FriendsCommunitiesMetaphyiscalHeader

Forums Forums Answering Skeptics and Debunking Cynics The evidence for anomalous cognition – a skeptical analysis.

6 voices
17 replies
  • Author
    Posts
  • #62539
    lucianarchy
    Participant

    I hope this is not too off-topic here, but I put this to skeptics on the Forum, hoping for some feedback, skepticism, critical thinking etc,. Apart from name-calling, no one offered any refutation of the evidence. Does this mean that all skeptics are unable to refute the evidence, are there any here who’d be prepared to give some skeptical feedback? TIA.



    The evidence for anomalous cognition – a skeptical analysis.

    “I agree that an anomalous phenomena is being replicated in a lab.” –

    In this particular instance, [he] is correct. So let us look at why is correct in his assertion.

    The CIA commissioned a review of the US Govt sponsored research into anomalous cognition undertaken between 1973-1993 (SRI 1973-1988, SAIC 1989-1993 – Stanford Research Institute and Science Applications International Corporation). This review was undertaken in 1995 and Professor Jessica Utts (U of California, Davis) and Ray Hyman (U of Origon and well known CSICOP activist) were contracted to undertake this review.

    In 1996, Ray Hyman wrote for the Journal of Scientific Exploration (10) an article entitled “Evaluation of a program on anomalous mental phenomena.” The article was about the review undertaken jointly by Utts and Hyman for the CIA.

    Hyman writes:

    “I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments and in the recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing, filedrawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing, or other misuse of statistical inference.”

    “So, I accept Professor Utts assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychologists experiments are “far beyond what is expected by chance.” “

    “The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present.”

    Indeed. Of course, it is impossible to say that *any* scientific experiment is completely free from possible flaws. Yet here Hyman admits that not one single *potential* “candidate” for flaw has been identified.

    One of the more interesting aspect of the these kinds of experiments is the fact that ‘belief’ in what the participant is undertaking, actually affects the outcome ( of course, this is also true in athletics, sports and various other
    human endeavours), yet with these experiments we have controlled studies which positively support the ‘belief’ hypothesis ( known as the ‘Sheep/Goat effect – Schmeidler 1988 ‘Parapsychology and Psychology’). The S/G studies have people fill out questionnaires probing beliefs and experiences in ESP/psi and the ‘paranormal’ type topics. The ‘sheep’ are the believers and the ‘goats’ are the skeptics. Following is an example of how the S/G effect has been analysed:

    “In 1993, psychologist Tony Lawrence from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, reported a meta-analysis of all sheep-goat forced-choice experiments conducted between 1943 and 1993. Lawrence found seventy-three published reports by thirty-seven different investigators, involving more than 685,000 guesses produced by 4,500 participants. The overall results were strongly in favor of the sheep-goat effect, with believers performing better than disbelieves with odds greater than a trillion to one. Analysis of the file-drawer problem showed that it would require some 1,726 unpublished nonsignificant studies for each published study to eradicate this effect. Thus, the file-crawer problem cannot
    explain this results. Nor did Lawrence find that the results could be explained by variations in the quality of the studies, or by the presence of a few studies with exceptionally large outcomes.” (Radin Conscious Universe, 1997 Ref: Lawrence,T ‘Bringing in the sheep: a meta-analysis of sheep/goat experiments. P.A 1993)

    So what now? It is evident that both sides of the debate have taken a rational review of some of the most significant parapsychology experiments in modern history and both sides agreed that an anomalous phenomena is being replicated,
    time after time. The skeptical extremes of the argument would contend that that does not necessarily mean that anomalous cognition is occurring. Yet when we take the replications also undertaken by the PEAR Labs since 1978 – current,
    we see the pattern is repeated, the replications continue to replicated. When we look at the analysis of psychologist Milton (Edinburgh U.) on experiments, which analysed 78 studies, she only found two potential design flaws, yet the overall results effect recorded odds against chance of 10m : 1. (see Milton.J.’Ordinary state ESP meta-analysis’ 1993 . – P.A. Ed Schlitz.MA) Other experiments which also support the existence of an anomalous cognition transfer are included at the end of this article.

