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

[joe1776]

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 tbat you had in mind when you posted the link?

There's no single quote that will answer your question. Ray Hyman, for the opposition and Charles Honorton the proponent spent several years of their lives debating problems, both real and imagined, and potential solutions.

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 csn be upsetting, but the problem is not with the rigor.

Your comment is condescending. It assumes that all, like me, who report paranormal experiences are either hoaxers or too dull-witted to intelligently examine their own experience -- because you've never had one.

 

[F1fan]

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).

Dr. Venkman having his grant revoked was completely unwarranted, in my opinion as a superficial male sympathetic to his methods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's no single quote that will answer your question. Ray Hyman, for the opposition and Charles Honorton the proponent spent several years of their lives debating problems, both real and imagined, and potential solutions.

So you can't point to any potential answer to this problem?

Say that a Ganzfeld-style experiment was conducted where all the procedural problems were addressed, the researchers did everything perfectly, and the data showed a prediction accuracy better than random chance to a statistically significant degree. Say the experiment was even replicated a few times. What then?

The direct implication of this result is that something is going on that is not directly measured or controlled for in the experimental design. How do you justify the further conclusion that this something is a psychic ability of a study participant?

I find it especially interesting that the study design assumes that other paranormal phenomena must not be real. For instance, if an invisible ghost were observing the experiment and whispering the right answers to the participants, that would also explain successful results.

Your comment is condescending. It assumes that all, like me, who report paranormal experiences are either hoaxers or too dull-witted to intelligently examine their own experience -- because you've never had one.

What makes you think I've never had one?

I don't think that you're stupid. I just know enough math to know that a sample size of one is too small to even calculate a variance... IOW, there's unquantufuably large variability built into any anecdote.

I'm open to the possibility that anyone who claims to have any paranormal abilities or experiences might be right, but the way we check for sure is by investigating with rigor.

 

[F1fan]

As long as you understand that there is no evidence for a physical reality

A hammer hitting your thumb doesn't persuade you that a physical reality exists?

as all of the human world, then okay.

I understand no such such thing. Why would I need evidence of a physical reality when my sensing itself is physical reality?

Science is not about all of the world, but only a part of it.

It examines what is true about how things are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A hammer hitting your thumb doesn't persuade you that a physical reality exists?

I understand no such such thing. Why would I need evidence of a physical reality when my sensing itself is physical reality?

It examines what is true about how things are.

Well, all of reality is you being hit by hammer. That is all reality is and we agree. You have won the Nobel prize in physics for the theory of everything. Everything is you being hit in the head by a hammer.

Now with that out of the way, you can ask if you can explain eveything only using phyiscal terms and the answer is no. E.g. truth has no physical property and nor does a thing. They are mental concepts.

 

[bobhikes]

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?

Alls fair in war and debate is basically a word war. Being that these are open debates its up to you if you want to support the claim. For me, it depends on why I'm debating and who I am trying to convince.

My favorite give me evidence one was

My first provided evidence wasn't worthy because it wasn't scientific enough
My second provided evidence wasn't from a worthy college
My third provided evidence wasn't from a worthy scientist.

All different sources all bad at this point I just ignore them.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Your comment is condescending. It assumes that all, like me, who report paranormal experiences are either hoaxers or too dull-witted to intelligently examine their own experience -- because you've never had one.

First, I would like to let you know that I also believe in the paranormal and have had personal experiences with it (e.g., spirits and hauntings) since I was six years old. That's 44 years of experience with this kind of paranormal phenomenon. So, as far as I'm concerned, other people's skepticism doesn't invalidate my years of personal experiences, and it certainly doesn't change my belief in the paranormal. Therefore, I'm not interested in convincing skeptics that the paranormal is real, nor do I believe it is my responsibility to convince them that what I've experienced is real. In fact, I've long since resolved not to argue and debate with them about my personal experiences with the paranormal. As I've stated many times on the subject, skeptics can decide for themselves whether or not to believe me. I've never once tried to persuade any skeptics that I interact with either online or in person to believe in the paranormal, and I don't intend to start now. I just let it happen naturally. I've told them that they can decide for themselves whether to believe in the paranormal or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First, I would like to let you know that I also believe in the paranormal and have had personal experiences with it (e.g., spirits and hauntings) since I was six years old. That's 44 years of experience with this kind of paranormal phenomenon. So, as far as I'm concerned, other people's skepticism doesn't invalidate my years of personal experiences, and it certainly doesn't change my belief in the paranormal. Therefore, I'm not interested in convincing skeptics that the paranormal is real, nor do I believe it is my responsibility to convince them that what I've experienced is real. In fact, I've long since resolved not to argue and debate with them about my personal experiences with the paranormal. As I've stated many times on the subject, skeptics can decide for themselves whether or not to believe me. I've never once tried to persuade any skeptics that I interact with either online or in person to believe in the paranormal, and I don't intend to start now. I just let it happen naturally. I've told them that they can decide for themselves whether to believe in the paranormal or not.

