Does the Burden of Proof require a claimant to provide basic education on a topic?

[joe1776]

If the bar is being set in a reasonable way, then the height of the bar is set based on the standard needed to have a reasonable certainty that a claim is true.

You have assumed, without evidence, that the bar is set at a reasonable height. What if the paranormal researchers are correct that the bar is set unreasonably high for their research?

If someone - a paranormal "researcher", a pseudoscience practitioner, etc. - consistently fails to clear the bar, this is an issue with them and their evidence. It isn't a sign that the bar is too high.

OTOH, we know that the bar is too low if mutually exclusive claims clear it. For instance, if the conclusion "thing X was caused by an unknown paranormal phenomenon" clears the bar we're using but so does "thing X was caused by an unknown non-paranormal phenomenon," then we know that the paranormal aficionado's claim hasn't been demonstrated to any degree.

You have identified how the bar can be raised to a nearly impossible level when you say "thing X was caused by an unknown non-paranormal phenomenon." Critics aren't required to prove that an unknown non-paranormal source exists. They only need to suggest that it might be possible. That's a very low bar for criticism.

For example, the Ganzfeld studies over years became the auto-Ganzfeld when the entire study was run by computers. This eliminated the criticism of "sensory leakage." Critics imagined a mysterious phenomenon in which human testers, not cheating, but unintentionally leaked information to the participants of the study. When the computers eliminated sensory leakage as a possibility, the results of the auto-Ganzeld were criticized on the math employed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have assumed, without evidence, that the bar is set at a reasonable height.

Sounds like you missed the "if" at the start of my post.

What if the paranormal researchers are correct that the bar is set unreasonably high for their research?

Confirming where the bar should be placed is important.

You have identified how the bar can be raised to a nearly impossible level when you say "thing X was caused by an unknown non-paranormal phenomenon." Critics aren't required to prove that an unknown non-paranormal source exists. They only need to suggest that it might be possible. That's a very low bar for criticism.

But that is the bar. The conclusion that Thing X was caused by Cause A - paranormal or not - and not by anything else has not been established until you have an answer for every single question of the form "but why couldn't the cause be ____ instead?"... including things filling in the blank that nobody's thought of yet.

For example, the Ganzfeld studies over years became the auto-Ganzfeld when the entire study was run by computers. This eliminated the criticism of "sensory leakage." Critics imagined a mysterious phenomenon in which human testers, not cheating, but unintentionally leaked information to the participants of the study. When the computers eliminated sensory leakage as a possibility, the results of the auto-Ganzeld were criticized on the math employed.

Not familiar with it, sorry. And not really interested in getting into the weeds on it.

 

[joe1776]

Sounds like you missed the "if" at the start of my post.

I did overlook it. However, if we assume the bar for evidence of the paranormal is fairly set, there's nothing for us to discuss.

Confirming where the bar should be placed is important.

Right

But that is the bar. The conclusion that Thing X was caused by Cause A - paranormal or not - and not by anything else has not been established until you have an answer for every single question of the form "but why couldn't the cause be ____ instead?"... including things filling in the blank that nobody's thought of yet.

So, you're saying that it makes sense to you that a study demonstrating the actual existence of telepathy, a phenomenon for which we have tons of anecdotal evidence over the centuries, can be properly undermined by an imagined phenomenon that nobody has ever claimed before? Well, you are aligned with mainstream science on the paranormal. IMO, however, your bar for evidence to support your criticism is ridiculously low.

Not familiar with it, sorry. And not really interested in getting into the weeds on it.

Not a problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did overlook it. However, if we assume the bar for evidence of the paranormal is fairly set, there's nothing for us to discuss.

I think it's been generally set fairly in most of the criticism I've seen of paranormal claims.

So, you're saying that it makes sense to you that a study demonstrating the actual existence of telepathy, a phenomenon for which we have tons of anecdotal evidence over the centuries, can be properly undermined by an imagined phenomenon that nobody has ever claimed before? Well, you are aligned with modern science on the paranormal. IMO, however, your bar for evidence to support your criticism is ridiculously low.

