Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [email protected]
>>> Michael Smith <[email protected]> 14-Jan-11 8:50 AM >>> Jim Clark wrote: ... "Indeed one of the ironies, perhaps, of claiming such an ability is that it brings the whole area of the "beyond" under scientific purview..." Perhaps, but not really. Such claims do not bring the "beyond" within scientific purview at all. JC: I'm not sure how people claiming scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena (e.g., precognition, esp, ...) can avoid bringing the area under scientific scrutiny. Is Michael saying that the claimed evidence is irrelevant to the belief, is beyond criticism, or what? I suspect he is correct in the sense that most true believers are never going to accept contrary evidence. MS Continued: Beth wrote: "Why would that be a concern? It seems to me that should be a goal. At least, with the caveat that they begin to disbelieve concepts that are questionable from a scientific/rational viewpoint." I wonder why it should be a goal to try to force people to abandon their beliefs? Not only that, but especially if one is substituting a limited, narrow, scientistic set of beliefs about the world. JC: I'm not sure how Michael got from educating people about "concepts that are questionable" to "force," nor how a scientific world view is limited and narrow given the broad range of phenomena it subsumes. Does Michael advocate people retaining beliefs like: humans and dinosaurs walked the world at the same time, continental drift is absurd, humans do not have similar DNA to other organisms, ...? MS continued: With regard to Joan's comment... I need only point to the peer-reviewed journal article of Bem's. Apparently Bem, the people of the journal, and the reviewers don't share your view. And they are "scientists" and know all about the scientific method. (Of course, that's assuming psychology is a science which is debatable). Why should I believe your version of *psychological science* and not Bem's, or the reviewers? JC: Putting aside the dig about psychology as science (advocated on Michael's department homepage) being debatable, Michael's view would suggest that anytime there is a difference of views in the scientific literature, one is free to choose whichever view one prefers, irrespective of the weight of the evidence. One "flat earther" counts just as much as all the contrary evidence. Alcock's response, posted by others here, documents the sorry history of "breakthroughs" in parapsychological research. Moreover, it will be interesting to find out (if we ever do) exactly how the paper came to be accepted. Were reviewers bending over backwards in a misguided effort to be fair? Were they naive about the specific problems associated with the paradigms? Were they aware of and unduly influenced by Bem's fame? Take care Jim --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7893 or send a blank email to leave-7893-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
