nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Limitations of Science?

nagirrac

The problem with Dawkins is he is as reactionary and closed minded as those he opposes. Science is an evolving aspect of human endeavour and to draw such 99% certain conclusions from limited information as he has is sheer arrogance. The world simply cannot be explained simply in materialistic terms as anyone would even a rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics accepts. Science is based on what we can objectively describe with our 5 senses but who knows what lies beyond our sensory ability. Science as it currently stands simply cannot answer the big questions; what is consciousness and where does it derive from? where are memories stored or retrieved from say after a concussion? how is knowledge passed on from generation to generation withour direct communication as it clearly is?
We are supposed to believe that the sheer perfection of the laws of nature that led to the beautiful world we percieve around us happened by chance, just atoms banging into each other and making DNA. As Fred Hoyle said regarding life developing randomly "like believing a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and making a 747". Genetics as currently understood explains only a fragment of life and how life evolved and continues to evolve. We have a very incomplete understanding of reality and to say that science as we know it today will explain reality to us in time is the height of arrogance.
None of the above postulates a God or the lack of a God. Life could have come here from outer space via a comet but then you have to wonder where that life came from. Populist scientists like Dawkins will not lead us towards furthering our understanding of reality, it will be evolutionary giant steps in our species whose minds are more open, people like Einstein who did not feel the need to wage war on those with a belief in a God and was humble enough to accept the possibility of a God.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nozzferrahhtoo

Obliq wrote: »

Oops, one glass of wine and I make not a bit of sense. Should probably answer this tomorrow....suffice it to say I was not talking about limits to life or the human condition, but (present) limits to our observational capabilities. Might pick myself up off the ground tomorrow with a better answer, if I'm feeling clever
Night! Ps. Taking full credit here for the interesting new direction on limits, even if I didn't mean it :-) !

Indeed. We are limited right now in what we can observe, see and explain. I would also be the first to admit that. In that context though I always warn people about the type of theist who rolls into these fora declaring "Science will never explain X" or "Science will never know/show X".

To such people I normally point out we can really only comment on what we know today and on the data we have today. None of us know the future and therefore none of us know what science can be used to explain, show, find or know in the future. Anyone who starts a sentence with something like "Science will never....." is simply engaged in fantasy guessing about what the future holds and the speaker knows no more than anyone else about the future.

pauldla

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed. We are limited right now in what we can observe, see and explain. I would also be the first to admit that. In that context though I always warn people about the type of theist who rolls into these fora declaring "Science will never explain X" or "Science will never know/show X".

To such people I normally point out we can really only comment on what we know today and on the data we have today. None of us know the future and therefore none of us know what science can be used to explain, show, find or know in the future. Anyone who starts a sentence with something like "Science will never....." is simply engaged in fantasy guessing about what the future holds and the speaker knows no more than anyone else about the future.

I like those posters. So beautifully marked, and down-wind, too.

Aiel

I know its not on topic but this post is for the attention of Nozzferrahhtoo.I sent you a PM Nozz but an automated reply told me to reply to you directly in the thread.This i would have done had the thread not been closed so now my only way to get in touch with you is doing this.Please accept my PM if you can.

nozzferrahhtoo

I do not do PM Aiel sorry. I prefer everything to be out in the open for all to see. More open and honest that way.

Feel free to reply to any posts I have written and I will reply to your replies there in turn.

Aiel

Buts thats the problem Nozz,the thread i wanted to reply to you on is now closed and if i post some other place ill be taking that thread off topic.I want openess and honesty too but Boards is alot bigger then us 2 so a thread of our own would'nt go down too well.Thats why God invented PM's so people could discuss things between themselves(sorry couldnt resist the ironic addition of that saying:-))

sbsquarepants

nagirrac wrote: »

+1
Precisely dear Watson. How did it origintate, that is the question. Did random collisions of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and the odd phosphorous atom lead to DNA. Fair play if it did, about as believable as a dozen blind men solving Rubik's cubes simultaneously.

Where life originated is kind of a moot point don't you think. The fact is it did originate, you can argue that humans had a creator but that just kicks the can down the road. If some god created us, who created him? If he doesn't need a creator, why does everything else?

nozzferrahhtoo

Aiel wrote: »

the thread i wanted to reply to you on is now closed

Sorry I have no further interest in derailing this thread. If you think there is another issue worth discussing start a thread on it or find an existing one with a similar topic.

My apologies to other users here for this derailment in my name by another user.

robindch

Aiel wrote: »

[...] if i post some other place ill be taking that thread off topic [...]

Better a thread goes off topic, or a new thread is created, than a private conversation happens in public!

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

Science is the only honest method of enquiry because it's the only one that recognises it doesn't have the answers. And when it does suggest an answer it is never accepted as fact until absolutely shown to be so.