    What is clear is that scientists are beginning to see a signal in the noise. What this signal is, they aren’t 100% sure, but it certainly fits the hypothesis of anomalous cognition, and if this comes to application, as most scientific discoveries of small effect overwhelmingly do go on to do, then we truly are on the cusp of the biggest paradigm shift in human consciousness. As scientist are starting to believe what commonpeople have known about since prehistory, just imagine what the future brings. We’ll leave the final word here with Radin:

    “After a century of slowly accumulating scientific evidence, we now know that some aspects of psychic phenomena are real. The importance of this discovery lies somewhere between an interesting oddity and an earth-shattering revolution. At a minimum, genuine psi suggests that what science presently knows about the nature of the universe is seriously incomplete, that the capabilities and limitations of human potential have been vastly underestimated, that beliefs about the strict separation of objective ad subjective are almost certainly incorrect, and that some ‘miracles’ previously attributed to religious or supernatural sources may instead be caused by extraordinary capabilities of human consciousness.”

    Further references and soucres:

    Journal of Parapsychology: Sep 2000
    PK Tests in a Pre-Sleep State
    By Helmut Schmidt

    ABSTRACT: In an experiment with a single participant, the author, signals from a weak vibrator were presented at random time intervals to the participant, while he was ready to fall asleep at night. A pilot test of twenty 15-minute sessions indicated that this sleepy attention to the signals produced a reduction of the signal frequency (z = 2.45, p = .014), two tailed) and a bunching of the signals along the time axis (z = 1.63). The sub sequent main experiment, comprising 40 night sessions, con firmed the signal frequency reduction (z = 2.24, p = .013, one tailed) and the bunching effect (z = 2.85, p = .0022, one tailed). In parallel with the night sessions of the main experiment there were added 40 day sessions in which the participant, ex posed to the random vibrator signals, was fully awake and at tempting to visualize vivid colors. These sessions gave a smaller reduction in signal frequency (z = 1.01, ns ) and a slightly negative bunching effect (z = – 0.71, ns).

    “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.” – Professor J.Utts
    http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html Bem, Daryl J. and Charles Honorton (1994). “Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer,” Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18.

    Bierman, Dick J. (1995). “The Amsterdam Ganzfeld Series III & IV: Target clip emotionality, effect sizes and openness,” Proceedings of the 38th Annual Parapsychological Association Convention, 27-37.

    Broughton, Richard and Cheryl Alexander (1995). “Autoganzfeld II: The first 100 sessions,” Proceedings of the 38th Annual Parapsychological Association Convention, 53-61.

    May, Edwin C. (1995). “AC Technical trials: Inspiration for the target entropy concept,” May 26, 1995, SAIC Technical Report.

    May, Edwin C., Nevin D. Lantz and Tom Piantineda (1994). “Feedback Considerations in Anomalous Cognition Experiments,” Technical Report, 29 November 1994.

    May, Edwin C., J.M. Utts, V.V. Trask, W.W. Luke, T.J. Frivold and B.S. Humphrey (1988). “Review of the psychoenergetic research conducted at SRI International (1973-1988)” SRI International Technical Report, March 1989.

    Morris, Robert L., Kathy Dalton, Deborah Delanoy and Caroline Watt (1995). “Comparison of the sender/no sender condition in the Ganzfeld,” Proceedings of the 38th Annual Parapsychological Association Convention, 244-259.

    Puthoff, Harold E. and Russell Targ (1975). “Perceptual Augmentation Techniques: Part Two–Research Report,” Stanford Research Institute Final Report, Dec. 1, 1975.

