ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags belief in psi , esp , psi , scientist , survey

Reply
Old 19th September 2012, 08:21 PM   #1
Andyman409
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 111
Are scientists more likely to believe in the Paranormal?

I have recently come across an article from Deryl Bem claiming that most academics actually do, in fact, believe in psi. Here is the exerpt:

Quote:
A survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psychologists was only 34%. Moreover, an equal number of psychologists declared ESP to be an impossibility, a view expressed by only 2% of all other respondents (Wagner &h; Monnet, 1979).
I have seen this statistic mentioned elsewhere, such as in articles from CSICOP and the skeptics dictionary. As a skeptic of the paranormal, I find this statistic strange. For one thing, it is radically different than a later 1990 survey in which only 4% of members of the National Academy of Scientists believed in Psi. Also, it leaves one to guess at why so many major scientific organisations still classify psi as a psuedoscience. But the biggest problem is that, according to another survey, only 34% of grad students believed in the paranormal. That's 34% of all grad students- incuding theology majors- and all types of paranormal phenomena- including spirits, ouija boards, and the like. That's an astonishingly low number. So, what are we to make of this? That only very elite professors are skeptical of psi? That in between the years 1979 and 1990 there was a massive trend against belief in psi? That Grad students immediatly gain a belief in psi sometime after they get their PHD? Or perhaps that the minority of scientists that oppose psi have more resources and influence in the scientific community? I don't know, and haven't been able to find any other surveys or information on the web pertaining to this. What do you all think of this?

Last edited by Andyman409; 19th September 2012 at 08:42 PM.
Andyman409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2012, 08:49 PM   #2
Andyman409
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 111
Interestingly, belief in psi has gone down tremendously for magicians:

Quote:
In 1979, sociologist Marcello Truzzi polled members of the Psychic Entertainers Association and found that a surprising 87% indicated that ESP ‘truly exists’. A later poll, conducted in 1993 found that this figure had fallen to 47%.
I wonder if this is what happened with scientists. A Gallup poll from 2005 revealed that Psi related beliefs have gone down among the general populace

Quote:
The largest declines since 2001 are found in the number of people who believe in ESP (41% now compared with 50% in 2001), clairvoyance (26% now, 32% in 2001), ghosts (32% vs. 38%), mentally communicating with the dead (21% vs. 28%), and channeling (9% vs. 15%).

Last edited by Andyman409; 19th September 2012 at 10:13 PM.
Andyman409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 04:30 AM   #3
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,128
1979 and a small survey, so likely to be sample bias from a small sample.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 04:40 AM   #4
Ethan Thane Athen
Graduate Poster
 
Ethan Thane Athen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,615
Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
I have recently come across an article from Deryl Bem claiming that most academics actually do, in fact, believe in psi. Here is the exerpt:



I have seen this statistic mentioned elsewhere, such as in articles from CSICOP and the skeptics dictionary. As a skeptic of the paranormal, I find this statistic strange. For one thing, it is radically different than a later 1990 survey in which only 4% of members of the National Academy of Scientists believed in Psi. Also, it leaves one to guess at why so many major scientific organisations still classify psi as a psuedoscience. But the biggest problem is that, according to another survey, only 34% of grad students believed in the paranormal. That's 34% of all grad students- incuding theology majors- and all types of paranormal phenomena- including spirits, ouija boards, and the like. That's an astonishingly low number. So, what are we to make of this? That only very elite professors are skeptical of psi? That in between the years 1979 and 1990 there was a massive trend against belief in psi? That Grad students immediatly gain a belief in psi sometime after they get their PHD? Or perhaps that the minority of scientists that oppose psi have more resources and influence in the scientific community? I don't know, and haven't been able to find any other surveys or information on the web pertaining to this. What do you all think of this?
Well the 'social scientists' and 'arts, humanities and education' bit doesn't surprise me in the least. Depresses me, but doesn't surprise me. Your headline asked about 'scientists' though and I wouldn't consider any of the afore-mentioned as scientists in terms of the usual meaning of that term (ie Chemists, Physicists, Mathematicians). Are the latter covered by the 'natural scientists' bit? I'm not used to that term.
Ethan Thane Athen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 05:16 AM   #5
Joey McGee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,954
I'm pretty sure that less academics believe in it after Bem's last paper that was absolute poppycock and failed several attempts at replication... lol
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 05:32 AM   #6
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 11,834
You may recall that during the height of the Gellar nonsense, a number of physicists were duped. As well, numbers of universities opened "parapsychology" departments....
As Randi pointed out, scientists are often rather easy to fool... Nature doesn't cheat.


It certainly wouldn't surprise me that folks in the arts and humanities would have such beliefs.

