Pathological Disbelief

GuanYin

I think many of you will find this heartening, especially, if memory serves, solas.

Brian Josephson is a Nobel prizewinner for physics who now conducts research into ESP related phenomenon on the Mind-Matter Unification Project at Cambridge.

He's a believer in telekinesis and ESP and takes a very dim view of scientists who take no evidence to mean evidence against, citing the "I wouldn't believe it even if it were true" attitude a type of "pathological disbelief".

He has a recent interview in the Lone Voices special in new scientist, which is reproduced here and a comment on the phenomenon of pathological disbelief here.

I find it quite heartening to see such an established scientist work in the area of the paranormal and, broadly speaking, his comments mirror views I have long held and expressed.

Links to his work are included in the links.

Son Goku

psi wrote:

He's a believer in telekinesis and ESP and takes a very dim view of scientists who take no evidence to mean evidence against, citing the "I wouldn't believe it even if it were true" attitude a type of "pathological disbelief".

I find it quite heartening to see such an established scientist work in the area of the paranormal and, broadly speaking, his comments mirror views I have long held and expressed.

It's good that a guy with talent is actually approaching the paranormal from the proper angle. The area is one which potentially has a lot of interesting content to be found.

However that said, I think his comments are exactly the kind of trite, sneery, semi-nonsensical stuff that surrounds this area.
For instance take the comment "no evidence for isn't evidence against". This is banded about as if it's some kind of proof that scientists are closed-minded. No evidence for something is very bad and scientifically speaking it is worse than evidence against. If there was evidence against something, it means that the subject of study was well defined enough to be treated and has been ruled out. There is nothing wrong with a demonstrably incorrect idea.

No evidence for something means that it is still too vague to be properly approached. People looking into the paranormal need to realise that "no evidence for" isn't a favourable stance for any phenomena. A lot of poorly formed theories can be excused by that argument.

I still think it is one of the worst slogans a proponent of any idea can adopt.

GuanYin

Son Goku wrote:

For instance take the comment "no evidence for isn't evidence against". This is banded about as if it's some kind of proof that scientists are closed-minded.

I'm not sure that was offered for proof more than as an example of how some are. And they are - not just in paranormal issues - in conventional science too - if something is an accepted norm for any length of time, more effort goes into changing the perception than doing the research. By and large the results should be able to speak for themselves.

No evidence for something is very bad and scientifically speaking it is worse than evidence against. If there was evidence against something, it means that the subject of study was well defined enough to be treated and has been ruled out. There is nothing wrong with a demonstrably incorrect idea.

Noone is saying there is. What they are saying is, no evidence is not the same as evidence against - which you seem to agree with

No evidence for something means that it is still too vague to be properly approached. People looking into the paranormal need to realise that "no evidence for" isn't a favourable stance for any phenomena. A lot of poorly formed theories can be excused by that argument.

I don't think anyone should be looking to form theories on the back of "no evidence for" anymore than I think "no evidence for" is intrinsically unfavourable.

For instance, there is no evidence for a technologically advanced species on earth before ours, but then in fairness, even if one had existed, there would be unlikely be any evidence at all. That said, we have no evidence against it either. The fossil records we have are so scant and cover such a minute percentage of the life that has existed on our planet that we will probably never no the full extent of the history of our species never mind the myriad of others that existed in the millions of years since life evolved. The common consensus is that it is extremely unlikely - but this isn't based on much evidence at all and an earth shattering archealogical find tomorrow could completely change everything.

However, if you ask any paleoscientist, they will recount a history of the earth that leaves no room for such a happenstance. To the extent that most would ridicule you for the mear notion..... it is a fanciful notion, but really - how much do we know? Just 20 years ago every gastroenterologist in the world KNEW that the stomach was sterile - there was no evidence of any bacteria living in the stomach (and people had looked). Today I hold a 6 figure grant to look at bacteria in the stomach.

I still think it is one of the worst slogans a proponent of any idea can adopt.

I think you missed the point totally.

