Further reflections on Rupert Sheldrake, Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia and the passivity of anti-skeptics

In a previous comment about the recent controvery around Rupert Sheldrake's wikipedia entry, I suggested that one of the problems that "paranormalists" (=people in the paranormal community, including researchers, fans, believers in the paranormal, etc.) have is their passivity in dealing with "skeptics". (The term "paranormalist", as used in this post, is not pejorative: I use it only for referring to people sympathetic to the paranormal in contrast with "skeptics").

My contention that "paranormalists" are, as a rule (and with some exceptions), very passive could be misunderstood. In this post, I want to clarify what I mean and provide some evidence for my contentions.

 

This is not meant to be disrespecful or critical, but to be an accurate description: by "passivity", I mean that they tend to dismiss the importance or impact of the skeptical, debunking strategies (specially on the internet) and hence they tend to bypass any proper strategy against it. As consequence, they dedicate almost no efforts (at least in comparison with skeptics) to specifically address and refute the skeptics.

They're very passive in their handling of the online skeptical propaganda.

Let's see some evidence:

1-Consider naturalist Keith Augustine's already famous (or infamous), long and detailed online essay debunking near-death experiences. 

Although I disagree with most of Keith's arguments and conclusions, his essay is well-written, meticulously referenced and very detailed. This is the standard skeptical reference for a naturalistic understanding of NDEs and against the survivalist interpretation of them. From a skeptical point of view, Keith's article is a "good job" (and "jab" against survivalists).

Uninformed people, neurologists, psychologists, neuroscientists and other scientists will tend to be sympathetic to Augustine's hallucinatory hypothesis in that essay as a plausible explanation of NDEs. This tendency could be counter-balanced if, in addition to Augustine's essay, a full, serious and scholarly reply of it were easily accessible online too, so both sides were represented fairly. Sadly, not such counter-balance exists.

Augustine's essay (which has been translated to a number of languages) was published a number of years ago, and (as far I know) there is not specific, point-by-point full reply or scholarly critique to that essay which is available online by defenders of the survival hypothesis.(At most, you get partial responses to some points raised by Augustine, in a bunch of different paranormal blogs, entries and comments in such blogs).

I've lost the count of how many people have written to me over the years saying that Augustine's article deserves a response and complaining that no adequate or complete reply to it is available online. I share with them such frustration.

If you want to get a response to Augustine's arguments, you'll have to buy Chris Carter's books, or to read a lot of the NDEs technical literature in order to reach the conclusion that Augustine is largely wrong about NDEs.

But not online essay, specifically and exhaustively replying to Augustine's, is available on the internet. 

Note carefully that in this aspect "skeptics" have a key advantage: They publish a lot of their best material online, so making it available to everybody and causing a lasting and progressive impact in several generations of internet users. 

Contrasting with this, the best material of the paranormalists is available in books and journal articles, not online. Therefore, they're less accesible.

In terms of informative wars and astute use of the internet, the skeptics have WON.

If it is not "passivity" by the defenders of NDE's, then I don't understand what "passivity" means.

2-Consider this recent commentary by a reader of Dean Radin's blog and Radin's response:

Do you have a refutation of Robert Todd Carrol's criticism of Ganzfeld studies? The problem of sensory leakage is addressed, but other problems are as well. I may have already seen such refutation, but if you can point me in the right direction in light of this article, it would be appreciated

The reader seems be incomfortable with Carroll's online criticism and is asking for a refutation of it.

Obviously, the reader's discomfort confirms the "passivity" that I'm discussing here, because it shows that a proper refutation of Carroll's criticisms is not available online (or at least, not very well known or accessible as Carroll's article). So, the reader's discomfort seems to be largely justified.

Dean Radin's reply to the reader is telling and tends to confirm my point:

I've addressed criticisms of the ganzfeld and other meta-analyses in great detail in my books, and you can read some of the original journal articles on the "evidence page" I mentioned at the top of this thread. I've also stated my opinion about Wikipedia in this blog.

When working at the edge of the known there is plenty of room for a wide range of opinions, some of which are worth more than others. I've learned to pay close attention to constructive comments offered by scientists who have expertise in actually conducting and analyzing experiments. I pay far less attention to armchair critics. 

Radin refers mainly to his books (which are not available online and therefore are less accessible than Carroll's skeptic dictionary) and to the recently created "evidence page" (which is online). (Note that while the "evidence page" is a recent creation, Carroll's debunking articles have been online for years and their impact has already been established in the mind of many people, scholars included, as a standard and accessible skeptical reference).

Finally, Radin explicitly says that he "pay far less attention to armchair critics", which is precisely the point that I'm discussing here: The armchair critics are extremely active on the internet and they reach a large bunch of people because they use wikipedia, technically well-created debunking websites, manipulate Google search machines, and use other easily accessible online resources.

