Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Blatant Confirmation Bias and Gullibility of Materialists

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

UD regulars might want to check out this thread at The Skeptical Zone.

And follow it all the way through. In it you’ll get to see:

(1) EL make assertions (and doubles down on them) about a book she later admits she didn’t even bother to read, assertions which were demonstrable false;

(2) Keiths jump from the possibility of error/fraud in scientific studies on psi/the paranormal to the conclusion that the results must have been fraud/error;

(3) Countless groundless, blanket assertions best epitomized by Alan Fox’s blanket statement “It doesn’t happen”, who remains silent on how he knows psi events “don’t happen”;

(4) DNA_Jock completely misrepresent a past comment of mine on TSZ that concerned a video on spoon-bending saying I called it convincing evidence; I corrected him; he doubles down; I quote and link to the comment in question which explicitly proves him wrong (in fact, the opposite was true); and then he triples down on his misrepresentation.

(5) So-called “skeptics” defend as honest, good science the publicity-seeking, non-scientific antics of James Randi, a stage magician with deep, vested interests both professionally and financially in the outcomes of his “Randi Challenge” tests, who publicly and privately ridicules and attacks those whom he is supposed to be testing

Keep in mind that what I am ultimately doing in that thread (which at one point I explicitly explain, which doesn’t deter them one bit) is exposing their obvious, irrational confirmation bias and gullibility for all things that support their a priori materialist worldview.  These guys will swallow whole what any third-hand skeptical website or stage magician tells them as long as it confirms their materialist view; they will deny, misrepresent, mis-remember, ridicule and denigrate all information and scientific research that appears to conflict with their worldview.

The confirmation bias and gullibility of their mindsets runs throughout the entire thread and is, IMO, breathtakingly obvious to any objective observer.