Last edited by Bikewer; 20th September 2012 at 05:33 AM.
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 05:56 AM   #7
LarianLeQuella
Elf Wino
 
LarianLeQuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,061
Welcome to the forums Andyman!

I highly suggest you read "Flim-Flam" by Randi. I think he does a great job at showing how scientists were fooled by the likes of Uri. As Bikewer said, there is an expectation of fairness or non-cheating when dealing with science, and we all know that people are all bastards, with a gooey bastard filling, with a hard bastard shell (Sorry, been a while since I saw that Scrubs episode).
LarianLeQuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 05:59 AM   #8
GrandMasterFox
Graduate Poster
 
GrandMasterFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
So, what are we to make of this? That in between the years 1979 and 1990 there was a massive trend rise in education against about belief in psi?
I snipped and fixed your questions to keep the correct one.
Science has advanced, the fraud police has advanced and our way of distributing information has clearly advanced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 70s were the highlights of Geller's career.
The weren't a lot of ways for people to expose him. As he won't take the MDC and hardly most tv stations would do a debunking of him. And even if they did how many people would see it?

Poof, we have this magical thing called the internet and everyone can see everything any time. When his epic fail on the tv show (forgot the one, where he was caught with the magnet) everyone could easily see it on youtbe.

Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
As Randi pointed out, scientists are often rather easy to fool... Nature doesn't cheat.
This ^^

I had a friend who once said he has issues with the MDC because it wasn't really scientific. I explained to him that it's more like detectives working fraud than actual science.

That is probably why psychologists are the least likely to believe in the above survey.

I still would love to know how they defined each of the sections. What are "natural scientists"? I mean is this the part where we drag that old topic regarding engineers?
GrandMasterFox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 10:51 AM   #9
Andyman409
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 111
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
1979 and a small survey, so likely to be sample bias from a small sample.
I thought they used 1100 people for that survey? If you have any info on it, that would be great. I checked gallup.com and they didnt.

Quote:
GrandMasterFox: I snipped and fixed your questions to keep the correct one. Science has advanced, the fraud police has advanced and our way of distributing information has clearly advanced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 70s were the highlights of Geller's career.
The weren't a lot of ways for people to expose him. As he won't take the MDC and hardly most tv stations would do a debunking of him. And even if they did how many people would see it?
Thanks for the edit. Anyways, it makes sense that many scientists would believe in psi during the geller craze. Don't forget that, in the 70's, the Stargate Project started. There wasn't a better time to believe in psi.
Andyman409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 01:03 PM   #10
Andyman409
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 111
Also of note is the fact that so few scientists actually study psi. One would think that, if Psi were the majority belief amongst scientists, more would be studying it. I remember hearing somewhere that there are only about 50 full time psi researchers. Radin says something similiar to this:

Quote:
Dean Radin: The theme of my talk was that there are 17,500 institutions of higher learning around the world, but only about 30 of them have at least one faculty member who has seriously written about psi, either pro or con. That's a very small fraction of 1 percent. And I think that's because it's a taboo topic
I don't want ya'll to think I'm touting this as evidence for Paranormal. For one thing, I don't even believe in it. I just find it odd that these surveys can seemlingly contradict each other so much.
Andyman409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2012, 04:11 PM   #11
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,128
Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
I thought they used 1100 people for that survey? If you have any info on it, that would be great. I checked gallup.com and they didnt.
I have yet to find any title for it yet, so I am even more suspicious.

ETA:

Even more suspicious!
Attitudes of college professors toward extra-sensory perception. Zetetic Scholar, 5, 7-17.




pg 9
http://tricksterbook.com/truzzi/ZS-I...ScholarNo5.pdf

Quote:
College catalogs or faculty directories were obtained from I20
COI leges and universities selected at random from the 1968-1969 Cass
and Birnbaum Comparative Guide to American Col leqes. The only requirements
to be selected were that the institution have at least 1,000
students and more than 100 faculty. From each d i rectory 20 faculty were
selected at random with the requ i rement that each of five general academi C
areas (natural science, social science, humanities, arts, and education)
be equal ly represented. In this manner 2,100 questionnaires including
Prepaid addressed envelopes were mai led out, and 990 usable rep I i es were
received during 1973.
The .pdf copied strangely introducing ext errors.

So the survey was conducted in 1973, which is before any real rigorous studies on psi phenomena and the sample is subject to a possible self selection bias.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 20th September 2012 at 04:45 PM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2012, 01:11 AM   #12
Andyman409
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 111
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
So the survey was conducted in 1973, which is before any real rigorous studies on psi phenomena and the sample is subject to a possible self selection bias.
Good find David, thanks. In addition to your worries, the trends the article itself reports are quite disturbing. Out of everyone polled, only 44.8 believed in psi due to books and actual evidence (18.7% books and 26.1% scientific journals). The remaining 55.2% believed in psi due to personal experience, magazine articles or anecdotes.