Most people won't have the time or resources to searching the highly technical parapsychological literature, and will tend to arrive to their conclusions based on cursory readings on the internet.

I'm not suggesting nor recommending that Radin, who is a professional scientist, should dedicate his time and efforts to refute "skeptics" online. He's busy with his professional investigations, like most scientists and scholars are. (I guess that the creation of the "evidence page" is Radin's modest contribution to put the skeptics in their place).

I'm simply describing a fact which supports my main contention: "skeptics" have a better use of the online resources in order to defend their positions and debunk parapsychology. Parapsychologists and other "paranormalists" have been  (for whatever reason, justified or not) passive in handling such online skeptical attacks.

There is a new generation of people (specially young people) whom we can call "internet researchers", who don't like to read books or scholarly articles, but simply to read everything online. 

This people are a perfect target for the skeptical online strategies. And again, in terms of online information, the skeptics seem to have the upper hand here.

  

3-Compare Carroll's skepdic dictionary with Sheldrake's "Skepticalinvestigations.org" (an excellent website, by the way).

Technically speaking, in terms of content, variety of topics, number of entries, online impact, number of updates, Google positions, etc. clearly Carroll's website has the upper hand. In this technical sense, Carroll's webiste is sa far better than Sheldrake's.

Carroll, who is a professional atheist philosopher, has dedicated a large amount of time, resources and titanic efforts developing a whole online skeptical encyclopedia to refute parapsychology, afterlife research, alternative medicine, ufology and so forth.

Only an extremely motivated and persistent person would do something like that.

Not comparable anti-skeptical online resources exists in English. And probably, it never will exist, since the level of motivation and active efforts of skeptics is overwhelmingly superior than "paranormalists", who are extremely passive.

 4-A final example is in order: Compare the literature of skeptics with the literature of paranormalists.

The literature of skeptics is dedicated specifically to REFUTE parapsychology and other fringe topics. (Think about Martin Gardner's books, James Randi's books, etc.). They have decades in this project.

On the contrary, with some recent exceptions (like Chris Carter's books and others in recent years), the overwhelming majority of the literature written by paranormalists is not intented to refute the skeptics. With some exceptions, you never find a book specifically addressing and refuting all and each of the skeptical objections about a specific topic.

In other words, in terms of controversies published in books, skeptics have not debating partners. Their case is almost never refuted in explicit debates.

All of this is what I mean by "passivity", and I'm sad to have to admit that skeptics, so far, have won the informative war regarding the use of internet and other resources.

Wikipedia, Rupert Sheldrake, Susan Gerbic and Guerrilla Skepticism: The online methods for Wikipedia control of pseudoskeptics and atheist ideologues. The need for guerrilla anti-pseudoskepticism

 Susan Blackmore with Susan Gerbic in a "guerrilla skepticism" combat posture... do you dare to fight them? Intimidating, isn't it?

Rupert Sheldrake has recently complained about the manipulation and biased information posed about him in Wikipedia by trained atheists and "skeptics":

This summer, soon after the TED controversy, a commando squad of skeptics captured the Wikipedia page about me. They have occupied and controlled it ever since, rewriting my biography with as much negative bias as possible, to the point of defamation. At the beginning of the “Talk” page, on which editorial changes are discussed, they have posted a warning to editors who do not share their biases: “A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents Sheldrake’s work in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy.” Several new arrivals have indeed attempted to restore a more balanced picture, but have had a bewildering variety of rules thrown at them, and warned that they will be banned if they persist in opposing the skeptics.

...The Guerrilla Skeptics are well trained, highly motivated, have an ideological agenda, and operate in teams, contrary to Wikipedia rules... They have already seized control of many Wikipedia pages, deleted entries on subjects they disapprove of, and boosted the biographies of atheists. 

As the Guerrilla Skeptics have demonstrated, Wikipedia can easily be subverted by determined groups of activists, despite its well-intentioned policies and mediation procedures. Perhaps one solution would be for experienced editors to visit the talk pages of sites where editing wars are taking place, rather like UN Peacekeeping Forces, and try to re-establish a neutral point of view. But this would not help in cases where there are no editors to oppose the Guerrilla Skeptics, or where they have been silenced.

If nothing is done, Wikipedia will lose its credibility, and its financial backers will withdraw their support. I hope the noble aims of Wikipedia will prevail.

 

Instrumental in this "guerrilla skepticism" approach is "skeptic" Susan Gerbic (who's the co-founder of Monterey County Skeptics). In this talk, you can wacth Gerbic explaining the methods of this approach.

