasonable question. Do you remember saying this?

I’m often criticized for not providing any data to support my statements. For example, I said above I thought the paranormal was proved by experimentation. Here’s the results of 2,500 experimental sessions showing mathematically what amounts to reasonable proof.

Let me repeat that: you yourself claimed "the paranormal was proved by experimentation."

When I started to ask you questions about those experiments - basic questions about what they measured and what their actual results were - you couldn't answer any of them. When I brought up problems that can create researcher bias in any study, you didn't have any sort of explanation for how (or if) they were addressed in the studies you said "proved" the paranormal.

I would say that George-Ananda believes it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt by the cumulative weight of 1,001 things; not any ‘1’ experiment.

And that's fine (although it seems like this is a retreat from positions you've argued earlier in the thread). I'm not looking for one experiment to make your entire case; at this point, I'd be happy if you could put forward your favourite experiment and we found that it had no critical methodological problems and had statistically significant positive results. Can you even clear that very, very low bar?

I’ve been reading and thinking about the paranormal for decades. I know that the proponents/skeptic arguments can go on for decades over every experiment. These telepathy experiments are just one example of that and I don’t see the point of getting so into the details of what I know will be a never-ending discussion that ends where it started.

Here's the issue: if you're happy to accept any experiment that purports to support your preconceptions and I refuse to accept any experiment that's so methodologically flawed that it calls its findings into question, then as long as you only cite crappy studies, yes, we'll go around in circles. But there's a straightforward way to avoid this: give us something that isn't crappy. Something valid. Something where the methodology protected against researcher interference. Something where the data wasn't "massaged". Something that was reviewed by qualified experts who found no problems. Something that meets the normal standards for a normal scientific study.

In conclusion, I personally believe that the paranormal is real based on the cumulative evidence of 1,001 things well-considered. And I may sometimes discuss a particular example because it’s impossible to discuss 1,001 things in one post.

And that's fine for you, but realize its implications for this thread: that the reason that others, including scientists, don't accept the paranormal is because it's impossible to describe properly, not because those other people are suffering from "Hume's Syndrome."

 

[dust1n]

Experts in what exactly? If it's science/physics/brain science, then I would say that the mainstream has Hume's Syndrome. Names like Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins, etc. are some of the high priests.

So whats an example of one of them being irrationally disregarding paranormal or extrasensory phenomenon?

Because what we can see and observe with the 5 senses and their extensions (physical instruments) is limited. Evidence tells me there's more beyond that.

Evidence tells you there's more than what beyond that. Why Dharma? How do we know reality is holistically Dharmic? Where is the evidence that puts that over the monist opinions of others?

 

[dust1n]

Actually, the evidence seems to suggest that we are all innate dualists. It's often hard to convince ourselves that only matter, or only spirit, exists.

Speak for yourselves, gents.

 

[dust1n]

People are mad at, "Kill the Buddha"?

Paraphase Hume as you wish.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Certainly your pursuit of information is admirable.

It's something you might want to try some time.

 

[George-ananda]

You were making this one, for starters:



When asked to support your position, you cited this set of experiments that we're talking about now.


My point was just that I can only judge your claims by the evidence and reasons you provide. And so far, you haven't given any evidence. You've suggested that the evidence you're privy to (or maybe more accurately, evidence that people you trust claim to be privy to) is compelling enough that we should accept that paranormal phenomena are real, but you haven't actually given any evidence directly.



Again: you're the one who started out complaining that "Hume Syndrome" was rampant in scientific fields and this is why the scientific community hasn't accepted paranormal phenomena.

When we dig a bit deeper, though, it turns out that when we examine the experiments that you claim are so compelling that people who don't accept them are unreasonable, to the extent that we can find out anything at all about them, we find that they're full of methodological holes.


You kinda did. Earlier on, you argued that your experiments weren't accepted because of "Hume's Syndrome"... IOW, that the paranormal has been effectively proven beyond all reasonable question. Do you remember saying this?



Let me repeat that: you yourself claimed "the paranormal was proved by experimentation."

When I started to ask you questions about those experiments - basic questions about what they measured and what their actual results were - you couldn't answer any of them. When I brought up problems that can create researcher bias in any study, you didn't have any sort of explanation for how (or if) they were addressed in the studies you said "proved" the paranormal.


And that's fine (although it seems like this is a retreat from positions you've argued earlier in the thread). I'm not looking for one experiment to make your entire case; at this point, I'd be happy if you could put forward your favourite experiment and we found that it had no critical methodological problems and had statistically significant positive results. Can you even clear that very, very low bar?


Here's the issue: if you're happy to accept any experiment that purports to support your preconceptions and I refuse to accept any experiment that's so methodologically flawed that it calls its findings into question, then as long as you only cite crappy studies, yes, we'll go around in circles. But there's a straightforward way to avoid this: give us something that isn't crappy. Something valid. Something where the methodology protected against researcher interference. Something where the data wasn't "massaged". Something that was reviewed by qualified experts who found no problems. Something that meets the normal standards for a normal scientific study.


And that's fine for you, but realize its implications for this thread: that the reason that others, including scientists, don't accept the paranormal is because it's impossible to describe properly, not because those other people are suffering from "Hume's Syndrome."

You seem to be saying if any skeptic questions anything about a set of experiments then the experiments are crappy and methodologically flawed. I guarantee any experiment that produces positive results for paranormal phenomena will be challenged and questioned by the Skeptic community and hence be labeled crappy and flawed by their sympathizers.

So the question becomes are the Skeptics questions and complaints valid to a fair-minded individual. The researchers that claim the positive results would say sometimes ‘they raised some fair points’ and sometimes ‘no, there objections are invalid or not significant’.

So what is the layman to think? Each interested layman must come to his own opinion of the situation. I personally believe the paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt because of the cumulative weight of 1,001 things (NDE’s, OBE’s, ghosts, mediums, child reincarnational memories, etc.).

I also believe experimental evidence exists as proof beyond reasonable doubt. Why? I have read more than the average person has on the work of the proponents and leaders of these experiments and also the skeptical responses. My conclusion was that the skeptics would find valid flaws where they exist and will nit-pick and even stir-up doubts by questioning credibility when they don’t have a strong counter-argument. This is just my personal conclusion. And yes you can say I made an opinion on the objectivety and motivation of the sources

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You seem to be saying if any skeptic questions anything about a set of experiments then the experiments are crappy and methodologically flawed.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that to the extent you've told us about the methodology of these studies at all, what you've told us has suggested serious methodological flaws. If you know of better studies, feel free to tell us about them.

I guarantee any experiment that produces positive results for paranormal phenomena will be challenged and questioned by the Skeptic community and hence be labeled crappy and flawed by their sympathizers.

Ah... so it's YOU who's prejudiced.

I mean that literally: you just described your judgement of things that skeptics haven't even done yet.

Interesting, since the whole idea of "Hume's Syndrome" is basically a complaint about perceived prejudice.

So the question becomes are the Skeptics questions and complaints valid to a fair-minded individual. The researchers that claim the positive results would say sometimes ‘they raised some fair points’ and sometimes ‘no, there objections are invalid or not significant’.

The researcher is free to say that and to feel as hard done by as he likes, but at the end of the day, decisions about what gets accepted by the scientific community are made by the scientific community, and the mere fact that a researcher thinks their study is wonderful doesn't necessarily mean it actually is.

So what is the layman to think? Each interested layman must come to his own opinion of the situation. I personally believe the paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt because of the cumulative weight of 1,001 things (NDE’s, OBE’s, ghosts, mediums, child reincarnational memories, etc.).

I also believe experimental evidence exists as proof beyond reasonable doubt. Why? I have read more than the average person has on the work of the proponents and leaders of these experiments and also the skeptical responses.

I don't trust your opinion on these matters. You may have read a lot, but based on your failure to answer basic questions about the experiments you describe (ones of the "what did they actually measure and what did they actually find?" variety), I can't consider your opinion to be informed.

Maybe it is informed and you just have trouble expressing its support, or maybe it's been built on baseless conclusions accepted credulously and uncritically, but as it stands now, I can't trust it. I have to base my opinion on evidence, which so far, you haven't provided.

My conclusion was that the skeptics would find valid flaws where they exist and will nit-pick and even stir-up doubts by questioning credibility when they don’t have a strong counter-argument. This is just my personal conclusion. And yes you can say I made an opinion on the objectivety and motivation of the sources

Can you give an example of an experiment, event, or whatnot where the skeptical response was "nit-picking" or "doubt-stirring" and not valid criticism? I'd like to get a sense of exactly what you think the skeptic community is doing wrong.

 

[George-ananda]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that to the extent you've told us about the methodology of these studies at all, what you've told us has suggested serious methodological flaws. If you know of better studies, feel free to tell us about them.

Wait a minute. What ‘serious methodological flaws’? Now you’re going way past anything Hyman even said and kind of flying off the handle.

Ah... so it's YOU who's prejudiced.

I mean that literally: you just described your judgement of things that skeptics haven't even done yet.

Interesting, since the whole idea of "Hume's Syndrome" is basically a complaint about perceived prejudice.

I was describing my honest assessment of what skeptics have done in the past and, until I see a change, what I expect they will do in the future.

The researcher is free to say that and to feel as hard done by as he likes, but at the end of the day, decisions about what gets accepted by the scientific community are made by the scientific community, and the mere fact that a researcher thinks their study is wonderful doesn't necessarily mean it actually is.

There is no official arbitrator of what the scientific community believes. In this case there are two competing schools of thought.

I don't trust your opinion on these matters. You may have read a lot, but based on your failure to answer basic questions about the experiments you describe (ones of the "what did they actually measure and what did they actually find?" variety), I can't consider your opinion to be informed.

Maybe it is informed and you just have trouble expressing its support, or maybe it's been built on baseless conclusions accepted credulously and uncritically, but as it stands now, I can't trust it. I have to base my opinion on evidence, which so far, you haven't provided.

I never expect anyone to just ‘trust me’. I’m giving my considered opinion on a subject.

Can you give an example of an experiment, event, or whatnot where the skeptical response was "nit-picking" or "doubt-stirring" and not valid criticism? I'd like to get a sense of exactly what you think the skeptic community is doing wrong.

Over the years I have read many rebuttals, re-rebuttals and re-re-rebuttals, etc..

One I’ll mention is the work of two award-winning physicists, Dr. Hal Puthoff and Dr. Russell Targ testing certain gifted subjects for psychic abilities (telepathy for one) at the Stanford Research Institute. They reported that the subjects did indeed test positive for psychic abilities. Their work was critically reviewed by the rather hard-nosed skeptic, the famous/infamous James Randi. After reading rounds of rebuttals and rebuttals to rebuttals I came to the conclusion that Randi publically claimed that he thoroughly ‘debunked’ these experiments but in reality the experimenters defended themselves very well and were not ‘debunked’. This was when the internet was in its infancy and much of what I read was in books and journals. I can’t now point you to anything but the information is out there somewhere. Though I could take on a research project with a grant from the Penguin Foundation.

Now if you try to google on this consider also the source of the information. Anyone can cherry-pick the internet to get just what they want on any controversial issue.

So, I’ve formed a considered opinion that the skeptics will attack fairly if they can (and unfairly if they need to) any and all claims of the paranormal. Of course nobody will just accept my opinion but I present it in sincerity and I present thought for consideration.