    #72256
    PsyQuestor
    Participant

    You said:

    I hope this is not too off-topic here, but I put this to skeptics on the [edited] Forum, hoping for some feedback, skepticism, critical thinking etc,. Apart from name-calling, no one offered any refutation of the evidence. Does this mean that all skeptics are unable to refute the evidence, are there any here who’d be prepared to give some skeptical feedback? TIA.

    I dispute the usage of the word ALL here. Not all skeptics can be lump summed into one catagory. We strive to appreciate everyone’s view here when put forth respectfully.

    I’m not sure if the quote from one [other forum] member here is appropriate….the rest of the post is fine so far as I can see.

    Please reconsider your use of the word all in the above blanket statement.

    Thank you.
    Tammy

    #72155
    Pam B
    Keymaster

    I agree with Tammy, the word “all” is prejudicial.

    My question, is what is the relationship between this information and John Edward, and does this information further the message of hope and peace, in trust that life exists after death and that after death communication is possible?

    No offense, but this is not a scientific forum, and when many of us read the above, our eyes glaze over like deer in the headlights.

    If there IS a connection to our topic, please spell it out for the lowest common denominator, which includes me.

    And let’s not invite spillover from one discussion board, into this one. This forum is nothing like the forum you mention, and the person you mention, whom I edited out of your post, lost their posting privileges here, for not being able to behave like an adult, so don’t expect them to be posting here. We are here to discuss ideas, not people.

    #72107
    sgrenard
    Participant

    There is really little to discuss that wasn’t already said in the quoted material. The remote viewing project developed at the CIA and moved to Stanford & AIR for academic review, and subsequently reviewed by Utts and Hyman, it simply stands as a monument to the difficulty skeptics such as Hyman have with data. On the one hand Hyman agrees the experiments were near perfect and the statistics significant but he says there must be a flaw, I don’t know what is but because this must be true I can’t accept it. So be it … and so what?

    The relationship of this to what John does, scientifically, is what these people were doing. Remote viewing is a protocol that involves a different sort of disciplined procedure but it is really no different then what a psychic medium does. I disagree with the remark that it has nothing to do with John’s work. It has everything to do with it from a scientific point of view. John talks about an energy thing and the reality of non-local communication
    including seeing and hearing things beynd the standard senses … and as his recent interview on Daly proved, he is very science oriented himself.

    But this is neither here nor there. The level of skeptic replies you get on most of their sites and boards is not unexpected. These people argue their worldwview and are prejudicially biased based on that worldview; and, scientific results really mean nothing to them …but they won’t admit it. Yes, some see that and are more open minded and gravitate to more neutral and open minded positions but many do not. They do not do science, they do skepticism which is a philosophy and not a hard science. It is based on rhetoric and sophistry not scientific results. But they will argue and belittle the science and deliberately get hamstrung on trivial lines of inquiry to create a atmosphere of hostility, distrust and non-acceptance. A lot of people fall for this, many do not.

    The sheep/goat effects are a double edged sword. Alternative science means alternative means. Archaeologists and psychologists become involved in their work by role playing and believing in what they do. On this issue there is the very well publicized experimenter effect to contend with as well. It’s also been called the Wiseman Effect named after British skeptic Dr. Richard Wiseman. Wiseman never seems to be able to replicate any anomalous phenomena confirmed by other researchers just as reputable and trustworthy as he is. Does this mean that he is the only researcher with integrity? Does it mean sheep don’t have integrity but goats do? I think it is possible to avoid the sheep/goat effect. Many researchers have debunked extraordinary claims on a case by case basis while confirming it in others. This field is so highly personalized as to performance parameters it indeed places it on a par with athletics and other fields requiring enormous talent.

    This material BTW is on our website at http://www.survivalscience.org.
    The straightforward reports I guess would deserve a place in the Science Section if they were something “new” but they are not.
    Skeptical discussion of them would belong here, would it not Pam?
    Otherwise I am confused. LOLOL. Wouldnt be the first time.