As a rule, "skeptics" and atheists are highly motivated.  They create a lot of websites, manipulate the google search machine in order to get the better positions about paranormal or fringe topics or alternative medicine and other unorthodox proposals (just write, for example, "applied kinesiology" and you will get the "quackwatch" entry about it in good positions; or write "Dean Radin" and you'll find some skeptical websites in good positions too).

 

Greg Taylor, of the Daily Grail, complains: "Personally I'm not sure what the solution is..." and me either, but here some possible suggestions for blocking such atheistic pseudoskeptical strategy.

Guerrilla anti-pseudoskepticism

Suggestions:

1-Understand Jime's Iron Law

I'm sorry to suggest such self-centred advice, but I'm sure that we cannot handle atheists and skeptics if we ignore their mindset. It is key to understand their worldview and how it affects their  psychology and moral integrity.

 

We are not dealing with the "normal", next-door guy sort of people, but with people with their cognitive faculties severely affected and strongly biased in the direction of strong hostility towards God as the ultimate spiritual reality and (as consequence) towards any topic which are suggestive of such trascendent spiritual reality (spirits, "energies", aftelife, souls, spiritual laws, intelligent design in the universe, etc.).

Emotionally, we're dealing (in many cases) with extremely hostile and angry people, since they (tipically) come from some religious background in their early years (mainly Christianity), and left it with strong resentment and negative feelings of vengance. They have an axe to grind against anything connected with religion.

When they direct such negative feelings against you, you get the harsh "treatment" that Sheldrake has received. They will try to destroy you.

Their ultimate project is destroying belief in God and religion (their attack of the paranormal is a secondary byproduct of it, because parapsychology studies things which have tipically been connected with religion, like the existence of an afterlife, souls, etc.). They're obsessively fixed on this.

If you want to test this claim, just attack the Darwinian theory of evolution, and you'll get the accusation of being a "creationist" (even if you are an atheist!).

2-Understand the true nature of the problem

The problem with "organized skepticism" has to do with a struggle for cultural dominance of competing metaphysical worldviews (basically, atheistic materialism/naturalism vs theism).

Not realizing that the "war" is posed in such terms is to miss the actual nature of the problem.

Atheistic naturalism is comfortably dominant in academic circles, but the overwhelming majority of people on Earth have been and are theists. This is a dilemma unacceptable for atheists.

This is uncomfortable for atheists, since society regards very negatively atheism and atheists. They want to make atheism acceptable in society, and the way to get this (in their minds) is to transfer the atheism of academy to society in general, convincing people that popular beliefs about God, spirits, alternative medicine, morphic fields, ghosts, etc. (all of which are rejected or seen with suspicion by academic atheism) are false.

3-Learn and use the same "guerrilla" methods, against them!

In a war, you cannot be passive. And "guerrilla skepticism" is a kind of informative war whose purpose is to make people, progressively, sympathetic to atheism and naturalism. 

As consequence, the way to block this is to use the same methods against them, specially against atheism and naturalism.

4-Public debates with professional skeptics

Debates are useful because people can hear the best arguments of each side. Moreover, it is easy to expose the skeptic's dishonesty in these exchanges.

Interestingly, parapsychologists have been largely "passive" in this regard. They tend to be largely "defensive", replying to "skeptics" only when the skeptic attacks parapsychology or the character of the researcher (like Sheldrake is doing above). They debate "skeptics" only in academic journals, but in the public's eye the "skeptics" tend to appear as getting the upper hand and talking in the name of science.

Contrast this with Christian/Muslim debaters who rutinarely kick the butts of skeptics and atheists in public debates. With some rare exceptions, it is sure to say that almost no atheist has ever won these debates (as proved by the post-debate cards). The theistic debaters tend to win even in places culturally dominated by or sympathetic to atheism.

Moreover, a lot of "damaging concessions" by professional and leading atheists/skeptics (which expose their irrationality, absurd beliefs, dishonesty and actual views on morality) have been produced in these debates, for example:

If it were not by these dialogues/debates with theists, we didn't know that such atheists believed and have claimed such ridiculous things.

Public debates in universities (posted online: youtube, etc.) are a good oportunity to expose pseudoskeptics.

Sadly, parapsychologists and other "paranormalists" have missed such useful opportunity.

Of all these suggestions, I think the last one (public debates) is the most effective in undermining the credibility of atheists/skeptics in the eyes of the public in general, and blocking/destroying their agenda of preaching atheistic naturalism to society.

Skeptics are a very tiny minority. It would be very stupid to us to allow these individuals to control society.

