Mageth

Skepticism is not a science, it is a belief system, until skeptics are able to DEMONSTRATE BY CLEAR EVIDENCE scientifically correct the existence of Skepticism.

Skepticism is not a science, nor is it a belief system. It's a tool, a method for approaching and addressing claims. And it (as a tool, not as a "belief system) very much exists; else, how could I apply it to a truth claim such as the supernatural?

Volker.Doormann

Sientifically it is irrelevant wheather you name Skepticism a tool or pure fantasy. Because it has not proved as exist in nature, it exist only in the brain as fantasy.

What truth? Your?

Volker

Mageth

Sientifically it is irrelevant wheather you name Skepticism a tool or pure fantasy. Because it has not proved as exist in nature, it exist only in the brain as fantasy.

Umm, what? The scientific method doesn't exist "in nature", but is merely a "fantasy", using your logic, so don't make a "Scientifically it is irrelevant" claim.

What is the alternative to applying skepticism to at least some truth claims? Believing everything you hear? Do you practice this, do you believe everything you hear, or are you skeptical about some things?

What truth? Your?

I have little idea what this is directed at, but I'll hazard a guess that you were directing this at "truth claim". I wasn't assigning any particular "truth claim" to anyone in my post.

Volker.Doormann

I do not see, that there is any evidence proved about the real existence of skepticism in that words. How can you demonstrate by evidence, that skepticism is not a hoax?

Volker

Mageth

I do not see, that there is any evidence proved about the real existence of skepticism in that words. How can you demonstrate by evidence, that skepticism is not a hoax?

With all due respect, this doesn't make much sense.

Is your point that "skepticism doesn't exist"? If so, the same argument can be made for the scientific method and any other of such things that are "intellectual" human inventions.

Once again, I'll ask you: What is the alternative to applying skepticism to at least some truth claims? Believing everything you hear? Do you practice this, do you believe everything you hear, or are you skeptical about some things?

I'll add: If you're not skeptical about at least some things you hear, what method do you use to determine whether a truth claim is to be accepted or rejected? For example, if I claimed "There is an invisible green fire-breathing dragon living in my garage", how would you go about determining the truth or falsehood of my claim?

Hawkingfan

You forgot to mention she is also a Paraphsycologist!
I have my own list of supernatural, phsychic debunkers and their books:
Martin Gardner is an author, mathematician and amateur stage magician who has written several books dealing with paranormal phenomena, including "Science: Good, Bad and Bogus and Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science."
Philip J. Klass retired after thirty-five years as a Senior Editor of Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, specializing in avionics. He is a founding fellow of CSICOP, and was named a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). He has won numerous awards for his technical journalism. His principal books are:
UFO Abductions, A Dangerous Game (Prometheus, 1988)
UFOs, The Public Deceived (Prometheus, 1983)
UFOs Explained (Random House, 1974)
Susan Blackmore holds a Ph.D in parapsychology, but in the course of her Ph.D research she became increasingly disillusioned and is now highly skeptical of paranormal claims.
Ray Hyman is a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon. He is one of the major external, skeptical critics of parapsychology. In 1986, he and parapsychologist Charles Honorton engaged in a detailed exchange about Honorton's ganzfeld experiments and statistical analysis of his results which was published in the Journal of Parapsychology. A collection of Hyman's work may be found in his book The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research, 1989, Prometheus. This includes "Proper Criticism", an influential piece on how skeptics should engage in criticism, and "'Cold Reading': How to Convince Strangers that You Know All About Them."
James Alcock is a professor of psychology at York University in Toronto. He is the author of the books "Parapsychology: Science or Magic?", 1981, Pergamon, and Science and Supernature: A Critical Appraisal of Parapsychology, 1990, Prometheus.
Joe Nickell is a former private investigator, a magician, and an English instructor at the University of Kentucky. He is the author of numerous books on paranormal subjects, including "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin", 1982, Prometheus. He specializes in investigating individual cases in great detail, but has recently done some more general work, critiquing crop circles, spontaneous human combustion, and psychic detectives.
Isaac Asimov wrote a great deal on skeptical issues. He had a regular column in Fantasy and Science Fiction, and collections of essays from it have been published. Some of these essays are on assorted crackpottery, like UFO's, Velikovsky, creationism, and so forth. They have titles like "Worlds in Confusion" (Velikovsky), "Look Long upon a Monkey" (creationism), "Armies of the Night" (crackpottery in general), "The Rocketing Dutchmen" (UFO's), and so forth.; these are usually on a rather general sort of level.
Marcello Truzzi was one of the founders of CSICOP, but broke away from the organisation when it became too "dry" for him (see section 0.6.1 on wet vs. dry skeptics). He now publishes the Zetetic Scholar on an occasional basis. He can be contacted at the Dept. of Sociology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197, or at P.O. Box 1052, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.

You don't know what "sensory leakage" is, do you?

