From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Faith and Skeptics, Part 2 (was: Re: Re: Faith and skeptics.)
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:55:35 GMT

>[..] There is
>correspondingly no EVIDENCE that abjectly, totally, absolutely,
>incontravertibly, categorically DISPROVES these phenomena.

We know that too.  It's because most of them are constructed so that
such evidence is logically impossible.  (Please prove that there are
no alien visitors on earth.  Ha ha.)  That's exactly why the burden of
proof is on those who make the claims.  ("Please prove there are alien
visitors on earth!" makes much more sense).

>For each
>such case which is proved fraudulent, there exist hundreds, thousands
>of accounts which have not been so proved.

So you want that as long as there are cases of, say, UFO sightings
(I feel I should add "that have not been explained plausibly yet",
but of course that's implicit in the word UFO.  I like that word less
every time I use it, it only makes everything more difficult), we should
not say "I don't believe there are aliens around" but "I don't know
if there are aliens around".  Of course, even if there are no aliens,
there will always be UFO sightings, and you will never have a clue with
your strategy.  That's the drawback: You avoid being wrong, but you also
avoid being right.

I'll take an example from physics: Proton decay.  For several years,
theoretical physicists have been suspecting that the photon, hitherto
regarded as stable, may decay with an extremely large time constant.
Experiments are made where large quantities of water (hydrogen nucleus
= proton) are observed, and no proton decay has been found.  So the
half-life must be above a certain value, and with more experiments this
border increases more and more, until... yes, until what?  If a decay
event is found, it's decided, If not, it will go on forever, or until
a practical limit is reached, or until the theory that says that protons
decay is not any longer supported by other facts.

So I may say "I don't know whether the proton is stable, but it's QUITE
close to stable" as long as the search is on, and I can also say
"I think the proton is stable.  In case they find anything, I will change
my opinion."  That's accepting the null hypothesis (zero decay) until
it's disproved.  The third possibility, "I believe the proton is unstable,"
may be chosen if you like the underlying theory.  It's the believer
position.  I don't know much about particle physics, so I don't know which
is the more sensible position.

Now, there is a theoretical reason why one should search for proton decay,
but there is no such thing for psi or ouija boards.  Proponents of fringe
sciences normally don't have any evidence (Radin and Nelson and their
colleagues may not come under "normally"; at least they try to find it),
and we have a similar situation, only without a theory backing up the
not-null hypothesis.  So I think the sensible position here is accepting
the null hypothesis (zero psi, zero ghosts, zero aliens) until it's
disproved.  Waiting until every charlatan has been caught before being
able to say "I think there is no such thing as ghost healing" is
ridiculous since it will never happen.  Burden of proof is on the side
that claims there are aliens.

On the other side, when you look at a *single* case of *psi*, the skeptics
are the ones that have to prove their point.  They have to prove that the
subject in question is cheating (or whatever), for it's difficult if
not impossible to prove the opposite.  Here the null hypothesis is
"no cheating, no statistical error, no known psychological effect(...)".
As long as the skeptics find nothing, we could say:  "I don't know
whether this is genuine", or "I believe this is a fraud", or, clinging
to the null hypothesis, "I think this is genuine.  In case it's
disproved, I'll change my opinion."

This changes the global situation in the paragraph before (for psi only,
not for UFOs).  When proving psi in a single case is impossible, it's
impossible in the whole too.  You have to substitute "prove" by
"substantiate".  This weakens the anti-psi position, and it's not so
clear-cut as in other cases.  Anyway, I think it's still the best position:
"I don't believe in psi until there is convincing evidence."
Of course we have a subjective element now...

So we have a global and a local situation with three possible opinions
each, and we can combine them.


|  Loc->|Null hyp.	|Dunno		|Believer
V Glob	|(psi)		|		|(no psi)
--------+---------------+---------------+--------------
Null h. |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX|I don't believe|I don't believe
(no psi)| Contradiction	|in psi, but	|in psi, and
	|XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX|this may be it	|this stinks
--------+---------------+---------------+--------------
Dunno	|XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX|I have no clue	|This stinks
	| Contradiction	|		|but psi may
	|XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX|		|exist
--------+---------------+---------------+--------------
Believer|This is the	|This may be	|This stinks
(psi)	|real thing	|the real thing	|but the real
	|		|		|thing exists
--------+---------------+---------------+--------------

>As the conditions of each
>case may vary and are generally not well known, it is not sufficient to
>use the few cases of negative results to scientifically refute all claims.

And it's not necessary, since scientifically refuting all claims is
impossible.

>While currently accepted science may presently provide no mechanism to 
>explain or even observe many of these phenomena, that doesn't rule out
>the possibility of it doing so sometime in the future. It is only 
>pseudoscience before it becomes science (or is soundly scientifically
>refuted).

See above:  Most pseudosciences cannot be refuted in principle.
And I see no reason to believe that a pseudoscience that has neither a
logical underlying theory nor convincing evidence is true.
Skeptics admit they may be wrong, but they don't believe they are.

>Thus to hold the skeptical belief that such phenomena have some 
>explanation using currently accepted science or is otherwise fraudulent, 
>WITHOUT any EVIDENCE to support this, is to rely on FAITH in this necessarily

See above: evidence not necessary for skeptical view.  Besides, there
are *loads* of evidence for currently accepted science.

>incomplete current scientific world view. I further claim that this 
>faith must prejudice ones critical thought, providing an element of
>irrationality.

In alt.astrology skeptics are scolded for being *too rational*.

>Skepticism based on direct knowledge and/or experience is useful. If some
>report defies what I know or have experienced to be otherwise, then I am 
>skeptical. However, I freely admit to large chasms in my direct 
>knowledge and experiences. So, if I were confronted with some report
>which referred to an area of which I have no sound knowledge or experience,
>then I can only bear it in mind for future investigation, rather than
>simply dismiss it based on some belief in a contrary world view.

A slight hint of hypothesis 4b)?
  b) He doesn't know anything about the subject.

>I have a scientific curiosity, not an unwavering faith in my beliefs.
>
>Mark.
>
>PS. I have some crystals with enormous healing potential available. Just
>contact me for some very reasonable prices. But Hurry! Its only while
>stocks last.

No thanks, I don't need them as long as I wear those magnetic earrings...

You are one of the most enjoyable interlocutors I had up to now in this
group.

--
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
...and then the dragon ate the princess and the knight, and he lived happily
ever after.   -- Grandma Addams telling Wednesday a story (paraphrased)