Richard Wiseman
James AlcockIn a previous post, I discussed one skeptical cavil constantly defended by skeptic James Alcock. In another post, I demostrated Alcock's lack of logic.
In this post, I want to demostrate that one of Alcock's opinions, if taken literally, would imply that his fellow skeptic Richard Wiseman is NOT a scientist.
In the book Debating Psychic Experience, Alcock wrote:
Attributions are also made regarding the continuing rejection of parapsychology and its data by most scientists. While the scientists are likely to attribute this state of affairs both to the absence of persuasive data and to the incompatibility of parapsychological claims with modern scientific theory, parapsychologists on the other hand typically attribute it to dogmatism rooted in the belief that paranormal phenomena are impossible because their existence would violate the laws of physics. (p.31, emphasis in blue added. Note carefully the emphasis in red).
And "While such attributions about scientists’ motives may appear reasonable to the parapsychologist, they fall far wide of the mark in terms of what is really going on. These misattributions unfortunately serve to insulate the parapsychological researcher from an understanding of why parapsychology has such difficulty being heard in the hallways of science, and they preclude due consideration to valid critiques that might promote better research."(p.31, emphasis in red and blue added).
You'll remember that, commenting on that quotes, I argued:
Alcock distinguishes between "parapsychologists" and the "scientists" (implying that parapsychologists are NOT scientists), what is more evidence of Alcock's prejudices.
Note carefully that Alcock's citation is not a typo. He clearly wants to pose a difference between the "parasychologists" and the "scientists", and such difference only make sense if the former don't belong to the group of the latter (otherwise, the distinction and contrast between both groups is stupid, ignorant and ridiculous).
Let's to assume, for the argument's sake, that Alcock's distinction is correct, valid and justified. How the hell should us consider Richard Wiseman's professional status? Is Wiseman a scientist or a parapsychologist? If Alcock is right, and Wiseman is a scientist, then he's not a parapsychologist. And if Wiseman is a parapsychologist, then according to Alcock's distinction, he's not a scientist.
But Wiseman himself has explicitly clarified his actual professional status: he IS a parapsychologist. In this episode of Skeptiko, Richard Wiseman said this about himself: "First of all, I do actually commend parapsychologists. I count myself as a parapsychologist and carry out that research. That is, I was very much part of that community, not so much now. I do commend them for doing the research and doing it in a systematic way and attempting to be as scientific as possible"(emphasis in blue added).
Here, we have a straightforward and crushing evidence that Wiseman regards himself as a parapsychologist. And this implies either: 1)Wiseman is NOT a scientist (if Alcock is right); or 2)Wiseman is BOTH a parapsychologist AND a scientist (in which case, Alcock's distinction is false and misleading). If it is the latter, the following question arises: Why the hell does Alcock consider parapsychologists as non-scientists, but doesn't include in that non-scientific group a self-proclaimed parapsychologist like Richard Wiseman? Why hasn't Wiseman confronted Alcock, saying him for example "Hey James, you're insulting me. Stop saying so silly things about parapsychologists like me"?
I let to you to consider the answer.
Wiseman's concession supporting Chris Carter's main contention:
You'll remember that (as I've published here and here) Wiseman has conceded that the evidence for ESP meets the rigorous standards of mainstream science; therefore, if it were any other claim (i.e. a claim in any other area of science), the issue has been settled by the data long ago.
But this is precisely Chris Carter's contention. In the book Debating Psychic Experience (and in more detail, in his book Parapsychology and the Skeptics), Carter wrote: "I argue that consistent, replicable evidence has in fact been provided. If this were any other field of inquiry, the controversy would have been settled by the data decades ago. However, parapsychology is not like any other field of inquiry. The data of parapsychology challenge deeply held worldviews, worldviews that are concerned not only with science, but also with religious and philosophical issues." (p.77)
In the same Skeptiko episode mentioned above, when asked for his concession that the evidence for ESP meets the rigorous mainstream standards of science, Wiseman adds further qualifications in support of Carter's position: "But if you take the general ESP claim, which might include Ganzfeld and some of the other ESP paradigms as well, I think it’s true - I don’t know there’s any kind of objective way that could be measuring this, but my feeling is if that were a claim about the effect of alcohol on memory, then we’d go, yeah, there’s probably something to it. But the claim here is far more radical than that. It would lead to a massive shift within science. It would overturn most of what we know within psychology. I don’t know about other areas, but certainly within psychology. So for me the evidential bar, as it were, needs to be much higher than that." (Emphasis in blue added).
