Anecdotal Evidence

johnsix

A few people are no doubt wondering why scientists and skeptic don't accept anecdotes, testimonials and other first hand accounts.

It's not something skeptics just made up randomly there are several good reasons.


Anecdotes are unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled. Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate. Most people aren't expecting to be deceived, so they may not be aware of deceptions that others might engage in. Some people make up stories. Some stories are delusions. Sometimes events are inappropriately deemed psychic simply because they seem improbable when they might not be that improbable after all. In short, anecdotes are inherently problematic and are usually impossible to test for accuracy.
Thus, stories of personal experience with paranormal or supernatural events have little scientific value. If others cannot experience the same thing under the same conditions, then there will be no way to verify the experience. If there is no way to test the claim made, then there will be no way to tell if the experience was interpreted correctly. If others can experience the same thing, then it is possible to make a test of the testimonial and determine whether the claim based on it is worthy of belief.

Testimonials regarding paranormal experiences are of little use to science because selective thinking and self- deception must be controlled for in scientific observations. Most psychics and dowsers, for example, do not even realize that they need to do controlled tests of their powers to rule out the possibility that they are deceiving themselves. They are satisfied that their experiences provide them with enough positive feedback to justify the belief in their paranormal abilities. Controlled tests of psychics and dowsers would prove once and for all that they are not being selective in their evidence gathering. It is common for such people to remember their apparent successes and ignore or underplay their failures. Controlled tests can also determine whether other factors such as cheating might be involved.

From: http://skepdic.com/testimon.html

psychic-hack

If scientists insist on evidence, why are there a number of phenomena accepted by the world of science - without a shred of evidence?


For instance ball lightning is a recognised phenomenon
which occurs in thunderstorms as a glowing ball of fire.
On one occasion a ball of fire entered a plane, went down the back, and went the wall of the plane.
This was witnessed by several people. Yet no one can explain definitively what it is.

Then we have astronomers saying there must be "dark matter" and "dark energy", because we can see only 4% of mass of universe;
They take the presence of this "dark matter" as fact even though they can't prove it.

So to be honest it's a bit disingenuous of the scientific world to demand proof of paranormal phenomena, when they are prepared to accept as fact things they cannot prove themselves.

???

psychic-hack wrote: »

If scientists insist on evidence, why are there a number of phenomena accepted by the world of science - without a shred of evidence?

Wrong!

For instance ball lightning is a recognised phenomenon
which occurs in thunderstorms as a glowing ball of fire.
On one occasion a ball of fire entered a plane, went down the back, and went the wall of the plane.
This was witnessed by several people. Yet no one can explain definitively what it is.

Firstly that's an anecdotal acount! Secondly there is plenty of evidence that ball lightning exist, it often leaves scorch marks etc. There are also multiple theories that potentially explain it.

Then we have astronomers saying there must be "dark matter" and "dark energy", because we can see only 4% of mass of universe;
They take the presence of this "dark matter" as fact even though they can't prove it.

Plenty of evidence for dark matter. One line of evidence is not 'well we can only see 4% (incorrect anyway) so we'll call what we can't see dark matter'. The most obvious line of evidence is the gravitational effect of dark matter. Using a technique called gravitational lensing it can be shown that the light is bent more than is acountable for than visible matter. It is possible to map it as well.



Quite beautiful, no? That is just one line of evidence. Dark matter can be 'created' in high speed particle collissions as well. The kinetic energy of galaxies is much greater than that expected by the visible matter present. So what do you get when you have multiple lines of evidence all pointing in the same direction? A theory and it has stood up to testing. So to be blunt, you're wrong and don't have a clue what you are talking about. Please look things up before you dismiss science.

So to be honest it's a bit disingenuous of the scientific world to demand proof of paranormal phenomena, when they are prepared to accept as fact things they cannot prove themselves.