Perhaps we have to reflect a little more and think hard about the insights of modern empiricist philosopher Francis Bacon (who alse realized the strong atheistic need for getting recognition, what explains their strong motivation and unstopabble debuking efforts):

For none deny, there is a God, but those, for whom it maketh that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man, than by this; that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it, within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened, by the consent of others. Nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects. And, which is most of all, you shall have of them, that will suffer for atheism, and not recant; whereas if they did truly think, that there were no such thing as God, why should they trouble themselves?... 

Kari Enqvist: chairman of the scientific advisory board of Skepsis ry (Finnish association of organized skeptics) debates the existence of God with William Lane Craig. One of the the worst debates that I've ever watched

Kari Enqvist is a professor of cosmology and the chairman of the Finnish association of pseudoskeptics known as SKEPSIS RY. (Yeah, atheistic pseudo-skeptics exist in Findland too...).

Since he is a professor of cosmology and one of main arguments for God's existence is the kalam cosmological argument, I expected a lively and entertaining discussion about the cosmological evidence for the universe's beginning in the debate between Enqvist and William Lane Craig, which you can watch here:

But things turned out to be very different.

As you can watch, Enqvist didn't presented any argument for atheism at all, since for him the problem of God's existence is meaningless (note that if Enqvist is right, then atheism is meaningless too, since atheism is the denial or negation of the proposition "God exists", and you cannot affirm or deny a meaningless proposition... just try to affirm or deny the following sentence: dxhsttsiwossp usns doosmsos hahaha). As philosophers of language and semantics and logicians have realized, the meaning of a proposition is a necesary condition for it to have truth-values.

Moreover, Enqvist (like his fellow skeptic and atheist Lawrence Krauss), decided to attack formal logic in order to make his case. Remember that Krauss has embarrassed himself forever as the world's leading atheistic defender of obviously absurd, necessarily false, logically, metaphysically and mathematically impossible and incoherent propositions like 2+2=5 or "the universe came from nothing" or "nothing is unstable":

Since contemporary cosmology has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning (which is strongly suggestive that the universe had a trascendent cause of its coming to being), some atheists have changed their strategy: Defeated by empirical science, reason and logic, they are forced challenge the laws of logic and reason itself in order to avoid any inference to theism based on science. Therefore, we cannot be surprised of finding a certain tendency among contemporary atheistic physicists and cosmologists to challenge the laws of logic (this is also evidence for Jime's Iron Law) in order to defeat theism. 

Note that atheists present themselves as the champtions of "logic", "reason", "science" and "critical thinking", but when logic, evidence and critical reasoning support theism over atheism, then... to the hell with logic!. Sheer atheistic deception, rhetoric and charlatanism!

This debate was supposed to be about the existence of God, or more specifically, about whether God is necessary to the universe's existence. 

For everybody's astonishment, the debate turned out to be mainly about the validity of formal logic (Enqvist appealing to physics in order to destroy formal logic, and Craig trying to defend it).

Moreover, the debate was totally one-sided, with Craig being the only person presenting arguments relevant for the topic under discussion. To my astonishment, since Enqvist didn't presented any argument for atheism, Craig was forced to provide arguments for atheism for the sake of the debate!. What a weird situation (just imagine a debate between Dean Radin and James Randi about the evidence for ESP, in which Dean Radin is forced, by Randi's passivity and red herrings, to present evidence and arguments against ESP!). Absurd.

The world's leading philosophical theist posing arguments against the existence of God! Absolutely weird!.

This is one of the worst and most boring debates that I've ever seen in my life.

Richard Dawkins vs Karen Armstrong debate on God and Dawkins' objection to skeptic Michael Shermer's Last Law. Who's the greatest and brilliantest atheistic thinker?

Michael Shermer is a well-known skeptical writer. One of the reasons why he so well-known is by being debunked in his own TV debunking program by master of Eastern Wisdom and vedic astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong, who passed sucessfully Shermer's skeptical test, as you can watch here:

The results of Shermer's test with Armstrong implies one of the following possibilities:

-Armstrong is a fake psychic/astrologer/paranormalist, and he passed Shermer's test because he fooled Shermer. In this hypothesis, Shermer is an incompetent scientist and skeptic, who is unable to design correctly a scientific test in which no fraud can be made. This incompetence is even more objectionable, since his Tv program was designed to promote skepticism and exemplify proper controls while testing paranormal claims.

-Armstrong is a true astrologer with paranormal knowledge, in whose case Shermer's skepticism regarding the paranormal has been refuted. In this case, Shermer is not being intelelctually honest in admitting this, and he's misleading the public about  the paranormal.

-Armstrong is fake but he passed the test just because he had luck. In this case, intellectual honesty demands that Shermer tests Armstrong again, something which Shermer didn't dared to do. Moreover, if a single test is inconclusive, then the same can be said of the other single tests made by Shermer in which negative results for paranormal claims were gotten (otherwise, an unscientific double standard would be being applied in order to favor the skeptical position).