The slogan isn't for the proponent of an idea, they're not related - the slogan is a philosophical comment on approaching things in an unbiased fashion and constructing experiments and examining and accepting results in an unbiased manner.

solas

you must be practising psi. You sending messages out across the great expanse for me to come read? (if you are apparantly I heard it coz I'm here now)

The mind-matter unification project sounds profound.. and a little bit scary. I have visions of star trek where the ship became embedded in a meteor after some matter conversion experiments went awry.

It is always a breath of fresh air to experience intelligable conversationalists who put forward some very interesting pieces in a this capcity, sort of a glimmer of hope from a respectable authority that can hopefully provide constructive methods that all of us may benefit from in the future. God knows we need it.
Intelligent processes in nature, always a good subject for study.

continued success to you (and merry Christmas too)

Son Goku

psi wrote:

I'm not sure that was offered for proof more than as an example of how some are. And they are - not just in paranormal issues - in conventional science too - if something is an accepted norm for any length of time, more effort goes into changing the perception than doing the research. By and large the results should be able to speak for themselves.

I have seen it offered continuously as proof that scientists are closed-minded. More commonly it is used as a underhanded statement that offers no genuine criticism. If people have a problem with a certain line of research and how it is treated then they spell it out clearly and outline in an unbiased fashion what they believe should change. How do you think the Mind Matter Unification project got started? One would expect that to be something which the DAMTP would never host, given its history. How it got started was a well written proposal letter clearly outlining the area and its possible benefits.
If consciousness researchers had taken the attitude above, the project would have never gotten off the ground. It shows you what the establishment can actually be like, if you're scientific about it and this wasn't just the establishment, it was the DAMTP.
However a lot of people in the paranormal and this guy himself, if you read his stuff, seem to think this phrase excuses them from being clear about themselves.

Noone is saying there is. What they are saying is, no evidence is not the same as evidence against - which you seem to agree with

I know nobody is saying "There is something wrong with a demonstrably incorrect idea". I was saying that as an off-hand to show that some of the best and most helpful ideas in science are the clearly spelt out wrong ones. A fact researchers in the paranormal seem to forget. They very rarely spell out circumstances under which their idea could be incorrect.

I think you missed the point totally.

The slogan isn't for the proponent of an idea, they're not related - the slogan is a philosophical comment on approaching things in an unbiased fashion and constructing experiments and examining and accepting results in an unbiased manner.

It is adopted as a slogan though. Paranormal research is full to the brim of "anti-establishment" phraseology. Trust me I get his point, I think it is a worthless point and a borderline non-scientific one.

If there isn't evidence for something that is good reason to consider it not there. A few case examples from the history of science where this turned out to be incorrect do not change this. (And often those examples are exaggerated.)

I'm used to reading scientific papers where the authors state something like "should the following not be observed.......then our hypothesis is rejected". In paranormal papers sentences like that are and, outside a few exceptional papers, always were missing. Even if you think he isn't suggesting it as a slogan, you must admit it has become a sort of slogan for the scientific paranormal community.

One of worst signs of a science is when it starts making these kind of comments, in any form. Look in most books which discuss failing sciences and they are characterised by these kind of remarks.

"No evidence for isn't evidence against" isn't worth stating, because it is so obvious. It is equivalent to saying "Maybe X, Y, Z happened". Completely possible, but gives no direction. All they've done is state something incredibly obvious and comes straight out of philosophy of science 101. It should be "No evidence for isn't evidence against, but observing this should be evidence against........".

Basically, as I've said before, I think comments like this only do a disservice to the area.
Now I don't think that the paranormal is real, however I would like to know what is going on. It's most likely either an subtle and deep psychological effect or something genuinely paranormal. Either (obviously more so the latter) would be incredibly interesting.

However I'm afraid the subject will never get off the ground if its proponents keep acting like this.

It isn't the worst thing the paranormal suffers from though. The worst thing is probably what I'll momentarily call a completeness problem, other people have recognized it but it isn't given a name. I can expand if you like.

GuanYin

Son Goku wrote:

I have seen it offered continuously as proof that scientists are closed-minded. More commonly it is used as a underhanded statement that offers no genuine criticism.