    PS: I think lucian was asking a question about ALL skeptics?s. My straight answer would also be no, not ALL. Just “many” for reasons given above.

    #71803
    lucianarchy
    Participant

    Originally posted by PsyQuestor

    Please reconsider your use of the word all in the above blanket statement.

    Thank you.
    Tammy

    Hi, Tammy. Just to clear up any misunderstanding, I *asked* IF “all” skeptics are unable to refute the evidence, not an assertion. HTH.

    I have not seen a skeptical refutation of the evidence which I refer to in the original post, and consider this to be the “proof” skeptics have been seeking in respect of the ‘paranormal’. I am a skeptic myself, meaning that I question everything that I see / read / hear, yet in this instance, I have questioned and questioned, but the evidence remain clearly in favour of ‘psi’ / anomalous cognition. As there appears to be a lack of skeptical refutation, from either skeptics or skeptic organisations, I am tempted to conclude that the evidence ‘proves’ ( as far as proof can be defined within all other mainstream sciences) that the ‘paranormal’, or in this case, anomalous cognition ( which fits the JREF def of ‘paranormal’/’supernatural’ ) exists, and has the evidence to uphold the burden of proof.

    #71714
    sgrenard
    Participant

    Consider this argument if you will which is forwarded from survivalscience:

    I am not a lawyer, but, as I see it, if a prosecuting attorney in a criminal
    suit were held to the same burden of proof as those attempting to prove
    survival through mediumship, no person accused of a crime would ever be
    convicted.

    Consider the hypothetical case of a man accused of robbery. The victim and
    several bystanders identify him in a police lineup. However, the prosecutor
    is then required to show that no one in the world looks enough like the
    accused to be mistaken for him. When the stolen property is found hidden in
    the home of the accused, the prosecuting attorney must demonstrate that the
    accused wasn’t “framed,” that there was no one with a grudge against the
    accused who might have “planted” the property in the accused’s home. When
    the accused finally confesses to the crime, his attorney argues that his
    client had heard so many people say he was guilty that he (the accused) had
    come to believe it himself. Finally, the defense attorney argues that if
    his client had in fact committed the crime it was because he had multiple
    personalities and the personality who committed the crime was a deviant
    personality, not the true personality of his client.

    The prosecuting attorney was not being asked to prove his case “beyond a
    reasonable doubt.” He was asked for absolute proof, a standard that is
    beyond the law as well as beyond reason. Such is the problem in proving
    survival. Perhaps the natural “Law of Compensation” is at work, allowing
    the credulity of much of orthodox religion to be offset by the incredulity of
    much of orthodox science.

    #71677
    VTFlowerGirl
    Participant

    Bravo Steve the science guy! Hands clapping!!!

    Finally the basic arguments regarding this thing about proof and science requirements by skeptics boiled down to language I can understand and relate to.

    Just so happens I was in Superior Court testifying on something yesterday, weird you should give this analogy today. Coincidental? Perhaps….. show me proof some would say….

    As for myself – I’m content to know there is no such thing as coincidence. Everything happens for a reason, you must first have your mind open to all the possibilities. Lessons are to be found everywhere in life. I keep my mind open to the possibility all things can happen including continuation of the spirit, and memory and unseen energy I believe are a bigger force than people realize. Since I have already accepted that as a given, I’m now on a journey using that knowledge to improve my own life.

    As I’ve said before in other posts, continuing to debate about whether proof exists of JE’s abilities is a negative thing I think a lot of us really try to avoid in most cases on this board. We’re educated enough about internet “fishermen” who travel from one board to another to know dealing with them is a waste of time. That’s why we enjoy it here so much – because it’s our haven and Pam deals with them for us. We can just kick back and watch as the disharmonious and obnoxious posts are deleted and not have to worry if someone with the handle “lucianarchcy” from “that other place” is going to trash our “friendly” home here on the net.

