|
Skeptical Misdirection
In The Mass Media
Misrepresenting The Scientific Evidence
Skeptics Ignore The Results of Their Own Experiments
Mediumship
More Skeptical Misdirection
Links
Skeptical Misdirection
There are many examples of prominent skeptics who have obscured the
truth. Skeptics often say that believers in the paranormal have been
fooled by charlatans but it is the skeptics who have been fooled by
prominent members of their community who seem to be more interested in
winning the debate than in illuminating the truth. Skeptics often
accuse mediums of preying on gullible people to make money but it is
often the prominent skeptics who are trying to make money writing books
and filming documentaries who are spreading misinformation in the
pursuit of personal gain.
Top
In The Mass Media
Ignoring the Evidence in a Film Documentary
In "The Daily Grail", Rupert Sheldrake tells of a prominent who skeptic refused to consider peer reviewed scientific studies
of telepathy in a debunking documentary.
[The skeptic] seemed uneasy and said, "I don't want to discuss evidence".
"Why not?" I asked. "There isn't time. It's too complicated. And
that's not what this programme is about." The camera stopped.
The Director ... confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence.
The film he was making was another [prominent skeptic's] polemic.
I said to [the director], "If you're treating telepathy as an irrational
belief, surely evidence about whether it exists or not is essential for
the discussion. If telepathy occurs, it's not irrational to believe in
it. I thought that�s what we were going to talk about. I made it clear
from the outset that I wasn't interested in taking part in another low
grade debunking exercise."
http://dailygrail.com/node/5817
Top
Published Misrepresentations of Parapsychological Research
In "Examining the Skeptics", Michael Prescott discusses rampant inaccuracy in a book by a
prominent skeptic.
[A prominent skeptic] comes across as a bullying figure, eager to
attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence - in
short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate,
whether by fair means or foul.
The title of his book thus takes on a new and unintended meaning. From
what I can tell, [the prominent skeptic] really is the Flim-Flam man.
...
Hebard, [the prominent skeptic] says disputes the Targ-Puthoff account.
He [Hebard] is quoted [by the prominent skeptic] as saying, "It's a lie.
You can say it any way you want, but that's what I call a lie."
Dr Hebard was very annoyed by this claim since, as he explained to me,
[the prominent skeptic] had tried to get him to make this charge and he
had refused. Dr Hebard later signed a statement to this effect for me.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm
You have to read the full article to get the full effect, but if one
chapter is so full of inaccuracies how many are in the entire book?
Another article by Michael Prescott "Everything old is new again:
Let's get Serios"
discusses Ted Serios who could psychically impress images on
photographic film. Prescott exposes not one but two skeptics who tried
to debunk Serios and made no mention of the the fact the Serios worked
under controlled conditions that prevented fraud. One of the skeptics
even listed the conditions but said they were a "preposterous set of
controls" included in a challenge to him to try to produce the
phenomena by ordinary means. He made no mention of the fact that the
psychic he was trying to debunk worked under those conditions.
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2009/05/everything-old-is-new-again-lets-get-serios.html
Top
Misrepresenting The Scientific Evidence
Parapsychological Research
A prominent skeptic's FAQ makes this incorrect claim about parapsychology:
"And, there is not a single example of a scientific discovery in the field of parapsychology that has been independently replicated. That makes parapsychology absolutely unique in the world of science."
http://www.randi.org/jr/faq.html
According to parapsychologist Dean Radin, the truth is:
A meta-analysis of the database, published in 1989, examined 800
experiments by more than 60 researchers over the preceding 30 years.
The effect size was found to be very small, but remarkably consistent,
resulting in an overall statistical deviation of approximately 15
standard errors from a chance effect. The probability that the observed
effect was actually zero (i.e., no psi) was less than one part in a
trillion, verifying that human consciousness can indeed affect the
behavior of a random physical system.
http://www.deanradin.com/para2.html#ninea
That's 800 experiments by more than 60 researchers over the preceding 30
years demonstrating odds of a trillion to one in favor of psychokinesis
being real.
In another case, Chris Carter in "Research of the Skeptics", tells of a skeptic who made entirely unsupportable statements
about the supposed lack of evidence for psi phenomena.
Martin Gardner wrote:
How can the public know that for fifty years skeptical psychologists
have been trying their best to replicate classic psi experiments, and
with notable unsuccess? It is this fact more than any other that has
led to parapsychology�s perpetual stagnation. Positive evidence keeps
coming from a tiny group of enthusiasts, while negative evidence keeps
coming from a much larger group of skeptics.