Did science hurt you as a child? Show me on the doll where science touched you...

johnsix

Science touched me in the brain! (awesome song title)

Seriously psychic-hack two seconds on wikipedia gives me this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning#Laboratory_experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence
Wikipedia is your friend.

psychic-hack

Thats very kind of you Johnsix but I don't believe everything I read on Wikipedia.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in relation to ball lightning.
Of course it exists - but there are no theories that come remotely near explaining what it is.
Dark Matter:
Can you characterise dark matter? What are it's properties?
Dark matter is a hypothesis that scientists use to explain the mass deficit in the Universe.
In fact it was just an invented hypothesis to make scientist's equations balance.
Do I have to remind you of the Cosmological Constant?
Einstein used it to balance the equations of General Relativity. But when Hubble discovered the universe was expanding, the cosmological constant was erased as it wasn't needed anymore. Einstein lived to regret that error - at least the great man had the grace to admit he was wrong. The hypothesis on dark matter could easily go the same way.
Therefore I repeat - science cannot explain everything in the physical world.
So equally, don't dismiss paranormal events on the basis of lack of proof.
By the way I love science, but I keep an open mind on all phenomena.

??? wrote: »

Did science hurt you as a child? Show me on the doll where science touched you...

Your doll collection has nothing to do with this discussion.
Now put Barbie's clothes back on, there's a good boy.

pH

psychic-hack wrote: »

Dark Matter:
Can you characterise dark matter? What are it's properties?
Dark matter is a hypothesis that scientists use to explain the mass deficit in the Universe.
In fact it was just an invented hypothesis to make scientist's equations balance.

You have completely the wrong end of the stick here. Dark matter is not there to balance equations, it's there because experimental evidence has shown that using the current theory of gravitation there is not enough mass to explain observed effects. Dark matter is really a catch all term for all matter which can't be detected with electromagnetic radiation, it (and I can't stress this enough) doesn't explain anything - it's an observational inference, based on repeatable experiments.

Therefore I repeat - science cannot explain everything in the physical world.
So equally, don't dismiss paranormal events on the basis of lack of proof.
By the way I love science, but I keep an open mind on all phenomena

No one is claiming that science can explain everything in the physical world - though one could argue that in certain areas it's extremely unlikely that current theories will ever be shown to be wrong), however this has nothing whatsoever to do with the so called "paranormal". The paranormal is not something looking for an explanation (like dark matter), it is something that cannot even be shown to exist.

So yes science can't "explain everything" but it has gotten us to the position that the chances that there's anything in psychics, dowsing, ESP, ghosts, crystals, angels, telekinesis etc. are vanishingly small. So small that no one in their right mind should take the claims seriously.

???

psychic-hack wrote: »

Thats very kind of you Johnsix but I don't believe everything I read on Wikipedia.

But you believe you have psychic powers? Well anyway:
http://npg.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in relation to ball lightning.
Of course it exists - but there are no theories that come remotely near explaining what it is.

Can you please explain to my why all the following theories are invalid:

Vaporized silicon hypothesis
Nanobattery hypothesis
Black hole hypothesis
Spinning electric dipole hypothesis
Nuclear hypotheses
Trapped microwave hypotheses
Maser hypothesis
Fractal aerogel hypotheses
Magnetically trapped plasma theories
Vortex hypotheses
Rydberg matter hypotheses
Anti-matter hypotheses
Optical illusions

Seeing as you're so knowledgeable and have evidence that disproves all those hypotheses.

Can you characterise dark matter?

Yes. Dark matter is matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force.

What are it's properties?

Here's a few:
It travels at aproximatly 9000m/s
It's density is the equivelent of 4 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimetre

Dark matter is a hypothesis that scientists use to explain the mass deficit in the Universe.

It's a theory now. It has supporting evidence.

In fact it was just an invented hypothesis to make scientist's equations balance.

Incorrect. Darkmatter was hypothesised based on observational data. It wasn't just 'invented'.