As someone who believes in spirits, what do you think of the methodology of the experiments that @joe1776 brought up?

I mean, if they're everything they're made out to be, then the process is something like this:

- tightly control the experiment so that there's no chance of any influence by anything natural.

- run a test and get results that deviate from random chance to a significantly significant degree (implying a real phenomenon is happening).

- conclude that since every natural csuse has been ruled out, the cause must be psychic powers of the participants.

... but they never ruled out a potential cause that you consider real, right? The participants are shielded from external light and sound in an isolation chamber, but how could they be shielded from the influence of spirits?

Thoughts?

 

[joe1776]

So you can't point to any potential answer to this problem?

I linked you to a site that gave you a more than sufficient answer. I can't force you to read it.

Say that a Ganzfeld-style experiment was conducted where all the procedural problems were addressed, the researchers did everything perfectly, and the data showed a prediction accuracy better than random chance to a statistically significant degree. Say the experiment was even replicated a few times. What then?

That's exactly what happened. And then....the math challenges began, went on for years. Then Charles Honorton died and paranormal scientists went into business for themselves. They have their own journals.

The direct implication of this result is that something is going on that is not directly measured or controlled for in the experimental design. How do you justify the further conclusion that this something is a psychic ability of a study participant?

I find it especially interesting that the study design assumes that other paranormal phenomena must not be real. For instance, if an invisible ghost were observing the experiment and whispering the right answers to the participants, that would also explain successful results.

Deductive reasoning is employed. In Rhine's study mentioned earlier, there was a sender, a receiver and a deck of cards. When the sender picked up a card, concentrated on it, and the receiver correctly identified the card, we witnessed cause and effect. We'd want to control for cheating but the potential of an invisible ghost is no more plausible in this study than it would be in having its effect on drug testing.

What makes you think I've never had one?

Everything you write on this topic.

I don't think that you're stupid. I just know enough math to know that a sample size of one is too small to even calculate a variance... IOW, there's unquantufuably large variability built into any anecdote.

I'm open to the possibility that anyone who claims to have any paranormal abilities or experiences might be right, but the way we check for sure is by investigating with rigor.

We don't disagree on "investigating with rigor." But since I know the truth about precognition and telepathy from one experience with each. I don't feel I'm being unfair to charge mainstream science with being biased against the paranormal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I linked you to a site that gave you a more than sufficient answer. I can't force you to read it.

You linked to a wall of text that I gave more effort than it warranted. You're the one who's so far refused to actually answer the question.

That's exactly what happened. And then....the math challenges began, went on for years. Then Charles Honorton died and paranormal scientists went into business for themselves. They have their own journals.


Deductive reasoning is employed. In Rhine's study mentioned earlier, there was a sender, a receiver and a deck of cards. When the sender picked up a card, concentrated on it, and the receiver correctly identified the card, we witnessed cause and effect.

No, studies like this identify correlation, not causation. Identifying causation needs a lot more than that.

We'd want to control for cheating but the potential of an invisible ghost is no more plausible in this study than it would be in having its effect on drug testing.

Why isn't the potential of an invisible ghost plausible?

Everything you write on this topic.

Interesting. You're wrong, BTW.

We don't disagree on "investigating with rigor."

Your posts suggest we do... or at least we disagree on how rigorous investigations ought to be.

But since I know the truth about precognition and telepathy from one experience with each. I don't feel I'm being unfair to charge mainstream science with being biased against the paranormal.

How did you conclude that your experiences were best explained by precognition and telepathy than by other causes (or just random chance)?

As the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I don't feel I'm being unfair to charge mainstream science with being biased against the paranormal.

I don't believe it is an unfair assessment either. On that note, I thought you might be interested in reading this article.

It's Not True That Science Won't Ever Be Able To Explain The Existence Of Ghosts... If Indeed They Do

 

[joe1776]

You linked to a wall of text that I gave more effort than it warranted. You're the one who's so far refused to actually answer the question.

That "wall of text" was a five-minute read that answered your question.

No, studies like this identify correlation, not causation. Identifying causation needs a lot more than that.

You are wrong. The Rhine studies were about sending (cause) a card image to another mind (effect).

Why isn't the potential of an invisible ghost plausible?

Why? How am I supposed to answer that? Do YOU think the invisible ghost explanation is plausible?

Your posts suggest we do... or at least we disagree on how rigorous investigations ought to be.

Of course, I don't think the bar should be raised higher than for drug trials , for example.

How did you conclude that your experiences were best explained by precognition and telepathy than by other causes (or just random chance)?

Precognition: At a racetrack, I saw a vision of the finish of an upcoming horserace, like a looped video, repeated several times. There was much more to this experience but this is all that's needed to answer your question.

Telepathy : With my six-year old daughter sending from another room, I received images and identified 13 cards in a row from an ordinary deck before my daughter tired of the game and went to bed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That "wall of text" was a five-minute read that answered your question.

How well did it answer the question if you aren't able to say how it answered it?

You are wrong. The Rhine studies were about sending (cause) a card image to another mind (effect).

That's the hypothesis, but was it actually tested?

When the test has a "hit," there's a correlation between the card (A) and the subject's choice (B). In general, when there's a correlation between two things, we have four possibilities:

1. A caused B
2. B caused A
3. A and B were caused by some third factor C
4. A and B are unrelated and the correlation was just a coincidence

A rigorous study that has a favourable outcome will let you - within the confidence interval of the study - eliminate the fourth possibility. How would you eliminate possibilities 2 and 3?

Why? How am I supposed to answer that? Do YOU think the invisible ghost explanation is plausible?

I think that psychic abilities and invisible ghosts are equally plausible, roughly.

If we're entertaining the possibility of one, I see no reason not to entertain the possibility of the other (as well as lots of other potential explanations).

Of course, I don't think the bar should be raised higher than for drug trials , for example.

In the cases I've looked into in depth, paranormal claims to fail at a much lower bar than we normally use for other studies.

... but how do you see drug trials as an example that would apply here? I would think that establishing that psychic abilities exist would be more like establishing that a new health condition exists. Ask proponents of "chronic Lyme disease" how high that bar is.

Precognition: At a racetrack, I saw a vision of the finish of an upcoming horserace, like a looped video, repeated several times. There was much more to this experience but this is all that's needed to answer your question.

So you had a premonition and successfully predicted... what? The winning horse? The top three (i.e. you made a successful trifecta prediction)? The entire field?

Any of these would be unlikely predictions, but all would be consistent with a lucky guess.

Did you only have the one experience like this, or do you sometimes have premonitions like this that fail?

Telepathy : With my six-year old daughter sending from another room, I received images and identified 13 cards in a row from an ordinary deck before my daughter tired of the game and went to bed.

Yeah... one obvious question comes to mind: how do you know your daughter wasn't just playing along and shouting "right!" from the other room regardless of whether your guess was right?

 

[wellwisher]

It is one thing to provide direct evidence and logic. But there are also other areas of knowledge, including science, that use fuzzy dice evidence to draw conclusions. Fuzzy dice evidence has a built in margin of error, which means it is not always true, but will often be overly accepted as true; becomes political and dogmatic.

Direct evidence is like saying Joe is 6 feet tall, with me showing a picture of him near a tape measure. Fuzzy dice evidence is like making the claim that Joe likes cereal, but not cereal that is too sweet. This is fuzzy dice evidence of Joe's preference for cereal; less quantitative. It is up to the audience to fill in the blanks. Does it mean zero added sugar or just no sugar coated cereal? There is uncertainty.

As another example, direct proof of the Liberal claim; theory, of white privilege, would require interviewing all white people to see if they all claim privilege based on their skin color; direct data with 100% validity, would prove this one size fits all theory. Fuzzy dice data can use a few data points, and ignore the rest, and still make a one size fits all conclusions. It stopped short of direct evidence.

