'The Enemies of Reason' - New Richard Dawkins documentary on tonight at 8pm on Ch 4

Dave!

There's a detailed title for ya!

Richard Dawkins has a new 2-part documentary airing tonight, called 'the Enemies of Reason', which basically is an assault on astrology, mediums, psychics, all that sort of stuff..... Thought you lot might be interested in seeing it!

Here's a recent interview Dawkins did on Richard & Judy, about the documentary:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1964171996506271039&hl=en

Enjoy!

Riamfada

Alright Dave, how are you.

Channel and Time?

Dave!

Grimes wrote:

Alright Dave, how are you.

Channel and Time?

Yo Grimey, I'm good thanks.

There was a hint as to the channel and time, in the thread title:

"'The Enemies of Reason' - New Richard Dawkins documentary on tonight at 8pm on Ch 4"



I'm afraid you missed it, mon frère! Wasn't all that great... shooting fish in a barrel. Part 2 is next Monday.

Riamfada

I was too lazy to read the entire title!

Sapien

Amazingly, the responses to the equivalent threads in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum and the Irish Skeptics forum are much larger.

Come on guys! Wasn't it at least funny when he read those tabloid horoscopes and replaced all the star signs with nationalities? "Germans... don't be so eager to follow orders today!"

Did he attack anything anyone here places importance in? Did you think he was fair?

Ciaran500

Sapien wrote:

Did he attack anything anyone here places importance in? Did you think he was fair?

I have a feeling any response from people on here would just like the dowsers that failed the tests.

6th

I didnt see it myself but I'll have a look around later.

Aisling&M

It was rubbish in my opinion. Not a very scientific approach to defend 'reason' at all! He went to a fair and tested some dowsers.......ooh that must have taken him ages! *rolling eyes*

Sapien

Aisling&M wrote:

It was rubbish in my opinion. Not a very scientific approach to defend 'reason' at all! He went to a fair and tested some dowsers.......ooh that must have taken him ages! *rolling eyes*

What was unscientific about his methods? He tested psychics and an astrologer as well.

Personally I didn't think the results of the dowsing experiment were surprising, or should even have been particularly disturbing for an intelligent advocate of the practice - it didn't conflict with my conception about how dowsing probably works.

Aisling&M

His assumptions, especially toward the end of the programme (ie faith over reason is very dangerous and can hurt many people) were not shown in evidence...........what people have been hurt, how is it dangerous.......etc etc.

He picked a few who failed or got acceptable 'chance' results and that was the science behind his outlandish statements.

He did a little wishy washy testing and even if some of his theories are/were/will be accurate I would not take them as fact just because he says so on a TV programme.....

I was looking forward to a more thorough and reasonable examination of the subject as a believer in it..........a believer who is pretty sure one day the realm of paranormal will be accepted as normal and part of science that as yet is incapable of measuring. That will not always be the case, in my opinion.
As we advance with our methods we will advance in our understanding and use intrigue rather than fear as motive to inquire into the credibility of the paranormal.

5uspect

Aisling&M wrote:

It was rubbish in my opinion. Not a very scientific approach to defend 'reason' at all! He went to a fair and tested some dowsers.......ooh that must have taken him ages! *rolling eyes*

It was an entirely scientific approach! Also, it wasn't a fair it was a university campus where the Psychologist was conducting a double blind experiment. It was a simple and powerful example of how such tests work, that only adds to the existing experimental data. I could probably cite you hundreds more examples if you like?

Aisling&M wrote:

His assumptions, especially toward the end of the programme (ie faith over reason is very dangerous and can hurt many people) were not shown in evidence...........what people have been hurt, how is it dangerous.......etc etc.

We'll have to wait until episode 2 for more of that I'd imagine. I would say people using alternatives to medicine and ignoring proper (double blind tested) medicine would be a good example.

Aisling&M wrote:

He picked a few who failed or got acceptable 'chance' results and that was the science behind his outlandish statements.

Where did you get this from? They all failed! If one did exhibit such an ability Dawkins would probably be first to admit it. Thats how science works. You test and test again looking for evidence. No one have ever beaten random chance.

Aisling&M wrote:

He did a little wishy washy testing and even if some of his theories are/were/will be accurate I would not take them as fact just because he says so on a TV programme.....

And he's not asking you to have faith in him. You can do these experiments yourself (thats one reason they showed such scaled down simple experiments). You can go read the scientific literature yourself where the evidence is presented.

Aisling&M wrote:

I was looking forward to a more thorough and reasonable examination of the subject as a believer in it..........a believer who is pretty sure one day the realm of paranormal will be accepted as normal and part of science that as yet is incapable of measuring. That will not always be the case, in my opinion.

Science works on the falsification of hypotheses. You come up with an idea that can be tested (this is the important bit), test it in a way that would show it can be falsified. If it survives it becomes a theory (or part of a larger theory).

You as a believer seem to have faith an array of different apparently interlinked hypotheses that all have a paranormal aspect joining them.
To be paranormal these hypothesis must describe things that do not exist in nature as we currently understand. Since they must interact with the natural world to be even perceivable they can be tested. Dawkins used the example of bat echo location here.

