A reader brought to my attention an article on near-death experiences written by Frank Visser, founder of the website integralworld.net, a site dedicated to exploring philosopher Ken Wilber's theories and ideas.
I'll limit my post to Visser's comment on parapsychology, because I think Visser' opinion is misleading:
I'll limit my post to Visser's comment on parapsychology, because I think Visser' opinion is misleading:
"Parapsychology exists for over a century, but unfortunately after all these decades it cannot supply any well-established results. What is more, among those who study this field there are - in military terms - two groups: the hawks and the doves, or the sceptics and the believers. The believers state that the evidence for the paranormal is "overwhelming", and that those who after all these years still doubt it are members of the dogmatic Church of Science, are afraid of a paradigm shift, etc. On the other hand, sceptics state that the so-called evidence is shaky, often has a strong anecdotal flavor and does not hold up to scrutiny.
Sometimes, I have the idea that this could in large part be a matter of temperament. Some people are completely at home with the idea that ultimately everything can be reduced to matter (the materialist is philosophically an extravert); others attribute reality to their subjective feelings and thoughts (they are the philosophical introverts). May be there is a psychological for this fruitless battle between sceptics and believers, which frustrates the progress of this discussion. Both rationalize their emotional choice with ad hoc arguments, which make them feel comfortable. I myself am a dove who is very much interested in what hawks come up with... "
Some comments:
1-It's simply false that parapsychology cannot supply any well established results.
Whoever has read the best literature on parapsychology, in particular Dean Radin's books (The Conscious Universe and Entangled Minds) or Chris Carter's book Parapsychology and the Skeptics, will know that some of the result of parapsychology (like experiments in remote viewing) are well established according to the accepted criteria of science.
And this fact is agreed even by professional skeptics and debunkers. For example, professional debunker of parapsychology Richard Wiseman has recently conceded: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.
"If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.
"But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.
"Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."
As I argued at long in this post, Wiseman is not questioning the scientific quality and results of the research on remote viewing, but rejecting the evidence on purely philosophical grounds. Noetic scientist Dean Radin has commented Wiseman's position: "Thus, a prominent skeptic agrees that (1) the study of remote viewing is an area of science, which should thoroughly obviate the skeptical epithet of "pseudoscience" once and for all. And (2) that when judged against prevailing scientific standards for evaluating evidence, he agrees that remote viewing is proven. The follow-on argument that this phenomenon is so unusual that it requires more evidence refers not to evidence per se, or even to scientific methods or practice, but to assumptions about the fabric of reality" (emphasis in blue added)
Professional writer Michael Prescott has a similar opinion about Wiseman's view: "But why exactly is remote viewing an "outlandish claim"? I think this is what begs the question, to use Wiseman's phrase.
His argument is a variation on the old saw that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There is some truth to this, but the trouble is, who can agree on what constitutes an extraordinary claim?
In a world where consciousness is restricted to the brain, remote viewing would indeed be extraordinary and outlandish. But in a world where consciousness can operate independent of the brain, remote viewing is exactly the kind of thing we would expect to see. We would also expect to see reports of out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, telepathy, precognition, apparitions, and after-death communication. And we do! In fact, such things have been reported for thousands of years all over the world and are taken for granted by billions of people today, just as they were by most of our ancestors.
So there may be nothing extraordinary or outlandish at all about any of these phenomena. They only appear that way to those who start with the assumption that such things just don't happen" (emphasis in blue added)
And Wiseman is not the only prominent skeptic/debunker who concedes that some of the findings of parapsychology are technically correct from a scientific point of view while simultaneously tries to reject or undermine the evidence on philosophical grounds. Some years before Wiseman's concession, professional skeptic and debunker Ray Hyman conceded too that a particular research program on remote viewing had not flaws. In this technical paper, Hyman wrote: "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." (emphasis added).
If you respect the rule that you have to follow the argument and evidence where it leads, you're rationally forced to accept that the available scientific evidence of SAIC experiments in favor of remote viewing is good enough to support the existence of this phenomenon.
