echidna

VoF, the prior evidence refuting other examples of ESP is quite strong. Scientific evidence backing ESP, to my knowledge is nil. ESP and the like relies entirely on a massive amount of subjective anecdotal evidence, but none scientifically objective, unlike the scientific laws which drive our cars, build our houses and biologically operate our bodies.

Correct, personally I am unable to directly refute this specific case of pet ESP since I have no knowledge of her, as I am unaware of the millions of other mystics who operate throughout the world. And as such I have extrapolated my information regarding other forms of ESP to draw a conclusion about pet ESP.

But to survive daily, we must make judgements based on generalisations. Without this it is unlikely we could survive the day. If I must treat every claim made to me as possibly true, then I am open to all the worst forms of fraud and falsehood, as most have already pointed out.

The claim that animal ESP must be assumed valid until proven false would seem to be taking agnosticism to the bounds of solipsism, and as such not a useful way of living at all.

I think all the following are agreed statements :
1. Cold reading exists.
2. There are many people who wish to believe in the supernatural.
3. Many people use cold reading (knowingly AND unknowingly) to create the illusion of the supernatural.

But this statement is the one in question :
4. ESP exists.

Surely the burden of proof is on statement 4 seeing as 1,2,3 offer quite valid explanations. Otherwise are we not forced into a solipsistic world where there is nothing we can call real ?

I have extrapolated my past experience to say objectively that tomorrow the sun will rise. If someone tells me tomorrow it won’t, without proof or evidence I am likely to regard the claim as erroneous.

Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps you are confusing "appeal" with "appraisal". Unlike you, I believe it to be right and proper to generalize from the continued and pervasive successes of naturalism and the ubiquitous failure of appeals to the supernatural. Telekinesis violates the laws of nature. Furthermore, not one claim of telekinesis has been substantiated. At some point, long past in my opinion, when confronted with the Nth claim of telekinetic power, I feel fully justified in responding: "Ridiculous!" The response in not intended as argument, but epitaph. Take care.

Veil of Fire

echidna:
Ah. I think I see the problem stated clearly.

That's not at all what I'm saying.

I'm saying that no judgement of validity can be logically made if there's no evidence, either for or against. The generalizations you site DO count, for many people, as evidence against. I just want that to be stated in the course of a discussion, and maybe backed up a little if someone asks.

I, personally, don't consider the existance of past quacks to be relevant in judging the validity of this individual. It would be like judging all psychiatrists based on the ones who tried to prescribe me Ritalin when I was 6. [Granted, there are many more honest psychiatrists than quack psychiatrists, but that point in and of itself is debatable, depending on who you're talking to.]

I don't apply the failures of one person to another completely different person. My extrapolations are confined mostly to the individual. If a person says they can faith heal, and then can't, I won't immediately assume the next person who says they can faith heal is a fake as well JUST because of the previous person's failure. However, if that first person later claims to be able to double my investment money in a week, I'll judge his claim based on his past dishonesty. It's where I disagree with many people here.

**

RD:
Yes, as we now understand them. I personally don't purport to believe we've uncovered all the laws of nature, but that's a rather weak argument.

True. But you only have to find one white crow to prove white crows exist, even if there's an infinite number of black crows. Thus, each person who comes up to me with what they claim is a white crow gets judged on their own merits and evidence, not the by past hoaxsters who have presented flour-covered crows. That seems, to me, like a bit of an expanded version of Original Sin.

Point taken, but I'd like to be able to expect more professionalism from someone who claims to be a professional in the field, on his official website (referring to Randi).

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Veil of Fire ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Aye, and there lies the rub. With many many such claims, there may not be evidence either way in the particular instance. There is however a huge body of knowledge in general, called science. When something in principlecontradicts fundamental, well-established scientific principles, that in itself constitutes evidence against it a priori. There is nearly always some sort of background against which to judge.

If I say that my father lives in Sarasota, Florida, this may or may not be true. You may discover that I’m lying, and my own credibility might be reduced, but there is no background information in general that makes this unlikely.

There may be other reasons why, say, there is no large ape-like creature in the forests of the Pacific North-West, but such a creature’s existence would not in itself violate any major scientific principles.

Now, it may have been that the Cottingley fairy photos were genuine. If so, rather more background would be contradicted -- little credible previous observational evidence, no fossil history for miniature humans with insect-like wings, no vertebrate precedent for such wings, no hominid precedent for such tiny humans, etc -- so the idea is a lot more, prima facie, rejectable. A lot more evidence would be needed before such an idea could be seriously entertained.

