Richard Wiseman: the evidence for ESP meets the scientific standards for a normal claim

Some time ago, I wrote a post on Richard Wiseman's concession about remote viewing being proven by the standards of science. This concession was very much discussed on the web, and even in wikipedia it was included.

Well, Wiseman now claims that he was misquoted. According to the author of this skeptical website (who asked Wiseman about his actual citation), Wiseman clarified: "It is a slight misquote, because I was using the term in the more general sense of ESP – that is, I was not talking about remote viewing per se, but rather Ganzfeld, etc as well. I think that they do meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim."(emphasis in blue added)

Let's to examine Wiseman's clarification:

1-Note that Wiseman doesn't refute his previous citation, only clarifies a minor or slight "misquote" (see point 2)

2-Wiseman is referring to ESP in general, not to remote viewing in particular. (This point is where Wiseman was misquoted)

3-Note that such clarification implies that other cases of ESP, in addition to remote viewing, have met the scientific standards commonly used in science to justify the truth of any other normal claim.

Therefore, Wiseman's clarification is actually an additional support the parapsychology, since his concession is not limited to remote viewing, but also to other cases of ESP (Ganzfeld, etc. as well).

Note Wiseman's expression "as well", in the above citation. It's clearly an expression of inclusion, as when you say "I was to that party with my girlfriend. Her sister came with us, as well"

4-Wiseman's disagreement is philosophical, not based on the evidence for ESP as such.

He assumes that ESP is "extraordinary", and based on that assumption, he demands evidence ABOVE the normal, well-known, reliable, well-tested standards of science. But he doesn't explain in what sense ESP is "extraordinary", nor what criteria he did use to consider it like that, nor what he would count as extraordinary evidence (this point is key, because failing to mention what would count as extraordinary evidence is what allow skeptics to move the goal posts arbitrarily each time positive evidence for ESP is found or, at best, to remain unconvinced of the evidence and therefore, keeping naturalism and atheistic materialism alive. The latter is their ultimate philosophical and psychological motivation, as Thomas Nagel and others have realized).

But what if you critically challenge Wiseman's assumption that ESP is "extraordinary"? Or what if you agree with this author, who after a logical examination of the "extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence" principle, concludes:

this principle does not hold up to logical scrutiny, because a claim is only ordinary or extraordinary in relation to a theory. For the sake of making this point, let us assume a scenario in a hypothetical new science in which there are two pieces of evidence to be discovered, A and B, each equally credible, each one suggesting an obvious, but incorrect explanation (call them (1) and (2)). (1) and (2) are mutually incompatible, and a third, highly non obvious explanation (3) that accounts for both A and B is actually correct.

As chance would have it, one of the two pieces of evidence A,B will be discovered first. Let A be that piece of evidence, and further suppose that the scientists working in that hypothetical field all subscribe to the principle of the double standard. After the discovery of A, they will adopt explanation (1) as the accepted theory of their field. At a later time, when B is discovered, it will be dismissed because it contradicts (1), and because A and B are equally credible, but A is ordinary relative to (1) and B is extraordinary.

The end result is that our hypothetical science has failed to self-correct. The incorrect explanation (1) has been accepted, and the correct explanation (3) was never found, because B was rejected. I therefore submit that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is not suitable as a guiding principle for sound scientific research. All evidence, whether it supports accepted theories or not, should be given the same level of critical scrutiny.

Pseudoskeptics of course would argue that they simply do not have the resources to be skeptical about everything, so they have to concentrate on the obvious targets. But that doesn't get them off the hook. Pseudoskeptics apply the "extraordinary evidence" standard only selectively to controversial phenomena- namely, precisely when they fit their ideological preconceptions! When Doug Bower and David Chorley made the extraordinary claim that they had created all of the thousands of crop circles that had appeared in English fields between 1978 and 1991 (some of which had appeared on the same night in different regions of the country), there were no armies of skeptics loudly insisting that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Apparently, as long as the extraordinary claim is one that agrees with what the pseudoskeptics have "known" all along, it does not even require ordinary evidence. Bower and Chorley were never able to substantiate their claim, let alone prove it, but the "skeptical" community accepted it on faith - and without a trace of skepticism

Or what if you agree with writer Michael Prescott about that there is nothing "extraordinary" about ESP, because: "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"

In other words, Wiseman's argument works only IF you uncritically assume that a claim about the existence of ESP is extraordinary. But if you're a neutral observer, without any prejudice/bias for or against ESP, and you are said by a professional skeptic and debunker like Wiseman that ESP is proven according to the usual standards of science, what would you think?

As a neutral observer and truth-seeker, would you remain skeptical of a phenomenon (ESP) which has been proven by the well-known, reliable, tested and commonly used standards of empirical science (the same standards used to support materialism and naturalism)?

And by the way, think about it: If ESP doesn't exist (as pseudo-skeptics and materialistic ideologues claim and want to believe), how the hell are we going to explain that such supposedly non-existent phenomena have been "proven" by the rigurous, well-tested and reliable standards of science? Is it likely that the reliable and rigurous standards of science can "prove" such supposedly non-existent phenomena? Is not more likely and rational to conclude that the rigurous standards of science have proved the existence of some ESP phenomena, precisely because such phenomena are actually existent?

In conclusion, if you agree with me (and others) that there is nothing "extraordinary" about ESP, and agree with professional skeptic Wiseman that ESP claims have met the usual standards of science, and agree with naturalist philosopher Evan Fales that ESP counts as evidence against naturalism, then you're rationally forced to inescapably conclude that ESP exists and therefore that NATURALISM IS FALSE.

And just by the way, if ESP claims met the criteria of the usual standards of science, how do you explain that pseudoskeptics keep repeating that parapsychology is a "pseudoscience"? Are not the parapsychologists themselves who, through hard experimentation, have produced the evidence which has forced a hard-nosed skeptic like Wiseman (and Hyman) to make the concessions discussed in this post?

The explanation is simple: As a rule, pseudoskeptics are ignorant, irrational and intellectually dishonest. In addition, they're ideologically and emotionally committed to materialism and naturalism, and to avoid cognitive dissonance in the face of contrary evidence, they have to undermine the value of parapsychology as a whole and its evidence-based claims in order to create the illusion and convince themselves that the materialistic/naturalistic atheistic worldview is safe from empirical refutation.

This is ultimate example of self-delusion, wishful thinking and irrationality.

Don't waste your time with ideologues.