By the purpose of this post is not to evaluate Shermer's pseudoskepticism. Rather, I'm interested in Shermer as a thinker or intellectual. I've commented before that, in my humble opinion, Shermer is the less sophisticated and most crude thinker among  professional"skeptics". He tries to look like an expert in everything (from spiritualism, to UFOs, to alternative medicine, to parapsychology, to biblical criticisms and New Testament scholarship, to religion, etc.), but he deals with them in a very superficial level. 

For example, in a previous post, I discussed about the so-called Shermer's Last Law, which states "Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God"

Shermer's law is amazingly inept, and it is telling of the point I'm making about him. Even the crudest atheists will realize this.

One of such atheists is Richard Dawkins. In his written debate with religious pluralist Karen Armstrong, Dawkins wrote this:

But, however god-like the aliens might seem, they would not be gods, and for one very important reason. They did not create the universe; it created them, just as it created us. Making the universe is the one thing no intelligence, however superhuman, could do, because an intelligence is complex—statistically improbable —and therefore had to emerge, by gradual degrees, from simpler beginnings: from a lifeless universe—the miracle-free zone that is physics.

Even such an crude thinker like Dawkins realizes that whichever other properties we posit to "God", one of such essential properties is being the CREATOR of the material universe. In fact, the most sophisticated and discussed philosophical argument for God's existence is precisely the kalam cosmological argument for the universe's beginning and putative creation:

Since an essential property of God, if He exists, is that He is the creator of the material universe; and since it is NOT essential to the concept of advanced aliens to be the creators of the material universe (because, among other things and presumibly atheists will agree, aliens are material beings who are the product and effect of a material universe), it follows that that, contrary to Shermer's Law, God is conceptually distinguishable from advanced aliens.

So, Dawkins' point, despite of its intellectual crudity, is correct: Shermer's Law is false.

The above point underlies my initial contention about Shermer: Intellectually, he is even below crude atheists like Richard Dawkins. What is obvious to even intellectually unsophisticated thinkers is far beyond the reach of Shermer.

You can watch Shermer's crudity at its best in his debate about God's existence with John Lennox:

Regarding the debate between Dawkins and Armstrong, I was dissapointed by Armstrong's arguments (some of which were self-refuting) and not much need to be added to the exchange between them.

Skeptic James Randi comes out as homosexual or gay at 81. The website of D.J. Grothe (President of the James Randi Educational Foundation) provides the information

In the website "For Good Reason" (interview program hosted by D.J. Grothe, who is the President of the James Randi Educational Foundation), you can read an article entitled "A Skeptic Comes Out at 81", in which you can read:

James Randi comes out as gay. He discusses his life as a closeted gay man, and why he is now at age 81 coming out, and why he hasn’t been publicly open about his sexuality sooner. He describes the possible impact his coming out may have on his tireless work advancing skepticism and critical thinking. He discusses his atheism, and whether it, or his sexual orientation, influences the mission of the James Randi Educational Foundation. He talks about gay rights issues such as marriage equality.  He discusses his detractors and what they might make of the news of his homosexuality. And he explores the relevance of gay rights to the skeptical movement

You can download the audio here.

In a previous post, I commented that Tim Bolen (an experienced critic of pseudoskeptics), has suggested, according to his research, that there exists a strong connection between homosexuality and organized skepticism. Bolen says that these organizations have a large number of (in Bolen's words) "angry male homosexuals" and also that "the skeptics particularly like to attack women", , the latter being the kind of misogyny that I've discussed in a another post (see here).

Despite of Randi's declared homosexuality, I cannot draw yet any reliable conclusion about the statistical prevalence of homosexuality among male "skeptics", but this is a topic what we'll have to research in depth..

Stay tuned.

Skeptic Richard Wiseman, remote viewing and the principle Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence: A refutation in the light of Bayes' Theorem on Probability

I ask the readers to read this post carefully, because some complex philosophical concepts will be discussed. Some ideas will seem to be hard to grasp, but actually you will get them if you read the post carefully. This is fully necessary to expose one of the most common skeptical objections. 

Intellectual honesty implies that we have to understand objections to our positions accurately, in order to address them objectively. For example, if you think that the evidence for psi is good, you have to understand exactly why the skeptical objections against it fails.  You have to fully understand the objections against psi posed by professional critics and skeptics.

If you are familiar with the pseudo-skeptical literature, you will know that the principle Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence, is often used in order to explain away any evidence for PSI presented by parapsychologists. No matter that evidence they present, the skeptic will say that such evidence is insufficient, because the psi claim is extraordinary and hence it requires much more scientific evidence than the one provided by the parapsychologists. Therefore (so conclude the skeptic), we have to conclude that no (sufficient) evidence for psi exists.