But as Honorton pointed out, �Gardner does not attempt to document this
assertion, nor could he. It is pure fiction. Look for the skeptics�
experiments and see what you find.� For the most part, skeptics have
simply criticized from the sidelines, and have produced no experimental
research of their own.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Anomali/skeptic_research.html
Top
The Double Standard
Skeptics apply different standards of proof for parapsychological
research and mainstream science. They justify this double standard by claiming
that
extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This is a
fallacy which is exposed in the chapter on
Skeptical Fallacies.
That chapter explains that when skeptics apply this double standard,
they are simply demonstrating they prefer to disbelieve
parapsychological research because that research contradicts their
strongly held beliefs and not because there is any objective scientific
reason to doubt it. Since there is no objective scientific way to
identify an extraordinary claim it is based on personal belief rather
than scientific facts. Ultimately, it is hypocritical for a skeptic who claims to require scientific evidence before accepting a belief to use this double standard to reject parapsychological research.
The Wikipedia article for Remote Viewing gives an example of this type of skeptical misdirection.
Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of
Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)
has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal
standards of science, but that the bar of evidence needs to be much
higher for outlandish claims that will revolutionize the world, and thus
he remains unconvinced:[24]
"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote
viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of
evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (...) if I said
that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.
Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will
revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we
draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence." Richard
Wiseman Daily Mail, January 28, 2008, pp 28-29 [24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
Top
Retraction of False Statements
After making false claims "debunking" research by Rupert Sheldrake a
prominent skeptic was forced to admit his own deception:
He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP
based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper
of me to do so."
[A prominent skeptic] stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the
dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked
by." This is simply not true, and [the prominent skeptic] now admits
that he has never seen the tape.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Randi_dogs.htm
Top
NDE Research
A research study in a medical journal showed consciousness can continue
without brain function. A skeptic characterized the article as showing
the exact opposite.
In his "Skeptic" column in Scientific American in March, 2003, Michael
Shermer cited a research study published in The Lancet, a leading
medical journal, by Pim van Lommel and colleagues. He asserted this
study "delivered a blow" to the idea that the mind and the brain could
separate. Yet the researchers argued the exact opposite, and showed
that conscious experience outside the body took place during a period of
clinical death when the brain was flatlined. As Jay Ingram, of the
'Canadian Discovery Channel' commented: "His use of this study to
bolster his point is bogus. He could have said, 'The authors think
there's a mystery, but I choose to interpret their findings
differently'. But he didn't. I find that very disappointing" (Toronto
Star, March 16, 2003). Here, Pim van Lommel sets out the evidence that
Shermer misrepresented.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Mediaskeptics/vanLommel.html
Top
Skeptics Ignore The Results of Their Own Experiments
Top
Ignoring Successful Experiments
A skeptical parapsychologist ignored her own successful
experiments in order to make the claim that she could not demonstrate
paranormal phenomena.
British psychologist Susan
Blackmore ... wrote in 1996: �When I decided to become a
parapsychologist I had no idea it would mean 20 years of failing to find
the paranormal.
These claims led parapsychologist Rick Berger to critically examine the
Blackmore experiments in great detail, and he found that �The claim of
�ten years of psi research� actually represents a series of hastily
constructed, executed, and reported studies that were primarily
conducted during a 2-year period.�� These consisted of a set of
experiments conducted between October 1976 and December 1978 for her PhD
dissertation.
So, how does Blackmore reconcile the fact of 7 successful experiments
out of 21 with her often-repeated claim that her own research led her to
become a skeptic? Simple: results from successful experiments were
dismissed as due to flaws in the experiment, yet study quality was
simply ignored when the results were nonsignificant.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Anomali/skeptic_research.html
Top
Psychic Diagnosis
Skeptics proved that psychic Natasha Demkina can make accurate medical diagnoses.
In testing her, they found a probability 50 to 1 in favor of a psychic explanation of her performance yet the
skeptics said her claims were delusions.
Natasha Demkina, a 17-year-old Russian schoolgirl celebrated in her home
town of Saransk for making accurate diagnoses of people's medical
ailments just by looking at them, was brought to New York (a gruelling
24-hour journey by train, flight and bus) to have her 'paranormal
claims' tested by the self-styled world authorities.
She was required to match seven written diagnoses against seven
corresponding test persons wearing black-lens spectacles to avoid any
eye contact. She said from the outset that two of the diagnoses were
outside her range, but she was kindly reassured by Wiseman that she
would pass her test if she scored five out of five on the other trials.