This isn't about the paranormal or not. I've tried to make that clear. It's exactly the same in any sort of investigation.

If the fire marshall announces that a house burned down because of an accidental electrical fault, they should be able to answer questions like "how do you know it wasn't a gas leak?" or "how do you know it wasn't arson?" or "how do you know it wasn't some unknown issue you haven't considered?" If paranormal investigation wants to be taken seriously, it should be held to the same standards of rigor.

I certainly wouldn't use a lower bar if the fire marshal concluded that the fire was caused by telekinesis, for instance.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was reading an online discussion in another forum where a claim was made and someone asked for evidence to support the claim. The claimant believed that his claim was as obvious as a claim that "the sky is blue" and felt that asking for evidence for that was unreasonable. He felt that the person asking for evidence knew nothing about the topic and that he was being presumptuous by jumping into a debate and challenging claims regarding a topic he knew nothing about - as if he was requesting a basic 101 level essay.

I've seen similar discussions here on RF, where someone might request evidence, and a common retort might be "Google it" or "I'm not here to do your homework for you." One might also be accused of Sealioning in which someone repeatedly asks for evidence which has already been provided or makes arguments which have already been answered and refuted.

Can a request for evidence even be considered insulting? (I'm thinking of times when the Walmart greeter asks to see my receipt upon leaving the store, essentially asking me to prove that I paid for the items I have with me. Some people might be offended by that, viewing it as an implied accusation of theft, while others might be annoyed by the delay itself.)

Can some requests for evidence be made disingenuously? That is, someone might make an odd or extraordinary claim, and someone asks for evidence, knowing full well that not a shred of evidence exists to support the odd claim?

On that note, it is often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but how does one differentiate between an "extraordinary" claim and an ordinary claim?

It depends upon....
- Is the claim in dispute?
- Is the claim based upon info arcane or generally known?
- Is evidence for the claim hard to find?
- Is the claim clear enuf that another poster could search for it efficiently?

 

[joe1776]

I think it's been generally set fairly in most of the criticism I've seen of paranormal claims.

The debate with regard to the Ganzfeld studies went on for years. They are commonly the center focus on the debate between two sides of this issue. If you are familiar the science on paranormal claims. how is it you are unaware of Ganzfeld?

This isn't about the paranormal or not. I've tried to make that clear. It's exactly the same in any sort of investigation.

I understand the point you are making, but your point is not relevant. If paranormal studies were treated like all other science, the Rhine studies at Duke would have demonstrated ESP 70 years ago. Instead, the results were criticized for six years. When those criticisms on results were laid to rest, the math was criticized. Duke now funds medical research.
.

 

[McBell]

If paranormal studies were treated like all other science, the Rhine studies at Duke would have demonstrated ESP 70 years ago.

Source?

 

[joe1776]

Source?

The Duke Parapsychology Laboratory, led by J.B. Rhine, conducted extensive research on Extra Sensory Perception (ESP) using Zener cards. The Zener cards are a deck of 25 cards, featuring five symbols: a hollow circle, a plus sign, three vertical wavy lines, a hollow square, and a hollow five-pointed star. In ESP tests, the experimenter picks a card, observes the symbol, and records the answer of the person being tested, who attempts to guess which symbol is on the card.

The laboratory’s research focused on testing students, residents, faculty members, and animals to study ESP. The Zener cards were used to quantify psychic ability and were found to be an effective tool for testing ESP. In 1931, J.B. Rhine conducted 10,000 ESP tests with 63 students, many of whom scored better than chance.

One notable subject was Adam Linzmayer, an economics undergraduate at Duke, who scored highly in preliminary Zener card tests. The research was supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, Alfred P. Sloan, and the military, and even the CIA purchased ESP cards from J.B. Rhine. The Parapsychology Laboratory at Duke was established in 1930 and continued to study ESP and other paranormal phenomena for decades.