I am puzzled why your portrayal of this is so wooly. You're taking a "Nelly is a pink elephant, therefore all elephants are pink" type approach. You have seen something so it is the norm, or at least the first thing you bring up and what you seem intent on focusing on - let me suggest you go to the ISS forum for this.

As much as there is dubious, unscrupulous and baseless showmanship in the paranormal, there are scientists who genuinely fit the description above. The higher you go, the more you meet them, because that attitude exists to protect reputations.

If people have a problem with a certain line of research and how it is treated then they spell it out clearly and outline in an unbiased fashion what they believe should change. How do you think the Mind Matter Unification project got started? One would expect that to be something which the DAMTP would never host, given its history. How it got started was a well written proposal letter clearly outlining the area and its possible benefits.
If consciousness researchers had taken the attitude above, the project would have never gotten off the ground. It shows you what the establishment can actually be like, if you're scientific about it and this wasn't just the establishment, it was the DAMTP.

Did you read the article? Josephson claims that colleagues and funding agencies that funded him before, now won't touch him. I understand this to an extent, because there is finite funding and funding agencies take a "most likely return" approach. But this is a clearly intelligent man, who has, I might add, won a nobel prize for his ideas.

However a lot of people in the paranormal and this guy himself, if you read his stuff, seem to think this phrase excuses them from being clear about themselves.

Excuse me, but where exactly has he not been clear? You're accusing a rather well decorated science of purposeful ambiguity which paranormal forum or not, is unacceptable.

If your next post in this forum doesn't satisfactorily back up or retract AND apologise for that remark, you'll be banned. In fact, I'm putting a finite time on you doing one or the other. This isn't ISS.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying, but you're attacking a man on baseles generalised accusations because you disagree with his position.

I know nobody is saying "There is something wrong with a demonstrably incorrect idea". I was saying that as an off-hand to show that some of the best and most helpful ideas in science are the clearly spelt out wrong ones. A fact researchers in the paranormal seem to forget. They very rarely spell out circumstances under which their idea could be incorrect.

So you're immediately lumping this person in on what grounds?

Have you read his work? Can you dispute it?

It is adopted as a slogan though. Paranormal research is full to the brim of "anti-establishment" phraseology. Trust me I get his point, I think it is a worthless point and a borderline non-scientific one.

Honestly, I think I wouldn't trust your opinion as any better than a man on the back of a bus. Not because I think ill of you or your opinion (although here I think you've made alot of noise on absolutely no basis other than a "hold-rank" approach which really good science should never be about. Mavericks are good for science, you don't have to subscribe to their theroies, just respect them for looking.

If there isn't evidence for something that is good reason to consider it not there.

That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Evidence is often dictated by our current abilities in examining a phenomenon or even our technology. Marshall's pylori theory is one of many examples of paradigm in scientific thinking about an area where the hypothesis fit better than the evidence.

A few case examples from the history of science where this turned out to be incorrect do not change this. (And often those examples are exaggerated.)

A few cases? My god, look through the history of science - the beauty of science is that it is constantly updating and building on itself. Its building on inaccurate and incorrect theories and assumptions.

People think that admitting science makes mistakes is a way of beating it about. It isn't, one of the best things about science is that it constantly reevaluates itself and displacs old notions with new ones. The problem is when money, grants and reputations step in the way of this.

I'm used to reading scientific papers where the authors state something like "should the following not be observed.......then our hypothesis is rejected". In paranormal papers sentences like that are and, outside a few exceptional papers, always were missing. Even if you think he isn't suggesting it as a slogan, you must admit it has become a sort of slogan for the scientific paranormal community.

Oh come on, most of us are used to reading them, a few of us, myself included are used to writing them - we're not talking here about the journal of spookiness. We're taking about the work of a nobel laureate in and world reknowned establishment. If you want to use this as a paranormal research bashing exercise, forget it.

One of worst signs of a science is when it starts making these kind of comments, in any form. Look in most books which discuss failing sciences and they are characterised by these kind of remarks.

I think you're being naive.