But as a professional debunker and member of CSICOP, Hyman is not allowed to do that. He needs to find any excuses to cast doubts on the results, even if the excuses are empirically unjustified and unproven. And Hyman found that clever excuse: "Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility--especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered." (emphasis added)
How could you refute Hyman's skepticism based upon "potential flaws that have not yet been discoveried"? This kind of "skeptical" argument would apply to virtually any kind of scientific claim supported by evidence, provided you want to disbelieve it.
Perhaps Visser needs to have a better familiarity with the best evidence provided by parapsychology and how this evidence has made that prominent professional skeptics like Wiseman and Hyman concede the scientific quality of the research and the evidence, so they can reject them only on purely rhetorical and philosophical grounds.
I'd suggest to Visser to watch carefully these videos by Dean Radin:
2-In his essay, Visser points out: "Sometimes, I have the idea that this could in large part be a matter of temperament. Some people are completely at home with the idea that ultimately everything can be reduced to matter (the materialist is philosophically an extravert); others attribute reality to their subjective feelings and thoughts (they are the philosophical introverts). May be there is a psychological for this fruitless battle between sceptics and believers, which frustrates the progress of this discussion. Both rationalize their emotional choice with ad hoc arguments, which make them feel comfortable. I myself am a dove who is very much interested in what hawks come up with..."
Even though I think Visser is largely right about the psychological foundation of the controversy on parapsychology (I've discussed this aspects, as manifested in materialistic pseudo-skeptics in this post, although something similar could exist in some believers in psi too), Visser fails to stress the function that ideology by itself plays in this controversy.
The key to understand systematic and organized opposition to and debunking of psi research is IDEOLOGICAL. The ideology in question is ontological materialism, or more specifically, metaphysical naturalism.
This worldview IMPLIES that something like psi (and a fortiori, survival of consciousness like suggested by some cases of NDEs, mediumship and other lines of evidence) doesn't and cannot possibly exist. It's a matter of logical entailment. The premises of metaphysical naturalism imply the non-existence of certain phenomena and entities (like "souls" and, as consequence, such nonexistent souls cannot affect matter like in psychokinesis, or survive after death, like suggested by mediumship and some cases of NDEs).
Many people fails to understand this simple point, and thereby they're impressed or surprised by the existence of organized pseudoskepticism or militant debunking. Astute observers, however, if they understand the nature of metaphysical naturalism, would easily predict the existence of organized debunking, because the latter is the consequence of the former (more specifically, the public and theoretical defense of the metaphysical naturalistic worldview IMPLIES the attack, refutation, discreditation, invalidation and debunking of the evidence for psi and survival, because this evidence destroys, demolishes, refutes the naturalist worldview. Therefore, committed and self-proclaimed defenders of naturalism will be, NECESSARILY, debunkers and disbelievers of psi phenomena or any other claim inconsistent with naturalism).
A coherent metaphysical naturalist is not intellectually free to accept psi or survival evidence while being naturalist. If he's a believer in naturalist, he MUST be a disbeliever in psi and survival. (and the intensity or force of the belief in the truth of naturalism is proportional to the force and intensity of the disbelief in psi and survival)
As I said, Visser seems to be aware of this, but his essay doesn't stress the key importance of this philosophical factor. Psychology is important to understand why certain people are metaphysical naturalists; but by itself, psychology give us no philosophical and theortical tools to understand the implicit philosophical assumption that forces the use of the arguments and rhetoric of people like Hyman or Wiseman to reject valid evidence for psi.
If you want to objectively and philosophically confront the arguments of pseudo-skeptics, appealing to their psychology will be insufficient (it only explains their irrationality, their arrogance and delusions of feeling themselves as "brights", and their weird obsessions with creationism and God). You need theoretical, conceptual and philosophical tools to fully know and understand the kind of philosophical and ideological assumptions that colors these people's perspectives and arguments. Only philosophy can provide these tools.
3-Visser's comment on the emotional factor determining and influencing the positions about parapsychology is like a red herring that distracts us from the best evidence for psi.
