Dean Radin
James AlcockOne of the main and repetead objections of James Alcock against parapsychology is the use of "negative" definitions.
In particular, Alcock says: "Not only does parapsychology have difficulty in deciding just what is its legitimate subject matter, but unlike the various domains of mainstream science, it deals exclusively with phenomena that are only negatively defined. Extrasensory perception? It can be said to occur only when all normal sensory communication can be ruled out. Psychokinesis? It is claimed to have occurred when an individual can produce effects on the physical environment without the application of any known force. Such definitions tell us not what the phenomena are, but only what they are not."(Debating Psychic Experience, p. 33. Emphasis in blue added)
When we're examining an objection, we have to try to read it in his best, strongest formulation, in order to avoid straw men, and give the critic the best or more sympathetic reading of his argument (it is not say that it's always easy; many times we unconsciously misrepresent other people's position. But we need to do an effort in order to avoid this).
So, read carefully Alcock's objection. He's saying that psi phenomena are not defined positively, but negatively (i.e. in terms of what they're NOT).
Let's to examine this objection in detail:
1-It's false that psi is defined negatively. In 2006, in his book Entangled Minds, Dean Radin addressed this objection: "As a positive definition, psi is a means by which information can be gained from a distance without the use of ordinary senses"(p.284)
Now, Alcock would reply that it is still a negative definition, because psi is still a phenomenon which occurs when the use of ordinary senses are discarded. In fact, in his reply to Chris Carter (when Carter quoted Radin's above citation in order to refute Alcock's objection), Alcock said: "He [Carter] totally misunderstands my concern about the negative definition of psi, and quotes Dean Radin’s view that psi is positively defined as a means by which information can be gained from a distance without the use of the ordinary senses. This of course means that one must first rule out “the use of the ordinary senses,” which is, of course, the very essence of a negative definition." (p.130)
Alcock clearly missed Carter's and Radin's point. The essence of the definition of psi is not that "one must first rule out" anything. The latter is only a methodological requeriment in order to test psi in the laboratory (not in order to define it).
Alcock, showing again his lack of training in logic, conflates the definition of psi with the methodological procedures used to detect it under controlled conditions.
As Dean Radin mentioned in Entangled Minds: "the "what psi isn't" definition reflects how psi is investigated in the laboratory, not what's thought to be"(284).
Alcock clearly conflates the methods of investigation of a phenomenon (which in case of psi, implies discarding normal sensory perception) with the definition of the phenomenon (which says what the phenomenon IS, regardless of how it is investigated in the particular cases).
The reason why Alcock doesn't understand this difference is because he is ignorant of logic. In any textbook on logic, in the chapters about definitions, you will never found that definitions of an object are identical to the ways to test the existence of such object.
So, I don't think that Alcock is being dishonest in his criticism. I do think his criticism is fully rooted in his sound ignorance of logic and how to define a construct.
In fact, look carefully at Alcock's definition of extrasensory perception given above: "Extrasensory perception? It can be said to occur only when all normal sensory communication can be ruled out."
Ruling out normal sensory communication is needed to KNOW the occurrence of ESP under experimental laboratory conditions, not to define ESP. In fact, if ESP exists, it could occur even in cases where we have not idea of such occurrence, and outside of laboratory conditions. In other words, if ESP exists (as an ontologically real fact), it is independent of the methods used in order to know it (which is an epistemological problem, not an ontological one).
Alcock defines ESP not in terms of what it is supposed to be (ontologically = as a putative objective fact in reality), but in terms of how we KNOW that such ESP has occured (which is an epistemological and methodological question). He conflates methodology of psi research (which implies excluding and ruling out certain factors in order to ascertain the existence of ESP in the laboratory) with the definition of ESP in ontologically terms (which positively asserts what ESP is supposed to BE regardless of the methodological controls used to test its putative existence).
So, it's unlikely that Alcock will recant of such objection. His objection is based on a studied ignorance of the distinction between ontology and methodology, and specially of the different kinds of definitions (e.g. essential definitions and operationalist definitions).