Note carefully that is not the quality of the evidence for ESP per se that causes Wiseman's resistance against ESP claims (because the quality of the evidence suffices to prove any other scientific claim, like the effect of alcohol on memory), but Wiseman's personal conviction that ESP claims are special because they would "overturn most of what we know within psychology", and therefore, the evidential bar to ESP claims has to be HIGHER (how much higher?) than in claims of any other area of science.
When asked why should subjective measures (like Wiseman's own personal beliefs) other than the normal standard means of science to be preferred in the case of parapsychology and why we would layer on top of the institution that we have on science, Wiseman replied "Well, I think they are. I mean, the basic approach to all of this is that your own belief system magically influences how much evidence you need. So within mainstream science we’ve already said people will be pretty skeptical about the idea of psychic ability because it overturns the current scientific world view. So they will require a very strong database. You can’t really put numbers to it. You can’t say, “Oh, 10 studies coming out of this lab, and 2 studies out here.” It doesn’t really work like that." (emphasis in blue added).
Note carefully Wiseman's explicit reference to WORLDVIEWS and "belief systems", and how they "magically" affect our assesment of the evidence (note by the way and very carefully that Wiseman cannot specify with precision how much evidence would convince him that ESP is real... I ask: Does not such fussy unspecificity enable skeptics to raise the evidential bar arbitrarily each time that positive evidence for psi is produced?)
Is not Wiseman, essentially, confirming Carter's main contention that the hard-nosed skeptic's worldview (specially the materialistic-atheistic worldview which precludes the existence of psi, souls, the afterlife, etc.) strongly influence the rejection of the scientific evidence for psi? Is not Wiseman providing the poweful, definitive, crushing and irrefutable confirmation of Carter's view on why professional skeptics reject the evidence for psi?
I let you to reflect on this.
Just a comment: If you fully and accurately understand Wiseman's position, you'll have understood a large part of the mindset of "professional skeptics" and, more importantly, why is it almost impossible to convince them of the existence of psi on purely evidential or rational grounds. (The practical implication of this fact is obvious: It is a waste of time to try to convince them that they're wrong).
In the book Debating Psychic Experience, Alcock wrote:
Attributions are also made regarding the continuing rejection of parapsychology and its data by most scientists. While the scientists are likely to attribute this state of affairs both to the absence of persuasive data and to the incompatibility of parapsychological claims with modern scientific theory, parapsychologists on the other hand typically attribute it to dogmatism rooted in the belief that paranormal phenomena are impossible because their existence would violate the laws of physics. (p.31, emphasis in blue added. Note carefully the emphasis in red).
And "While such attributions about scientists’ motives may appear reasonable to the parapsychologist, they fall far wide of the mark in terms of what is really going on. These misattributions unfortunately serve to insulate the parapsychological researcher from an understanding of why parapsychology has such difficulty being heard in the hallways of science, and they preclude due consideration to valid critiques that might promote better research."(p.31, emphasis in red and blue added).
You'll remember that, commenting on that quotes, I argued:
Alcock distinguishes between "parapsychologists" and the "scientists" (implying that parapsychologists are NOT scientists), what is more evidence of Alcock's prejudices.
Note carefully that Alcock's citation is not a typo. He clearly wants to pose a difference between the "parasychologists" and the "scientists", and such difference only make sense if the former don't belong to the group of the latter (otherwise, the distinction and contrast between both groups is stupid, ignorant and ridiculous).
Let's to assume, for the argument's sake, that Alcock's distinction is correct, valid and justified. How the hell should us consider Richard Wiseman's professional status? Is Wiseman a scientist or a parapsychologist? If Alcock is right, and Wiseman is a scientist, then he's not a parapsychologist. And if Wiseman is a parapsychologist, then according to Alcock's distinction, he's not a scientist.
But Wiseman himself has explicitly clarified his actual professional status: he IS a parapsychologist. In this episode of Skeptiko, Richard Wiseman said this about himself: "First of all, I do actually commend parapsychologists. I count myself as a parapsychologist and carry out that research. That is, I was very much part of that community, not so much now. I do commend them for doing the research and doing it in a systematic way and attempting to be as scientific as possible"(emphasis in blue added).
