Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!decwrl!cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) From: cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Parapsychology Message-ID: <636@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 18:50:39 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.636 Posted: Tue Oct 1 18:50:39 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 06:05:01 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 93 >> In article <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> bill@hpfcla.UUCP writes: >> >I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful >> >experiences with experiments in the paranormal. He noticed that when >> >scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is >> >was not, the number of successes jumped sharply. Of course, there are >> >always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an >> >atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur. If that's >> >not wishful thinking, I don't know what is. >> >> Can you say straw-man? I knew you could. > > Where's the 'straw man'? > > David Moews > ...decvax!harvard!h-sc4!moews > moews%h-sc4@harvard.arpa A "straw man" is when a debater invents an easily refuted argument to his/her thesis, then proceeds to refute it, when that argument does not represent the opponent's viewpoint. Clearly the claim that "scientific rigor contributes to an atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur." is an easily refuted argument. We need only establish that the opponents of the view which is being put forward are not likely to make such an argument. I, as a minor member of the parapsychological community, don't find that argument as particularly representative of the views of that community. To support the view that the opinion is NOT a straw man, a legitimate representative of the parapsychological community must be found who accepts it as a reasonable alternative. Jim Balter, after quoting me a little more, attempts to do just that. >> >>I suppose there are people who would make the above claim. There are also >>many who would claim that Laetrile cures cancer, whatever the statistics say. >>This in no way reflects on legitimate cancer researchers. > >It is not a straw man when major psi types like Thelma Moss use this excuse. > >-- Jim Balter (ima!jim) Given that the discussion was about an attempt to scientifically evaluate psi phenomena, I took as the meaningful group which the "those" referred to as the scientific parapsychological community, specifically those who feel that scientific evidence for psi phenomena exists. There are of course many people who claim to be parapsychologists who are not. These include both non-scientific types (for example some psychics) and people with some technical or scientific qualifications who are not at all qualified in parapsychology. We can start by excluding them from the discussion. Any scientific field will have people with a whole range of competences. Dr. Moss, in my opinion is only slightly within the outer fringe of the legitimate parapsychological community. For example, I don't know of any recent publications by her in the refereed journals or conferences (for that matter I don't remember any older ones either, though I have a nagging feeling that I've seen at least one). Nevertheless, if she has made such a statement, my claim that the argument was a straw man, would not be correct (the argument would still come very close since I would still claim it to be a minority opinion). Although it is possible that Dr. Moss has said such a thing, I don't know of it, and think that it is unlikely. Does anyone have a citation? What Dr. Moss may well have said, is a lot less broad, and a lot less easy to knock down: that controls applied without taking into account what little we know about psi may well interfere with the process. Note that this is a very different statement than that rigorous controls will NECESSARILY preclude psi phenomena. Let's make an exaggerated analogy. Let's say that I have heard that there are people, called batters, who claim that they are frequently able to hit a small ball, moving at high speed, with a narrow stick. I find this an unlikely claim to say the least: after all, known hand/eye reaction times would preclude such abilities. I decide to test the claim, and gather up a collection of self-proclaimed batters. But wait, they might be using some kind of concealed device, such as an air cannon, to create the appearance of successfully striking the ball. To control for this, I tie there hands behind their back. When the fail to hit the ball, have I presented reasonable evidence that they cheated and are not actually able to accomplish the feat? Are any who criticize the nature of my controls claiming that, in general, rigorous controls prevent the occurrence of "batting" phenomena? A hostile atmosphere does seem to interfere with the eliciting of psi phenomena, but, with some care and forethought, rigorous controls can be applied in an atmosphere of open-minded skepticism. When this is done, psi phenomena frequently (not always) occur. Topher Cooper USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper ARPA/CSNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for them.