    Best wishes on finding the answers to your questions lucianarchy. Sounds like you have cracked open the door a bit to at least take a peek and consider what may possibly be on the other side. The choice you have is either open the door wider or shut it again.

    #71662
    lucianarchy
    Participant

    Originally posted by Pam
    I agree with Tammy, the word “all” is prejudicial.

    My question, is what is the relationship between this information and John Edward, and does this information further the message of hope and peace, in trust that life exists after death and that after death communication is possible?

    No offense, but this is not a scientific forum, and when many of us read the above, our eyes glaze over like deer in the headlights.

    If there IS a connection to our topic, please spell it out for the lowest common denominator, which includes me.

    And let’s not invite spillover from one discussion board, into this one. This forum is nothing like the forum you mention, and the person you mention, whom I edited out of your post, lost their posting privileges here, for not being able to behave like an adult, so don’t expect them to be posting here. We are here to discuss ideas, not people.

    Hi Pam. Thanks for your questions. I believe my ‘evidence’ re ‘psi’ is very relevant to the friends of JE, in that it demonstrates that anomalous cognitive phenomena exist when measured against the standards of “proof” used within the mainstream sciences. Given that the evidence for ‘psi’ also indicates that people can ‘view’ across space *and* time, it can only serve to demonstrate that people are able to communicate / interact beyond the physical limitations from what we have been previously been lead to believe was possible. I therefore beleive it upholds the shared predominant belief that ‘the soul’ not only exists, but that it is an aspect of a timeless ‘global consciousness’ ( see the Global Consciousness Project http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ ). This evidence remains undebunked by skeptics, so it seems, that even when applying skepticism, the evidence actually *does* support the existence of timeless survival.

    #71964
    lucianarchy
    Participant

    Originally posted by sgrenard
    There is really little to discuss that wasn’t already said in the quoted material. The remote viewing project developed at the CIA and moved to Stanford & AIR for academic review, and subsequently reviewed by Utts and Hyman, it simply stands as a monument to the difficulty skeptics such as Hyman have with data. On the one hand Hyman agrees the experiments were near perfect and the statistics significant but he says there must be a flaw, I don’t know what is but because this must be true I can’t accept it. So be it … and so what?

    The relationship of this to what John does, scientifically, is what these people were doing. Remote viewing is a protocol that involves a different sort of disciplined procedure but it is really no different then what a psychic medium does. I disagree with the remark that it has nothing to do with John’s work. It has everything to do with it from a scientific point of view. John talks about an energy thing and the reality of non-local communication
    including seeing and hearing things beynd the standard senses … and as his recent interview on Daly proved, he is very science oriented himself.

    But this is neither here nor there. The level of skeptic replies you get on most of their sites and boards is not unexpected. These people argue their worldwview and are prejudicially biased based on that worldview; and, scientific results really mean nothing to them …but they won’t admit it. Yes, some see that and are more open minded and gravitate to more neutral and open minded positions but many do not. They do not do science, they do skepticism which is a philosophy and not a hard science. It is based on rhetoric and sophistry not scientific results. But they will argue and belittle the science and deliberately get hamstrung on trivial lines of inquiry to create a atmosphere of hostility, distrust and non-acceptance. A lot of people fall for this, many do not.

    The sheep/goat effects are a double edged sword. Alternative science means alternative means. Archaeologists and psychologists become involved in their work by role playing and believing in what they do. On this issue there is the very well publicized experimenter effect to contend with as well. It’s also been called the Wiseman Effect named after British skeptic Dr. Richard Wiseman. Wiseman never seems to be able to replicate any anomalous phenomena confirmed by other researchers just as reputable and trustworthy as he is. Does this mean that he is the only researcher with integrity? Does it mean sheep don’t have integrity but goats do? I think it is possible to avoid the sheep/goat effect. Many researchers have debunked extraordinary claims on a case by case basis while confirming it in others. This field is so highly personalized as to performance parameters it indeed places it on a par with athletics and other fields requiring enormous talent.