When Visser asserts that psi research cannot suply us with well-established results, he's falling to the rhetoric and propaganda of mainstream pseudo-skeptics.
As shows the examples of Wiseman and Hyman mentioned above, informed professional skeptics have not refuted the best evidence for psi. Their skepticism is entirely based on a priori philosophical reasons and assumptions, not in scientific evidence as such.
Any neutral observer would understand that the opposition to some of the best psi results is not evidence based, but worldview-based.
This is why I consider Vesser's essay misleading regarding the specific point of the current status of parasychology and the actual nature of the controversy about it. However, his essay is very interesting and worth reading.
Some comments:
1-It's simply false that parapsychology cannot supply any well established results.
Whoever has read the best literature on parapsychology, in particular Dean Radin's books (The Conscious Universe and Entangled Minds) or Chris Carter's book Parapsychology and the Skeptics, will know that some of the result of parapsychology (like experiments in remote viewing) are well established according to the accepted criteria of science.
And this fact is agreed even by professional skeptics and debunkers. For example, professional debunker of parapsychology Richard Wiseman has recently conceded: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.
"If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.
"But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.
"Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."
As I argued at long in this post, Wiseman is not questioning the scientific quality and results of the research on remote viewing, but rejecting the evidence on purely philosophical grounds. Noetic scientist Dean Radin has commented Wiseman's position: "Thus, a prominent skeptic agrees that (1) the study of remote viewing is an area of science, which should thoroughly obviate the skeptical epithet of "pseudoscience" once and for all. And (2) that when judged against prevailing scientific standards for evaluating evidence, he agrees that remote viewing is proven. The follow-on argument that this phenomenon is so unusual that it requires more evidence refers not to evidence per se, or even to scientific methods or practice, but to assumptions about the fabric of reality" (emphasis in blue added)
Professional writer Michael Prescott has a similar opinion about Wiseman's view: "But why exactly is remote viewing an "outlandish claim"? I think this is what begs the question, to use Wiseman's phrase.
His argument is a variation on the old saw that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There is some truth to this, but the trouble is, who can agree on what constitutes an extraordinary claim?
In a world where consciousness is restricted to the brain, remote viewing would indeed be extraordinary and outlandish. But in a world where consciousness can operate independent of the brain, remote viewing is exactly the kind of thing we would expect to see. We would also expect to see reports of out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, telepathy, precognition, apparitions, and after-death communication. And we do! In fact, such things have been reported for thousands of years all over the world and are taken for granted by billions of people today, just as they were by most of our ancestors.
So there may be nothing extraordinary or outlandish at all about any of these phenomena. They only appear that way to those who start with the assumption that such things just don't happen" (emphasis in blue added)
And Wiseman is not the only prominent skeptic/debunker who concedes that some of the findings of parapsychology are technically correct from a scientific point of view while simultaneously tries to reject or undermine the evidence on philosophical grounds. Some years before Wiseman's concession, professional skeptic and debunker Ray Hyman conceded too that a particular research program on remote viewing had not flaws. In this technical paper, Hyman wrote: "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." (emphasis added).
If you respect the rule that you have to follow the argument and evidence where it leads, you're rationally forced to accept that the available scientific evidence of SAIC experiments in favor of remote viewing is good enough to support the existence of this phenomenon.
But as a professional debunker and member of CSICOP, Hyman is not allowed to do that. He needs to find any excuses to cast doubts on the results, even if the excuses are empirically unjustified and unproven. And Hyman found that clever excuse: "Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility--especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered." (emphasis added)
How could you refute Hyman's skepticism based upon "potential flaws that have not yet been discoveried"? This kind of "skeptical" argument would apply to virtually any kind of scientific claim supported by evidence, provided you want to disbelieve it.
Perhaps Visser needs to have a better familiarity with the best evidence provided by parapsychology and how this evidence has made that prominent professional skeptics like Wiseman and Hyman concede the scientific quality of the research and the evidence, so they can reject them only on purely rhetorical and philosophical grounds.