Under these fairly taxing conditions she was in fact correct in four out
of the seven trials, a result yielding a significant p value of .02, an
outcome calling for a fair degree of congratulation.
But there were no congratulations for Natasha. While noting (in
passing) that the odds against this result being due to chance were
around 50 to 1, Wiseman told her that she had failed, and the
patronising Hyman advised that she should forget her delusions and
pursue her proposed medical studies (his own delusion being presumably
that the diagnoses of medical practitioners are invariably correct).
The commentator crowed that the girl would now return to Russia
discredited. Mission accomplished!
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Demkina/Barrington_scientists.htm
Top
ESP in Animals
A skeptic successfully repeated an experiment that showed a
dog can predict when his owner is on the way home. The skeptic claimed
the results refuted the phenomena.
With the help of his assistant, Matthew Smith, he did four experiments
with Jaytee, two in June and two in December 1995, and in all of them
Jaytee went to the window to wait for Pam when she was indeed on the way
home. As in my own experiments, he sometimes went to the window at
other times, for example to bark at passing cats, but he was at the
window far more when Pam was on her way home than when she was not. In
the three experiments Wiseman did in Pam's parents' flat, Jaytee was at
the window an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's
absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home. This
difference was statistically significant. When Wiseman's data were
plotted on graphs, they showed essentially the same pattern as my own.
In other words Wiseman replicated my own results.
I was astonished to hear that in the summer of 1996 Wiseman went to a
series of conferences, including the World Skeptics Congress, announcing
that he had refuted the 'psychic pet' phenomenon. He said Jaytee had
failed his tests because he had gone to the window before Pam set off to
come home.
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/wiseman.html
Top
Mediumship
Cold Reading Fails to Replicate What Mediums Do
A prominent skeptic who claims mediums routinely use cold reading to
fool people demonstrates that cold reading does not replicate what
mediums do.
The edited version [of the TV show] omitted his [the prominent skeptic's] first futile
but extended attempts at cold reading which was so unsuccessful that the
embarrassed floor manager had to announce a technical fault and stop the
show.
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/keen/randi.htm
Top
Misrepresenting Evidence of Spirit Communication
Martin Gardner wrote:
"Records of Mrs. Piper�s s�ances show plainly that her controls did an
enormous amount of what was called 'fishing,' and today is called 'cold
reading.' Vague statements would be followed by more precise information
based on how sitters reacted. Mrs. Piper usually held a client�s hand
throughout a sitting, sometimes holding the hand against her forehead.
This made it easy to detect muscular responses even when a sitter was
silent. Moreover, her eyes were often only half closed, allowing her to
observe reactions."
However a commenter in Michael Prescott's Blog explains:
Somehow, Gardner forgets to tell us that many of the readings involved
proxy sitters - people who did not know the facts of the case they were
inquiring about. Strange how this little fact was overlooked. Could
Gardner have forgotten to mention it because cold reading is useless in
a proxy sitting?
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/08/how-martin-gard.html
Top
More Skeptical Misdirection
Robert McLuhan,
in his blog "Paranormalia",
gives examples of skeptics...
1) Refusing to engage with parapsychological investigations on any level as being of no interest, undoubtedly fraudulent, obviously nonsense, etc.
...
2) Engaging with [psychical investigations], but explaining them away with all kinds of implausible scenarios which in any other context no one would entertain for a moment.
...
3) Carrying out experiments in order to prove that, when properly conducted, the effect will not appear, getting an effect, and then explaining it away on the grounds of 'experimental flaws'.
....
4) Carrying out experiments with psychics on television with a very precisely determined pre-agreed protocol, getting highly significant results, and then refusing to accept the results as valid.
...
http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2008/12/unengaged-implausible-illogical.html
12/31/8
TV documentary on Helen Duncan gets it wrong.
http://www.paranormalreview.com/News/tabid/59/newsid368/158/TV-documentary-on-Helen-Duncan-gets-it-wrong/Default.aspx
A "Scientific American" online article omits to inform its readers of the veridical nature of many apparitions and visions of spirits.
12/4/8
Giving Up the Ghost (Stories)
http://www.dailygrail.com/news/giving-up-the-ghost-stories
"Spotlight on Skeptics" by Matt Colborn discusses The Society for Psychical Research Study Day on Skeptics.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Examskeptics/Colborn_spotlight.html
Top
Links
Skeptical Investigations
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org
Top
|