From: cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: "experiments"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:00:24 GMT

In article <EdsBhdG00WBM081=x3@andrew.cmu.edu> "Daniel S. Efran" <de0t+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Tim Maroney quotes and responds:
>>In article <krikket.03na@meltdown.chi.il.us> krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us
>>(Doug Krick) writes:
>>>success rate though.  Great trick for convincing skeptics.
>>>
>>It's not only "not the best of experiments", it's not an experiment at
>>all.  What prediction are you testing?  The fact that someone who is
>>told to feel something in their hand is likely to report feeling
>>something in their hand?  And what is the control?  This is frankly
>ludicrous.

Well-meant, but ludicrous -- sadly. 

>>You ought to realize that this sort of plainly silly discourse tends to
>>reinforce the perception of skeptics that the majority of psi-believers
>>are incapable of thinking clearly about the subject, and are ignorant
>>of the basics of the scientific method.

Tim, I actually second your opinion here. 

>I consider myself both a pagan and a skeptic.  I agree with Tim here.  Anyone
>interested in truly understanding the world around them should be ashamed to
>support such non-experimentation IN THE GUISE OF REAL SCIENCE, as this was
>presented.  The goal of true scientific experimentation is to understand
>how things really work, not to prove that you're right and someone else
>is wrong. 

Sadly, so many people who are into psychic stuff scream bloody murder
about nobody taking their "science" seriously, but then when scientists
attempt to treat what they do with the same rigor and strict technique
with which ANY science is treated, they scream bloodier murder.

WHICH WAY DO YOU WANT IT?  
 
>Where does all this hostility and condescension come from?  Who decided that
>skeptics were "the enemy"?  The skeptics seek to discover truth and battle
>falsehood, especially when it is dangerous or restrictive or cruel.  Are
>any of you really opposed to these goals???
>
>I admit, sometimes skeptics can be a bit blunt, even rude.  So can pagans, as
>you all well know. 

Some of us are both. 

>It's for mostly the same reasons -- the frustration of
>seeing the same stupidities (as you see them) over and over; the annoyance
>of people missing your point; the infuriating sadness that so many people 
>refuse to listen to you.  All pretty petty reasons, actually.  Also, both 
>skeptics and non-skeptics can fall into treating the other like savages to
>be preached to, converted.  I thought we were all supposed to have put that
>behind us?  At least in this forum, let's all be friends.  We're on the same
>side.

Thank you.  Some people are even both skeptic and pagan.  And why do we
insist on talking about "skeptics" as if "they" are some sort of
separate religion?  All skepticism is is not making up your mind until
you have a reason to do so.  Jeez, people.
 
>Skepticism isn't about threatening people's belief systems.  It's about testing
>your theories, trying to understand the universe more accurately, using common
>sense (and some uncommon sense), not being so gullible that liars can take all
>your money, not allowing your beliefs to bias or blind you.  It's not 
>antagonistic to magic, or mysticism, or wonder, or even mystery (in its place).
>It's only against lies and falsehoods, whether deliberate scams like "psychic
>hotlines" and "faith healers" or honest delusions (I won't give examples, to
>try to avoid offending a few people -- besides, I might be wrong about
>some of them!).  Not that delusions can't be productive (I'm quite happy
>with some of mine) but they can also be destructive.

And that's ALL someone with two brain cells to rub together wants -- to
get a clear picture of what goes on in the world.  "Skeptics" who proved
the xtian church wrong -- like Galileo -- we champion.  When these same
people question us, we have NO RIGHT to feel threatened.  

>Are you happy with the political situation these days?  Do you think things
>would be different if the average voter (And remember that half the voters
>are below average) had a clear conception of the difference between a billion
>and a trillion, or knew that newspaper horoscopes aren't for real?

No kidding.

>I'm not kidding.  I don't have a reference here, but a huge proportion of
>the population believes in newspaper astrology.  I seem to recall that it's
>something like 60%, but that's a wild guess -- please don't quote me.  (Does
>anyone have a reference on this statistic or one like it?)  Don't forget that
>this includes Ronald Reagan.
>
>Did you know that there are still people who don't know that the earth revolves
>around the sun, and that even more don't know how often?  Did you know that
>current AIDS education/treatment policies in the United States are tailored
>to appease a moral minority, and have been demonstrated in the past and in
>other countries to be mostly ineffective?  We KNOW how to do it better, but
>who listens to scientists?  And what do you think of George Bush's
>environmental policy?  
>(The answer to this question is "What environmental policy?") Remember
>that many major advances of scientific knowledge were violently opposed by
>closed-minded majorities, leading to the loss of many great minds and who
>knows what other insights into the workings of the universe?  
>
>The violent anti-science attitude expressed in some of the recent
>messages here (as well as in public opinion almost everywhere) is
>HURTING our society.  It's
>hurting our planet, it's hurting nature, and it's hurting US.
>
>I consider myself a pagan, because I love the beauty and mystery of Nature.
>I consider myself a skeptic, because I love the beauty and clarity of Truth,
>and because I want to protect both Nature and Truth from those who would
>destroy them through ignorance or malice or greed or fear.

Bravo, dear.  I am a pagan, and follow Wicca, and have BS degrees in
physics and astronomy as well as an MS in physics en route to a Ph. D.
and am now studying linguistics and plan to get a Ph. D. in *that.*
What the HELL is wrong with skepticism?  All it means is looking before
you leap.

There are far too many crackpots involved with this psychic stuff, and
good REAL scientists are scared off from looking into it because they
don't want to be identified with loonies, quite understandably.  Most
people where I am would say "Yeah, there's probably SOMETHING to this
psychic stuff," but try to find one that will investigate it.

You may say "Good, let them stay away," but then that brings on people
who have NO TRAINING in analytical thought and think they can devise
"experiments" that will "prove" things.  We NEED the training of the
scientist to decide if there is anything to this, and what that anything
is.  When you want something tested, you cannot do without the training
of the scientist, and we will not go where we are not understood, or
where people who read a copy of Scientific American a few years back
will consider their opinion on relativity on a par with ours, or among
people who think that "E=mc^2" is the sum total of Einstein's work, or
think that we travel in time when we go faster than light, or any
nonsense you choose.

We either get rid of the loonies and con artists and incompetants in the
psychic business or condemn it to amateurs, bunglers, and constantly
being laughed at.  *I* myself think that there is likely something to
it, but I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to investigate something that pops
up in the National Enquirer or late-night UHF advertisements.  

All a skeptic wants to do is find out what's REALLY going on,
independent of a frame of reference.  S/he wants to put the facts in a
framework that anyone WITH PROPER TRAINING can understand, regardless of
their religion, their culture, or whatever.  Face it, folks, E=mc^2 no
matter where you are or what god/dess(es) you pray to. 

We get taken seriously or we get laughed at.  Your choice.

Blessings,
Janis

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic