Paranormal Powers :: Richard Wiseman on the Psychology of Magic (reply)

[admin]

Mr. GreenTea wrote at 05 Oct 2010 03:30 AM GMT: I'm willing to listen to a source I'm at philosophical odds with, if there is information to be gained. There were, as you stated, interesting ideas to be gleaned from the videos. It also illustrates that "professional debunkers" are just as susceptible to illogical thinking as those they attack.

One of the unintentional results of watching this video is coming to the personal conclusion that belief and non-belief is not an either/or proposition, but rather a sliding scale. Things are believed and not believed based on mechanisms understood and not understood; based on what works, or doesn't work, what produces results and what does not.

Empirical evidence and to a lesser extent anecdotal (2nd and 3rd party testimony) bring greater results than attempting to prove something works or doesn't work through logical argument. It hardly matters if science (or a scientist) says it "can't work" if in fact the science is being bypassed, and especially at a subjective level. This may be entirely placebo, but so what? Since whatever it is, whatever misunderstood or unknown mechanism is at work, the point is that it does work. So instead of listing all the reasons why it can't or shouldn't work, look for the reasons why it does, which is where James Randi and Quackwatch drop the ball.

From my perspective, certain lines of inquiry will produce no results. They are dead ends because the technology (or ability) simply do not exist. Notable example: Communicating with the occupants of UFO's. The first thing needed would be an actual UFO, preferably a manned unit from outer space. This is in contrast to an unmanned probe, or a pre-programmed drone. It also precludes manned craft from semi-secret or completely secret military bases, and experimental craft of various various origin. This narrows down the field, but at the same time informs you of how big the field really is. The assumption that all UFO's are of extraterrestrial origin, and furthermore are manned craft starts the effort of communication off on the wrong foot.

It is at that point that almost anything can be claimed for example, since there is no way to prove or disprove what transpired in the communications attempt. If a location where known UFO activity takes place, and UFO's make an appearance, there is no way to ascertain what kind of UFO it is. Making an assumption that whatever craft shows up is manned, once can claim "contact" and because the event includes not understood technology, more not understood technology can be introduced to present the desired result fait accompli. In this scenario the desired result is the "street cred" of Telepathic Contact with UFO occupants. This paves the way to make all sorts of unprovable statements, or at least statements the origin of which cannot be verified.

This leads to the creation of organizations like Bashar.org. It is interesting that the telepathic contact is never questioned. It is assumed that the capability exists, yet it is only possible as something that is initiated from the other end. In none of these scenarios do the recipients attempt telepathic contact with each other for example. Darryl Anka details that he "studied" all that he could about UFO's but the content of the study material is omitted. He issues a disclaimer that he was not necessarily contacted by a UFO occupant, but at the same time this is downplayed.

A combination of people's desire to believe that Darryl Anka was contacted by a UFO occupant overrides many people's natural skepticism. But not everyone's. As Phil Plait points out, belief [or faith] is stronger than common sense, natural skepticism, and of course critical thinking.

+--->[A] The whole body of technique can be used either way
|
To fork here for a moment, there are two parallel lines of thought +
|
+--->[B] It's moot. Most people refuse to think for themselves anyway.

that fork looked a lot better the first time I edited it. Oh well

To sum, people will cling to their belief systems regardless of proof to the contrary, if that proof destroys their belief system. While this proclivity mostly is an issue for fixed-thought type people, everyone is susceptible to it. This is illustrated in the thread Belief Change. Difficult? I do not see this trend (?) changing in any significant manner for the foreseeable future, however that too may be just another belief
_________________
Quotes ≠ Knowledge.
Doing brings Knowledge!
Right ≠ number of believers.
Results show Rightness or Wrongness.
Quoting others ≠ being right even if they are!
---------------------------------------------
[img:b2b877e175]http://www.friesian.com/images/trigram8.gif[/img:b2b877e175][img:b2b877e175]http://www.danmirahorian.ro/gif%20fold.gif[/img:b2b877e175][img:b2b877e175]http://www.friesian.com/images/trigram8.gif[/img:b2b877e175]
---------------------------------------------

More...