Do I have to remind you of the Cosmological Constant?

Fallacy. Poisoning the well. It is also irrelevent.

Einstein used it to balance the equations of General Relativity. But when Hubble discovered the universe was expanding, the cosmological constant was erased as it wasn't needed anymore. Einstein lived to regret that error - at least the great man had the grace to admit he was wrong.

Einstein assumed it was a stationary universe. It was later shown to be a false assumption due to new evidence. As the new evidence disproved part of Einstein's theory, then obviously that part of it was wrong. Of course Einstein admited he was wrong as all good scientists do. Science is constantly changing and evolving. Einstein based his theory on the best available evidence, when new evidence came a long, the new evidence is taken into account. All you're doing is demonstrating that you don't understand the scientific method.

The hypothesis on dark matter could easily go the same way.

Yes it could, if evidence was shown that disproved the dark matter theory.

Therefore I repeat - science cannot explain everything in the physical world.

Fallacy. Non Sequiter and also strawman. I never said science can explain everything. Also there is an unstated major premise. Unexplained does not mean unexplainable.

So equally, don't dismiss paranormal events on the basis of lack of proof.

Fallacy. Non Sequiter You have not demonstrated that there is no proof for dark matter or the ball lightning theories, there is in fact proof of both.

psychic-hack

Your list of theories for ball lightning reminds me of a story about Einstein.
When the nazis were trying to discredit him they published a book entitled,
"100 scientists against Einstein." Einstein replied, "Why 100? one would do!"
Similarly you have to ask yourself why there are so many theories on ball lightning.
I'll tell you why. Because not one of them stands up.
Endless theories - all crackpot.

You say of Dark Matter -

??? wrote: »

Dark matter is matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force.

Tut tut! You can't go around characterising something by what it does NOT do! Otherwise we'd be here all day.
Do try to keep up!

You claim that I'm poisoning the well by reminding you of the Cosmological Constant. That is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "I'm not listening!"
Theories get debunked. That's the point.


Ph, as to whether paranormal events are taken seriously by "anyone in their right mind" - clearly they are.
One famous case is Eastern Airlines flight 401.
It was involved in a C.F.I.T. in 1972 and 98 people, including the 3 flight crew were killed. As it had landed in a swamp, parts of the doomed airliner which were undamaged were salvaged and used as replacements in other planes. However, respected pilots, flight attendants, and indeed passengers have reported seeing images of both flight 401's Captain Loft and his Second Officer Repo in various areas of Eastern's L-1011 fleet.
One Senior Captain for the airline reported that, during the a flight, he turned to the jump seat to see Officer Repo sitting there. Another incident also concerns a plane which had salvaged parts from 401 - and a flight attendant who was warned by Repo of a fire. During that flight the plane lost an engine to fire but landed safely.
Rumours of the sightings eventually led to a book and film concerning the accident.
You may dismiss what these people experienced as anecdotal, but not everyone did.
The reclaimed parts had to be removed from the planes due to the number of reports of images of the dead crew.
This is an example of paranormal events being taken seriously by hardnosed airline operators!

???

psychic-hack wrote: »

Your list of theories for ball lightning reminds me of a story about Einstein.
When the nazis were trying to discredit him they published a book entitled,
"100 scientists against Einstein." Einstein replied, "Why 100? one would do!"
Similarly you have to ask yourself why there are so many theories on ball lightning.
I'll tell you why. Because not one of them stands up.
Endless theories - all crackpot.

Maybe because ball lightning isn't one phenomomon but several? And I'm sorry, all of them stand up to current evidence. Provide counter evodence don't just dismiss them as 'crackpot'.

Tut tut! You can't go around characterising something by what it does NOT do! Otherwise we'd be here all day.
Do try to keep up!