    This material BTW is on our website at http://www.survivalscience.org.
    The straightforward reports I guess would deserve a place in the Science Section if they were something “new” but they are not.
    Skeptical discussion of them would belong here, would it not Pam?
    Otherwise I am confused. LOLOL. Wouldnt be the first time.

    PS: I think lucian was asking a question about ALL skeptics?s. My straight answer would also be no, not ALL. Just “many” for reasons given above.

    Yes, I believe the term ‘skeptic’ has been to some extent, usurped by those simply holding deep seated prejudices. I like to ‘test’ things against proper skepticism, not rely on the ‘party line’, as it were. I would say to anyone who engages or pays heed to skepticism, “be skeptical of *all* claims”, skeptics musn’t cry “fraud” or “cheat” without demonstrating that the action took place. Too many people take skeptics for their ‘word’, yet skepticism works on *all* claims.

    #71947
    Pam B
    Keymaster

    anomalous cognitive phenomena

    This is the kind of verbiage that makes my brain hurt, and makes me hate these lengthy posts about psychic abiblities. This is not a scientific forum, nor is it academia and I believe “less is more”.
    I wish we could just agree that we’re talking about “enhanced perceptions” or ESP or “psychic activity”? To many of us, it’s not “anomalous” at all.

    I certainly hope that no one takes that other forum as typical of all skeptical thinking, including offline. Don’t forget that this medium (pardon the pun) attracts abuse, for the sake of abuse. I doubt very highly that well educated, serious skeptics visit that forum and post to it.

    There’s a range of disbelief to belief that starts at “arm chair cynic who needs an outlet to hurl words of abuse at other people and finds it at unmoderated discussion board”, to somewhere in the middle, “open minded skeptics and fence sitting believers”. At the other end of the spectrum are “died in the wool believers” who believe anything labled parnormal.

    Unmoderated internet discussion boards, such as the one you mentioned, tend to attract mostly the first group I mentioned . I’m hoping to attract the middle group by moderating this board.

    With that kind of spectrum, you have to remember that very often you’re not even speaking the same language as those people. They have very different definations of:

    skeptic
    cynic
    believer
    theory
    evidence
    proof
    opinions
    facts

    You can’t even BEGIN to have a discussion with any of those people, until you first agree on those definations. And the second someone uses the discussion to insult you, do yourself a favor and put them on “ignore” because they fall into the first group, and they’re just there to attempt to manipulate your emotions. There’s no point discussing with those people, no matter what their arguments are, because they’re just there to abuse.

    #69736
    lucianarchy
    Participant

    Originally posted by Pam

    This is the kind of verbiage that makes my brain hurt, and makes me hate these lengthy posts about psychic abiblities. This is not a scientific forum, nor is it academia and I believe “less is more”.

    I accept that is how you choose to experience / interpret what has been written. There is no need to ‘dumb down’ any aspect of parapsychology, indeed it plays into the hands of those who try to discredit it by doing so. The term ‘anomalous cognitive phenomena’ may well be simple ‘mind reading’ to some, but in order to cross all cultural boundaries I believe it is best to use a standardised model which has universal understanding, and at least some basis as recognised within the science of parapsychology. I hope you agree that there are many ways to express one’s self and that you do not prescribe exclusive terms here.

    #69730
    sgrenard
    Participant

    This not really about dumbing down so much as it is about making science palatable for the non-scientist. This is every scientist’s ultimate goal for acceptance. As Pam indicated this board is populated mainly by non-scientists and non-academics. Many have faith in God, others in science and some in both.
    As the science modretaor I try to keep a high level of interest in the scientific aspects of what John and other genuine psychic mediums do.

    It is up to people familiar with the science to make it understandable to people not familiar with it. This is as much an art as it is a science I guess and I have been guilty of inducing that eyes-glazed over expression or inducing utter bordom leading to disinterest. When this happens I have failed the mission.