I'd suggest to Visser to watch carefully these videos by Dean Radin:
2-In his essay, Visser points out: "Sometimes, I have the idea that this could in large part be a matter of temperament. Some people are completely at home with the idea that ultimately everything can be reduced to matter (the materialist is philosophically an extravert); others attribute reality to their subjective feelings and thoughts (they are the philosophical introverts). May be there is a psychological for this fruitless battle between sceptics and believers, which frustrates the progress of this discussion. Both rationalize their emotional choice with ad hoc arguments, which make them feel comfortable. I myself am a dove who is very much interested in what hawks come up with..."
Even though I think Visser is largely right about the psychological foundation of the controversy on parapsychology (I've discussed this aspects, as manifested in materialistic pseudo-skeptics in this post, although something similar could exist in some believers in psi too), Visser fails to stress the function that ideology by itself plays in this controversy.
The key to understand systematic and organized opposition to and debunking of psi research is IDEOLOGICAL. The ideology in question is ontological materialism, or more specifically, metaphysical naturalism.
This worldview IMPLIES that something like psi (and a fortiori, survival of consciousness like suggested by some cases of NDEs, mediumship and other lines of evidence) doesn't and cannot possibly exist. It's a matter of logical entailment. The premises of metaphysical naturalism imply the non-existence of certain phenomena and entities (like "souls" and, as consequence, such nonexistent souls cannot affect matter like in psychokinesis, or survive after death, like suggested by mediumship and some cases of NDEs).
Many people fails to understand this simple point, and thereby they're impressed or surprised by the existence of organized pseudoskepticism or militant debunking. Astute observers, however, if they understand the nature of metaphysical naturalism, would easily predict the existence of organized debunking, because the latter is the consequence of the former (more specifically, the public and theoretical defense of the metaphysical naturalistic worldview IMPLIES the attack, refutation, discreditation, invalidation and debunking of the evidence for psi and survival, because this evidence destroys, demolishes, refutes the naturalist worldview. Therefore, committed and self-proclaimed defenders of naturalism will be, NECESSARILY, debunkers and disbelievers of psi phenomena or any other claim inconsistent with naturalism).
A coherent metaphysical naturalist is not intellectually free to accept psi or survival evidence while being naturalist. If he's a believer in naturalist, he MUST be a disbeliever in psi and survival. (and the intensity or force of the belief in the truth of naturalism is proportional to the force and intensity of the disbelief in psi and survival)
As I said, Visser seems to be aware of this, but his essay doesn't stress the key importance of this philosophical factor. Psychology is important to understand why certain people are metaphysical naturalists; but by itself, psychology give us no philosophical and theortical tools to understand the implicit philosophical assumption that forces the use of the arguments and rhetoric of people like Hyman or Wiseman to reject valid evidence for psi.
If you want to objectively and philosophically confront the arguments of pseudo-skeptics, appealing to their psychology will be insufficient (it only explains their irrationality, their arrogance and delusions of feeling themselves as "brights", and their weird obsessions with creationism and God). You need theoretical, conceptual and philosophical tools to fully know and understand the kind of philosophical and ideological assumptions that colors these people's perspectives and arguments. Only philosophy can provide these tools.
3-Visser's comment on the emotional factor determining and influencing the positions about parapsychology is like a red herring that distracts us from the best evidence for psi.
When Visser asserts that psi research cannot suply us with well-established results, he's falling to the rhetoric and propaganda of mainstream pseudo-skeptics.
As shows the examples of Wiseman and Hyman mentioned above, informed professional skeptics have not refuted the best evidence for psi. Their skepticism is entirely based on a priori philosophical reasons and assumptions, not in scientific evidence as such.
Any neutral observer would understand that the opposition to some of the best psi results is not evidence based, but worldview-based.
This is why I consider Vesser's essay misleading regarding the specific point of the current status of parasychology and the actual nature of the controversy about it. However, his essay is very interesting and worth reading.
Another good essay by Visser is this entitled "Three models of Immortality", which I hope to comment in another moment.
0 comments:
Post a Comment