In regards to testing--when Randi tests psychic claims, he is always very careful to agree with the claimant before the test exactly what the conditions will be. The test will proceed only if both he and the claimant agree that this will be a fair test of the claim. The conditions usually involve video tapes and independent witnesses specifically to rule out cheating by either side.
It has been done time and time again. How many people must fail scientific tests for you to believe that it phsychic phenomenon is rubbish?

Hawkingfan

Just read the following guidelines to the JREF from the application available at www.randi.org :
I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations.


Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.
Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded.
Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose.
No part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without the agreement of all parties concerned. JR may be present at some preliminary or formal tests, but will not interact with the materials used.
In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member of the JREF staff can attend. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases. There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the preliminary test.
All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.
When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.
At the formal test, in advance, an independent person will be placed in charge of a personal check from James Randi for US$10,000. In the event that the claimant is successful under the agreed terms and conditions, that check shall be immediately surrendered to the claimant, and within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York, in the "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account," as surety for the prize funds. Validation of this account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail.
Copies of this form are available free of charge to any person who sends the required SSAE, marked on the outside, "Challenge Application," requesting it, or it can be downloaded from the Internet, at www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
This offer is made by James Randi through the JREF, and not on behalf of any other person, agency or organization, though others may become involved in the examination of claims, others may add their reward money to the total in certain circumstances, and the implementation and management of the challenge will be carried out by James Randi via the James Randi Educational Foundation. JREF will not entertain any demand that the prize money be deposited in escrow, displayed in cash, or otherwise produced in advance of the test being performed. JREF will not cater to such vanities.
This offer is open to any and all persons, in any part of the world, regardless of gender, race, educational background, etc., and will continue in effect until the prize is awarded. Upon the death of James Randi, the administration of the prize will pass into other hands, and it is intended that it continue in force.
EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER. This form must be accompanied by a brief, two-paragraph description of what will constitute the demonstration. PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration.
NOTE: No special rules, exceptions, conditions, standards, or favors will be granted, without mutual agreement of those concerned — in advance. Any applicant who refuses to agree to meet the rules as outlined here, will not be considered to have ever been a claimant. Only complete agreement with these rules will constitute the "applicant" being considered a "claimant." Applicant, by signing, notarizing and returning this form, signifies agreement with all of the above rules. This form, signed by JR, will be returned by mail. Be advised that you should conduct proper, secure, tests of your own, to determine whether your abilities or claims are actually valid. Some persons who failed to do this, have undergone serious embarrassment and emotional stress, as a result. This advice is offered only so that you might be spared these problems.

Volker.Doormann

To publish a political desinformation to the world, that Professor Jessica Utts and Nobel price winner Professor Brian Josephson are pseudoscientists is not of a scientific truth. It is provable a lie.

I do not think, that this methode has any relation to scientific methods. Science is abused here as a political weapon in a belief fight similary to the claims of religious believers to supress truth.

Volker

Hawkingfan

Gee, that's interesting.

Have you heard of the 1965 Nobel Prize laureate in physics Richard Feynman ?

In case you haven't, he personally tested Uri Geller (which *gasp* he failed miserably). He also gave a very famous commencement speech at Caltech in 1974 titled "Cargo Cult Science" about Psi phenomenon and the quacks who support it, and bashed Uri Geller.

Oh, here's a good site about Feynman (whose opinions I hold much higher than yours and quacks) http://members.tripod.com/wcoventry0/id24.htm

Here's a quote: Quite possibly, Richard Feynman and Stephen Hawking are the greatest theoretical physicist of the second half of the twentieth century. My paper concerns comparing and contrasting these two brilliant men. They, of course, do not stand alone. The study and pursuit of physics today is a very collaborative effort, as many brilliant minds work together to find answers in their field. Yet Feynman and Hawking have attained a certain status in the scientific and popular community, placing them above all others - excluding only Einstein himself.

Mageth

I've no doubt that Professor Jessica Utts is a perfectly good scientist under most conditions, and is perhaps even capable of applying the scientific method to experiments in the "paranormal". From the little I read, she seems to be interested in determining if there is any "natural" explanation to perceived paranormal phenomenon.

However, even scientists are not immune to rather "weird" beliefs, i.e. the "pseudoscience" of the paranormal. If she believes paranormal claims are real going in (none of which have ever been objectively, scientifically, repeatably shown to be real), she may (and I say may) not be approaching the subject objectively.

Josephson seems to fall pretty much under the same umbrella - an obviously good scientist who also is not immune to "weird" beliefs, and who is trying to come up with naturalistic explanations for paranormal claims. Here is a a paper by Josephson et al. The paper says:

The goal of this paper has been that of gaining some understanding, within the framework of conventional science, of phenomena such as telepathy and psychokinesis which (particularly in terms of the actual experience) seem to involve some form of direct contact at a distance.

Here, he seems to fall into the trap of thinking "phenomena such as telepathy and psychokinesis" are real phenomenon, and proceeding from there. Neither these nor any other paranormal power have ever been conclusively, objectively, scientificaly, repeatably demonstrated to exist in reality.

Thus, both Utts and Josephson, in this instance anyway, are practicing pseudoscience.