I wasn’t going to comment on the Criss Angel / Phenomenon videos, since it seems almost everyone else already has. But Randi is hosting the videos on his site and, now I’ve seen them, I had to post briefly on this.
If you haven’t heard, there is a reality TV show called “Phenomenon”, with Uri Geller and Criss Angel judging conjuring acts. Except that there was this bozo called Jim Callahan who pretended he was not a conjuror but that he really was doing something paranormal by channeling a dead person. Or something. Angel had already promised he would bust anyone who claimed paranormal skills, and so the result was, to some extent, inevitable.
Anyway, go to Randi’s site and watch the video of Angel busting Callahan – it’s short, just over a minute. It ends with Angel and Callahan apparently having to be held apart by the two other hosts.
Then watch the other video (longer) with interviews with the three players. First up is Geller, with a load of drivel about how you can’t disprove the paranormal (channeling James van Praagh), and ending with the lame argument about how energy can’t be destroyed, so “where does it go” when we die? Oooohh – good point. Except it isn’t. Dipshit: the live human body is at a temperature of 98.6 F, so my guess would be when you die, the energy is given off as heat. No paranormal explanations required. Oh well - at least we didn’t have to witness him bending spoons “with just the power of my mind”.
Then comes Angel with a fairly level headed and reasonable explanation of why he did what he did. Angel is irritated that Callahan is passing off something that he (Angel) could do when he was 14, as if it must be paranormal. I don’t know how that trick was done but I’m guessing Angel does. As does Randi, Penn & Teller… and any number of professional magicians.
The best bit though is Callahan, with a long sorry rant about Angel – how he’s trying to prove Jesus is not real (he does a walking on water illusion), and how he’s “hiding” behind his clothes and jewelry. (Someone’s been watching Dr Phil. Actually, I think Callahan would have more luck on Oprah.) And loads on how Callahan “doesn’t like being questioned”. All in all though, it was a load of whining about Criss Angel, but nothing about why anyone should believe that Callahan actually has any paranormal powers. The truth is though, it was really about Callahan, and not Angel, despite Callahan's attempts at misdirection.
But the funniest bit was where he rambled on about how Angel needed “people between me and him” – a reference, presumably, to how the two other hosts kept Angel and Callahan apart, although Callahan gave the appearance of wanting a fight. If you want to know why it’s funny, you have to go back and watch the first video. Right near the end (13 to 14 seconds left on the counter), you see that Callahan accidentally breaks free of his minder, and could actually get to Angel if he wanted. So what does he do? He quickly goes back and links his arm with the host – because he just had to make sure he had someone holding him back. Even the losing his temper / wanting a fight was a lame act. What a loser.
lol. I love the fact that angel was putting up 1 million to have the other prove, and the other one called him essentially a doubting thomas.
It was laughable. I don't watch TV cause this is the BS they have to offer.
:-)
PS skeptico, you should do an article about people like me... really intelligent humans who can't help but wonder if there's a such thing as magic (or really want there to be)... people who wish the secret were real. Because day in and day out i read everything and some of these proponents of ludicrous ideas make sense on occasion.
And not to sound crazy... but sometimes the opponents really seem close minded. the skeptics. i was reading on bronzedog something that really brought this to mind, although i can't recall what it was at the moment.
i spent a lot of time as a minor reading religious and pseudo-religious texts. i didn't glean my morals from them, but i did glean a hope for the afterlife. And nights, i stay awake considering the alternative... when you die you lose consciousness. How bleak.
Although recently i found a person that makes the term "live life to the fullest" mean something, and may cause me to cease caring what happens when i die. Maybe xians are lonely? maybe they feel exiled and just need some understanding? maybe that's why Mormons on the whole aren't asshats (cause they have a tight knit community?) and jews too... I've never been preached to by a jew (and i attended an orthodox temple for 3 years in my teens)...
For me, if someone could offer a rational argument to believe in god or the bible, one that i couldn't completely refute (it hasn't happened yet, mostly cause i maintain that according to the original ten commandments i've never sinned)... i might be swayed.
I suppose that i should say that i was officiated in the Christian religion at a young age by a pastor... he asked the questions and i accepted jesus and so forth. but then i accepted the jewish faith 5 or 6 years later, and then i became an ordained minister (for a good purpose, to sign marriage certificates for friends) that's non-denominational. I don't know what to believe anymore... I'm just searching and blowing in the wind. should i throw myself at math and science and my new friend (who is awesome) and forget about death entirely?
What do most skeptics think happens when you die? and how do they cope with that late at night when they're contemplating their own morality?
I dunno. hopefully this makes it somewhere cause i think it's a valid point... and maybe some of you guys have answers. :-)
Posted by: genewitch | November 14, 2007 at 01:25 AM
lol. I love the fact that angel was putting up 1 million to have the other prove, and the other one called him essentially a doubting thomas.
It was laughable. I don't watch TV cause this is the BS they have to offer.
:-)
PS skeptico, you should do an article about people like me... really intelligent humans who can't help but wonder if there's a such thing as magic (or really want there to be)... people who wish the secret were real. Because day in and day out i read everything and some of these proponents of ludicrous ideas make sense on occasion.
And not to sound crazy... but sometimes the opponents really seem close minded. the skeptics. i was reading on bronzedog something that really brought this to mind, although i can't recall what it was at the moment.
i spent a lot of time as a minor reading religious and pseudo-religious texts. i didn't glean my morals from them, but i did glean a hope for the afterlife. And nights, i stay awake considering the alternative... when you die you lose consciousness. How bleak.
Although recently i found a person that makes the term "live life to the fullest" mean something, and may cause me to cease caring what happens when i die. Maybe xians are lonely? maybe they feel exiled and just need some understanding? maybe that's why Mormons on the whole aren't asshats (cause they have a tight knit community?) and jews too... I've never been preached to by a jew (and i attended an orthodox temple for 3 years in my teens)...
For me, if someone could offer a rational argument to believe in god or the bible, one that i couldn't completely refute (it hasn't happened yet, mostly cause i maintain that according to the original ten commandments i've never sinned)... i might be swayed.
I suppose that i should say that i was officiated in the Christian religion at a young age by a pastor... he asked the questions and i accepted jesus and so forth. but then i accepted the jewish faith 5 or 6 years later, and then i became an ordained minister (for a good purpose, to sign marriage certificates for friends) that's non-denominational. I don't know what to believe anymore... I'm just searching and blowing in the wind. should i throw myself at math and science and my new friend (who is awesome) and forget about death entirely?
What do most skeptics think happens when you die? and how do they cope with that late at night when they're contemplating their own morality?
I dunno. hopefully this makes it somewhere cause i think it's a valid point... and maybe some of you guys have answers. :-)
Posted by: genewitch | November 14, 2007 at 01:26 AM
And nights, i stay awake considering the alternative... when you die you lose consciousness. How bleak.
Why are you waiting to die (or should I saw 'were') before you deciding to get what you can out of life. It is by far the most ridiculous concept GodBots have. Be a good little vacuous automaton until you die, THEN everything will be great (or really bad if you weren't a good little automaton).
What do most skeptics think happens when you die? and how do they cope with that late at night when they're contemplating their own morality?
Everyone and everything dies.At this moment millions of living things are dying on and in your body. Millions more are dying every second outside of your body. Dying is not different than eating, pooping, or breathing. Its necessary and in fact defines life.
We have been a very successful species due to our emotion, logic and our ability to act on them. But along with this comes the feelings (emotions) that drive us to have children, the incredible joyous feelings we have when they are born, learn to walk, grow a tooth. The same successful emotions drive us to get food, worry about our family, and so forth.
These exact successful traits also drive us to fear death. As we get older we think about our non-existence, and sure we atheists understand the strong desire to believe that we have some sort of immortality, but like the recognition that our emotions are driven into us to make us care about each other, they are also driven into us to care about our mortality.
Just because we recognize emotions for what they are doesn't make them less powerful. It makes them understandable, it makes us want to suck everything we can out of this one and only life.
When it comes to death, the fear of death may get so strong that our desire for immortality wins (see Andrew Flew), but I think in most cases, we accept that we have lived a good life, were good to people, made strong bonds, hopefully left a mark with at least some of the the people who will live longer than me, and the show is over. Applause.
I have not died yet, I can't guarantee the accuracy of this statement. This is approximately the story of the very few atheists I have known near death.
Now, back on topic, why couldn't that spirit say "Yellow Matchbox car" instead of "Metal Rectangle 4 Wheels".
Posted by: Techskeptic | November 14, 2007 at 06:53 AM
What happens when you die? Most likely, nothing. Literally nothing, as far as you're concerned. You simply aren't existing anymore - no conciousness, no thought, no feeling, no existence, nothing.
So why do you find that prospect "bleak"? You won't be there to experience it.
Religious believers like to portray non-theism, with its denial of a happy afterlife, as a philosophy of despair and negativity. When actually, not believing in an afterlife encourages you to live your life as fully as possible - after all, it's the only one you have.
Posted by: sophia8 | November 14, 2007 at 07:14 AM
Did Criss Angel really promise he would bust guests that would claim to have real paranormal powers?
I first started hearing about Criss Angel some time last year. Lots of people seem to think he's the real deal. I've caught some of 3 or 4 episodes of his show. There are some tricks he does that I know would not fool you in real life, and even with camera angles I was able to spot the mechanism for walking down the side of a building and on top of water. The go-kar / car disappearing into fog tricks were laughable. And the way he talks about himself as a magician is so vague and patronizing. Criss Angel has always seemed so obnoxious to me.
But at least to the camera he tells it like it is — not magic, just illusions and mind games, he even starts his escaping maneuvers before his live audience thinks he does. I could respect him a bit for that.
I confess this whole Phenomenon thing is throwing me into a loop. That Criss would team up with Uri Gellar had cut off that little bit of respect for me. So I didn't make a big deal when I missed the first two episodes.
Then via a forum, I get the clips on Randi's site. Damn. I had no idea Criss Angel felt that strongly about frauds. And that he promised he would do this at the beginning of the show is news to me. And pulling a James Randi with the million dollars thing, that's just ritzy.
If Criss Angel can keep this up on future episodes of Phenomenon, I may actually start to like him.
Posted by: Aerik | November 14, 2007 at 08:48 AM
It's bleak in the sense that i like thinking. Call it ego :-)
And yah, Other than the catfight, that episode was good tv, i guess :-)
Posted by: genewitch | November 14, 2007 at 02:11 PM
I see so many articles like this. Does skepticism really mean writing off what can't be explained? Sure, most people professing to have some kind of supernatural abilities are full of horseshit, but I'm skeptical of people who use TV Psychics and the like to support the viewpoint that the supernatural doesn't exist at all.
Posted by: John | November 14, 2007 at 05:40 PM
@ John,
Does skepticism mean writing off what can't be explained?
An honest skeptic has no problem with something that cannot be explained. If you were to take an honest skeptic out and show her something that could not be explained, they would probably be curious, fascinated, and generally interested -- because hey! neat! this is new!
However, if you take a skeptic out to show her something that cannot be explained and proceed to claim that the thing in question is psychic, a ghost, 'spiritual', or otherwise supernatural, a patient skeptic would ask "can you prove it?". An impatient skeptic would roll their eyes and walk away because appeals to ignorance are tiresome, e.g. "I don't know what this is, so it must be supernatural."
An honest skeptic doesn't say "the supernatural doesn't exist" an honest skeptic says "show me some evidence."
A curmudgeon like myself has seen enough quacks and liars over time to assume that if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...it's bullshit.
Posted by: Michael Barrett | November 14, 2007 at 06:33 PM
Psst! John, your defeatism is showing.
Everything Michael said above is quite true.
What's more, is that nearly all woo has explanations. It can be explained, and has been explained. The woos just reject all our explanations, claiming, usually for no reason, that it's impossible, another favorite word among the woos.
Of course, as Michael said, and I'll phrase in other terms, when we do find something currently unexplainable:
Typical skeptic: I don't know what's going on. Let's start some tests and find out more! Let's start coming up with new ideas from the data!
Typical woo: It's magic! That's all you need to know! Stop asking questions! Stop trying to get it to happen again! You're only allowed to repaint old ideas!
Yes, I'm in a bad mood. It comes with overexposure with bigoted woos.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 14, 2007 at 08:34 PM
I recently overheard a singer named Chuck Pyle say "maybe people who come to conclusions have simply stopped thinking".
Posted by: Citizen Deux | November 15, 2007 at 11:18 AM
By the way, I assume it can apply to the impatient skeptic as well as the typical woo...
Posted by: Citizen Deux | November 15, 2007 at 11:19 AM
I suppose I made the mistake of coming off like a woo; serves me right for posting a reactionary and poorly thought out comment, I suppose. Allow me to clarify: what distresses me much more than all the hating directed towards "woo" types (who might just be capable of bringing exciting new data to the table and expanding our concepts of what's possible, I might add) is that if a given event has supernatural overtones, rather than exploring it and doing serious research into it (i.e. Jung), they turn it into an ego boosting "We're right and you're wrong" spectacle of poorly concealed low self esteem and general confusion/fear regarding their spirituality.
It's also worth noting that several of the more classically educated "woo" types (Dion Fortune, Jung, Crowley) placed more of their focus into what's possible with auto-suggestion, or more specifically, the powers of the human mind. As opposed to claiming "It's magic! That's all you need to know! Stop asking questions!", many of us are more concerned with why placebos work, or why Buddhist monks are capable of altering their physical state (health, brainwaves, heartbeat, etc.) through sheer power of concentration - phenomenon which have adequate scientific proof of their existence, but hardly anything approaching an adequate explanation for why they happen. It deeply concerns me that there's been virtually no scientific exploration into these fields, and that any attempts to spark such scientific exploration is met with ridicule and dismissive apathy, so what choice does a skeptic have but to side with the Woos in what's Robert Anton Wilson (one of the most important skeptical minds of the last 100 years IMO) calls "The New Inquisition"?
In short, while I don't identify with the defeatism portrayed with the Woos insisting that the supernatural is what it is and cannot be understood via science (a ridiculous proposition in of itself, as science is itself a method of approaching that which is not understood), I do identify with a different kind of Defeatism; the kind that develops over years of observing self-proclaimed skeptics and agnostics siding with a growing number of atheists and individuals who wish to keep science and the supernatural separate, just as the Woos do. I call myself a skeptic because I find sitting on the fence to be the best view of the playing field; it seems ridiculous to me that so many can step firmly onto one side or the other and still call themselves objective.
Posted by: John | November 15, 2007 at 12:52 PM
many of us are more concerned with why placebos work, or why Buddhist monks are capable of altering their physical state (health, brainwaves, heartbeat, etc.) through sheer power of concentration - phenomenon which have adequate scientific proof of their existence, but hardly anything approaching an adequate explanation for why they happen.
I suggest you shift to "unexplained" and avoid anything that comes close to "unexplainable" unless you intend to put qualifiers on it.
It deeply concerns me that there's been virtually no scientific exploration into these fields, and that any attempts to spark such scientific exploration is met with ridicule and dismissive apathy, so what choice does a skeptic have but to side with the Woos in what's Robert Anton Wilson (one of the most important skeptical minds of the last 100 years IMO) calls "The New Inquisition"?
I don't hear much about it, but I never see anyone discouraging research into the mechanisms behind the placebo effect, which, to my understanding, is not any single thing.
I do identify with a different kind of Defeatism; the kind that develops over years of observing self-proclaimed skeptics and agnostics siding with a growing number of atheists and individuals who wish to keep science and the supernatural separate, just as the Woos do. I call myself a skeptic because I find sitting on the fence to be the best view of the playing field; it seems ridiculous to me that so many can step firmly onto one side or the other and still call themselves objective.
Science studies anything that has effects. "Supernatural" is a meaningless label that can be applied to anything without affecting how science would look at it. If the supernatural has effects, it can be studied by science. There is no separation. Lots of woos I run into try to create a separation for the specific purpose of claiming something isn't subject to science.
That's how I see the word "supernatural", but it would be helpful if anyone could reach a consensus, rather than Humpty-Dumpty it at personal convenience.
Frankly, to me, it sounds like you haven't been paying close attention to the structure of skeptical arguments.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 15, 2007 at 03:15 PM
Just because you've taken a side doesn't mean you're wrong. The truth is not always found somewhere in the middle.
Also, there is and has been research into the particulars of the placebo effect, at least.
What I'm getting out of your post is basically "If there's no evidence for X, reserve judgement." That's the classic argument of the pseudoskeptic, the type that accuses us of being pseudoskeptics. Sorry, but if there's no evidence for X, I have no reason to believe X, then I will not sit on the fence.
Such a philosophy becomes especially problematic when dealing with phenomena for which there is no evidence even of possibility, ghosts for example. Not only is there no evidence ghosts do exist, there is no evidence that ghosts could exist. Therefore I maintain that they do not. The might, and it would be kind of cool to be proven wrong (there's big bucks in Ghostbusting), but I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. Basically, if you want to claim the existence of supernatural things, you have to first demonstrate that it is possible for a supernature to exist, and then find evidence that it does.
But really, that's somewhat irrelevant. Skeptics don't want to keep science and the supernatural separate; by and large we're naturalists who deny the existence of the supernatural at all. If it happens, it is natural. "Supernatural," then, becomes a poor shorthand for either "we can't explain it yet," "we can't ever explain it so stop trying," or some mishmash between the two. In the first case, it's just fine to say "We can't explain it yet." In the latter two, we're talking pointless, defeatist woo.
Your post seems to communicate a misunderstanding of the skeptical position and a covert accusation of dogma. Sorry to say, it just ain't true. Firstly, we're perfectly justified in our non-fence-sitting by the complete lack of evidence for the things about which we don't sit on the fence (I don't know about Tibetan monks in particular, but maybe someone else will come forward there), and we don't perpetrate evil atheist/skeptic dogma on an inquisitive public. We debunk and ridicule bullshit for which there is no evidence, only faulty arguments and poorly-designed experiments, if anything at all.
Posted by: Akusai | November 15, 2007 at 03:21 PM
To add a slight nuance to what Akusai is saying. I feel there is an equivocation that is often made when the phrase 'no evidence' gets trotted out by pseudo-skeptics.
Pseudo-sketpics and woos often imply that 'no evidence' to support their claim means that there is no evidence to deny it either.
This is, of course, entirely incorrect as no evidence when their ought to be some is evidence that the claim is false.
Posted by: Wikinite | November 15, 2007 at 08:38 PM
I suggest you shift to "unexplained" and avoid anything that comes close to "unexplainable" unless you intend to put qualifiers on it.
Hmm. I definitely did not say there's anything that Science can't tackle and explain at some point once we've accumulated enough data about our universe and it's mechanizations. What I'm suggesting is that the vast majority of scientific publications/mouthpieces specifically focus upon what's "unexplained" in the fields of what's glorifyingly referred to as "hard science", then turn around and ridicule anyone who suggests scientific inquiry into the powers of the human mind, inquiry done by the likes of Jung, Freud (who, to be fair, is a tad dated at this point), and Wilhelm Reich. Riech may be an extreme case, with genuine research into his practices rejected by the scientific community for nothing more than the man's reputation, not to mention the FDA burning all of his books and equipment in the 1950s, but the scientific community in general (particularly CSICOP and the "Skeptical Inquirer") still has a long standing reputation for dismissing serious research into what's unfortunately referred to as "the paranormal" or "the supernatural" - labels that by nature prejudice one against the validity of claims to which those terms are applied. You might still wonder what exactly am I referring to when I talk about paranormal, supernatural, or unexplained occurrences (and hencewith their being ignored by the greater scientific and/or skeptic community) - here are just a few examples off the top of my head so we're all on the same page:
Links between meditation and the human body
Acupuncture
Remote Viewing
Homeopathy
Pseudo-sketpics and woos often imply that 'no evidence' to support their claim means that there is no evidence to deny it either. This is, of course, entirely incorrect as no evidence when their ought to be some is evidence that the claim is false.
No evidence? Or no acceptable evidence? Because there is a difference; "evidence" is a word that gets tossed around like a cheap whore by David Icke, Richard C. Hogland, and their ilk. But there's a problem with their flavor of "evidence", in that it crumbles upon even the most elementary scientific inquiry and fails to meet basic criterion for what most of us would consider "evidence", such as an adherence to the scientific method or at the very least a lack of unprofessional and sensationalist overtones. But a good deal of genuine research gets lumped into this category of pseudo-evidence, or pseudo-science, or what have you, for reasons that to me seem completely unfathomable. This is perhaps most eloquently expressed by the entry provided by "The Skeptic Dictionary" on the placebo effect, which suggests despite the immense volume of serious, professional "evidence" demonstrating the reality and implications of the effect that "In other words, the placebo can be an open door to quackery." So much for Akusai's "research into the particulars of the placebo effect", I guess.
we don't perpetrate evil atheist/skeptic dogma on an inquisitive public. We debunk and ridicule bullshit for which there is no evidence, only faulty arguments and poorly-designed experiments, if anything at all.
To begin with, can you really speak for the skeptic community as a whole? I also resent the use of the word "we", as though I myself am not a part of the skeptic community simply because I hold these concerns - I find myself to be pretty skeptical about most things. I'm simply willing to entertain and examine more so-called "radical" theories (and I'm sorry if that sounds self-congratulatory). In any case, it's this kind of mindstate that keep many skeptics from turning that big magnifying glass we put up to the rest of the world onto ourselves and our motivations. Keep in mind I'm not pointing fingers; this is the Internet, and I don't actually know anyone reading this just as you all don't really know me. But it seems to me that if the skeptic community as a whole would look at why it's so critical of ideas said to be paranormal or supernatural, and could push itself beyond it's current scope just a little bit, it could find, legitimize, and popularize some really exciting scientific discoveries, or at the very least develop satisfyingly conclusive evidence proving such taboo theories and concepts false (which many will suggest you already do; to which I request you produce some material produced by the skeptic community conclusively proving - and NOT just flippantly dismissing - any number of the subjects I've linked to verifiably false).
Skeptics don't want to keep science and the supernatural separate; by and large we're naturalists who deny the existence of the supernatural at all. If it happens, it is natural. "Supernatural," then, becomes a poor shorthand for either "we can't explain it yet," "we can't ever explain it so stop trying," or some mishmash between the two. In the first case, it's just fine to say "We can't explain it yet." In the latter two, we're talking pointless, defeatist woo.
I think it's safe to say I fall into the first camp, still finding it unfortunate that the terminology I must use to describe my interests is (constructed to be?) inherently against my perusing them, as you so generously demonstrated in your confusion regarding my intentions.
Holy shit, sorry for making this so long. My final thoughts on the subject:
"Have I ever heard a skeptic wax superior and contemptuous? Certainly. I've even sometimes heard, to my retrospective dismay, that unpleasant tone in my own voice. There are human imperfections on both sides of this issue. Even when it's applied sensitively, scientific skepticism may come across as arrogant, dogmatic, heartless, and dismissive of the feelings and deeply held beliefs of others..."
- Carl Sagan
Posted by: John | November 16, 2007 at 12:33 AM
You neglected to mention that, in the meditation article you link to, there is a contingent of scientists who very vocally opposed the Dalai Lama's speech. I think that counts for something. In any case, I've never been able to get a straight definition from people about what meditation even is.
You also neglected to mention that the Skeptic's Dictionary page on the placebo effect contains a lengthy summary of the research into the effect, the various theories as to why non-treatment posts an effect if the recipient believes he or she is getting treatment, and links to articles discussing the effect. Your quote seems to in no way support your assertion that certain tests and evidence are needlessly and wrongly labeled pseudoscience. Mr. Carroll's intent there, actually, is quite clearly to hammer home the point that altmed treatments, because of the placebo effect they have on the recipients, can make someone feel better without making them get better, and so encourage them against seeking real, evidence-based treatment. He is not lamenting the lack of study into the effect, he is pointing out how uncritical minds might mistake it for curative reality.
There is no credible evidence that acupuncture does anything but potentially reduce pain, and even then it's no different from sham acupuncture, where the needles are not placed in "meridians" properly. Thus we come the conclusion that puncture might alleviate other pain. possible mechanisms include distraction or endorphin release.
There is no credible evidence that remote viewing has ever occured, and none that it is even possible. The concept itself is based on unsupportable assumptions about the human brain ("mind" is a poor word, in my opinion) and how it works.
There is most definitely no credible evidence that homeopathy works. Homeopathy fails every properly-controlled trial to which it is subjected and the very premise is about the most absurd thing ever conceived: "Put a tiny bit of something bad in a bottle of water, then shake it up a specific number of times. Take a tiny bit of that and dilute it some more. Remember proper shaking! Do this until there is nothing left of the original substance. Sell the then-100%-pure water to ignorant consumers. Apply directly to the forehead!" Homeopathy is about the dumbest thing I can think of, and don't even get me started on Emoto's "water memory" nonsense.
Did I come off as sounding dogmatic or dismissive? Oops. I guess when I actually take a hard-line stance based on the evidence (or lack thereof) I might make some people uncomfortable. Sagan was sure a great guy, but I don't have to agree with everything he said. Anyway, I've only put forward a couple of links that I believe offer cogent arguments and cite evidence for my points, but only because I'm short on time; hopefully other people can pick up my slack. The Skeptic's Dictionary is a good place to start for fairly conclusive evidence of bullshittery, assuming you don't misread it and ignore the bulk of the entries as well as the links to actual research.
Granted those that you listed are probably not your only interests, but they're all pretty piss-poor. The meditation one comes the closest to scientific legitimacy, but the other three have been completely debunked time and time again. You wonder why people get so irritated and short when they are brought up? That'd be why. When something has been clearly shown wrong time and time again over many years and people continually bring it up as if all that proir research never happened, it gets irritating.
Even that aside, we (and I do not presume to speak for every single skeptic, but most I've met or spoken to seem to share my feelings on many matters epistemological) are not bound for any reason to treat all untested ideas as equal. You may not be advancing that opinion, but it seems that your views might lead logically in that direction. For example, if somebody told me that African termites (the ones that build the giant skyscraper termite mounds) could only achieve such a feat through their innate telepathy and the intervention of a spiritual mound-fairy, I could either say "I will refrain from making a judgement until we test the psychic-termite-mound-fairy hypothesis," or I could say "Oh, just shut the hell up with that."
I don't presume to know which you would choose in that situation, but for me it's the latter, and I don't think I really have to explain why.
By the way, you might find this innacurate or even insulting, but I would argue that you aren't, in fact, a skeptic. Not because you reject a certain set of conclusions, but because you seem to reject the methods that come to those conclusions when they come to conclusions that you don't want to believe. You want to call yourself a skeptic but then you accuse skeptics of dogmatism essentially because they don't buy the credibility of things that their chosen methods of truth-generation (the most consistently useful and truth-generating ones we know of) have shown to be wildly incredible.
Posted by: Akusai | November 16, 2007 at 02:57 AM
Akusai,
That was the most entertaining post I have ever read by you. Very good.
I'd have to disagree with you on one thing. Sagan was not a great guy (I met him). He was a pompous ass. However He was a smart pompous ass, and a pompous ass that was very good at understanding the universe around us and writing about it, in particular how we have come to understand the universe around us. I do agree with most of the things he wrote...I guess like you, perhaps not everything (However I was more than shocked when I read his prediction of GWB's actions regarding iraq based on lack of evidence. I almost fell off my chair!)
John,
I'm simply willing to entertain and examine more so-called "radical" theories
So are we. In fact we are excited about new radical theories. But theories like almost all of the ones you mentioned are not radical. They are old, tired, and perpetually debunked. Its such a bad situation that we know what a Woo-supporter is going to say before they say it (the reason Skeptico is able to make bingo cards). All you did was claim you have an open mind and we don't(#7 of the woo handbook) and that you are more skeptical than people who call woo nonsense (#10).
Two more things.... Skeptics and the scientific method are so good at teasing out truth from nonsense that we can use information from a nut job like Tesla, and get the good, useful, real stuff (too many to list, but includes inductively coupled power sources, AC motor and power transmission, ion propulsion, etc) , and throw out the nonsense (thought viewer, time traveling device, critiques of Einsteins relativity, etc).
Second. You don't understand the nature of science. It changes. It is supposed to change as we get better and more accurate understanding. The models we use, the equations, the boundary conditions all get more accurate as we understand the concepts better. Any real science will follow a pattern like this.
Astrology has not changed one bit since it was invented
Homeopathy has not changed one bit since it was invented
Acupuncture has not changed one bit since it was invented
Water Dowsing has not changed one bit since it was invented
Pick your woo. You'll notice a pattern. You aren't being open minded. You are being ignorant of all the data out there to dispute the claims of these nonsense "theories". You are also being blind to the lack of good studies that actually prove their claims.
Its just like when a creationist says something stupid like "There are no transitional fossils", or "There are no beneficial mutations in humans" to make their point. They just havent bothered to actually look if there are, and so they stay with their original ridiculous claims.
Go and read up on the ridiculousness of homeopathy, ayeurvedic medicine, water dowsing, acupuncture, and whatever other 'radical theory' you are prone to beleive before trying to claim it has any value at all.
Like Akusai, I'll give you that meditation may offer some benefits. These are not mystical though. Let me introduce you to a chemical produced by the pituitary that produces many 'mystical' experiences including near death experiences.
Not so mystical anymore is it?
Posted by: Techskeptic | November 16, 2007 at 09:16 AM
No evidence? Or no acceptable evidence? Because there is a difference; "evidence" is a word that gets tossed around like a cheap whore by David Icke, Richard C. Hogland, and their ilk. But there's a problem with their flavor of "evidence", in that it crumbles upon even the most elementary scientific inquiry and fails to meet basic criterion for what most of us would consider "evidence", such as an adherence to the scientific method or at the very least a lack of unprofessional and sensationalist overtones. But a good deal of genuine research gets lumped into this category of pseudo-evidence, or pseudo-science, or what have you, for reasons that to me seem completely unfathomable.
Did you really just pull a 'no true scotsman' fallacy with evidence? The problem with woos isn't 'good' or 'bad' or even no evidence. The problem is the a) misrepresentation of what the data (evidence) acutally says or b) claiming that a lack of evidence that positvely supports their brand of woo means that validity of their claim.
Don't equivocate 'good' and 'bad',which is used in the context of evidence meaning 'does support' or 'does not support', with some nebulous popularity contest concoted by some coterie of conspiritorial scientists.
Posted by: Wikinite | November 16, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Psuedo-science... Like handwriting analysis and stuff like that?
no one's brought up the null hypothesis yet!
A skeptic says "show me" or "prove it"
The problem inherent to those statements is it implies that you don't believe what is being said. It sort of implies that you're rolling your eyes a bit.
"my car can go 210MPH on the highway" "prove it" "but that's illegal!" "so show me on a track in the desert where it is legal then" "that takes too much time, why can't you just take my word for it, why do you always have to nay-say everything i say?" "oooohkay..."
It's like this in diagnosing problems with people who've had severe trauma and don't know if they can trust you on your authority. You say "so what trauma have you experienced" and they after a bit will say "trauma x and y at age 9, trauma z at age 12"; you say "have you seen anyone about those traumas?" "no but i feel i've worked through them and i'm fine now"
to which you must say "Show me"; in other words... no you haven't. Statistically speaking you can't work through childhood trauma by age 22, because growing up and going through puberty and dealing with highschool and then college and dealing with the whole sex thing is also technically "traumatic" in the sense that it "Causes a high amount of stress on the mind and body" - you're rejecting the hypothesis that they've presented because of your knowledge of psychology and statistics therein.
The interesting thing, and the reason i bring it up, is that there are fringe cases in psychology (and even cars!) that may be able to cope with a powerful sense of will and self worth. But these are fringe for a reason, you can take those as you receive them. But everyone who has "dealt with it" on their own CLAIMS that they've fixed themselves by themselves. And that's where being skeptical comes in.
No one wants to be called a liar, or have it implied that they have no clue what they're talking about. there's a reason i am not going into clinical psychology... I don't want to constantly burst people's bubbles. that's why people who are actually getting the therapy that they need despise going to therapy. You're not supposed to enjoy it. So while i want to help people, i don't want to do it that way.
Phew. What a weird post this is. My main point is that people are defensive by nature, and want to be self sufficient, and asking them to back up what they are saying usually puts them on the defensive.
The reason scientists don't have this problem that often is that when someone says "gravity causes things to tend to fall toward the earth" no one says "prove it!"... because it's accepted as true. If a scientist says "Gravity implies gravitrons" then we say "show me" or "prove it"...
See?
Posted by: genewitch | November 17, 2007 at 08:29 AM
John:
The end of homeopathy
That'll do for a start.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | November 17, 2007 at 09:55 AM
But, the point is, a good scientist always asks "prove it;" it's just that some things have already been proven, and a good scientist knows it. It doesn't stop us from testing them again; FSM knows there have been oodles of tests on gravity, refining our numbers and models, enhancing our understanding, and further supporting the work of folks like Newton and Einstein. It just stops us from feeling like we have to re-test and re-confirm gravity (or any other bit of settled science) every time we want to do some other experiment.
Posted by: Tom Foss | November 17, 2007 at 03:59 PM
Right, tom. i was merely pointing out that the whole "prove it" attitude doesn't win friends. but that's not what truthseekers are after, is it? I'm no physicist. but i can go toe to toe with your average american about physics all day long. My game's psychology, and i was just drawing an inference about being skeptical in general as a personality trait (and it's good for business!)
Posted by: genewitch | November 17, 2007 at 09:57 PM
Skeptico: "I don’t know how that trick was done but I’m guessing Angel does. As does Randi, Penn & Teller… and any number of professional magicians."
Actually, it's not that difficult to figure it out. All in all it's a pretty crappy trick. Callahan says that 100 items (which he chose) are laid out on a table, and one of them is chosen and locked inside a box. It's explained a couple times that Callahan had no access to the box, and no way to see inside it to see which object is chosen, but no mention is made of his access to the table where the remaining 99 items have been laid out.
Posted by: Jeremy Henderson | November 18, 2007 at 02:51 PM
Wow.. wait.. he knew what item was missing.. and the best way he coudl describe it was
"metal, rectangle, 4 wheels"?
Man, my 4 year old can describe a yellow matchbox car better than him.
(I'm just being silly of course, i realize its an act)
Posted by: Techskeptic | November 18, 2007 at 06:58 PM