Do you understand basic particle physics? There are four fundamental forces: Gravity, the Electromagnetic Force, the Strong Nuclear Force and the Weak Nuclear Force. Dark Matter interacts with Gravity, the Strong Nuclear Force and the Weak Nuclear Force, or, put more simply, Dark Matter is matter that does not interact with the Electromagnetic Force. Understand now? So that is Dark Matter characterised as you asked.

You claim that I'm poisoning the well by reminding you of the Cosmological Constant. That is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "I'm not listening!"
Theories get debunked. That's the point.

More fallacies!!! Please keep it up! Strawman and Ad Homenin! Of course theories get disproven, that is how science works. It was poisining the well by saying that because the cosmological constant didn't exist dark matter probably doesn't. By dark matter's status as a theory of course it could be disproven. There is no need to state it.

Ph, as to whether paranormal events are taken seriously by "anyone in their right mind" - clearly they are.
One famous case is Eastern Airlines flight 401.
It was involved in a C.F.I.T. in 1972 and 98 people, including the 3 flight crew were killed. As it had landed in a swamp, parts of the doomed airliner which were undamaged were salvaged and used as replacements in other planes. However, respected pilots, flight attendants, and indeed passengers have reported seeing images of both flight 401's Captain Loft and his Second Officer Repo in various areas of Eastern's L-1011 fleet.
One Senior Captain for the airline reported that, during the a flight, he turned to the jump seat to see Officer Repo sitting there. Another incident also concerns a plane which had salvaged parts from 401 - and a flight attendant who was warned by Repo of a fire. During that flight the plane lost an engine to fire but landed safely.

Is it just me or is it ironic that you keep using anecdotal evidence in a thread about how anecdotal evidence is useless?

Rumours of the sightings eventually led to a book and film concerning the accident.

Wow a book and film deal. Because films and books about the paranormal are always examples of excellent journalism.

You may dismiss what these people experienced as anecdotal, but not everyone did.
The reclaimed parts had to be removed from the planes due to the number of reports of images of the dead crew.
This is an example of paranormal events being taken seriously by hardnosed airline operators!

No. The threat to profits was taken seriously as the story was inspiring books and films. The company had to do something to counter the publicity. It was just a business decision and not taking the paranormal seriously. Eastern Air Lines CEO Frank Borman called it "garbage" and considered suing the producers of the movie for libel.

Anymore fallacies and ludacris notions you want to throw this way? Or maybe you could bring some serious evidence!

pH

psychic-hack wrote: »

The reclaimed parts had to be removed from the planes due to the number of reports of images of the dead crew.

Excellent, they're available for testing then. I suggest you procure them, set them up in a lab and be prepared to win multiple Nobel prizes, world-wide adulation and force most of modern science to be thrown away. You can even publish your results in this thread.

Ghosts in ovens indeed.

Standman

psychic-hack wrote: »

Thats very kind of you Johnsix but I don't believe everything I read on Wikipedia.

But you have no problem accepting anecdotal evidence when it comes to ghosts and ghoulies!

iamhunted

are we believing in ball lightening? are we not believing? I wonder because it seems ??? says ball lightening stands up to the possible explainations for it .. which is fine and dandy. 200 years ago they thought it was witchcraft though - and science didnt want anything to do with it so that means things have changed.

so ... will such things never change again? have we found out everything so therefore any thought of the paranormal is obviously bunkum? (and thats a big big big area to cover and not just fake mediums)

I dont think so. Theres no point in claiming the paranormal is people imaginations quite yet as we just dont know enough about it. Unless of course we do know everything, then skeptics (read cynics) would have a point.

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

are we believing in ball lightening? are we not believing? I wonder because it seems ??? says ball lightening stands up to the possible explainations for it .. which is fine and dandy. 200 years ago they thought it was witchcraft though - and science didnt want anything to do with it so that means things have changed.

so ... will such things never change again? have we found out everything so therefore any thought of the paranormal is obviously bunkum? (and thats a big big big area to cover and not just fake mediums)

I dont think so. Theres no point in claiming the paranormal is people imaginations quite yet as we just dont know enough about it. Unless of course we do know everything, then skeptics (read cynics) would have a point.