An interesting generalisation, especially when it seems that you are appealing to a non-secientific method (not to be confused with unscientific) to make this claim.

Also, I would suggest that science never absolutely shows anything "to be so". It might show us what we believe is probably true give the evidence we have to hand, but every scientific theory can in principle be overturned. This arguably doesn't apply to the axiomatic principles upon which science rests.

Obliq

robindch wrote: »

Better a thread goes off topic, or a new thread is created, than a private conversation happens in public!

Ah go on...have it in public! I'm curious now...:D

RichieO

From RTE today (18/10/12)

According to the latest figures released by the Central Statistics Office about Census 2011, 277,237 of the population (6%) now describe themselves as atheists or agnostics.

Have faith, things are improving...

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

An interesting generalisation, especially when it seems that you are appealing to a non-secientific method (not to be confused with unscientific) to make this claim.

Also, I would suggest that science never absolutely shows anything "to be so". It might show us what we believe is probably true give the evidence we have to hand, but every scientific theory can in principle be overturned. This arguably doesn't apply to the axiomatic principles upon which science rests.

The philosophy of science is based on some logical assertions. These are not privy to exploration by the scientific method because they are not external phenomena but logical assertions.

For example the claim that you can never know that a theory is 100% accurate is a logical assertion. You don't use science to explore if this is likely to be true or not.

Heres Your Future

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are just putting words in his mouth he never actually said.

Lol this is rich coming from you. You accused scientific researchers of being 'bizarrely dishonest' based on your impressions of a paper by Milton & Wiseman. Note that you did not link to the paper (in fact you seem to be linking to very few scientific articles) just gave your paraphrasing of what was said. At no stage did Milton & Wiseman accuse anyone of dishonesty, not surprising since this is a very serious accusation to make against an academic whose livelihood depends in part on trustworthiness. Care to back up your accusations of intellectual dishonesty against Storm & Ertel by actually linking to some evidence of same instead of just giving your impressions of an article it seems you havent even read in full

Heres Your Future

Heres Your Future wrote: »

the link is still working fine for me so i am not sure why it wont work for you.
the name of the article i was referencing is Replication and Meta Analysis in Parapsychology J Utts (1991) published in Statistical Science. I also gave the link to Professor Utts homepage where you can find further info

Here is a more recent article by Lance Storm (one of those pesky 'bizarrely dishonest' guys that seem to annoy you so much because of their research findings)

http://www.aiprinc.org/para-ac01_Storm_2006a.pdf

Again I have linked to the article by Lance Storm in which he references and addresses the criticisms of Milton & Wiseman, maybe you could explain in what way he is being 'dishonest' in his comments in the article above. Somehow or other I won't hold my breath

Heres Your Future

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No. He did not say he would not accept the result. Anyone falling for this lie please read the paper yourselves and do not take HYFs word for it. He just said he would not say 100% there was no flaws. Just that he could not find any. That is a perfectly valid, honest and useful thing to say.

He explained his reluctance by giving examples of studies that had been thought to be sound at the time but turned out later to be flawed. Soal was one of those examples.

He also points out how it takes TIME to uncover flaws often and the time frame he was given for writing this paper was too short.
.

Re what Hyman said, it most definitely is not a perfectly valid and useful thing to say, its a superfluous and pointless thing to say and is indicative of his biased outlook that I pointed out before. That statement could be said about any scientific experiment ever conducted. If he couldn't find any flaws then he should have confined himself to saying so. Any experiment could have hidden flaws, if, as you say, it takes time to uncover them, then perhaps we should put the results of all experiments ever conducted on hold until sufficient time has elapsed so that we can judge what these hidden flaws might be. Or is it just that you are trying to hold the results of parpasychology experiments to a different standard of truth than you would hold 'ordinary' psychology experiments to. If so, then why?

As has been pointed out by numerous researchers (some of whom I have linked to that you have ignored, others whom you have made absolutely disgraceful and baseless allegations of dishonetsy against while posting no links of your own..edit sorry i see you have linked to hymans 1995 article, perhaps some more recent ones would be good too) the totality of evidence is definitely in favour of the hypothesis that there is an anomaly here that needs to be explained.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

The philosophy of science is based on some logical assertions. These are not privy to exploration by the scientific method because they are not external phenomena but logical assertions.

For example the claim that you can never know that a theory is 100% accurate is a logical assertion. You don't use science to explore if this is likely to be true or not.

Is that an argument against what I wrote?

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Also, I would suggest that science never absolutely shows anything "to be so". It might show us what we believe is probably true give the evidence we have to hand, but every scientific theory can in principle be overturned. This arguably doesn't apply to the axiomatic principles upon which science rests.