A lot of these ideas can be tested independently, and individually, and have all been essentially falsified beyond reasonable doubt. You seem to have faith in a whole range of ideas simply because you like the notion of the paranormal.

Aisling&M wrote:

As we advance with our methods we will advance in our understanding and use intrigue rather than fear as motive to inquire into the credibility of the paranormal.

If anything as science has progressed more and more myths about paranormality have been explained naturally. As science explains such observable effects they become ordinary natural phenomena (losing their sex appeal in the process I'd imagine). There is no fear of the paranormal in science, only hard facts based on dispassionate observation.

Aisling&M

Honestly I'm not really in the frame of mind to have a discussion about it or defend my opinion. I just thought it was a bad attempt at fear-inducing schepticism.

And 'chance' results were when they got 1 or 2 out of 6 guesses right......ie that is the same probability as the average man/woman just guessing off the top of their heads.

Aisling&M

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Aisling&M
As we advance with our methods we will advance in our understanding and use intrigue rather than fear as motive to inquire into the credibility of the paranormal.


If anything as science has progressed more and more myths about paranormality have been explained naturally. As science explains such observable effects they become ordinary natural phenomena (losing their sex appeal in the process I'd imagine). There is no fear of the paranormal in science, only hard facts based on dispassionate observation."

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


EXACTLY.........paranormal now does not mean it will be anything but normal in the future. Sure half of it may be disproved while the rest may be explained through NATURAL/normal phenomena.

There is no reason why these occurences could not one day be explained logically.......

Sapien

Aisling&M wrote:

I was looking forward to a more thorough and reasonable examination of the subject as a believer in it..........a believer who is pretty sure one day the realm of paranormal will be accepted as normal and part of science that as yet is incapable of measuring. That will not always be the case, in my opinion.

I think he dealt with this idea rather elegantly, with his discussion of the once outlandish theory that bats could detect their surroundings by sonar, and how it eventually was brought into the fold of scientific orthodoxy by careful testing and the persuasiveness of evidence. His implication was clear, and it was that if psi is real, we can expect the same process to occur.

I think anyone interested in the Paranormal has to get comfortable with the level of evidence involved, and fit their understanding to be in accordance - otherwise one is setting oneself up for disappointment. Arguing against the evidence is a battle that is lost from the outset.

5uspect

Sapien wrote:

I think anyone interested in the Paranormal has to get comfortable with the level of evidence involved, and fit their understanding to be in accordance - otherwise one is setting oneself up for disappointment. Arguing against the evidence is a battle that is lost from the outset.

Thats a very good point. There seems to be too much emotional investment on the side of the paranormal crowd. There is too much of a willingness to dismiss vast swathes of science and reason to justify the pet notion that there is the possibility of telepathy, for example.

Aisling&M wrote:

And 'chance' results were when they got 1 or 2 out of 6 guesses right......ie that is the same probability as the average man/woman just guessing off the top of their heads.

Thats the point, nothing was observed. You would get the same result if you didn't use people either. If you used a random number generator you would get similar results. This shows that not only are these people lacking the ability to dowse but so are "average" people

I just thought it was a bad attempt at fear-inducing schepticism.

Skepticism is the default scientific position? There's nothing fear inducing about that.

EXACTLY.........paranormal now does not mean it will be anything but normal in the future. Sure half of it may be disproved while the rest may be explained through NATURAL/normal phenomena.

There is no reason why these occurences could not one day be explained logically.......

You're missing the point. There are hundreds and thousands of discarded hypotheses in science. To cling onto a popular, sexed up selection of paranormal notions when there is no evidence other than anecdotal is to ignore the very basics of the scientific method. The evidence is increasingly weighting against these ideas.

Sure there is the possibility that one day there may be evidence to the contrary that E.S.P. etc exists but its very very unlikely.

WindSock

I liked the false positives thing with the pigeons. Conditioned response is another way of calling it. Like Pavlovs dogs. Thats al ljust superstition though. I think the spirit world is a bit more complex and personal than superstition. And the rockness of the rock.

wezzopalooza

I must say that I was cringing at the tarot card reader towards the start. He was totally clueless, and was even contradicting his own information during the reading. He mentioned a spirit person beginning with G who was around Dawkins and was most likely a family member. After a minute of waffling on and fishing for info, Dawkins brought up this person with the G sounding name to which the "reader" said was no relation to Dawkins!! The look on his face when Dawkins reminded him of this error was cringeworthy to say the least. He totally let this guy embarass himself. He told him absolutely nothing of substance!!

5uspect

boreds wrote:

I liked the false positives thing with the pigeons. Conditioned response is another way of calling it. Like Pavlovs dogs. Thats al ljust superstition though. I think the spirit world is a bit more complex and personal than superstition. And the rockness of the rock.

Can I ask you what you thought of the Medium interviewed on the show then?

Bottle_of_Smoke

"no, my grandmother HATED cats"

knird evol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekWjZA3IH4c

5uspect

Did you actually look at the elements in that video in their correct context rather than ignore the situations in which both the video and audio clip occur?

The video is from a interview a creationist propaganda crowd who lied to get the interview and upon realizing that they were creationists Dawkins asked them to leave. His response was:

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew [from the then Answers in Genesis] into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.