The only remedy to this is a deeper knowledge of logic and philosophy.
2-But let's assume, for the argument's sake, that psi is defined purely in negative terms, which is the problem with it? Why is it an objection against parapsychology? Which is exactly what is supposed to follow from this?
As Radin wrote in his reply to Alcock: "Even if this assertion were true, so what? Negative definitions are common in many disciplines, ranging from physics, where concepts like dark energy and matter are defined by what they are not, to psychology, where concepts like inattentional blindness, implicit cognition, and unconscious processing are defined by contrast to conscious awareness, i.e., to what is not conscious. (Debating Psychic Experience, p.119)
Look at wikipedia for scientific definitions of many scientific facts in which the definitions are clearly negative ones:
-Spontaneous remission: "The spontaneous regression and remission from cancer was defined by Everson and Cole in their 1966 book [1]: "The partial or complete disappearance of a malignant tumour in the absence of all treatment, or in the presence of therapy which is considered inadequate to exert significant influence on neoplastic disease."" (emphasis in blue added)
Note that in order to call a healing of cancer as a "spontaneous remission" according to the above definition, you need to rule out the use of "all treatment". And that ruling out is, according to Alcock, the "very essence of a negative definition". So, the scientific definition of spontaneous remission of cancer is demostrably a negative definition.
Is Alcock (and his skeptical fellows) going to challenge that scientific definition of spontaneous remision on the grounds of being a negative definition?
-Unconscious processes: "Unlike in the psychoanalytic research tradition that uses the terms "unconscious", in the cognitive tradition, the processes that are not mediated by conscious awareness are sometimes referred to as "nonconscious"... Specifically, the process is non-conscious when even highly motivated individuals fail to report it, and few theoretical assumptions are made about the process"
Is the psychologist Alcock going to challenge scientific concepts like the above ones, because they're "negatively" defined?
Even concepts beloved by "skeptics", like scientific naturalism or metaphysical naturalism are defined negatively. According to infidels.org, naturalism is defined like this: "The hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it... naturalism implies that are no supernatural entities- including God"
So, the view that nature is a closed system (essential to naturalism) means that NO entities outside of this system will be causally efficacious in that system. In other words, EXTRA or SUPER natural entities can NOT affect the natural world. And this implies that causally active on nature entities (like God, minds, spirits, etc.) DON'T exist. So, naturalism implies atheism (=the negation of theism).
Would Alcock criticize the infidels.org explicit definition of naturalism as a anti-scientific or pseudo-scientific definition? Is the "hypothesis" of naturalism a wrong one, because it's defined negatively (i.e in terms of which it discards or rules out, namely God and other extra-natural entities with causally active powers?).
Obviously not. Alcock's objection against parapsychology is a mere cavil, rooted in his ignorance of logic and in his personal prejudices against psi research (prejudices which are direct and necessary consequences of his ideological commitment to the negatively defined metaphysical naturalism and atheism).
3-Moreover and finally, Radin also offered in his reply explicit positive definitions of particular kinds of psi phenomena: "In any case, a positive definition of telepathy is easy to state: “A means of communication between people who are isolated by distance or shielding.” Likewise, precognition may be defined as “a means of perception through time.” Psychokinesis as “mind/matter interactions.” And so on." (emphasis in blue added).
Such positive definitions should settle the question once and for all, and prevent skeptics of using this cavil again.
Why does Alcock keep repeating his cavil about negative definitions of psi as an objection to parapsychology, when POSITIVE definitions are available and have been explicitly mentioned? Is Alcock being objective in his criticisms? Is it a valid criticism or objection against parapsychology which is unanswered or unanswarable by psi researchers? Obviously not, the criticism is invalid, irrelevant, based on injustifiable double standards and demostrably false.
So, the next time that you see a professional skeptic repeating the same objection about "negative definitions", you'll know you're dealing with a person with a personal ideological agenda against parapasychology, not an objective and reliable researcher.