These conclusions are well known and are documented at length in what's generally referred to as the Philosophy of Science and the core test of falsifiability -- a concept which is frequently specifically rejected by the religious.

nozzferrahhtoo

Heres Your Future wrote: »

this is rich coming from you. You accused scientific researchers of being 'bizarrely dishonest' based on your impressions of a paper by Milton & Wiseman.

And I stand by that. The practice of cherry picking the papers that best fit the result you want to get is dishonest. Obfuscating where the reports used in your meta anaylsis came from is dishonest. Weighting the papers that best suit your agenda and not weighting the rest is Bizarre.

But this is entirely different from you taking someone saying they can not 100% swear there is no faults in a methodology and changing it to claiming they said they would never accept the results if they go against their own preconceptions. THAT is wantonly twisting peoples words and putting words in their mouth.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

At no stage did Milton & Wiseman accuse anyone of dishonesty

I never said they did so you are just putting more words in peoples mouth now. It was ME that called it dishonest. It was M&W that said their practice was "bizarre".

Heres Your Future wrote: »

Re what Hyman said, it most definitely is not a perfectly valid and useful thing to say

Yes. It is. As he explains himself there have been previous studies where the methodlogy was found to be sound at the time, but then later was found to be flawed or that some participants cheated. So I think it a very useful thing to highlight that when you say you have not found flaws that this does not mean there are none.

But that is not the main issue for me. The main issue for me is that regardless of whether you think it was a useful thing to say or not... you took what he said and turned it into a whole sale lie that he had said something else entirely!

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

These conclusions are well known and are documented at length in what's generally referred to as the Philosophy of Science and the core test of falsifiability -- a concept which is frequently specifically rejected by the religious.

Thanks, but I'm already aware of the philosophy of science and falsifiability. And while I agree that some people might unduly favour supernatural mystery as an explanation for a naturalistic phenomenon, I really don't see what any of that has to do with the limitations of science.

Heres Your Future

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I stand by that. The practice of cherry picking the papers that best fit the result you want to get is dishonest. Obfuscating where the reports used in your meta anaylsis came from is dishonest. Weighting the papers that best suit your agenda and not weighting the rest is Bizarre.

Look this is going to be my last post on this topic because it doesnt seem to be possible to have a rational debate with you on this matter. I have linked to a number of papers that provide evidence to dispute your assertions but you link to nothing in reply. You are spouting half baked nonsense that seems to have been picked up from 'skeptical' websites and not the primary sources.

You have been bleating on for a while about cherrypicking, note that if you read Storms 2006 article which I have linked to a couple of times in this thread (and you have ignored) you will see where he points out that Milton & Wiseman somehow missed out 11 studies supporting the psi hypothesis in their meta analysis. Just who exactly is doing the cherrypicking here? Why do I have to explicitly point this out? surely if you are as familiar with the literature as you claim, then you would know all this.

But this is entirely different from you taking someone saying they can not 100% swear there is no faults in a methodology and changing it to claiming they said they would never accept the results if they go against their own preconceptions. THAT is wantonly twisting peoples words and putting words in their mouth.

So again I ask you, if Hyman couldnt find any faults with the experiments why didnt he just say so? i dont think i am putting words in anyones mouth. I am not sure exactly what you are saying here, are you saying that Hyman accepted the results of these experiments? Thats great, and big of you to acknowledge that since he has been one of parapsychologys biggest critics and was one of the people you cited earlier in the thread as being dismissive of the experiments. Can you clarify exactly what you are saying here?

I never said they did so you are just putting more words in peoples mouth now. It was ME that called it dishonest. It was M&W that said their practice was "bizarre".

Yes. It is. As he explains himself there have been previous studies where the methodlogy was found to be sound at the time, but then later was found to be flawed or that some participants cheated. So I think it a very useful thing to highlight that when you say you have not found flaws that this does not mean there are none.

Are you for real?? I will leave the readers of this thread to make up their own minds about who is talking more sense here. But I will try to spell it out for you again slowly and in caps (apologies mods) IN EVERY AREA OF SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOUR THERE HAVE BEEN EXPERIMENTS WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SHOWN TO BE FALSE/FRAUDULENT. WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR POINT NOZZ?? DO YOU MEAN THAT IN EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER CONDUCTED THE REVIEWERS SHOULD HIGHLIGHT THAT THERE MIGHT BE UNOBSERVED FLAWS?? DO YOU LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD

edit: And I should add, as I have done in previous posts, that accusing researchers of dishonesty without any evidence is nothing something to be very proud of. i am suprised that you have been allowed do this without any repercussions but maybe because your viewpoint is in accord with the prevailing mood of this forum its somehow seen as ok. maybe the researhers themselves would take a differnt view

nozzferrahhtoo

Heres Your Future wrote: »

Look this is going to be my last post on this topic because it doesnt seem to be possible to have a rational debate with you on this matter.