This skeptical principle is extremely comfortable and appealing, psychologically speaking, to skeptics, allowing them to keep their skepticism even in the face of positive evidence against their position.

The most egregious example of this approach can be seen in Richard Wiseman, who candidly conceded that the evidence for ESP meets the standards of any other area of science, but given the extraordinary nature of ESP, extraordinary evidence for it is needed. In Wiseman's words: "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"

Wiseman is saying that given the extraordinary nature of the claim for remote viewing, the evidence for it has to be equally extraordinary in order to be scientifically acceptable.

 

Most critics of pseudoskepticism ignore that the above skeptical objection is a modern version of Hume's Argument against Miracles, an argument that in his original formulation has been refuted and exposed as fallacious by philosophers in the 19th century.  In his book An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume argued: "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established those laws, the proof against a miracle, from the same nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined

In other words, the uniformity of experience about as the world works suggests that certain exceptional events which contradict such uniformity (e.g. miracles or, for example, outslandish cases of remote viewing or the paranormal) cannot happen or at least they're so extraordinary and unlikely (compared with the "uniform experience"), that any evidence for such extraordinary claim has to be equally extraordinary in order to be accepted.

Can you understand the Hume's objection? Can you see the structural equivalence with Wiseman's objection? I assume most of the readers can.

An event is extraordinary in relation with a previous background considered as ordinary (= Hume's "uniform experience"). For example, if experience shows that consciousness is always connected with the brain, then the claim "consciousness exists independently of the brain" is extraordinary (and unlikely) in that context.  This is why materialists reject near-death experiences.

Philosophers of religion deal with Hume's argument because many religions claim the historicity of miraculous events (e.g. the resurrection of Jesus). So, if the uniform experience (or ordinary knowledge) shows that dead people cannot back to life (i.e. cannot be resurrected), then any claim for a resurrection is extraordinary on that context and the evidence for it has to be extraordinary too. This is why liberal New Testament scholars don't address the resurrection and cannot accept any evidence for it.

So, the property of being "extrarordinary" is a function which is established in relation with the previous accepted knowledge of how the world works. Against the background of given accepted knowledge, any piece of evidence can be considered "ordinary" (if it fits with the background) or "extraordinary" (if it doesn't fit well or is at variance with the background).

Note that the structure of Hume's objection is the same structure of the argument used by contemporary skeptics (like Wiseman) against paranormal claims (Not suprisingly, Chris Carter addressed Hume's argument against miracles in his book Science and Psychic Phenomena, precisely because as a trained philosopher Carter understood the structural logical equivalence of both arguments)

BAYES' THEOREM, MIRACLES AND THE PARANORMAL

Bayes' theorem was devoloped by probability theorists in order to evaluate how much evidence is needed in order to accept a given explanatory hypothesis for a set of data (or evidence). Keep in mind that this theorem was developed AFTER Hume wrote. Roughly, the theorem is the following:

Nonetheless, I think there is the germ of a serious objection in Allison’s remarks to the historical argument for Jesus’ resurrection. The so-called “odds form” of Bayes’ Theorem states:

Pr(R/E&B)		Pr(R/B)		Pr(E/R&B)
_________	=	_________	⊆	_________
Pr(not-R/E&B)		Pr(not-R/B)		Pr(E/not-R&B)

The odds form of Bayes Theorem gives us the ratio of the probability of the resurrection on the total evidence and the probability of the resurrection’s not occurring on


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dale-allison-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus#ixzz2CbLHE12D

Pr(R/E&B) Pr(R/B) Pr(E/R&B) _________ = _________ ⊆ _________ Pr(not-R/E&B) Pr(not-R/B) Pr(E/not-R&B)

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dale-allison-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus#ixzz2CbKsTXmi

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dale-allison-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus#ixzz2CbKsTXmi

In the above graphic, you can see how the overall probability of a given hypothesis is calculated. 

P(h/D) is called "posterior probability" of h (where "h" is the hypothesis), because it is the probability obtained after (posterior to) the evaluation of all the factors in the theorem. This is the overall probability of a given hypothesis.

P(h) is the prior probability of the hypothesis, that is, the probability of the hypothesis considered in relation with the background knoweldge alone (that is, regardless of the specific evidence for the hypothesis). This is called "prior" because it is the probability PREVIOUS to the examination of the evidence.

Astute observers will have realized that Hume's argument (and the skeptical contemporary version of it) is a statement of P(h) or prior probability, but P(h) is just ONE of the factors to be considered in the evaluation of any hypothesis, and not the most importat one.

In fact, one of the most important factors of Bayes' Theorem (and one omitted by Hume, Wiseman and skeptics) is the factor P (D/h), that is, the probability of observing the evidence D given the hypothesis h. This factor is so important that it could outbalance any prior/intrinsic improbability.

For example: suppose that a given explanatory hypothesis (e.g. remote viewing) is improbable regarding our background information alone, it still could be the case that it is very probable given the specific evidence for it (e.g the.SAIC experiments). In other words, the probability of getting positive evidence in the SAIC experiments  given the hypothesis of remote viewing could outbalance any prior or intrinsic improbability of the same hypothesis (prior improbability = the improbability of remote viewing given the background information alone, that is, prior to the SAIC experiments), making very high the overall probability of the hypothesis of remote viewing.

Can you see now where Hume's (and Wiseman) argument goes wrong? The Humean principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence fails because it only takes into account just one factor (the prior/intrinsic probability) to assess the probability of a given hypothesis. But it doesn't take into account the key factor P (D/h), that is, the probability of observing the specific evidence D given the hypothesis H.

So, according to Bayes' Theorem, Hume's argument is mathematically fallacious and demostrably wrong.

As consequence, I'm astonished by "skeptics" who keep repeating the Humean mantra, without realizing that, despite the appearences, it is a technically wrong objection and easily answerable. 

And this is not just the case in parapsychology, I've seen the same fallacious argument being used by skeptics in New Testament Studies (for example, regarding Jesus' resurrection).

Regardless of whether Jesus' resurrection was historical or not (this is besides the point in this moment), it is  true that the skeptical objections against it based on Hume's argument are demostrably wrong, exactly by the same reasons that such objection is wrong regarding parapsychology.

For example, in his debate against William Lane Craig, skeptic Bart Ehrman argued that Jesus' resurrection, being a miracle, is by definition, the "most improbable event". And since historians can only claim what is historically probable, they can't never accept any miracle as being historical. 

With the above explanations about Bayes' Theorem, you are in position to see where Ehrmar's error lies (he's conflating the prior probability of the resurrection hypothesis, which could be improbable in relation with the background information alone, with the probability of the resurrection hypothesis given the evidence for the empty tomb, Jesus' post-mortem apparitions and the origin of disciples' belief. The latter probability could be very high, even if the prior probability of the resurrection hypothesis is low, making the overall probability of the resurrection hypothesis very high).

In his reply to Ehrman, Craig showed exactly where Ehrman's error lies (which Craig calls Ehrman's egregious error and Bart's blunder) based on Bayes' theorem:

Ehrman's reply was saying that he was impressed with Craig presenting a mathematical argument for God's existence!

Ehrman's reply is astonishingly inept. Craig wasn't even arguing for God, he was clearly reconstructing Ehrman's objection to the resurrection in the light of Bayes' Theorem in order to show where Ehrman's blunder lies, but Ehrman didn't even understand that!

This kind of extremely low intellectual sophistication plus atheistic-materialistic prejudices underly the skeptical claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

This is another example of atheistic deception, pseudo-intellectualism and charlatanism, and I consider intellectuals who uncritically accept such a principle to be intellectually unprepared for sophisticated discussion of complex topics.

The most sophisticated technical discussion of Hume's argument in the light of Bayes' Theorem can be read in the book "Hume's Abject Failure" by an agnostic philosopher of science called John Earman, which I strongly suggest to you:

CONCLUSION

The main skeptical objection against "extraordinary claims" have been shown to be demostrably, mathematically, fallacious. Don't be fooled by the skeptical suggestion that even if such argument is fallacious regarding miracles, it could be true regarding the paranormal. The logical structure of the argument, as constructed by Bayes' Theorem, is exactly the same, and the reasons for it being fallacious stand regarding whether we're discussing miracles, the paranormal or even extraordinarily rare non-paranormal events.

Also, the key insight in this discussion is to realize that the skeptical principle doesn't take into account the P (D/h) factor, which is a very important factor which could counterbalance and even outbalance any putative intrinsic or prior improbability. In the minute 1:02 of the following brief video, Craig summarizes the whole point like this: "You must consider more than simply the inherent probability of that event, you also have to take into account the probability of the evidence being just as it is  IF that event has NOT taken place".

In other words, if you're critically examining the evidence for remote viewing for example, you have to consider not only the prior probability of remote viewing given our background information (a probability which according to skeptics like Wiseman is extremely, amazingly low), but ALSO the probability of getting positive evidence in the SAIC experiments IF remote viewing is NOT true. This latter factor could outbalance any prior or inherent improbability of the hypothesis of remote viewing, making the OVERALL probability of remote viewing given the total evidence and factors very high.

Don't be misled by bad skeptical arguments anymore.

