Are Psi skeptics today different than skeptics of past eras?

Question

In the 16th century, scientists believed that the earth was the center of the universe and all heavenly bodies rotated around the earth. In the 19th century, scientists could not see germs and did not accurately understand how diseases were contracted or spread. Darwin's theories are still being questioned after years of observation and information gathering. Since the 20th century, many new particles have been discovered or predicted.

How is the current skeptical perspective on Psi phenomenon different than the perspectives of scientist of past eras? I see strong similarities when I see arguments like:

- We have never observed a mechanism for this to occur.

- This has never been observed in a controlled environment.

- I'll pay you a large reward if you are able to prove it to me.

- Parapsychology is psuedo-science.

Is this perspective any different than that of the blood letting physicians of the 19th century or anti-evolution zealots?

I am truly curious.

Answer 1

There have always been people with lesser and greater imagination.   Most people are comfortable sticking with the ideas which they have been taught.  But in every age there were those who saw other possibilities.   It is those few who have been responsible for the advances in scientific knowledge.  

Skepticism is not necessarily a bad thing. But taking the position that something is impossible or ridiculous  even when one does not know much about the subject is not intelligent skepticism.  It is simply closed mindedness.

Tunsa, re: skepticism concerning energy healing, herbalism, acupuncture, chiropractic, etc,   I think there is more involved there than just pre-conceived ideas.   We have a system of medicine that is very well established as mainstream, and  it employs a lot of people and pays them well.   There are economic reasons for restricting insurance and government payments for health care to allopathic medicine, creating a virtual monopoly.   It is in the financial interest of some to ridicule or call fraudulent any other approaches to healing.

Answer 2

Genuine skepticism, as in maintaining doubt, is an important component of critical thinking, so science and skepticism go hand-in-hand. But skepticism as in disbelieving, which describes much of the so-called skepticism one reads in skeptical magazines, is not critical thinking. It's more about maintaining an ideological position.

Skeptical complaints about psi have been systematically addressed over the decades, and virtually all have been answered. The one that many skeptics continue to cite, despite substantial meta-analytical evidence to the contrary, is that replication is difficult or impossible. And yet, it is well known (to those familiar with the relevant literature) that every meta-analysis of the major experimental classes of psi phenomena, whether conducted by proponent or skeptic, shows beyond-chance results.

It is also known that the effect sizes observed in psi studies are, in many cases, much larger than those observed in medical research. And yet medical studies are often accepted without question, and psi studies are not. This reflects worldview differences, and not experimental or statistical or methodological differences. I.e., skepticism is maintained because there are no satisfying theoretical explanations, not because the evidence isn't sufficient.

So are psi skeptics different today than in the past? Yes, in that there is far more information available today, and so skeptics (who do their homework) can no longer dismiss the evidence with glib answers like "it violates the laws of the universe," "methodological inadequacy," or "lack of replication." All of these points have been repeatedly addressed, and all have viable answers.

While there will continue to be debates, the nature of the debate has dramatically changed over the last few decades, so there is reason to believe that one day psi will be taken for granted, just like the germ theory of disease. All new ideas take time to become accepted, and as Max Planck once quipped (paraphrased), "Science advances by funerals."

Answer 3

This is an interesting question.

In fairness I have to say that professional skeptics still question non materialistic findings (not just psi) like quantum mechanics and superstring (also called M) theory. It doesn't matter that they have experimentally confirmed evidence that supports some (though not all) of the theories that meet the standards of every other scientific field of study (just like psi).

So basically (it seems to me) anything after Isaac Newton is a psuedoscience  if you apply the rules of materialism psuedoskeptics to it.

For example no one has ever been able to provide even a simple 10 minute demonstration that time and space are not separate (Einstein was an obvious nut job). If it is real why can't someone show me to my own satisfaction and understanding? Of course don't ask me to apply the rules of science, statistical evaluations, or anything else in order to convince me just show me definite proof (never mind science only deals with evidence) in a 10 minute demonstration. No I don't expect this from every science just the ones I choose not to believe.

Yes, it is a different perspective than physicians, astronomers, and biologist of the past because when those people were presented with evidence that met the criteria of science they as a group eventually changed their beliefs to incorporate the new information (some more willingly than others).

On the other hand it is not different than fundamental religious zealots then or now that refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts their personal faith be that faith in a God or that everything can be explained by Newton's formulation of physics.

This is why intelligent design (creationism) is being pushed to be taught in schools. (there is no proof that evolution is true and it has never been conclusively demonstrated on humans in front of me with a simple 10 minute demonstration). Just give me one monkey that evolves into a human before he walks off stage in a controlled scientific experiment and I will admit that evolution is true. The fact that it can be demonstrated on lower life forms means nothing because God did not give them souls.

Below are links to psi observed in controlled environments that meet all the standards (both methodological and statistical significance) for every field of science as well links that take a skeptical look at the skeptics and their arguments.

Psiexploration

Answer 4

Yes, it is different.  Because evolution has been proved to happen, many, many times.  There is copious evidence for it.  However, there is no evidence for psi powers.  If you have some, we'd be happy to test it, but so far no one has provided any evidence.

We have never seen a mechanism for this - very true.  Has never been observed in a controlled environment - that basically means when we make it impossible for them to be cheating; true again.  Pay you a large reward - technically, that's James Randi, not the scientific community.  We'd be happy to see it for free too.  Parapsycology as a pseudoscience - until they come up with a result, yes it is.

Also, I should point out that people have been claiming to have psi powers for thousands of years.  You'd think if there were actually something to it it would have been observed and accepted by now.  Nothing else that turned out to be true ever took nearly as long once someone came up with some proof.

Answer 5

I think all your example shows is that the scientific method keeps asking questions, even of established "dogma" and the truth eventually rises.  Humans are biased, selfish, venal and untrustworthy, but science is none of those

I think the main difference today is that skepticism is more organized.  The same way the internet has allowed every nutjob with a crackpot idea to connect with others with similar delusions, it has allowed the rational among us to connect as well.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel everytime we run across some new (to us) claim.  I can quickly look up the claims, the evidence and be able to make an educated deduction about it validity .  Most of the paranormal and alternative health ideas have been around for years...just recycled, repackaged, renamed...a new dress and a fresh coat of lipstick.  The themes of secret knowledge, the anti-science, anti-intellectual posing, the grandiose claims, the dubious evidence, the paranoia and persecution complex, the 'unsung genius working in obscurity' myth...it gets repetitive, boring, and frankly quite sad.

We have numerous resources to counter the pseudoscience and delusional belief systems that trap people.  James Randi, Michael Shermer, The MythBusters,  Penn&Teller's Bullshit! have brought skepticism and critical thinking to a new and younger audience, and in entertaining ways.  People no longer have to accept things at face value when something sounds too good to be true.  You can just Google it and find out for yourself.

Lastly, science doesn't have a vested interest in whether psi is real.  It doesn't really care.  If there is a phenomena, then it should be testable, and if there isnt'...then that will become clear.  We aren't out to prove or disprove psi.....just to find out the truth.

I just got back from The Amaz!ng Meeting 6...almost 1000 skeptics descending on Las Vegas... and was in the audience for a new world record of "magic" spoon bending.  ooooo spooky psychic powers....or maybe its just a trick.

http://www.spoonscience.com/

Answer 6

Let me preface this by saying I hope it comes off as friendly debate, as opposed to confrontational.  That is sometimes hard to do with the writen word when presenting a polar opposite viewpoint.  

I have spent a not inconsiderable amount of time reading the entire question and everyones responses.  It is obvious that people have put a lot of thought into their responses, which makes for the more interesting kind of questions posted on this site.

As for the question itself, it is a logical fallacy to point to problems science has had in the past and say, "If they were wrong there, they are probably wrong here."  While I don't believe you sent out to do that, casual readers could easily take that as your point.  Science, in actuality, has an amazingly good track record over the long run.  As it has been said, science is self correcting, and the truth will come out in the end, either by funerals or conclusive evidence.  I do not believe any real conclusive evidence has been produced.  Some will tell you that a 10-15% over chance positive result in the zener card experiment is conclusive evidence of psi phenomena, but that in itself is not science.  For it to be science, you would have to explain why it only works such a small percentage of the time.  A relevant analogy would be that of scientists measuring solar neutrinos.  When they originally devised a way to measure neutrinos emitted by the sun, they found much less than they had predicted.  However, instead of stopping there and saying the sun only produces 1/3 of the neutrinos the standard model would indicate, as psi researchers seem to have done in their field, the scientists delved further into the problem to explain why.  This is the heart of actual science.  In going further they discovered that neutrinos actually change into different types that wouldn't be detected by the current detectors here on earth, thus advancing scientific thought.  For reasons I won't speculate on, psi researchers seem unwilling or unable to make this final conclusive step.

Answer 7

I'm sure most skeptics are not as cruel as some used to be. However...that blood letting thing...have you noticed how many kids these days try to cure their problems by "cutting"?

Answer 8

Tunsa, my response is that in science not only should we be skeptical of bad hypotheses, we should be skeptical of good ones too. In fact, we should never cease being skeptical in any scientific investigation in any topic. The scientific method itself cannot proceed without skepticism. (NB: skepticism isn't the refusal to believe, it is the request for evidence - see 1st link).

Regarding psi in particular, it is rather unique as a "science" in the respect that a many-decades long massive effort has only produced results that have never risen above controversy, and more importantly, do not seem to be reproducible.  I know you are convinced, but that is little reason to expect scientists in general to be convinced. I'm a scientist, I know the research, and I'm certainly not convinced. I'm certainly not alone here.There is good reason to be skeptical of the reported results.

That being said, science always sorts itself out. It's self-correcting and eventually finds its way, so it's really not important whether today scientists in general accept the reported psi results or not. Psi will eventually fall by the wayside as "phlogiston" did or it will eventually be confirmed, regardless. As science marches on uncertainties will be overcome and what is real will become clearer. But the only way psi can be confirmed as real, if indeed it is, is by maintaining the skeptical approach that is at the heart of science itself.

I do have to address something truly bizarre mentioned by another answerer, something about everything after Newton being "pseudoscience" according to skeptics. I assume this quip was merely a rant posted out of anger and not a serious claim, as it would be truly silly. No psi skeptic I know of questions the enormous success of quantum theory. This answerer would certainly be in a unique fantasy land with such an amusing belief if he was serious!

Edit: Regarding another answer, meta-analysis is a poor means of establishing a theory and fraught with pitfalls. Emeritus professor of physics Victor Stenger calls meta-analysis in parapsychology "a dubious procedure ... in which the statistically insignificant results of many experiments are combined as if they were a single, controlled experiment". While some believers may be satisfied with one particular person's interpretation of this meta-data, it is disingenuous and dismissive to imply that this meta-data is so clear as to make it unreasonable to find fault with the meta-analysis. In fact, just the opposite is true (see Ray Hyman). It is also noteworthy that nowhere in the physical sciences is meta-analysis used to substantiate a theory, for good reason. In contrast, parapsychology is unique in this regard in that it seems to be entirely dependent on it.

http://skepdic.com/metaanalysis.html

Answer 9

Skeptics these days tend to be homosexual and less educated. There seems to be a correlation there.

Often you will find them using forums such as these to boost their egos to make up for their lack of manhood.

Answer 10

Of course the critics of psi are different from the critics of geocentrism, germ theory, etc.  If anything, skeptics of psi have more in common with those who pioneered those areas.  Lest you forget, germ theory and heliocentrism were conclusions drawn from empirical evidence and in contradiction of magical and dogmatic explanations.  Psi on the other hand is a magical explanation in search of evidence to support it.  In other words, psi has a lot of science to do before it becomes the next scientific frontier.  I look forward to any evidence, study, etc. that sheds light on this perceived phenomenon.

EDIT:

"Acupuncture, herbal treatments, chiropractors, and even theraputic massage are becoming more accepted but the benefits are still denied by many doctors."

This statement is inaccurate.  Acupuncture and chiropractic have been shown *repeatedly* to have no positive effect beyond the placebo.  In other words, no objective benefit to the symptoms being treated.  The only time acupuncture has a positive effect is when elecricity is added.  In other words, it only works when it ceases to be acupuncture.  The only time chiropractic is effective is when it incorporates elements of physical therapy.  In other words, it only works when it ceases to be chiropractic.

Herbal supplements as a whole have also failed to show any significant benefits.  Granted, some can be more beneficial than others, but due to the fact such supplements are unregulated, dose and potency is inconsistence from one product to the next.  If an herb has beneficial properties it is better to synthesize the active ingredient so dosage can be regulated.  Many of today's drugs have come to us through such a process.