    #69771
    Pam B
    Keymaster

    Thank you Steven! Yes, there are some things that need to be “dumbed down” if that’s the semantics you prefer to use.

    When I worked in PC support in the corporate work world, in Health Care specifically, the word “computer” was as ugly to my users as the word “cancer”. They called it “the ‘c’ words (Cancer and computers.)

    If I every time I explained to my users how to solve or prevent a problem in MY terminology — the users would be confused and intimidated. I had to use terminology and analogies in their own langauge, so they could relate. I was not ‘dumbing it down’, I was speaking their langauge. I’m asking for the same consideration here.

    Use whatever language you like, I’m not here to limit people’s speech. I won’t prevent you from speaking French here, but if you want to actually reach most of the readers, I would suggest English :)

    #69489
    lucianarchy
    Participant

    Originally posted by Pam
    Thank you Steven! Yes, there are some things that need to be “dumbed down” if that’s the semantics you prefer to use.

    When I worked in PC support in the corporate work world, in Health Care specifically, the word “computer” was as ugly to my users as the word “cancer”. They called it “the ‘c’ words (Cancer and computers.)

    If I every time I explained to my users how to solve or prevent a problem in MY terminology — the users would be confused and intimidated. I had to use terminology and analogies in their own langauge, so they could relate. I was not ‘dumbing it down’, I was speaking their langauge. I’m asking for the same consideration here.

    Use whatever language you like, I’m not here to limit people’s speech. I won’t prevent you from speaking French here, but if you want to actually reach most of the readers, I would suggest English :)

    That’s why I write in English. I accept that you do not chose to personally accept universal definitions, in favour of of ‘dumbed down’ cliche’s. Following your example, as someone who has dealt with the health professionals in respect of cancer, radio and chemotherapy, I can attest that I value being given accurate information rather than ‘dumbed down’ paternalism / maternalism types of treatment, as I believe it is important to work in equal partnership rather than being ‘fed’ what is deemed appropriate by those who hold power. If a term is not understood, it does not take much to ask. There is already too much division between ‘provider’ and ‘user’, ‘dr’ and ‘patient’, etc,. These gaps need to be drawn closer, not set wider apart.

    I hope this is not veering off topic, but I do find that both extreme ‘skeptics’ and extreme ‘believers’ tend to want to keep their ears and eyes shut to the perceptions of others, and that only serves to collude with the holding back of advances in knowledge, rather than the coming together and progression of humanity.

    This folder is about ‘answering skeptics’, to do so, one must be prepared to communicate and understand their terminology, the same as getting to understand another culture requires the student to get to grips with the language of the culture being visited / explored. In this case, ‘the scientific method’ has been shown to have been met, and the evidence still remains in favour of ‘psi’ / ‘anomalous cognition’ / ‘enhanced sensitivity’ / ‘whatever’.
    I suggest that is the way to “answer skeptics”, using the standards and values they set.

    #69847
    VTFlowerGirl
    Participant

    This folder is about ‘answering skeptics’, to do so, one must be prepared to communicate and understand their terminology, the same as getting to understand another culture requires the student to get to grips with the language of the culture being visited / explored

    But how well do anthropologists fare who ignore local customs and are insulting to their subjects? If the anthropologists is considered rude and intrusive do the subjects being observed become aggressive and defensive?

    Bottom line is if you irritate enough people here (or only ONE that matters as far as that goes), you aren’t going to stick around here for long.

    I suggest that is the way to “answer skeptics”, using the standards and values they set.

    No, I disagree. Maybe if we were in a skeptic forum. This is a friendly JE forum and you came here. You are the guest here, and you are the one who needs to use “standards and values” as they pertain to the readership here, not the other way around, in order to effectively communicate your thoughts to this crowd.

    Pam and Steve both have it completely right. When it’s a struggle to read and comprehend a post because of unfamiliar terms or too much scientific jargon then many tend to not read the post completely or just ignore it.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.