Similarly, I could say that my Florida-living father also has the ability to walk through brick walls at will. This contradicts vast amounts of normal experience, and presents no end of practical biological problems. Such a claim should be even more vehemently rejected, pending pretty impressive evidence. Such a claim, in other words, would be near farcical.

And so to one of my examples in the other thread: my claim to have built a perpetual motion machine. This would very much violate very well established principles of physics. So well established that they’re considered Laws, in fact. Such a claim can be rejected out of hand -- pending, of course the claimant offering lots and lots of pretty spectacular evidence.

Thus, we proportion our belief to the evidence: not just evidence in the particular case, but the evidence gathered in general; that which is known already about the world.

It is simple conservatism, and depends on what’s riding on our acceptance.

Very little rides on whether my father lives in Sarasota, so there’s no reason not to accept, provisionally, that lie.

Somewhat more rides on accepting fairies: it would be a major upheaval in biology for a vertebrate to sport arthropod-style wings; such an upheaval is unnecessary if the claim is simply untrue.

To accept a perpetual motion machine would mean throwing out an enormous amount of fundamental physics, physics which has demonstrated over and over its apparent truth. Even, to put it your way, to suspend judgement on it means that you are willing to cast doubt on some of the most well established knowledge we have.

To be accepted, a claim must already have, or can be shown to in fact have despite initial appearances, both conservatism -- don’t throw out other knowledge on a whim -- and coherence -- it should fit in with other knowledge.

This view gives us a tool for judging new claims. We don’t always have to suspend (provisional, like all science) judgement, just because we don’t have information in the specific case.

Thus our (provisional) judgement of something should be based on how much already-established knowledge that something would overthrow. Some claims can even therefore be laughed at as beyond the realms of sensible plausibility.

Cheers, Oolon

Jayhawker Soule

It is not only a rather weak argument. It is a rather significant misconception. Only a fool would suggest that "we've uncovered all the laws of nature". But the discovery process embraces and extends, rather than violates, natural law.

Thanks. I've read Popper, but this is hardly relevant. The discovery of a single white crow in no way violates natural law. Furthermore, discussions regarding the verifiability/falsifiability of existential claims are hardly the point. The proposition that "all telekinesis claims are false" has precisely the same formal/semantic problem as the proposition that "all jellybeans are non-sentient". I nevertheless reserve the right to dismiss (with ridicule) anyone who claims an intelligent interaction with a jellybean.

To what specific claims are you referring? As for "expecting more", I would think a one million dollar escrow should be seen as far more than adequate.

Permit me to make one additional point that is too easily overlooked. Pseudo-science is not benign. Too many have been defrauded of both health and wealth because they were "open to the possibilities". Take care.

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

phlebas

A sidebar question, since VoF seems intent on ignoring all my responses to the main thrust of this discussion

What is "appeal to ridicule"? I can't find the term in the library and it's not one I am personally familiar with.

VoF, do you really mean "argument from authority"? Are you accusing people on here of dismissing some things as crap simply because some experts have already dismissed them as crap?

Or do you mean something else?

Jayhawker Soule

Very well said.

John Page

Without speculation there could be no skepticism (since there would be no BS to sift through).

A complete skeptic (nihilist?) would seem to be as much in denial as the 'eternal optimist'. Surely 'healthy' skepticism is the discipline of ensuring we watch the gate through which our speculation becomes accepted as knowledge.

Perhaps evolution has led human societies to contain minds with a mixture of the above attitudes. Of course, this is sheer speculation on my part to be torn aprt by the skeptics among us.....

Veil of Fire

Not at my home computer, don't have much time, but I can at least respond to pheblas:

from <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies" target="_blank">www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies</a> (my primary debating source from high school)


Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: "Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill's claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations."

Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.

Examples of Appeal to Ridicule

"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."

"Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"

"Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!"

Denshuu

I've yet to see how ridiculing a claim is, in itself, making a claim. Whether any evidence is presenting during the ridicule is irrelevent because the claim's falsehoods have already been accepted before the ridicule. It's not like anyone serious in debunking a claim is going to bellow over and laugh at it if they aren't sure if it's true or false. Unless, of course, that person is dangerously insecure in his or her beliefs, and I highly doubt that has much to do with the people here giving facts opposing the existence of modern ESP.