 

[Nakosis]

I was reading an online discussion in another forum where a claim was made and someone asked for evidence to support the claim. The claimant believed that his claim was as obvious as a claim that "the sky is blue" and felt that asking for evidence for that was unreasonable. He felt that the person asking for evidence knew nothing about the topic and that he was being presumptuous by jumping into a debate and challenging claims regarding a topic he knew nothing about - as if he was requesting a basic 101 level essay.

I've seen similar discussions here on RF, where someone might request evidence, and a common retort might be "Google it" or "I'm not here to do your homework for you." One might also be accused of Sealioning in which someone repeatedly asks for evidence which has already been provided or makes arguments which have already been answered and refuted.

Can a request for evidence even be considered insulting? (I'm thinking of times when the Walmart greeter asks to see my receipt upon leaving the store, essentially asking me to prove that I paid for the items I have with me. Some people might be offended by that, viewing it as an implied accusation of theft, while others might be annoyed by the delay itself.)

Can some requests for evidence be made disingenuously? That is, someone might make an odd or extraordinary claim, and someone asks for evidence, knowing full well that not a shred of evidence exists to support the odd claim?

On that note, it is often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but how does one differentiate between an "extraordinary" claim and an ordinary claim?

I think it fair to provide a resource for their education but you can't do their homework for them.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was reading an online discussion in another forum where a claim was made and someone asked for evidence to support the claim. The claimant believed that his claim was as obvious as a claim that "the sky is blue" and felt that asking for evidence for that was unreasonable. He felt that the person asking for evidence knew nothing about the topic and that he was being presumptuous by jumping into a debate and challenging claims regarding a topic he knew nothing about - as if he was requesting a basic 101 level essay.

I've seen similar discussions here on RF, where someone might request evidence, and a common retort might be "Google it" or "I'm not here to do your homework for you." One might also be accused of Sealioning in which someone repeatedly asks for evidence which has already been provided or makes arguments which have already been answered and refuted.

Can a request for evidence even be considered insulting? (I'm thinking of times when the Walmart greeter asks to see my receipt upon leaving the store, essentially asking me to prove that I paid for the items I have with me. Some people might be offended by that, viewing it as an implied accusation of theft, while others might be annoyed by the delay itself.)

Can some requests for evidence be made disingenuously? That is, someone might make an odd or extraordinary claim, and someone asks for evidence, knowing full well that not a shred of evidence exists to support the odd claim?

On that note, it is often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but how does one differentiate between an "extraordinary" claim and an ordinary claim?

To me it comes down to perceived intent, as imperfect as that is.
If I think someone is asking for evidence out of genuine interest and curiousity on a topic, I'm generally happy to go the extra mile.

If someone is disputing simple facts as a way to sidetrack a discussion, then I'm likely to be quite short with them, at least by my standards.

And many people fall between the two poles and it becomes a judgement call. Realising my judgement is imperfect, I try to give the benefit of the doubt unless there is a pattern of disingenuous behaviour.

 

[McBell]

The Duke Parapsychology Laboratory, led by J.B. Rhine, conducted extensive research on Extra Sensory Perception (ESP) using Zener cards. The Zener cards are a deck of 25 cards, featuring five symbols: a hollow circle, a plus sign, three vertical wavy lines, a hollow square, and a hollow five-pointed star. In ESP tests, the experimenter picks a card, observes the symbol, and records the answer of the person being tested, who attempts to guess which symbol is on the card.

The laboratory’s research focused on testing students, residents, faculty members, and animals to study ESP. The Zener cards were used to quantify psychic ability and were found to be an effective tool for testing ESP. In 1931, J.B. Rhine conducted 10,000 ESP tests with 63 students, many of whom scored better than chance.

One notable subject was Adam Linzmayer, an economics undergraduate at Duke, who scored highly in preliminary Zener card tests. The research was supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, Alfred P. Sloan, and the military, and even the CIA purchased ESP cards from J.B. Rhine. The Parapsychology Laboratory at Duke was established in 1930 and continued to study ESP and other paranormal phenomena for decades.