Ah the old switch to ad hominem digs and declarations that the entire forum is biased against you etc etc..... when you can not get your way in a debate.

What a shame. Still it is another good chance to test "Nozzferrahhtoo's first rule of internet forum posting" which states that "The probability of a given user posting on a thread increases in proportion to the number of times they claim they will not be posting again". So I will reply to your post anyway and look forward to your reply which you will not be making... but we both know you actually will.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

I have linked to a number of papers that provide evidence to dispute your assertions

Not really. The person making the assertions here is you. You are trying to assert that there is evidence for PSI phenomena in the Scientific Literature. A summary of the discourse thus far as I see it:

You started out backing up this assertion with a link to this first study here which was at least a start as generally people coming into this skeptics forum and making wild claims about super or paranormal phenomenon can not be bothered citing anything. However I showed how that was a bad link for many reasons, including huge problems with Berns methodology and interpretation of the data.

Rather than defend that study however you simply cut and run to the next link, a meta analysis performed on a number of studies over a long period of time. I however showed another massive load of issues with that study including the inclusion of studies that were themselves very problematic, and methodologies that were quite suspect.

Rather than defend THAT study then you instead tried to ad hominem attack one of the main people who highlighted the issues with the meta analysis to try to call his opinion into question. Your method of doing so however was to entirely cherry pick a quote from him that had nothing at all to do with a SINGLE STUDY in that meta analysis. And if that was not bad enough you then proceeded to claim he said things in that quote that he simply never did. In other words to defend your position you outright lied and inserted words into the mouth of another.

And your defense of your entire position over all? Run away and suggest it is me that is failing to be rational here. If it "doesnt seem to be possible to have a rational debate with" me then I move that the source of that issue does not lie with me, but you.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

So again I ask you, if Hyman couldnt find any faults with the experiments why didnt he just say so? i dont think i am putting words in anyones mouth.

Ask him that. Once bitten twice shy I guess. As he said himself he was being forced into finding methodology flaws at short notice and in a short time frame despite the fact that flaws in these kinds of studies rarely surface right away. Further when other experiments were found to be flaw free in the past in such scenarios it came back to bite them as they found people were cheating.

However again whether or not it is worth pointing that out IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. The issue is that you lied and wholly inserted words into his mouth he never said. He said he could not say 100% there was no flaws. You simply outright took those words, changed them to him saying he would never accept positive PSI findings no matter what, and then wholly inserted your words back into his mouth.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

he has been one of parapsychologys biggest critics and was one of the people you cited earlier in the thread as being dismissive of the experiments. Can you clarify exactly what you are saying here?

Yes. Gladly.

1) You cited a study.
2) He found massive problems with that study.
3) You found a quote of him saying there was no problems with the study and quote mined it and pasted it here.
4) The study he was talking about in the quote minded quote was nothing to do with the study in 1) you just tried to make it look like it was.

Can that be any clearer?

Heres Your Future wrote: »

IN EVERY AREA OF SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOUR THERE HAVE BEEN EXPERIMENTS WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SHOWN TO BE FALSE/FRAUDULENT. WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR POINT NOZZ??

I think, as I said, where he was coming from on this point was two fold.

1) He was being rushed in this and asked to evaluate the experiments at short notice and over a short time frame. This has been shown to be problematic in this are of research and I think it was important to him to cover his own ass and acknowledge the difficulty of a 100% sound evaluation under the conditions provided.

2) Once bitten twice shy, given in the past similar declarations that a study was sound turned out to be entirely wrong it is likely one would feel moved to again cover ones ass in this regard.

Again however the issue for me is not whether it was useful or not to point out what he pointed out. The issue for me is that you took what he pointed and and wholesale dishonestly misrepresented it as him saying something ENTIRELY different.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

maybe the researhers themselves would take a differnt view

Leave that up to them. You are having enough issue representing your own arguments (as well as misrepresenting others) well without trying to vicariously do it for others too. I have no interest in pandering to you having a hissy fit on behalf of someone else. The array of caps in your post suggests you have enough issue throwing your own.

I look forward to your next post which as I said you will not be making but actually will.

Heres Your Future

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah the old switch to ad hominem digs and declarations that the entire forum is biased against you etc etc..... when you can not get your way in a debate.

What a shame. Still it is another good chance to test "Nozzferrahhtoo's first rule of internet forum posting" which states that "The probability of a given user posting on a thread increases in proportion to the number of times they claim they will not be posting again". So I will reply to your post anyway and look forward to your reply which you will not be making... but we both know you actually will.