And more here:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/

The audio clip at the end is from Ted Haggard, who is, well, you know...:rolleyes:

Zillah

Yup, its a total fraud of a video and I'm sick of seeing it tauted around by believers.

WindSock

5uspect wrote:

Can I ask you what you thought of the Medium interviewed on the show then?

Yeah. he was crap.

stevenmu

Unfortunatly my cable was out the last few days and I didn't get to see the show, hopefully there'll be a repeat. I've only ever seen quotes and excerpts from Dawkins, they've seemed very one sided and make him seem like he's someone with an axe to grind. Admittidly the quotes and excertps generally seem to have been posted by fanatical atheists, so perhaps they were the ones with the axe to grind and were quoting him selectively. I'd like to actually see the show and would hope that he is more even and fair than I've been led to believe.

Sapien wrote:

I think anyone interested in the Paranormal has to get comfortable with the level of evidence involved, and fit their understanding to be in accordance - otherwise one is setting oneself up for disappointment. Arguing against the evidence is a battle that is lost from the outset.

I'd have to disagree with this. Evidence is something used to convince someone of something. I see no reason why someone with an interest in the paranormal should have to either give evidence to justify their viewpoint, or should have to recieve and consider evidence which contradicts what their viewpoint. Personally I would like to give, recieve and discuss evidence, but that's just a part of who I am. Someone for example who practices tarot cards may have enough personal experience to believe that they work, but may not have any empirical evidence to back that up, and similarly may very choose to accept their own personal experience over any empirical evidence offered.

knird evol

5uspect wrote:

Did you actually look at the elements in that video in their correct context rather than ignore the situations in which both the video and audio clip occur?

The video is from a interview a creationist propaganda crowd who lied to get the interview and upon realizing that they were creationists Dawkins asked them to leave. His response was:


And more here:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/

The audio clip at the end is from Ted Haggard, who is, well, you know...:rolleyes:

yeah i know the context in which this occured(supposedly). it doesnt really interest me. i only like the clip from the view point of dawkins personal ego side of it. if he just admitted a question caught him one time or ignored the thing it would be nothing but it becomes funny when he scrambles to undo it with the drivel you've quoted above.

Dawkins is the Eddie Hobs of science. Hes an entertaining showman and hes sold alot of books. To people such as yourself.

stevenmu

Knird Evol, there's no need to get personal with your remarks, I've seen the road that goes down too many times and it always drags down what can otherwise be a good discussion.

Zillah

knird evol wrote:

if he just admitted a question caught him one time or ignored the thing it would be nothing but it becomes funny when he scrambles to undo it with the drivel you've quoted above.

:rolleyes:

You don't find it a little bit suspicious that a professor of evolutionary biology couldn't answer a fairly simple question about evolutionary biology?

I do this sort of stuff all the time in college. You have no idea how much power the editor has over an interview. Luckily most journalists have no warped agenda such as our Creationist friends above have.

If I get a tape of you nodding and saying "yes" after I asked you if you were comfortable, I could then edit in my other question which is "Are you a convicted child molestor"? You nod and say yes.

Thats the kind of crap we've got here.

stevenmu wrote:

I've only ever seen quotes and excerpts from Dawkins, they've seemed very one sided and make him seem like he's someone with an axe to grind.

But that doesn't make him wrong, right?

For example, lets say a history professor finds himself at a convention of people who think the holocaust didn't happen. He spends his whole day going around telling everyone that it did happen, that there are mountains of evidence and testimony that prove it, that they must have been duped by someone with an agenda.

Might they describe him as "one sided"? That he has an "axe to grind"? He's not wrong, he's not "biased", he's just very sure he's right based on the evidence. I'm not saying the holocaust is a perfect metaphor, far from it, but it serves as an example of how someone sticking to their guns and strongly arguing their case does not mean they're prejudiced or unfair.

Sapien

stevenmu wrote:

I'd have to disagree with this. Evidence is something used to convince someone of something. I see no reason why someone with an interest in the paranormal should have to either give evidence to justify their viewpoint,

Well, I never said that.

stevenmu wrote:

or should have to recieve and consider evidence which contradicts what their viewpoint.

I just find that strange. That seems like an approach to blind faith. It's one thing to say that there are categories of belief that are purely personal and to which no evidence can be adduced, but where evidence exists and is relevant, surely it must be considered. To refuse to consider evidence is to admit that one doesn't really expect that ones ideas will stand up to it, which is, I think, tantamount to saying that one doesn't really believe at all.

5uspect

knird evol wrote:

Dawkins is the Eddie Hobs of science. Hes an entertaining showman and hes sold alot of books. To people such as yourself.

If I'm going to read about evolution I will read Dawkins' books or Gould's books. If I want to read about psychology and philosophy I will read Pinker's books or Dennet's books. If I want to read about Physics I will read Hawkins and Deutsch.
These people are some of the leading scientists in their fields publishing popular science books and I do not have the time to read all the published literature in Scientific Journals. I find it hard enough to keep up in my own field.

Dawkins holds a Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science, and by speaking out against unscientific notions like astrology and homeopathy he is doing exactly what his job entails. Alternatives to medicine are creeping into heath services in the face of overwhelming evidence that they simply do not work beyond placebo effects.