Basically, as I've said before, I think comments like this only do a disservice to the area.
Now I don't think that the paranormal is real, however I would like to know what is going on. It's most likely either an subtle and deep psychological effect or something genuinely paranormal. Either (obviously more so the latter) would be incredibly interesting.

However I'm afraid the subject will never get off the ground if its proponents keep acting like this.

Acting like what. State clearly what you are accuding this man of.

Son Goku

If your next post in this forum doesn't satisfactorily back up or retract AND apologise for that remark, you'll be banned. In fact, I'm putting a finite time on you doing one or the other. This isn't ISS.

If you want to use this as a paranormal research bashing exercise, forget it.

I'm not bashing it, I'm saying what I think is wrong with a lot of its papers and the average proponent, but this isn't bashing. I can't believe I might be banned for this. Holy **** man, seriously! I've put a lot of effort into reading paranormal papers and I'm just commenting on a trend I've see. I didn't expect this to turn so sour, I thought was making a fairly mundane comment. I'm not even criticising the paranormal, but the paper writing technique and funding approach of those who research it. However it's possible that you've genuinely encountered hostile resistance in the past with regard paranormal research that I'm not aware of and my criticisms could be too idealistic.

You probably should ban me then as I'll probably just continue to offend. I'm sorry for the disturbance.

GuanYin

Son Goku wrote:

I'm not bashing it, I'm saying what I think is wrong with a lot of its papers and the average proponent, but this isn't bashing. I can't believe I might be banned for this. Holy **** man, seriously! I've put alot of effort into reading paranormal papers and I'm just commenting on a trend I've see. I didn't expect this to turn so sour, I thought was making a fairly mundane comment. You probably should ban me then as I'll probably just continue to offend. I'm sorry for the disturbance.

Ok, lets diffuse this. Your comment was aimed directly at the man and his work and not the area in general. As the nature of the thread is somewhat abrasive of the scientific community, debate is fine - but if you're going to make a comment about a researchers credibility (as you have about Brian Josephson) then you have to back it up.

Son Goku wrote:

However a lot of people in the paranormal and this guy himself, if you read his stuff, seem to think this phrase excuses them from being clear about themselves.

So, again, I offer you the chance to set it straight.

Son Goku

psi wrote:

Ok, lets diffuse this. Your comment was aimed directly at the man and his work and not the area in general. As the nature of the thread is somewhat abrasive of the scientific community, debate is fine - but if you're going to make a comment about a researchers credibility (as you have about Brian Josephson) then you have to back it up.

I don't get this, seriously, I'm not being a troll or anything. I'm not criticising his credibility, I am criticising that phrase and the mentality it encourages in the area in general. I have used Josephson as a springboard. I never said anything about his credibility.
(And I couldn't, I'm familiar with his research in superconducting and there is nothing wrong with it.)

All I'm talking about is this is an example where the paranormal gets lazy, something which used to be true of conscious research, (it had the same problems), but they turned it around.

Examples like this are very common. It's like String Theory at the moment. Their research is top notch, but they've fallen into a similar kind of laziness, particularly since 1995 which they're only starting to correct now. This isn't a criticism of research credibility.

I've no idea what happened, but I'm sorry if I caused offense and can we leave it at that and I'll stay off the thread.

stevenmu

Well I would tend to agree with Josephson's view. It has often happened on this forum that a lack of proof has been taken as proof against. That isn't too bad here, because this forum is relatively trivial in the grand scheme of things, but when so called scientists have this attitude, that can do a lot of harm (I say "so called" because I don't think anyone with this attitude can truely be a scientist). The harm it does, is that if prevents phenomona being investigated fully and either proven or disproven properly, which in turn leads to no true increase of knowledge or understanding.

solas

In response to the string theory comment, if I'm not mistaken Professor Josephson attempts to go beyond quantum theory, by way opening up the 'closed' formula trend in an effort to give 'room' for development. (for as much as I can gather from what I've read so far)

To be fair, the entire concept opens up avenues for further discovery which all of us, not just those seeking to validate personal beliefs, can benefit from.