Hey presto, yes I am back for one last post on this topic, though that is about the only thing you got correct in your previous post.

Not really. The person making the assertions here is you. You are trying to assert that there is evidence for PSI phenomena in the Scientific Literature. A summary of the discourse thus far as I see it

:

Yes there is evidence for psi phenomena in the scientific literature, I have already linked to some of it yet you keep ignoring the links, while not providing any evidence of your own, apart from rhetoric, to back up your viewpoint.

You started out backing up this assertion with a link to this first study here which was at least a start as generally people coming into this skeptics forum and making wild claims about super or paranormal phenomenon can not be bothered citing anything. However I showed how that was a bad link for many reasons, including huge problems with Berns methodology and interpretation of the data.

Wrong - Where did you show there were huge problems with the Bem & Honorton study? (Note it is Bem not Bern, if you can't even get the guys name right, how are we supposed to take your critique of his article seriously).
If you read back over the thread (have a look at page 10 for example) you will see that you mentioned French, Wiseman & Ritchies paper as being critical of Bem & Honorton 1994 . I pointed out this paper had no relevance to Bem & Honortons article, French, Wiseman & Ritchie were commenting on a completely different study altogether. You ignored this. You also cite Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Bosboom & VanderMaas and surprise, surprise, their paper also has no relevance to Bem & Honortons meta analysis since they were commenting on a study from 2011, nothing whatsoever to do with the 1994 article, you ignored this. (do you see a pattern here). Not sure who is exactly is doing the runnning away here but it isnt me.
I am not denying there were researchers who had issues with Bem & Honortons paper ('huge problems' is stretching it somewhat), but this is 2012, 18 years later, there is a wealth of studies supporting the psi hypothesis, you have simply ignored them.

Rather than defend that study however you simply cut and run to the next link, a meta analysis performed on a number of studies over a long period of time. I however showed another massive load of issues with that study including the inclusion of studies that were themselves very problematic, and methodologies that were quite suspect.

Wrong - I didnt cut and run anywhere, I pointed out that the studies you were quoting as showing problems with Bem & Honortons analysis were written about completely different articles. I provided you with a link to an article by a Professor of Statistics in Irvine University which dealt with meta-analysis in parapsychology which concluded that the totality of evidence supports an effect yet once again you completely ignored it.

Rather than defend THAT study then you instead tried to ad hominem attack one of the main people who highlighted the issues with the meta analysis to try to call his opinion into question. Your method of doing so however was to entirely cherry pick a quote from him that had nothing at all to do with a SINGLE STUDY in that meta analysis. And if that was not bad enough you then proceeded to claim he said things in that quote that he simply never did. In other words to defend your position you outright lied and inserted words into the mouth of another.

Wrong Again- this is getting tiresome and why I threw my hands up in the air already

And your defense of your entire position over all? Run away and suggest it is me that is failing to be rational here. If it "doesnt seem to be possible to have a rational debate with" me then I move that the source of that issue does not lie with me, but you.

How am I running away, I have referred you to numerous studies and linked to some of them, yet you have just ignored them and are very slow to provide any links or evidence of your own. Trying to debate this issue with you is like trying to play handball against a haystack, all that comes back is a dull thud and eventually one has to give up.

Ask him that. Once bitten twice shy I guess. As he said himself he was being forced into finding methodology flaws at short notice and in a short time frame despite the fact that flaws in these kinds of studies rarely surface right away. Further when other experiments were found to be flaw free in the past in such scenarios it came back to bite them as they found people were cheating.

I don't think there was anyone forcing him to do anything. 'A short time frame' lol... i think he made those comments back in 1996, thats 16 years ago... and he is still coming out with the same nonsense about there being possibly unobserved flaws. How long does he actually need to make up his mind? What do you think would be a suitable timeframe?

However again whether or not it is worth pointing that out IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. The issue is that you lied and wholly inserted words into his mouth he never said. He said he could not say 100% there was no flaws. You simply outright took those words, changed them to him saying he would never accept positive PSI findings no matter what, and then wholly inserted your words back into his mouth.

Wrong once again - I never said Hyman said he would never accept Psi findings no matter what (though he certainly gives that impression) I said Hyman implied he would not accept the results of those particular studies even though he could not find any methodological flaws. I pointed out this is stupid since we can only make up our minds on the best evidence in front of us. In what area of science do people see positive experimental results and say 'hang on a second lads, we can't accept these because there might be some flaws that we don't know about now but might show up in the future.

Yes. Gladly.
1) You cited a study.
2) He found massive problems with that study.
3) You found a quote of him saying there was no problems with the study and quote mined it and pasted it here.
4) The study he was talking about in the quote minded quote was nothing to do with the study in 1) you just tried to make it look like it was.
Can that be any clearer?

He found 'massive problems' with the study, really? what were the massive problems, did you not see any of these 'massive problems' addressed in some of the articles I already linked to, or did you just not bother reading them because they don't happen to agree with your preconceived notions?

I think, as I said, where he was coming from on this point was two fold.

1) He was being rushed in this and asked to evaluate the experiments at short notice and over a short time frame. This has been shown to be problematic in this are of research and I think it was important to him to cover his own ass and acknowledge the difficulty of a 100% sound evaluation under the conditions provided.

2) Once bitten twice shy, given in the past similar declarations that a study was sound turned out to be entirely wrong it is likely one would feel moved to again cover ones ass in this regard.

Again however the issue for me is not whether it was useful or not to point out what he pointed out. The issue for me is that you took what he pointed and and wholesale dishonestly misrepresented it as him saying something ENTIRELY different.

'once bitten twice shy' Where was Hyman bitten before? When did he give declarations that studies were completelty sound? Link please.

If Hyman thought he found problems with the studies you can be sure the short time frame wouldn't have bothered him!

Leave that up to them.

You claimed Storm & Ertel behaved bizarrely dishonestly in their 2001 paper. I asked you for evidence of their dishonesty (there is none), you haven't provided any evidence but won't retract your claim because the researchers themselves haven't personally signed into boards and demanded you do so. Don't you think that if you are making claims about researchers being dishonest you should be able to back up those claims?...your whole viewpoint here sounds a little...errr...biased shall we say.
I can only imagine the uproar if I were to say for example that Dawkins is dishonest and then refuse to provide any evidence unless he personally came here to ask me for it, but you think it is ok for you to take cheap potshots at a researcher integrity and then refuse to provide evidence?

You are having enough issue representing your own arguments (as well as misrepresenting others) well without trying to vicariously do it for others too. I have no interest in pandering to you having a hissy fit on behalf of someone else. The array of caps in your post suggests you have enough issue throwing your own.

I look forward to your next post which as I said you will not be making but actually will.

Wrong again I amnt having any trouble representing my arguments. In fact I have provided links to scientific evidence that supports my points. There is a notable lack of anything scientific coming back from your direction. Just to recap...

http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html - Bem & Honortons 1994 meta analysis

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf - a professor of statistics (Jessica Utts) evaluates the evidence for psychic functioning. She conludes that ' Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established.'

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/response.html - Utts response to Hymans criticisms

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/UttsStatPsi.pdf- a particularly relevant article to the discussion at hand. Replication and meta analysis in parapsychology.

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/class/Psy391P/Does%20Psi%20Exist%20II%EF%80%A5.pdf Milton & Wisemans critique of Storm & Ertels meta analysis. I have linked to this since Nozfehratoo seems to have a metaphorical hard on for this paper despite the fact it is 11 years old now and has been satisfactorily replied to a number of times since.

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/MWAnalysis.pdf A good example of some of the problems in Nozz's beloved Milton & Wiseman study

http://www.aiprinc.org/para-ac01_Storm_2006a.pdf- A paper by Storm in 2006 in which he replies to the criticisms of Milton & Wiseman

Some more recent articles illustrating the current state of play in the field

Storm, L., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2010). A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: Reply to Hyman (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 491-494. doi: 10.1037/a0019840.

Storm, L., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2010). Meta-analyses of free-response studies 1992-2008: Assessing the noise reduction model in parapsychology. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 471-485. doi: 10.1037/a0019457.

Glad you looked forward to the post, hope it didn't disappoint. What makes me smile are the people thanking you for the uninformed nonsense you posted above. Once again I have given you links and references. Its up to you whether you read them and come back to me with reasons and evidence as to why all this research is wrong and you are right. As I said in a previous post I won't hold my breath. This is my last post on this topic. Feel free to obfuscate, criticise and misrepresent all the above, god forbid you might actually link to some evidence.
'

nagirrac

For those genuinely interested in the ongoing research in parapsychology and the credibility of people working in the field, I would strongly suggest going on Alex Tsakiris' website (www.skeptiko.com) and reading his Sept 10th interview with Dr. Bem. Tsakiris also interviews skeptics so you can find a good cross section of opinion on his site. Sometimes there is no substitute for hearing opinion from the horse's mouth rather than how others spin that opinion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Heres Your Future wrote: »

Hey presto, yes I am back for one last post on this topic, though that is about the only thing you got correct in your previous post.

That remains to be seen. As Nozz's first rule states the probability goes up with the number of times you claim you will not be posting again. You have now doubled the number of claims therefore the probability you will post again has also proportionally increased. Still if you can not even be honest with yourself and you post even when you declare you will not post, I guess I should not be too surprised at your other displays of quote mining and putting words in peoples mouth they never said.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

Yes there is evidence for psi phenomena in the scientific literature, I have already linked to some of it yet you keep ignoring the links

A bigger lie you have not yet told. I have engaged with the links you provided at great length indeed and showed the problems with them. I have indeed posted links of my own but have ignored them to in favor of your mantra that I have given none. In the few cases where I did not give links however I did actually give references which are the same thing essentially.

For one of many examples I took the second meta analysis you presented and went into great detail about how many of the pre-1985 studies in corporated into that meta analysis were flawed and derided even by one of the people who performed them.

If taking your links and rebutting them is "ignoring" them in your book then you must be using a massively different definition of the word "ignore" than I am. I have posted post after post dealing with the links you have given on this thread and you have the gall to pretend I have ignored them all. You are just digging the hold of dishonesty deeper and deeper here.

It is YOU that has been ignoring. You ignored my rebuttals to that second meta analysis for example and instead you tried to attack the credibility of one of the people related to my rebuttal by FIRST quote mining something he said about studies that were nothing whatsoever to do with that meta analysis... and THEN by inserting words into his mouth he simply never said.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

Note it is Bem not Bern, if you can't even get the guys name right, how are we supposed to take your critique of his article seriously.

You tried that little ad hominem attack already in this thread and I already informed you that my automatic spell checker has been replacing the name on me and I have corrected most, but not all, of the incidents. But do not let that stop you trying to get a dig in where evidence and discourse has otherwise been failing you.

A funny game to play however from someone who had to be corrected already on the spelling of the word skeptic. I am guessing however in your head that me making spelling errors means I do not know what I am talking about but you making spelling errors is all just peachy. As usually it is one rule for you and one for everyone else.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

I didnt cut and run anywhere

False. You are the one throwing toys out of the pram and storming out of the thread (then storming back in again and storming back out again it seems. You will be back. We both know it. You simply can not be honest enough with even yourself to do otherwise it seems.).

It also seems that cutting and running from replies you can not handle is something you do fairly often. But I guess my lenghty addressing of your points in THAT thread actually means I ignored all your points by this bizarre definition of "ignore" you are working off that is actually the opposite of what "ignore" actually means.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

I don't think there was anyone forcing him to do anything. 'A short time frame' lol... i think he made those comments back in 1996, thats 16 years ago...

What has the intervening 16 years got to do with it when we are talking about his comments AT THE TIME and why he said them AT THE TIME? Are you even trying to be serious any more?

As he said himself it takes TIME for flaws in these kind of experiments to be unearthed and he was being asked to make his comments in a very brief time frame very shortly after the experiments in question.

Again however this is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is that you quoted this quote as if he was talking about the pre-1985 studies in the meta analysis you and I were talking about at the time you quoted it out of context. A fact you are desperately trying to pull the wool over now by equivocating over whether it was a useful thing to say at the time or not.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

I never said Hyman said he would never accept Psi findings no matter what (though he certainly gives that impression) I said Hyman implied he would not accept the results of those particular studies even though he could not find any methodological flaws.

You really are piling lie after lie into the thread now. I guess once one starts lying it is hard to stop. However here are your exact words, there in black and white for all to see:

"So even though he could identifyy no flaws in the experimental procedures used, he can't bring himself to admit psi phenomena exist because 'it just can't be'"

and

"he could not find methodological flaws in the experiments but still wouldn't accept their results."

Yes he said he could not find flaws. But nowhere in the quote you quote mined out of context did he say he would not accept their results or that "It just can not be" or that he can not bring himself to accept PSI exists. Nowhere. You wholly invented that lie, put it in his mouth and are now compounding the lie by pretending you never said it.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

I asked you for evidence of their dishonesty (there is none), you haven't provided any evidence but won't retract your claim

You not reading my replies and ignoring them is not the same as me never having given them. The dishonesty I was referring to at the time was related to the case where nine studies from a meta analysis were cherry picked to bolster the conclusion that the meta analysis was trying to reach. This dishonesty was compounded by them deliberately obfuscating where the studies were from and how they were chosen.

As you said yourself at the time I mentioned it, certain selection criteria HAVE to be levelled when performing meta analysis. For example it has to be ensured you are comparing like with like.

The selection criteria should NOT however be to select the papers and studies best suited to skewing the results in the direction you want and ignoring the ones that go the other way. That was the dishonesty I was referring to.

The "Bizarre" part was not my choice of words but the choice of words of someone who evaluated the weighting practice one of your precious meta studies used. It weighted 11 papers out of a group of 80ish to elevate their results over the rest because their results were more in line with what the researchers wanted to find. The weaker studies were not weighted at all. Further, as I keep pointing out but you have responded with nothing more than a quote mined quote that had nothing to do with that meta study, a large group of the studies included in THAT meta analysis from pre 1985 were found to be methodologically flawed even by the people who themselves performed some of them. That is not good.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

Glad you looked forward to the post, hope it didn't disappoint.