Organized skepticism, organized militant atheism and misogyny: Reasons behind the secular humanist's mistreating of women and girls

As  I documented in a previous post, there is solid evidence which suggests that organized hard-core atheists and skeptics have a personal problem with women and girls. These skeptics tend, as a rule, to dislike females.  They simply don't like to have many women and girls among them. They have a clear tendency to be sexists and specially misogynists. 

The evidence suggests not only that they ignore women (this fact alone would be already objectionable), but that they tend to actively mistreat and disrespect them. They see girls as inferior beings, unworhty of belonging to the highly elitistic group of super-intellectual atheistic male beings.

I've received some e-mails asking for my opinion about the causes or motives of such a weird attitude. And in all honesty, I have to say simply I DON'T KNOW. 

Jime's Iron Law provides me with the resources to not being surprised at all by the most egregious forms of irrationality and stupidity on the part of "skeptics" and hard-core atheists. Moreover, Jime's Iron Law predicts many of the atheistic irrationalism and bigotry (e.g. vicious attacks, unjust and mean-spirited comments against honest parapsychologists, spiritualists, religious people, etc.).

But I have to confess that my law doesn't predict specifically misogyny on the part of hard-core atheists. So, as far as my law goes, the prevalence of misogyny among organized atheists/skeptics is simply inexplicable to me for the moment. We have to research more this aspect of the hard-core atheistic mindset and, eventually, it could be incorporated into Jime's Iron Law.

Just for the record: not all atheists are misogynists. We have to be accurate in the reading of the evidence and don't overstate it: It is only a certain kind of atheist, the hard-core militant/radical/fanatical one who is member or active supporter of "organized skepticism" or "secular humanist groups", who is, statistically likely, to be a misogynist. Obviously, there are atheists not interested in atheisic propaganda or ideological indoctrination, who treat women with the due respect and admiration that they deserve.

But we could speculate about the causes of it, and some people have provided some suggestions:

For example, Tim Bolen, an experienced critic of organized debunking,  suggests that the members of organized skeptic groups are mainly angry male homosexuals. In his words: "he so-called "skeptics" are a misinformation campaign run by angry male homosexuals masquerading as atheists whose management has a significant interest in pedophilia, its promotion and protection... Skeptic work is little more than employment of young homosexual men whose anger, self-loathing, and bitterness at the Judeo/Christian world and its handling of homosexuality issues normally makes them virtually unemployable in society.  So, they have available time - and a computer. They are taught to use that time to focus their self-loathing outward,  Using anonymity, lashing out viciously at those targets they are organized to attack, by "Skeptic Central" on the internet"

I don't know if Bolen is right or not on some of these points.

But some comments are in order. Personally, I haven't found any connection between homosexuality and hard-core atheism or pseudoskepticism. But I haven't searched for it either... It is true that atheists tend to be defenders of the rights of homosexuals, but I suspect that it is for strategical reasons: Atheists need to support other minories in order to create a social force which makes them socially recognized. As such, this kind of social action is not objectionable.

Moreover, Bolen is not talking about homosexuality as such, but about ANGRY male homosexuals. So, someone could suggest that the "angry" plus "male" aspect of the equation (and not simply homosexuality, which could be female homosexuality), if correct, could explain some of the atheists' mistreating of women (perhaps the atheistic male's dislike of women is due to fear of having a potential sexual competition for the alpha male?).

More research about it is needed.

Bolen mentions that these skeptics have interest in pedophilia, its promotion and justification. Certainly, as I've explained in detail in this post, some leading atheistic intellectuals promote or at least justifies pedophilia, infanticide, abortion, and so forth. In fact, Richard Dawkins is sympathetic to the view that killing infants with incurable diseases is morally acceptable:

Dawkins also thinks that evolutionary biology makes "rape" morally arbitrary (and hence, not morally objectionable under any objective and universal standard of morality):

 

Dawkins's view is not properly a promotion of rape or infanticide, but a moral justification of it based on evolution and atheistic materialism (a justification which most people would consider a moral atrocity).

In my opinion, the militant atheists' sympatheties for these moral atrocities derive from the realization that, given atheistic naturalism, there is not reason to believe in objective morality. Morality is not a dimension of the physical or material world, but a spiritual dimension of reality (which a consistent materialistic atheist cannot countenance).

In any case, this evidence supports Bolen's view about the sympathies of some atheists for moral atrocities like infancticide or pedophilia.

But regarding homosexuality, I don't see any clear connection or correlation between being a "hard-core" atheist and being homosexual.

But I promise to research this aspect of organized skepticism. Stay tuned.

It is a source of fascination to me to know in depth the mental framework and spiritual nature of hard-core atheists and pseudoskeptics!