Ahhh.... the quintessential psuedoscience argument.
Because science can change, X (psychic powers, ghosts, aliens etc.) must be true.
Unfortunately, before the shadowy council of cynical atheists, who rule over all science, will change science they need to see some pretty convincing evidence.

iamhunted

thats not the argument Im putting forward. I say you cant stick you head in the sand and say anything you dont understand doesnt exist. You have to keep your eyes open. Plenty of people have had geniune paranormal experiences - they just cant prove it. This is way many groups through out the world take paranormal investigation quite seriously. If you dont, fine, but dont go through life with blinkers on - its not a good idea. and not very openminded either.

iamhunted

plus, who gives a toss if those who rule science are athiests? so are many paranormal investigators - unless of course you somehow believe religion and paranormal are linked? Religion is a belief system - completely different story.

You just cant get the quality skeptics anymore.

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

thats not the argument Im putting forward. I say you cant stick you head in the sand and say anything you dont understand doesnt exist. You have to keep your eyes open. Plenty of people have had geniune paranormal experiences - they just cant prove it. This is way many groups through out the world take paranormal investigation quite seriously. If you dont, fine, but dont go through life with blinkers on - its not a good idea. and not very openminded either.

Given these people who have had "paranormal experiences" (this includes me by the way.) can't prove their experience was geniunly paranormal, is not possible they are just mistaken. In fact isn't it more likely that they are mistaken then actually experiencing something science can't explain.

Also the atheist thing was a joke.

Zombrex

psychic-hack wrote: »

If scientists insist on evidence, why are there a number of phenomena accepted by the world of science - without a shred of evidence?

Not following here ... ball lightening has been photographed. Are you saying that that doesn't count as evidence for the existence of the phenomena?

I think you are getting confused between the phenomena and the explanation for the phenomena.

There are a number of scientific theories (models) for what ball lightening actually is. That is what science does, it attempts to model a phenomena. None of these theories have been tested to the point that one can say they are an accurate representation of the phenomena. As far as science is concerned they don't know what ball lightening is ("ball lightening" is just an assigned name to the phenomena).

psychic-hack wrote: »

Yet no one can explain definitively what it is.

Exactly. And until they do scientists say "we can't explain definitively what it is".

That is the difference between science and a lot of paranormal "research" that relies on anecdotal evidence.

psychic-hack wrote: »

Then we have astronomers saying there must be "dark matter" and "dark energy", because we can see only 4% of mass of universe;
They take the presence of this "dark matter" as fact even though they can't prove it.

Science doesn't prove anything. what scientists did was look at their models for certain phenomena such as gravity when applied to galaxies. And they noticed something was off. Their models were not matching observation. Something was wrong with the models, they weren't accounting for something. They began forming new models that included "dark matter", and then tried to see if these models could match or predict observation. They did. So the scientists said "Ok, there is something out there". And they did more models and more tests. Scientists now have a pretty good idea of the basic nature of dark matter through this process.

The point to note is that they didn't start making stuff up. They said, based on their models, that something may be out there. And they went researching that. They didn't start guessing at what it is. That is the difference between science and a lot of paranormal explanations.

psychic-hack wrote: »

So to be honest it's a bit disingenuous of the scientific world to demand proof of paranormal phenomena, when they are prepared to accept as fact things they cannot prove themselves.

THe scientific world don't demand proof of paranormal phenomena (they don't demand proof of anything).

What they do demand, if the research is to be considered scientific, are testable models, and also that people stop making stuff up. If you see an unexplained light source in an old building, it is an unexplained light source. That is the phenomena. Do not call it a "ghost" or a "spirit". You don't know what it is. Form a model and test this model and build up a model of what it is based on the phenomena itself, not what we as humans think it might be based on superstition and mythology.