Comments
Aurelio must have posted that from memory.Mung
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Good. As long as that is clear.Elizabeth Liddle
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
EL said:
So I utterly deny your accusation of dishonesty, William.
You really should try better to read for comprehension and clarity, EL. Especially after what happened wrt Zammit's challenge and book. I haven't accused you of any dishonesty.William J Murray
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
But unless someone presents evidence that is actually repeatable, under controlled conditions, it can neither be falsified nor verified.
And they wonder why we doubt evolution. There's no double standard here is there?Mung
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
WJM:
Apparently, EL thinks “anecdotes” are categorically the same as “substantive objective evidence”.
No. I think that Zammit thinks that "substantive objective evidence" is categorically the same as "anecdotes". Or, if he does not, he signally fails to make it clear which parts of his "book" are to be rebutted in order to meet the challenge. For instance, in at least some of the chapters he specifically mentions as containing such evidence, there are only anecdotes or unreferenced experiments. Which is why it was not necessary to read the entire book to see that his challenge was a scam. Nor to see that he supports own his claims with include pseudo-scientific junk. So I utterly deny your accusation of dishonesty, William.Elizabeth Liddle
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
eigenstate @1: Unfairness of the entry protocol:
In June of 1999 a German man named Rico Kolodzey attempted to apply for the Challenge as a self-described "breatharian." Kolodzey calims he can live on nothing but water and "prana" - a supposed divine form of "life energy." This certainly would qualify as a claim of the "paranormal," and on the surface, does not seem any less plausible than Sylvia Browne's claim of psychic powers. However, Randi immediately and categorically rejected Kolodzey's application. The problem for Randi is the logic - or total lack thereof - he displayed in defending this rejection. Randi's email to Kolodzey reads: (from http://www.alternativescience.com/randi_retreats.htm): Date: 6/18/99 12:03 PM Mr. Kolodzey: Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims. Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it? If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter.
If Randi can just outright dismiss any entrant based on his own bias, he can certainly dismiss any entrant he feels has a good chance of beating his challenge. This type of dismissal is utterly unprofessional and reveals his bias. Unfair/deceitful handling of serious cases that might actually beat the challenge:
The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests. I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too. I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so." Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.
Randi has refused to conduct the dog-telepathy test he lied twice about. Also, as far as the testing of psychics or telepaths, JREF requires "hit" rates of 70%+, when the current scientific research indicates that you can expect no better than a hit rate of 10-40% above chance. Also, Randi will not allow the same protocols developed over many years by others (Bieschel, et al) that maximize both the intgrity of the tests and the comfort/familiarity of the medium/psychic to produce the best chance for well-defined success. Also, nothing scientific is determined with one test, especially not under the control of a stage magician entirely hostile against the success of any applicant with a vested interest in the failure of the test. No serious person should use the challenge as evidence of anything other than Randi's self-marketing acument.William J Murray
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
EL claims:
The challenge is for “skeptics” to “rebut” the “evidence” in the “book”. I read enough of the “book” to reveal that at least some of that “evidence” was unreferenced studies and uncorroborated anecdote.
This is another blatant misrepresentation by EL. After pointing her to the Zammit's counter-challenge and his book (which his callenge refers to), and after explaining the purpose behind the counter-challenge (all of which was lost on EL and the others),EL claimed:
It’s very hard to refute a loonie, William. His challenge, as far as I can see, amounts to an invitation to “refute” a bunch of assertions that are supported only by anecdote. It’s probable that most of the reported experiences are believed, by their reporters, to be real. But unless someone presents evidence that is actually repeatable, under controlled conditions, it can neither be falsified nor verified. So no, not easy. But he offers no good grounds on which to believe he might be right.
I responded:
In the first place, you have Zammit’s challenge wrong. Blatanty, absolutely, unbelievably wrong. All I can say is that you must not have read through his book that refers to the evidence that must be rebutted. He doesn’t collect all the data and research details in his book, he simply refers to it – sums up the evidence and refers the reader to the much more detailed information/evidence. The evidence he challenges to be rebutted is not comprised of “stories” or “anecdotes”, but data collected largely through scientific research. In essence, Zammit is asking challengers to scientifically rebut the scientific data that has been accumulated.
EL:
No, he isn’t. That’s what he says he’s doing, but he isn’t. And you don’t, in any case “scientifically rebut” “data”. You rebut a conclusion, or sometimes, an argument, or sometimes, you show that the data is erroneous. No references, just assertion. Anecdote, iow.
I presented EL with some of the substantive objective evidence Zammit referred to in his book to demonstrate here assertions about the book incorrect:
The Pye Laboratory tests conducted by Colin Smythe and Peter Bander Konstantin Raudive’s EVP and Radio ITC Recordings 1994 ITC experiments Radio Luxembourg experiments Klaus Schreiber ITC experiments Kubris and Macy 1995:14; Locher and Harsch-Fischbach 1997 ITC experiments the Scole experiments The Afterlife Experiments A Perceptual Channel for Information over Kilometer Distances – http://www.espresearch.com/espgeneral/IEEE-329B.shtml These are just a handful of the references available in the book that refer to scientific experiments many of which included published papers, one of which I linked to above.
EL admits:
Well, I certainly didn’t read the whole book. The pages I read had no references, and what I mean by references, is a proper citation so I can actually find the paper.
And yet, she felt comfortable insisting on was contained in, and not contained in, the book, and then doubling down on that commitment when challenged. Attempting to save face (IMO), EL later quoted the Zammit challenge:
The applicant has to rebut the substantive objective evidence presented in Victor Zammit’s A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife (http://www.victorzammit.com/book/) (see chapters 3 to 24) which includes: Materialisations, Electronic Voice Phenomena, Instrumental Transcommunication, the Scole Experiments, Professor Gary Schwartz’ Experiments, Mediumship – Mental, Physical and Direct Voice, Xenoglossy, the Cross-Correspondences, Proxy Sittings, Automatic Etheric Writing, Laboratory Experiments, Poltergeists, Apparitions together with the evidence provided by Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences which psychics claim are supportive of and are directly linked with the afterlife.
Note the highlighted part of the quote - what kind of evidence in the book Zammit requires be rebutted. And then she adds:
Which sounds like you only get it [Zammit's counter-challenge prize of 1 million dollars - WJM] if you “rebut” the lot, to me [including the anecdotal evidence found in the book - WJM].
When called on this, EL attempts to explain:
I assumed his anecdotes were include in the substantive objective evidence, as they are included in the book he cites as the source.
Apparently, EL thinks "anecdotes" are categorically the same as "substantive objective evidence".William J Murray
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Yes. Skepticism is an illusion because those who are skeptical about "x" are gullible about "not x". The stronger your emotional attachment to a belief, the more skeptical and gullible you will be. It takes 100% ironclad proof to get someone to change his mind about a strongly held belief, but it only takes a tenuous hypothesis for them to explain away contradictory evidence.Jim Smith
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
WJM:
EL make assertions (and doubles down on them) about a book she later admits she didn’t even bother to read, assertions which were demonstrable false;
WJM: this is a blatant misrepresentation. The challenge is for "skeptics" to "rebut" the "evidence" in the "book". I read enough of the "book" to reveal that at least some of that "evidence" was unreferenced studies and uncorroborated anecdote. You not need to an exhaustive investigation to find one item, and in this case one item was all that was required. I found several. If even part of what a "skeptic" is required to "rebut" is unreferenced studies and uncorroborated anecdote then the challenge is a scam. ETA: google "one black swan"Elizabeth Liddle
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
eigenstate- We can apply Randi's challenge to macroevolution and get the same results as his PSI challenge. :cool:Joe
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
@WJM, Over at TSZ, you made this comment in the thread you reference:
I didn’t say none of the applicants were “happy” with the protocols; I said that all of the applicants can either accept Randi’s protocols or go home. Of course any protocols that the applicant agrees to in order to take the test are “mutually agreed to”, that’s the nature of any signed contract. But that doesn’t mean the protocols are scientific or fair to the applicant. That’s the nature of con men and magicians – they set marks up to be fooled, even while the marks think everything is on the up and up.
So, ostensibly, there is either a) some essential non-scientific or anti-scientific aspects to the tests/demonstrations that Randi hosts, and/or b) some kind of fraud or deception visited on the challengers (which you call "marks" for this reason). Do you have an example that you suppose is a good showcase for this problem? I have only a passing familiarity with Randi, but the couple times I've watched and read about his debunkings, they seemed quite solid in their scientific controls. I took this to be whole point of Randi's project, that scientific test -- rigor in scientific evaluation -- would be decisive in exposing all the various woo and hoaxes that are out there looking to make a buck from the unduly cedulous. As for fairness, I'll grant you that anyone who agrees to let their "paranormal" or "supernatural" abilities get put under the microscope of science is not engaging in a "fair fight". It's quite true to say that some of these characters actually believe in the woo they are pitching and so having a scientific test seems no threat, based on their own self-deceptions. It's not really fair when it plays out, the woo-pitchers don't really have any prospects of success, if that's what you would say is required for "fairness", here. But that's the larger point of Randi's project. Science is a killer for all this woo. It's not a fair contest, none of the psi/magic/woo can perform under controlled and rigorous examination, contexts where deception and legerdemain are not feasible due to the design of the tests. All that, though, would depend on the design and characteristics of the tests, which is why I am asking for a showcase example, in your view, of Randi's violation of scientific best practices in these tests. Thanks.eigenstate
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply