Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.pagan
Date: Mon,  6 Apr 1992 19:14:49 -0400 
From: "Daniel S. Efran" <de0t+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: "experiments"
	<1992Apr6.043358.19095@cs.tulane.edu>

Tim Maroney quotes and responds:
>In article <krikket.03na@meltdown.chi.il.us> krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us
>(Doug Krick) writes:
>>Okay...  Generally, there is one test I use.  It does NOT work 100% of the
>>time though, and I'll be the first one to admit it.  I HAVE had about a 75%
>>success rate though.  Great trick for convincing skeptics.
>>
>>Blindfold the skeptic, and sit them down in a chair.  The reason for this is
>>to prevent any suggestions being planted in his/her brain.
>>I also suggest that you have a third party watching over the situation.
>>
>>#1>  Conjure up a nice big energy ball.  (Silently please!)  Ask the skeptic
>>to hold out one hand.  Place the energy ball around that hand, WITHOUT
>>touching the person!  After a minute or two, remove the energy ball,
>>blindfold, etc, and ask the person to describe what, if anything, they felt.
>>
>>Admittantly, this is not the best of experiments, because you are
pointing out
>>what part of the body they will feel something at.  Even if you don't tell
>>them what they will feel.  Also, because the two people get fairly close in
>>that experiment, there has been some protests (off the net) that the
>>experiment isn't valid because the person's body heat and/or "bio-electrical
>>chemicial field" will interact with the skeptic's BECF.
> 
>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.
>
>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.

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.  If you want to impress your friends or make converts, by all
means do the "experiments" presented here.  They will probably be
impressive, if you're lucky, because most people don't fully comprehend
probability.  I don't know if magic works, but I do know that those
experiments don't need to use it. You can get "impressive" results using
just chance and normal human perception. This is how those "Psychic
Hotlines" make a fortune:  They tell people what they want to hear, with
no regard for truth, charge outrageous amounts of money (many pagans I
know find that offensive by itself)....
In short, they lie, cheat, and steal.  They prey on the credulous like
con artists throughout history.  Is there anyone here who doesn't find
that offensive, immoral?

THAT is what the skeptics are fighting.  Not you.  

Doug Krick:
>[...] Great trick for convincing skeptics.

Guess who:
>Why should we care what sceptics think?  Are you trying to prove that magic
>is valid, Tim?  Why?  (When it was proven that porpoises are intelligent, the
>US military promptly used them in warfare.  I don't want the military to think
>that magic works!)  Many people I know don't believe in magic--that
doesn't >stop
>us from building good relationships.  Let the sceptics think what they will!
> 
>              Merry meet, merry part, merry meet again,
>                               Br'anArthur
> 
>Wicca is a Green and Fuzzy Religion
>               --Pug and Bran

John Wirta:
>I just wanted to post this because I think some of y'all are missing the point
>of having experiments to prove to sceptics that magick and psychic phenomena
>_do_ exist.  The point is not to satisfy and give meaning to your own beliefs,
>It is the opportunity to show the skeptic a new way of thought.

>To simply allow skeptics to just _not_ experience any other way of thinking
>is choosing to limit _their_ potential.  Whether they believe you or not, is
>not important. [...]
>  They may not realize what you have shown them as anything valid until
>years later, or they may never realize 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.  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.

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.

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?

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.

	---Daniel Efran
----------------------------------
An it harm none, do as you Will.
Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.