In particular, Alcock says: "Not only does parapsychology have difficulty in deciding just what is its legitimate subject matter, but unlike the various domains of mainstream science, it deals exclusively with phenomena that are only negatively defined. Extrasensory perception? It can be said to occur only when all normal sensory communication can be ruled out. Psychokinesis? It is claimed to have occurred when an individual can produce effects on the physical environment without the application of any known force. Such definitions tell us not what the phenomena are, but only what they are not."(Debating Psychic Experience, p. 33. Emphasis in blue added)
When we're examining an objection, we have to try to read it in his best, strongest formulation, in order to avoid straw men, and give the critic the best or more sympathetic reading of his argument (it is not say that it's always easy; many times we unconsciously misrepresent other people's position. But we need to do an effort in order to avoid this).
So, read carefully Alcock's objection. He's saying that psi phenomena are not defined positively, but negatively (i.e. in terms of what they're NOT).
Let's to examine this objection in detail:
1-It's false that psi is defined negatively. In 2006, in his book Entangled Minds, Dean Radin addressed this objection: "As a positive definition, psi is a means by which information can be gained from a distance without the use of ordinary senses"(p.284)
Now, Alcock would reply that it is still a negative definition, because psi is still a phenomenon which occurs when the use of ordinary senses are discarded. In fact, in his reply to Chris Carter (when Carter quoted Radin's above citation in order to refute Alcock's objection), Alcock said: "He [Carter] totally misunderstands my concern about the negative definition of psi, and quotes Dean Radin’s view that psi is positively defined as a means by which information can be gained from a distance without the use of the ordinary senses. This of course means that one must first rule out “the use of the ordinary senses,” which is, of course, the very essence of a negative definition." (p.130)
Alcock clearly missed Carter's and Radin's point. The essence of the definition of psi is not that "one must first rule out" anything. The latter is only a methodological requeriment in order to test psi in the laboratory (not in order to define it).
Alcock, showing again his lack of training in logic, conflates the definition of psi with the methodological procedures used to detect it under controlled conditions.
As Dean Radin mentioned in Entangled Minds: "the "what psi isn't" definition reflects how psi is investigated in the laboratory, not what's thought to be"(284).
Alcock clearly conflates the methods of investigation of a phenomenon (which in case of psi, implies discarding normal sensory perception) with the definition of the phenomenon (which says what the phenomenon IS, regardless of how it is investigated in the particular cases).
The reason why Alcock doesn't understand this difference is because he is ignorant of logic. In any textbook on logic, in the chapters about definitions, you will never found that definitions of an object are identical to the ways to test the existence of such object.
So, I don't think that Alcock is being dishonest in his criticism. I do think his criticism is fully rooted in his sound ignorance of logic and how to define a construct.
In fact, look carefully at Alcock's definition of extrasensory perception given above: "Extrasensory perception? It can be said to occur only when all normal sensory communication can be ruled out."
Ruling out normal sensory communication is needed to KNOW the occurrence of ESP under experimental laboratory conditions, not to define ESP. In fact, if ESP exists, it could occur even in cases where we have not idea of such occurrence, and outside of laboratory conditions. In other words, if ESP exists (as an ontologically real fact), it is independent of the methods used in order to know it (which is an epistemological problem, not an ontological one).
Alcock defines ESP not in terms of what it is supposed to be (ontologically = as a putative objective fact in reality), but in terms of how we KNOW that such ESP has occured (which is an epistemological and methodological question). He conflates methodology of psi research (which implies excluding and ruling out certain factors in order to ascertain the existence of ESP in the laboratory) with the definition of ESP in ontologically terms (which positively asserts what ESP is supposed to BE regardless of the methodological controls used to test its putative existence).
So, it's unlikely that Alcock will recant of such objection. His objection is based on a studied ignorance of the distinction between ontology and methodology, and specially of the different kinds of definitions (e.g. essential definitions and operationalist definitions).
The only remedy to this is a deeper knowledge of logic and philosophy.
2-But let's assume, for the argument's sake, that psi is defined purely in negative terms, which is the problem with it? Why is it an objection against parapsychology? Which is exactly what is supposed to follow from this?
As Radin wrote in his reply to Alcock: "Even if this assertion were true, so what? Negative definitions are common in many disciplines, ranging from physics, where concepts like dark energy and matter are defined by what they are not, to psychology, where concepts like inattentional blindness, implicit cognition, and unconscious processing are defined by contrast to conscious awareness, i.e., to what is not conscious. (Debating Psychic Experience, p.119)
Look at wikipedia for scientific definitions of many scientific facts in which the definitions are clearly negative ones:
-Spontaneous remission: "The spontaneous regression and remission from cancer was defined by Everson and Cole in their 1966 book [1]: "The partial or complete disappearance of a malignant tumour in the absence of all treatment, or in the presence of therapy which is considered inadequate to exert significant influence on neoplastic disease."" (emphasis in blue added)
Note that in order to call a healing of cancer as a "spontaneous remission" according to the above definition, you need to rule out the use of "all treatment". And that ruling out is, according to Alcock, the "very essence of a negative definition". So, the scientific definition of spontaneous remission of cancer is demostrably a negative definition.
Is Alcock (and his skeptical fellows) going to challenge that scientific definition of spontaneous remision on the grounds of being a negative definition?
-Unconscious processes: "Unlike in the psychoanalytic research tradition that uses the terms "unconscious", in the cognitive tradition, the processes that are not mediated by conscious awareness are sometimes referred to as "nonconscious"... Specifically, the process is non-conscious when even highly motivated individuals fail to report it, and few theoretical assumptions are made about the process"
Is the psychologist Alcock going to challenge scientific concepts like the above ones, because they're "negatively" defined?
Even concepts beloved by "skeptics", like scientific naturalism or metaphysical naturalism are defined negatively. According to infidels.org, naturalism is defined like this: "The hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it... naturalism implies that are no supernatural entities- including God"
So, the view that nature is a closed system (essential to naturalism) means that NO entities outside of this system will be causally efficacious in that system. In other words, EXTRA or SUPER natural entities can NOT affect the natural world. And this implies that causally active on nature entities (like God, minds, spirits, etc.) DON'T exist. So, naturalism implies atheism (=the negation of theism).
Would Alcock criticize the infidels.org explicit definition of naturalism as a anti-scientific or pseudo-scientific definition? Is the "hypothesis" of naturalism a wrong one, because it's defined negatively (i.e in terms of which it discards or rules out, namely God and other extra-natural entities with causally active powers?).
Obviously not. Alcock's objection against parapsychology is a mere cavil, rooted in his ignorance of logic and in his personal prejudices against psi research (prejudices which are direct and necessary consequences of his ideological commitment to the negatively defined metaphysical naturalism and atheism).
3-Moreover and finally, Radin also offered in his reply explicit positive definitions of particular kinds of psi phenomena: "In any case, a positive definition of telepathy is easy to state: “A means of communication between people who are isolated by distance or shielding.” Likewise, precognition may be defined as “a means of perception through time.” Psychokinesis as “mind/matter interactions.” And so on." (emphasis in blue added).
Such positive definitions should settle the question once and for all, and prevent skeptics of using this cavil again.
Why does Alcock keep repeating his cavil about negative definitions of psi as an objection to parapsychology, when POSITIVE definitions are available and have been explicitly mentioned? Is Alcock being objective in his criticisms? Is it a valid criticism or objection against parapsychology which is unanswered or unanswarable by psi researchers? Obviously not, the criticism is invalid, irrelevant, based on injustifiable double standards and demostrably false.
So, the next time that you see a professional skeptic repeating the same objection about "negative definitions", you'll know you're dealing with a person with a personal ideological agenda against parapasychology, not an objective and reliable researcher.
0 comments:
Post a Comment