You did I am afraid as you just compounded the old lies with another layer like Papier-mâché. Perhaps the next post you will not be making.... but actually will because you even lie to yourself about what you will or will not be doing... will do better.

Heres Your Future wrote: »

This is my last post on this topic.

Yeah. Right.

joseph brand

nagirrac wrote: »

The problem with Dawkins is he is as reactionary and closed minded as those he opposes. Science is an evolving aspect of human endeavour and to draw such 99% certain conclusions from limited information as he has is sheer arrogance.

I'm about as closed minded as it gets, when it comes to BS. Psychic Sally and the local church won't be seeing me amongst their flock any time soon. Neither do I fall pray prey to emails regarding inheritances for Africans who want to share the spoils with ME!

Science has taught and helped us so much whereas religion has only hindered our progress and taught us nothing. Cunningly and quite craftily, religion created a figure who dwells outside of space and time, but, he conveniently appears in reality, the odd time. Just in case any followers doubted his mighty power.

When it comes to arrogance, is there anyone more arrogant than theists claiming to know god, have spoken with him, which gives them the right to go telling others how to live their lives and then claiming their place in heaven. Anyone who can not believe the tales is going to burn forever and ever. We all know better now. The church created hell here in Ireland for thousands of children and young women. Let's not forget that!

nagirrac

joseph brand wrote: »

I'm about as closed minded as it gets, when it comes to BS. Psychic Sally and the local church won't be seeing me amongst their flock any time soon. Neither do I fall pray prey to emails regarding inheritances for Africans who want to share the spoils with ME!

Science has taught and helped us so much whereas religion has only hindered our progress and taught us nothing. Cunningly and quite craftily, religion created a figure who dwells outside of space and time, but, he conveniently appears in reality, the odd time. Just in case any followers doubted his mighty power.

When it comes to arrogance, is there anyone more arrogant than theists claiming to know god, have spoken with him, which gives them the right to go telling others how to live their lives and then claiming their place in heaven. Anyone who can not believe the tales is going to burn forever and ever. We all know better now. The church created hell here in Ireland for thousands of children and young women. Let's not forget that!

I agree 100% with your comments on the Catholic church. They are a dispicable organization who were not held to account sufficiently for their cover up of criminal activity. Having said that they were held somewhat to account unlike other equally guilty parties. There are three groups that are responsible for the horrendous child abuse in Ireland; the government, the church and society in general. I would hold the government most responsible as they are the one's tasked with protecting the safety of their citizens and not alone did they fail miserably in terms of oversight, they continued to increase funding to industrial schools and refused to hold inquiries into appalling cases of violence. Has a politian ever been held accountable in Ireland for anything? Who sent children to industrial schools (only 5% were orphans) and sent their "fallen" daughters to Magdalene laundries? Is broader society not to blame also in that they didn't want to deal with "problem children and problem young women", they just wanted rid of them?
This is the danger with conflating beliefs with behavior. There is nothing in the teaching of Jesus Christ that suggests pedophilia or physical violence towards children (in fact he was quite specific in his condemnation of those that abused children). It is not belief in God or influence from religious teaching that caused such behavior (just as its not disbelief in God that caused the monstrous slaughters in communist countries), it is the evil in individual's minds. The harsh truth is that the government, the church and society in general failed to protect its most vulnerable from evil monsters.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is that an argument against what I wrote?

Yes if you were attempting to assert that because you cannot use science to evaluate the philosophy of science this is an issue. No if you weren't

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

For those genuinely interested in the ongoing research in parapsychology and the credibility of people working in the field, I would strongly suggest going on Alex Tsakiris' website (www.skeptiko.com) and reading his Sept 10th interview with Dr. Bem. Tsakiris also interviews skeptics so you can find a good cross section of opinion on his site. Sometimes there is no substitute for hearing opinion from the horse's mouth rather than how others spin that opinion.

Does it include evolutionary biology? Because I've yet to see any research into parapsychology that attempts to fit into current evolutionary biology, and as such it seems next to useless, like a theory of disease that doesn't include micro-biology.

mickrock

Zombrex wrote: »

Does it include evolutionary biology? Because I've yet to see any research into parapsychology that attempts to fit into current evolutionary biology, and as such it seems next to useless, like a theory of disease that doesn't include micro-biology.

Why would research into parapsychology have anything to do with theories of evolutionary biology?

Trying to make every type of phenomenon and behaviour fit in to the shaky theory of darwinism is cracked.

Sarky

Shaky?

Oh dear.