To attempt to critiicse a person such as myself, who reads and studies science, for reading books by a distinguished academic is a rather pointless and childish.

Stevenmu, I agree with you that this debate is better served by avoiding a flame war.

5uspect

stevenmu wrote:

I'd have to disagree with this. Evidence is something used to convince someone of something. I see no reason why someone with an interest in the paranormal should have to either give evidence to justify their viewpoint, or should have to recieve and consider evidence which contradicts what their viewpoint.

Sure you don't have to seek evidence if you don't want to. Everyone is free to believe what they want.

Yet Mystics and Mediums regularly claim to have such evidence. Psychic reading (or its normal counterpart cold reading) is based on the idea that the medium provides information to the customer from a dead relative. The customer is convinced that what they're hearing is true. This is essentially providing evidence of the suggested paranormal effects.

I'd go so far as to say that the entire field of the paranormal, unlike religions where unquestioning faith is key, relies heavily on "evidence" of personal experience. Otherwise what reason do you have to believe in what you do?

iamhunted

i havent seen this so I cant say much about it, but i hope its a bit more on the ball that the standard 'scientific' analysis documentaries about the paranormal that completely bypass the hard to explain examples and recordings of paranormal activity and 'prove' false the kind of things any sane person would be able to see through in the first place.

iamhunted

5uspect wrote:

Sure you don't have to seek evidence if you don't want to. Everyone is free to believe what they want.

Yet Mystics and Mediums regularly claim to have such evidence. Psychic reading (or its normal counterpart cold reading) is based on the idea that the medium provides information to the customer from a dead relative. The customer is convinced that what they're hearing is true. This is essentially providing evidence of the suggested paranormal effects.

I'd go so far as to say that the entire field of the paranormal, unlike religions where unquestioning faith is key, relies heavily on "evidence" of personal experience. Otherwise what reason do you have to believe in what you do?

you only need one white crow really to be able to say they exist. Personally ive met a medium who knew things they couldnt have - too long a story but Im an average intelligent person and I cant explain what how this particular medium came up with what she came up with. interview and study the people like that - the tiny percentage who are genuine. some politicians for example are lying ****es - that doesnt mean they all are. same goes for mediums.

5uspect

iamhunted wrote:

you only need one white crow really to be able to say they exist. Personally ive met a medium who knew things they couldnt have - too long a story but Im an average intelligent person and I cant explain what how this particular medium came up with what she came up with. interview and study the people like that - the tiny percentage who are genuine. some politicians for example are lying ****es - that doesnt mean they all are. same goes for mediums.

White crows are genetically possible. They had an albino Gorilla in the zoo in Barcelona for example. Such occurrences are well within the laws of nature.
Also politicians don't claim anything that violates the fundamental laws of nature.

I highlighted your use of the word "personally" there. This is something that I often take issue with. Just because you can't comprehend how someone did something is it a major mistake to jump to a very improbable conclusion like psychic ability. This reminds me of Arthur C. Clark's Third Law:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The same applies for sufficiently evolved mental strategies for reading peoples emotions and probable histories. While we may very have abilities such as telekinesis or telepathy natural selection would have selected them much earlier in our evolution (and in other animals). There would have been a huge advantage to someone with such abilities and the effects would be undeniable.

I don't doubt there are highly empathic people who genuinely confuse this for paranormal abilities. I'm sure James Randi would love to hear from these genuine people. The problem is that paranormal ideas are often bogged down in religious or mythical superstitions. People see their perceived ability as a gift from god or angels etc and that by agreeing to have tests done or even receive money would somehow desecrate these abilities.

As a result we have a catch 22 situation where rational science is perceived as deliberately trying to destroy actual abilities (due to its detached rational approach) and paranormalists are perceived as superstitious crack pots who have no idea of what energy actually means and who've smoked a bit too much weed.

By doing ths show Dawkins has hopefully opened a door where people who claim paranormal abilities or believe in them can actually approach the claims in a more rational way. I think he arguements against astrology were excellent. However the medium he picked seems to have divided people. It would be interesting to see a lengthier series dealing with an array of different mediums individually purely for the sake of the nay sayers.

iamhunted

with respect, you do seem to be bypassing the point. if i wanted to say all footballers were crap, i need only test a crap footballer and ignore everything else. if you wish to prove the paranormal is fake, just test a dodgy medium or two. if you want a challenge find a medium that is challenging. i find most of these types of shows go for the easy to debunk mediums, not the challenging ones and you seem to defend this as though theres rhymn an reason to such things.

not really very 'scientific' that.

iamhunted

5uspect wrote:

I highlighted your use of the word "personally" there. This is something that I often take issue with. Just because you can't comprehend how someone did something is it a major mistake to jump to a very improbable conclusion like psychic ability.

sorry - but again with respect ... considering you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what that 'personal experience' was, and considering that it couldnt have invovled any form of reading (as the information was related to the premises not the person and the person didnt know the information until later) and considering the medium in question was australian and only over here for a few days ... i have to say your assumption that my 'personal experience' was somehow due to lack of knowledge not only a tad insulting, but it also makes me wonder just how scientific your thought process is considering your lack of judgement before making your statement.

iamhunted

actually a much much simplier way to put it is that I dont understand rocket science, but that doesnt make it 'magic'.

5uspect

iamhunted wrote:

sorry - but again with respect ... considering you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what that 'personal experience' was, and considering that it couldnt have invovled any form of reading (as the information was related to the premises not the person and the person didnt know the information until later) and considering the medium in question was australian and only over here for a few days ... i have to say your assumption that my 'personal experience' was somehow due to lack of knowledge not only a tad insulting, but it also makes me wonder just how scientific your thought process is considering your lack of judgement before making your statement.

You're missing my point entirely! I do not mean to be insulting to your intelligence or your lack of knowledge. I am saying that the human brain sees patterns often where none exist. We all do it. Every single one of us.

When I take measurements in the lab and compile the results into a paper for publication in a Journal or for presentation at a conference it undergoes a process of peer review. Anything I saw is picked apart by the reviewers and sent back to be for correction if it wrong. If I were to infer something supernatural or controversial then my work would come under serious scrutiny, and rightly so. My experiments and methods would be repeated, adapted and investigated to determine any effect. Look at the recent S. Korean cloning scandal.

You say you have a personal experience of a supernatural event. There is no way of knowing if this was just a lucky guess, deception or indeed psychic ability. Your personal feeling will cloud your judgment about the situation. They may bias you infavour of the supernatural explanation just as much as mine will bias me to see the cheat. I am simply trying to point out that this is far from conclusive evidence for psychic ability.

iamhunted wrote:

with respect, you do seem to be bypassing the point. if i wanted to say all footballers were crap, i need only test a crap footballer and ignore everything else. if you wish to prove the paranormal is fake, just test a dodgy medium or two. if you want a challenge find a medium that is challenging. i find most of these types of shows go for the easy to debunk mediums, not the challenging ones and you seem to defend this as though theres rhymn an reason to such things.

Once again footballers don't claim to be able to read the mind of the goalkeeper in a penalty situation. As I said I would like to see a broad test of many Mediums. We see a regular test of soccer players daily on Sky Sports. We know what individuals are good and what teams are good.

The psychics and mediums shown on the show have all been dismissed as crap by people here. It has been suggested that scientists are too scared to approach real psychics and this is simply untrue. There has been significant amounts of research into the effects of intercessionary prayer on patients recovering from illness and other paranormal ideas.

It would be very interesting to test all these "true" mediums. I'm sure both the skeptics and believers would greatly appreciate it.

iamhunted wrote:

not really very 'scientific' that.

The show used small samples, granted, but stressed the point, a number of times, that such results have been observed in much larger studies. They attempted to show how a scientific test is done in a simple and uncomplicated manner, a boring discussion of statistical analysis wouldn't make interesting television.
If you want I can dig up some paper for you.

5uspect

iamhunted wrote:

actually a much much simplier way to put it is that I dont understand rocket science, but that doesnt make it 'magic'.

Agreed. but you see the results of rocket science every time you watch Sky Sports and have digital television transmitted from orbit into your house.
I fully accept that there very well be naturally occurring psychic abilities but I do not believe that they exist unless I see evidence on par with any scientific theory.

Also "rocket science" can predict the behaviour, extremely accurately, of what it deals with, be it trajectories, supersonic flow or gravitational effects. There is no such model of the human mind that predicts such psychic ability, yet we have simulations and models that predict the functions of the brain quite well.

iamhunted

i see where you are coming from but there seems to be two distinct things you are referring too ... the first is the idea of a medium understand or receiving information from a source not known to mankind (ie, the paranormal etc etc) and the second is the human mind.

we cant (including science) explain the human mind - in fact theres various theories on what the mind is. this though, doesnt mean that some mediums aret genuine. as i said before - research some mediums with a track history of postive results ... dont research people who think they are mediums. if you dont choose the proper research subject then you wont get any positive results.

I havent seen the documentary - I just hope that when I do get to see it that i find the people being researched were genuine and not dopes put there to make the documentary look good - which to be honest, in virtually every scientific based research docuemtnary Ive ever seen about the paranormal seems to do .. they never tackle the issues of real audio or video or mediums who have proved themselves in the field (if thats possible). its obvious why not.

Im sure in the middle ages many people of 'science' (which is itself a completely unfinished field of research which is constantly changing) thought the world was flat.

SkepticOne

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about what science and what it tries to do. It is not a body of knowledge and doctrine but a method of accumulating objective knowlege about the world.

5uspect

iamhunted wrote:

i see where you are coming from but there seems to be two distinct things you are referring too ... the first is the idea of a medium understand or receiving information from a source not known to mankind (ie, the paranormal etc etc) and the second is the human mind.

I guess so. There is the minds ability to read situations naturally and there is the idea that there are supernatural forces talking to us.

iamhunted wrote:

we cant (including science) explain the human mind - in fact theres various theories on what the mind is.

Why is the human mind unexplainable? It is simply a complex parallel processing neural network. Every day we understand more about it.
Do you define it differently? Are we confusing definitions?

iamhunted wrote:

as i said before - research some mediums with a track history of postive results ... dont research people who think they are mediums. if you dont choose the proper research subject then you wont get any positive results.