Source?
I ask because I can not find this above quote anywhere

 

[joe1776]

Source?
I ask because I can not find this above quote anywhere

I used the AI incorporated into the Brave browser.

 

[McBell]

I used the AI incorporated into the Brave browser.

So you have not as yet presented a source?
Why is that?

 

[joe1776]

So you have not as yet presented a source?
Why is that?

I'm not in the mood for games tonight. Have a good evening.

 

[McBell]

I'm not in the mood for games tonight. Have a good evening.

So you are telling me that you are completely unable to find a single link to the study at all?

I want to know more than some basic generic summary of the whole project.
I want to look at the raw data.

yet all you can offer is an artificial intelligence giving a summary?

And you say that "I" am the one playing games?

 

[Stevicus]

Source?
I ask because I can not find this above quote anywhere

I found a couple of links:

How One Man Used a Deck of Cards to Make Parapsychology a Science

Dr. Joseph Rhine believed that psychic powers could be studied—and that he had the tools to do it.

www.atlasobscura.com

https://www.jstor.org/stable/230921

OUR DUKE: Constructing A Century

This exhibit is a collection of over 100 objects shown over two semesters, aiming to present a mosaic of moments from the past century of Duke. On exhibit January 8 - December 15, 2024 at Duke University Libraries

exhibits.library.duke.edu

I knew nothing about this, although I was a bit curious. I remember a brief interest in ESP back in the 70s (seemed kind of like a fad at the time).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The debate with regard to the Ganzfeld studies went on for years. They are commonly the center focus on the debate between two sides of this issue. If you are familiar the science on paranormal claims. how is it you are unaware of Ganzfeld?

I know about the original Ganzfeld experiments. I'm not familiar with any new version that solved all the fatal problems with the original versions.

How did they solve the problem of how to rationally make the leap from "a statistically significant deviation from random chance occurred" to "the reason for this deviation must be telepathy"?

I understand the point you are making, but your point is not relevant.

Of course it is. You aren't asking for equal treatment; you're asking for a special, lower bar for causes you feel personally invested in.

If paranormal studies were treated like all other science, the Rhine studies at Duke would have demonstrated ESP 70 years ago. Instead, the results were criticized for six years. When those criticisms on results were laid to rest, the math was criticized. Duke now funds medical research.

I'm sure it's all true.

Again: I don't want to get into the weeds with whatever particular axe you're trying to grind.

 

[joe1776]

I know about the original Ganzfeld experiments. I'm not familiar with any new version that solved all the fatal problems with the original versions.

How did they solve the problem of how to rationally make the leap from "a statistically significant deviation from random chance occurred" to "the reason for this deviation must be telepathy"?

I can't give you a short answer to your question, but you can browse here:
Ganzfeld

Of course it is. You aren't asking for equal treatment; you're asking for a special, lower bar for causes you feel personally invested in.

I know the truth from personal experience (anecdotal evidence to others). My interest is curiosity. The treatment of the topic by mainstream science is enlightening.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think if a person makes a personal judgment, like why Trump would be a better president than Biden, then there's an obligation to present evidence that supports this conclusion.

But if it's something like a creationist asking for evidence of evolution then it's a flaw of the creationist for not doing their homework on the issue being discussed. In my experience creationists are presented with massive amounts of credible sources but they end up rejecting them anyway.

As long as you understand that there is no evidence for a physical reality as all of the human world, then okay.
Science is not about all of the world, but only a part of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't give you a short answer to your question, but you can browse here:
Ganzfeld

I wasn't able to find an answer to my question there (though I did find lots of reference to procedural problems and potential deliberate manipulation). Care to grab the quote from that article that you had in mind when you posted the link?

I know the truth from personal experience (anecdotal evidence to others). My interest is curiosity. The treatment of the topic by mainstream science is enlightening.

I've lost count of the number of things that I've seen people deeply, sincerely believe in based on personal experience but that don't hold up to rigorous inquiry.

I get how a lack of validation can be upsetting, but the problem is not with the rigor.