Here, we have a straightforward and crushing evidence that Wiseman regards himself as a parapsychologist. And this implies either: 1)Wiseman is NOT a scientist (if Alcock is right); or 2)Wiseman is BOTH a parapsychologist AND a scientist (in which case, Alcock's distinction is false and misleading). If it is the latter, the following question arises: Why the hell does Alcock consider parapsychologists as non-scientists, but doesn't include in that non-scientific group a self-proclaimed parapsychologist like Richard Wiseman? Why hasn't Wiseman confronted Alcock, saying him for example "Hey James, you're insulting me. Stop saying so silly things about parapsychologists like me"?
I let to you to consider the answer.
Wiseman's concession supporting Chris Carter's main contention:
You'll remember that (as I've published here and here) Wiseman has conceded that the evidence for ESP meets the rigorous standards of mainstream science; therefore, if it were any other claim (i.e. a claim in any other area of science), the issue has been settled by the data long ago.
But this is precisely Chris Carter's contention. In the book Debating Psychic Experience (and in more detail, in his book Parapsychology and the Skeptics), Carter wrote: "I argue that consistent, replicable evidence has in fact been provided. If this were any other field of inquiry, the controversy would have been settled by the data decades ago. However, parapsychology is not like any other field of inquiry. The data of parapsychology challenge deeply held worldviews, worldviews that are concerned not only with science, but also with religious and philosophical issues." (p.77)
In the same Skeptiko episode mentioned above, when asked for his concession that the evidence for ESP meets the rigorous mainstream standards of science, Wiseman adds further qualifications in support of Carter's position: "But if you take the general ESP claim, which might include Ganzfeld and some of the other ESP paradigms as well, I think it’s true - I don’t know there’s any kind of objective way that could be measuring this, but my feeling is if that were a claim about the effect of alcohol on memory, then we’d go, yeah, there’s probably something to it. But the claim here is far more radical than that. It would lead to a massive shift within science. It would overturn most of what we know within psychology. I don’t know about other areas, but certainly within psychology. So for me the evidential bar, as it were, needs to be much higher than that." (Emphasis in blue added).
Note carefully that is not the quality of the evidence for ESP per se that causes Wiseman's resistance against ESP claims (because the quality of the evidence suffices to prove any other scientific claim, like the effect of alcohol on memory), but Wiseman's personal conviction that ESP claims are special because they would "overturn most of what we know within psychology", and therefore, the evidential bar to ESP claims has to be HIGHER (how much higher?) than in claims of any other area of science.
When asked why should subjective measures (like Wiseman's own personal beliefs) other than the normal standard means of science to be preferred in the case of parapsychology and why we would layer on top of the institution that we have on science, Wiseman replied "Well, I think they are. I mean, the basic approach to all of this is that your own belief system magically influences how much evidence you need. So within mainstream science we’ve already said people will be pretty skeptical about the idea of psychic ability because it overturns the current scientific world view. So they will require a very strong database. You can’t really put numbers to it. You can’t say, “Oh, 10 studies coming out of this lab, and 2 studies out here.” It doesn’t really work like that." (emphasis in blue added).
Note carefully Wiseman's explicit reference to WORLDVIEWS and "belief systems", and how they "magically" affect our assesment of the evidence (note by the way and very carefully that Wiseman cannot specify with precision how much evidence would convince him that ESP is real... I ask: Does not such fussy unspecificity enable skeptics to raise the evidential bar arbitrarily each time that positive evidence for psi is produced?)
Is not Wiseman, essentially, confirming Carter's main contention that the hard-nosed skeptic's worldview (specially the materialistic-atheistic worldview which precludes the existence of psi, souls, the afterlife, etc.) strongly influence the rejection of the scientific evidence for psi? Is not Wiseman providing the poweful, definitive, crushing and irrefutable confirmation of Carter's view on why professional skeptics reject the evidence for psi?
I let you to reflect on this.
Just a comment: If you fully and accurately understand Wiseman's position, you'll have understood a large part of the mindset of "professional skeptics" and, more importantly, why is it almost impossible to convince them of the existence of psi on purely evidential or rational grounds. (The practical implication of this fact is obvious: It is a waste of time to try to convince them that they're wrong).
0 comments:
Post a Comment