Can you give me some examples and possibly evidence other than anecdotal?
As I've said I doubt there is a conspiracy in science regarding selection of test subjects

I havent seen the documentary

Here you go:
http://www.videosift.com/?domains=www.videosift.com&search=enemies+of+reason
enjoy:)

Im sure in the middle ages many people of 'science' (which is itself a completely unfinished field of research which is constantly changing) thought the world was flat.

Indeed, and the essence of science it the ability to change ones mind when new evidence is presented. Ideas about a flat earth were abandoned, just as ideas about telepathy should be abandoned if the evidence suggests otherwise.

Zillah

Im sure in the middle ages many people of 'science' (which is itself a completely unfinished field of research which is constantly changing) thought the world was flat.

And I guarantee you, it was people like Gallileo using the scientific method that discovered it wasn't. Science is its own biggest critic, by definition.

People often use the "But scientists were wrong before, so it could be wrong now!" argument. In every case the reason you're able to say "The scientists were wrong!" is because other scientists gathered more informatio and worked it out.

aidan24326

iamhunted wrote:

I havent seen the documentary - I just hope that when I do get to see it that i find the people being researched were genuine and not dopes put there to make the documentary look good - which to be honest, in virtually every scientific based research docuemtnary Ive ever seen about the paranormal seems to do .. they never tackle the issues of real audio or video or mediums who have proved themselves in the field (if thats possible). its obvious why not.

Ok, so where are all these 'genuine' psychics and mystics and telepathics? Seriously. Name me one and I'll go along myself for a look. Why is it that every one ever tested has failed to do any better than what we'd expect by chance? A big science-conspiracy is it? Not likely.

Richard Dawkins is a passionate scientist, a man genuinely fascinated by the world around him. He would undoubtedly be enthralled if some paranormal effect could be demonstrated as real, a new scientific principle might be discovered, maybe an existing one revised and modified. Any credible scientist would be glad he was alive to see it. So your argument doesn't stand up.

Also, I've no doubt Dawkins himself would acknowledge that there might be a small (<1%) slice of the paranormal spectrum that is in need of more research or can't be completely dismissed (even if it can be said to be very unlikely). But the people interviewed and/or tested on the docu are typical of the vast majority of practitioners in this whole area. Complete chancers. The tarot card guy was an embarassment, and yet a frightening number of people buy into this tripe. The psychic Dawkins went to see was so obviously a phony and people were still lapping it up.

That's what he's getting at. It's a total dumbing down of the human intellect and promotes misinformation and miseducation. This might be relatively harmless for something like astrology but is far from harmless in the area of healthcare which is the focus of part 2 I believe.

Cactus Col

Zillah wrote:

And I guarantee you, it was people like Gallileo using the scientific method that discovered it wasn't. Science is its own biggest critic, by definition.

People often use the "But scientists were wrong before, so it could be wrong now!" argument. In every case the reason you're able to say "The scientists were wrong!" is because other scientists gathered more information and worked it out.

But isn't that over simplyifing it immensely? The theory of evolution, as an example, certainly didn't originate with Darwin. It was a theory that was doing the rounds for a long time before Darwin set foot on the galapagos, however, the scientific community at the time were reluctant to consider it, and for a great many years it was on the fringes of science, even scorned by mainstream science.

Proving something by the "scientific method" even today, is not enough to make any science acceptable to the greater scientific community. A greater attitude shift is needed within the mainstream science for a fringe science to become acceptable.

Of course it may take experimental science to prove this, at which point this science would also come under attack.

We are all prone to our own beliefs and prejudices, even scientists, even Richard Dawkins. I would say that if Dawkins did stumble upon stone clad proof of the paranormal or supernatural, it would take a very long time for him to accept it, if he ever did.

Cactus Col

aidan24326 wrote:

Also, I've no doubt Dawkins himself would acknowledge that there might be a small (<1%) slice of the paranormal spectrum that is in need of more research or can't be completely dismissed (even if it can be said to be very unlikely). But the people interviewed and/or tested on the docu are typical of the vast majority of practitioners in this whole area. Complete chancers. The tarot card guy was an embarassment, and yet a frightening number of people buy into this tripe. The psychic Dawkins went to see was so obviously a phony and people were still lapping it up.

Are you sure they're typical, or are you just happy to take Dawkin's word for it. Isn't that like featuring Brendan Kilkenny and spiral on a documentary about irish entertainment?

Dawkins was doing a "documentary" that was critical of the subject, not one that was giving a fair handed account. The clue was in the title "the enemies of reason".

5uspect

Cactus Col wrote:

But isn't that over simplyifing it immensely? The theory of evolution, as an example, certainly didn't originate with Darwin. It was a theory that was doing the rounds for a long time before Darwin set foot on the galapagos, however, the scientific community at the time were reluctant to consider it, and for a great many years it was on the fringes of science, even scorned by mainstream science.

The idea that animals developed from "lesser" ones into more complex ones was around at the time, however it was Darwin (and around the same time Wallace) that came up with the idea of natural selection. Other ideas like Lamarckism were falsified.