Fuzzy dice testing of drugs, is used before drugs can go to market; blind or black box testing. This testing attempts to generate fuzzy dice data that will not only determine the effectiveness of the drug, but also the risks or side effects. One possible fuzzy data conclusion sort of says, drug A is excellent for those who have itchy skin, and who also like to have periodic bouts of diarrhea. However, it will not marketed this way for obvious reasons. It is very strange way to do science where the unspoken helps to sell the theory.

The COVID bogeyman, leading to an over reaction by one political party, used fuzzy dice data; one size fits all risk. The early mortality data showed that the fuzzy dice were loaded, and those most at risk were the elderly, the overweight and those with compromised respiratory, circulatory and immune issues. But since the life sciences uses fuzzy dice math and science, almost exclusively, a fuzzy dice theory of risk to all, was also applied, to where it did not even go, as proven by direct 20/20 hindsight data.

It follows, that theory, which is based on fuzzy dice evidence, may be exaggerated or even misleading, in terms of its utility and possible side effects. Fuzzy dice data and their one size fits all conclusions and theories, also have side effects; margins of error. Evolution, which uses fuzzy dice data, has become a religious war; side effect. The denier terms connected to man made global warming, also uses fuzzy dice data. One is not allowed to look at the fuzzy, but needs to pretend it is not there, or be insulted and shamed.

 

[joe1776]

How well did it answer the question if you aren't able to say how it answered it?

Your response exemplifies how easy it is for biased opponents to raise the bar for evidence. Unless I can effectively summarize the article I offered in a sentence or two, you will reject it. But we know that if it supported your position, you would read it..

That's the hypothesis, but was it actually tested?

When the test has a "hit," there's a correlation between the card (A) and the subject's choice (B). In general, when there's a correlation between two things, we have four possibilities:

1. A caused B
2. B caused A
3. A and B were caused by some third factor C
4. A and B are unrelated and the correlation was just a coincidence

A rigorous study that has a favourable outcome will let you - within the confidence interval of the study - eliminate the fourth possibility. How would you eliminate possibilities 2 and 3?

Causes ordinarily happen before effect, so B didn't cause A.
There was no third factor with a causal connection.
Coincidence might explain a few trials but not hundreds of trials.

I think that psychic abilities and invisible ghosts are equally plausible, roughly.

If we're entertaining the possibility of one, I see no reason not to entertain the possibility of the other (as well as lots of other potential explanations).

Like the opponents of the Ganzfeld studies, you don't see that you are merely putting your bias on display by requiring that the proponents test for anything you can imagine. There , of course, is no way to test for invisible ghosts. Fortunately, using computers, "sensory leakage" an imagined phenomenon, could be eliminated as a problem.

In the cases I've looked into in depth, paranormal claims to fail at a much lower bar than we normally use for other studies.

Please list just a few of the cases you've looked at in depth.

... but how do you see drug trials as an example that would apply here? I would think that establishing that psychic abilities exist would be more like establishing that a new health condition exists. Ask proponents of "chronic Lyme disease" how high that bar is.

I used drug trials because everyone has some familiarity with them. I didn't want to cherry-pick an example like "chronic Lyme disease" to fit my argument.

So you had a premonition and successfully predicted... what? The winning horse? The top three (i.e. you made a successful trifecta prediction)? The entire field?

It makes no difference.

Any of these would be unlikely predictions, but all would be consistent with a lucky guess.

Your options are 1) He could be lying 2) He had an experience with precognition. "A lucky guess" is not an intelligent option.

Did you only have the one experience like this, or do you sometimes have premonitions like this that fail?

Just one.

Yeah... one obvious question comes to mind: how do you know your daughter wasn't just playing along and shouting "right!" from the other room regardless of whether your guess was right?

My wife was with her to confirm. Moreover, I wasn't guessing, I was seeing images from a standard deck which were harder to read than the Zener cards used in the Rhine studies..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your response exemplifies how easy it is for biased opponents to raise the bar for evidence. Unless I can effectively summarize the article I offered in a sentence or two, you will reject it. But we know that if it supported your position, you would read it..

Dude - we're two random lay people on the internet. This isn't a formal peer review.

I'm on here mostly for fun and playing "go find the part of this article I'm thinking of but won't point to" is not a game that seems fun to me.

... but if you want to feel persecuted because a skeptic on the internet won't make your arguments for you, go right ahead.

Causes ordinarily happen before effect, so B didn't cause A.

Are you sure that A did precede B? That would depend on the experimental setup.

(Note: I'm not asking for a debate about the setup details of some specific experiment. This is just something for you to consider for yourself)

Also, there's risk in just going with our preconceptions of what "ordinarily" happens. I mean, my preconception is that psychic feats don't ordinarily happen either. The whole point of the experiment is to set aside prejudices about what is and isn't real so that we can find our what's actually going on.

There was no third factor with a causal connection.

How do you know?

Coincidence might explain a few trials but not hundreds of trials.

Do you have hundreds of successful trials, though?

I noticed a theme in that article you linked to: lots of references to studies with inconclusive results and studies that should be "interpreted with caution" because of procedural problems.

Like the opponents of the Ganzfeld studies, you don't see that you are merely putting your bias on display by requiring that the proponents test for anything you can imagine.

Only a bias against jumping to conclusions unreasonably.

Why do you think that it's unreasonable to demand that researchers be able to respond to reasonable doubts in their research? This is part and parcel of legitimate research; should paranormal research be treated as legitimate or not?

Edit: while I pointed out that this thread isn't a peer review, I have done peer review of studies in my field. If you think the questions I'm asking are too high a bar, then you have no idea the level of nit-picking that real research in established, respected fields has to go through.

There , of course, is no way to test for invisible ghosts.

... or for any number of potential causes besides psychic phenomena.

This presents a problem, then. A different study design would be needed to establish that psychic abilities are real.

A study design that relies on a "pigeonhole" approach the way that Ganzfeld-style studies do (i.e. argue that because of the study design, every possible cause has been ruled out except the one under investigation) is always going to be pretty weak, but if there aren't good answers to the question "how do you know you really ruled out every other possibility?", then the study is basically useless.

Fortunately, using computers, "sensory leakage" an imagined phenomenon, could be eliminated as a problem.

By "sensory leakage," you mean problems like how, in some of the original study designs, a person was speaking target phrases aloud in a room next to where the subject was, which raises the possibility that the subject might have been able to hear the speaker?

If you think this is imagined, I can only assume you've never lived in an apartment building.

Please list just a few of the cases you've looked at in depth.

I think you've misinterpreted this discussion.

Again: I'm here for fun. Providing a CV for some random person on the internet to critique does not sound like my idea of fun.

I used drug trials because everyone has some familiarity with them. I didn't want to cherry-pick an example like "chronic Lyme disease" to fit my argument.

But a drug trial is a very different thing. They're done on people who we already know have a specific health condition. When you're able to select people who you know have high blood pressure/COPD/whatever, you can hit a reasonable confidence interval with maybe a few dozen people or at most a few hundred.

OTOH, for the same quality in a study on psychic abilities, if you're just taking random people - or even if you limit your participants to people who think they're psychic - you may need to test thousands or tens of thousands of people.

It makes no difference.

It certainly makes a difference to the odds.

The specific odds vary from race to race, but typically, betting on a favourite to win will be right 30-40% of the time... similar odds to a coin flip and not particularly interesting.

If all the horses were equally favoured (which never happens exactly, but probably conservatively high odds for most races), some quick math tells me the odds of picking the exact order of all the finishers would be 1 in 3.6 million. Kinda unlikely, but not "WOW! That could NEVER happen by chance!" unlikely.

Your options are 1) He could be lying 2) He had an experience with precognition. "A lucky guess" is not an intelligent option.

Why isn't it an intelligent option?

And remember: we're counting the hits and ignoring the misses here. You have no idea how many people have similar premonitions about a race but end up completely wrong, so they don't tell anybody.

It doesn't require belief in psychic powers to expect that people who are really, really sure of the outcome of something like a horse race will win occasionally.

Just one.

... which raises the likelihood that it was a lucky guess.

My wife was with her to confirm.

Doesn't really set aside the issue, though. It's possible that your wife and daughter were both playing along.

Moreover, I wasn't guessing, I was seeing images from a standard deck which were harder to read than the Zener cards used in the Rhine studies..

Whatever you were doing, from what you've told me, we can infer that your daughter found it unremarkable enough that she was more interested in sleep than what you were doing.

BTW: same question for you on this as the other thing: have you been able to replicate it?