Proving something by the "scientific method" even today, is not enough to make any science acceptable to the greater scientific community. A greater attitude shift is needed within the mainstream science for a fringe science to become acceptable.

If there is compelling evidence for something it will eventually prevail. The evidence will long outlive the most stubborn professor. The default position in science is skepticism so new ideas take time to be accepted into the mainstream. But also bear in mind that scientific theories are only accepted because they have thus far survived falsification. If a new theory explains the same phenomena equally well then it it is not really useful. If however new evidence shows that a certain theory is wrong at predicting/explaining certain aspects then a new hypothesis is needed. Relativity explains the universe better than Newtonian mechanics. However Newton's theories are sufficient for the vast majority of our engineering and scientific applications.

Both theories may be totally wrong regarding what really is going on but they explain what we observe beautifully. I've heard science described once as the attempt to explain as many of the facts as possible with as few assumptions as possible.

Of course it may take experimental science to prove this, at which point this science would also come under attack.

We are all prone to our own beliefs and prejudices, even scientists, even Richard Dawkins. I would say that if Dawkins did stumble upon stone clad proof of the paranormal or supernatural, it would take a very long time for him to accept it, if he ever did.

And rightly so, there is no such thing as stone clad evidence in science. Its all about certainties and probabilities. Every single theory we have is probably correct and may very well be wrong. Since every theory must be conceptually falsifiable (this is a very very important point otherwise a hypothesis cannot be tested) any evidence which has such huge ramifications must be heavily scrutinised, retested and explained with as few assumptions as possible which often results in an alternative to the original hypothesis.

I think this is why many in the paranormal crowd are so suspicious of science.
Its not that scientists are conspiring to destroy all evidence of paranormal phenomena its simply the raw truth of the scientific method. If you claim that you know someone who can read minds or that you have invented a drug that cures AIDS you will face a wall of skepticism. If your claim has the evidence to support it then you must persevere to demonstrate it openly.

Look at the recent Steorn fiasco. Their whole attempt at marketing their claim stinks of scam simply because they don't seem to realise the hugeness of what they're claiming and the volume of literature on what they claim suggests otherwise.

5uspect

Cactus Col wrote:

Are you sure they're typical, or are you just happy to take Dawkin's word for it. Isn't that like featuring Brendan Kilkenny and spiral on a documentary about irish entertainment?

Dawkins was doing a "documentary" that was critical of the subject, not one that was giving a fair handed account. The clue was in the title "the enemies of reason".

The show seemed like a review of already existing research on such topics.
Dawkins was quick to state, numerous times, that the same results have been found elsewhere. There is not one documented case AFAIK of someone actually beating the test. There comes a point where you have to stop testing and apply the science. Otherwise we could be sitting here tossing coins and throwing dice just to see what happens...

As regards the title, I think was fair in light of the research done. People want to believe in supernatural things even tho all the evidence suggests otherwise. Such ideas are trying to influence health care (homeopathy), education (creationism) and politics (religion).

As I've said, if people want me to post up PDFs of research papers discussing experiments into such claims I will (assuming I have access to the relevant Journals). However I hope people won't simply deride them as being biased against them.

lookinforpicnic

Cactus Col wrote:

The theory of evolution, as an example, certainly didn't originate with Darwin. It was a theory that was doing the rounds for a long time before Darwin set foot on the galapagos, however, the scientific community at the time were reluctant to consider it, and for a great many years it was on the fringes of science, even scorned by mainstream science.

This is simply misleading, before Darwin some philosophers and naturists toyed with the idea but evidence of it occurring or a detailed account how it could occur simply wasn't formulated, Darwin was the first explicitly develop his main idea of natural selection and the power it could have, comparing it artificial selection of breeders and using his numerous examples from his extensive (to put it midly) naturalistic work to illustrate the point, then people could take it seriously given the impressive amount of evidence he presented for it.

The scientific community are not reluctant to consider new ideas, they are simply reluctant to accept ideas which are not backed up evidence, and for a such ground breaking work, or work that challenges alot of existent theories well then often a large amount of evidence needs to presented.

Cactus Col wrote:

Proving something by the "scientific method" even today, is not enough to make any science acceptable to the greater scientific community. A greater attitude shift is needed within the mainstream science for a fringe science to become acceptable.

This is rubbish, science doesn't prove things, it can disprove certain hypothesis as it gathers evidence and generates theories to best explain the data.

A fringe science...whats this? If a body of work has a substantial body of evidence behind it will not be in the fringes of science, if something is in the fringes of science its generally for lack of funding (or lack of significant impact) rather than any directed exclusion. Theories of course go in and out of favour but this is result of science as new evidence is discovered one theory could be the flavour of the day but then more evidence shows up and the competing theory is now popular, this is just how science works eventually one theory will come out on top or another theory most likely not so different from the original two will develop.

Cactus Col wrote:

I would say that if Dawkins did stumble upon stone clad proof of the paranormal or supernatural, it would take a very long time for him to accept it, if he ever did.

This is how science works. If someone came up with STONE CLAD proof (unrelenting evidence) of the paranormal, they would first publish there results in Nature then they would probably win a nobel prize and have a very lucrative career from that point on, so why aren't lots of graduates carrying out experiments to try and validate such a thing, I'll tell you why...
because they are educated enough about the natural world and what we know about biology and the mind sciences to realise that paranormal events are about as unlikely as the flying spagetti monster, and are simply childlike explanations for things that happen to people that they can't understand or things that they want to belief for also very childlike spiritual beliefs.

We know the physics and chemistry of the natural world enough to realise that there are no such things as auras, spiritual energy, or whatever nonsense spiritual folk dream up to explain simple coincidences in their life.
We know enough about the sensory systems of our body and their exact evolution to realise that the idea of extrasensory perception is about as ridiculous as the idea that we contain a spiritual kidney that takes the spiritual toxins out of our body. Extra sensory?? so it is not a sensory system then doesn't feed into the brain, feeds somewhere else then, didn't evolve? if you believe this your simply ignorant of what we know about the nervous system its evolution and how the mind relates too it. I suggest a simple remedy read some science, think about things a bit and don't jump to first conclusion that you feel is right or has to be case (I seen a magician make a coin dissapear before...lets reinvent physics!)

Edit: If I'd seen your thorough reply 5uspect before I wrote this, I wouldn't have bothered.

aidan24326

Cactus Col wrote:

Are you sure they're typical, or are you just happy to take Dawkin's word for it. Isn't that like featuring Brendan Kilkenny and spiral on a documentary about irish entertainment?

Like I said I'm pretty sure they're typical of 99.9% of the people who practise these so-called paranormal phenomena. If someone tried to portray Brendan Kilkenny as typical of Irish entertainment, the weight of available evidence to the contrary would soon settle the issue.

From everything I know, and I'm not clueless on the matter, the people portrayed by Dawkins are quite typical of what passes as mainstream paranormal activity these days, psychics, mediums and the like. The sort that your average naieve Joe goes to and very often believes in. If these 'genuine' psychics are out there, then where are they?

Like lookinforpicnic said, if something like ESP could really be proven with hard evidence, that would be huge stuff. The psychic or ESP practitioner who could verify their claims would become very wealthy and famous, and the scientists who could explain the phenomeon would be looking at a nobel prize.

So why isn't it happening? Why doesn't mystic maureen come out of her tent and show us once for and all? You know why? Because she can't do it that's why. She either believes, delusionally, that she can, or more often knows very well that she can't but likes the money.

@lookinforpicnic, extra-sensory in this case only means outside our normal 5 senses, not separate from the brain completely. The idea that we have (or could have had) a sixth sense isn't entirely ludicrous btw, just the complete lack of evidence suggests we're stuck with the 5 we have and know about.

lookinforpicnic

aidan24326 wrote:

@lookinforpicnic, extra-sensory in this case only means outside our normal 5 senses, not separate from the brain completely. The idea that we have (or could have had) a sixth sense isn't entirely ludicrous btw, just the complete lack of evidence suggests we're stuck with the 5 we have and know about.

Today the idea of 5 senses isn't taking seriously, i recently went to a talk by a leading perception guy (multisensory perception guy called Charles Spence to be precise) and he argued that we have over ten different types of senses theres lots of different types of tactile senses for example.

If extra sensory means only out of the normal five senses well then thats fine there is lots we don't know about certain senses, for instance colour vision relies on 3 receptors (cones) whereas olfaction depends on over 300 yet we don't know how these 300 receptors result in perception of odours whereas the same is not true for colour vision we pretty much understand for example if there is mutations in those receptors what will happen (the same does not apply to olfaction).

But the idea of extra sensory is that it is over and above the normal sensory apparatus and if that isn't the idea well then you have to ask the question how could this extra sensory perception evolve what sensory apparatus facilitated this extra sensory perception.

I'll tell you what extra sensory perception is, little hunches that people have about certain events that come true or happenings that occur to people that seem over and above what could happen by chance, what is happening is though is that people that belief in this kind of thing are taking the first most simple kind of explanation that is available to them and running with it, simple as....

The idea that we could have a seperate extra sense is ludicrous btw, tell me how such a thing could have evolved and tell me where are its biological remnants.

SkepticOne

lookinforpicnic wrote:

But the idea of extra sensory is that it is over and above the normal sensory apparatus and if that isn't the idea well then you have to ask the question how could this extra sensory perception evolve what sensory apparatus facilitated this extra sensory perception.

I'll tell you what extra sensory perception is, little hunches that people have about certain events that come true or happenings that occur to people that seem over and above what could happen by chance, what is happening is though is that people that belief in this kind of thing are taking the first most simple kind of explanation that is available to them and running with it, simple as....

The idea that we could have a seperate extra sense is ludicrous btw, tell me how such a thing could have evolved and tell me where are its biological remnants.

No, extra-sensory perception means literally perception outside the senses (however many they may be or however we subdivide them). So, for example, if we want to investigate a claim of telepathy, we need to isolate the subjects so that the normal senses such as hearing or vision can't be used.

I think what you may be describing with these 'little hunches' is intuition, i.e., knowing something but not immediately knowing how we know it. This is not ESP or paranormal in itself unless it is shown that the normal senses could not be used to gain that knowledge.