Furthermore, Natural Scientists were more likley to believe in psi a priori or due to hearsay, and arts and humanities majors were more likely to believe in psi due to personal experience. The only ones to actually look at the evidence were the social scientists. Most disturbing, however, is that 38% of the total participants believed in animal and plant psi. Yikes! Okay, I can kinda imagine animal psi but plant psi? Do they think plants have "souls"?

I wonder if there are any polls that are a little more... modern. Hopefully something after the ganzfeld experiments or SIAC. I mean, the best evidence for Psi in 1973 would have been Rhine-and we all know how horrible his experiments were.

Last edited by Andyman409; 21st September 2012 at 01:15 AM.
Andyman409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2012, 03:58 AM   #13
GrandMasterFox
Graduate Poster
 
GrandMasterFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
Also of note is the fact that so few scientists actually study psi. One would think that, if Psi were the majority belief amongst scientists, more would be studying it. I remember hearing somewhere that there are only about 50 full time psi researchers.
Yep, pretty much. I find it utterly hilarious that people keep putting issues of torture of prisoners in mainstream media yet nobody who believes in psi doesn't ponder why the president of the united state doesn't just use psi abilities for interogation. It would not only be far more efficient means of interogation but it would also be far better politically to do...
GrandMasterFox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2012, 04:27 AM   #14
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,128
Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
Good find David, thanks. In addition to your worries, the trends the article itself reports are quite disturbing. Out of everyone polled, only 44.8 believed in psi due to books and actual evidence (18.7% books and 26.1% scientific journals). The remaining 55.2% believed in psi due to personal experience, magazine articles or anecdotes.
Given the age of the study and other issues I would hardly call it a trend.

Quote:
Furthermore, Natural Scientists were more likley to believe in psi a priori or due to hearsay, and arts and humanities majors were more likely to believe in psi due to personal experience. The only ones to actually look at the evidence were the social scientists. Most disturbing, however, is that 38% of the total participants believed in animal and plant psi. Yikes! Okay, I can kinda imagine animal psi but plant psi? Do they think plants have "souls"?

I wonder if there are any polls that are a little more... modern. Hopefully something after the ganzfeld experiments or SIAC. I mean, the best evidence for Psi in 1973 would have been Rhine-and we all know how horrible his experiments were.
Quite true, BTW I can never pronounce your hometown correctly.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2012, 05:08 AM   #15
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
Also of note is the fact that so few scientists actually study psi. One would think that, if Psi were the majority belief amongst scientists, more would be studying it. I remember hearing somewhere that there are only about 50 full time psi researchers. Radin says something similiar to this:



I don't want ya'll to think I'm touting this as evidence for Paranormal. For one thing, I don't even believe in it. I just find it odd that these surveys can seemlingly contradict each other so much.
Survey results are determined more by what questions are asked and how they're asked that actual opinions.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2012, 06:13 AM   #16
GrandMasterFox
Graduate Poster
 
GrandMasterFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
Yikes! Okay, I can kinda imagine animal psi but plant psi? Do they think plants have "souls"?
That makes more sense than you think. By that I mean that people would believe it, not that it's real. It's complete BS.

Animals have ways of communicating and be tested. You can do the same FC test for dogs. Plants don't communicate so it's harder to debunk.
Consider all the classic mumbo jumbo about how plants grow better if you talk to them or let them hear mozart or what not.

Second, most plants that people raise are raised individually. My family had a dog that we all took care of, but the plants in the garden were soley my dad's doing. That made him feel in a way closer to the plant.
And when you tend to something for a long time, you have a certain emotional attachement to it.
GrandMasterFox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2012, 06:21 AM   #17
Nucular
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brane 6, Brahman's Dream
Posts: 3,012
Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
As Randi pointed out, scientists are often rather easy to fool... Nature doesn't cheat.
Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella View Post
I highly suggest you read "Flim-Flam" by Randi. I think he does a great job at showing how scientists were fooled by the likes of Uri. As Bikewer said, there is an expectation of fairness or non-cheating when dealing with science, and we all know that people are all bastards, with a gooey bastard filling, with a hard bastard shell (Sorry, been a while since I saw that Scrubs episode).
I definitely think the element of possible deception is an important difference between the stuff 'hard' scientists do and the stuff social scientists (and especially psychologists) do, which assuming these figures are at all meaningful helps to explain the disparity in psi belief.

But perhaps a more important difference (in terms of academic research, rather than the more staple diet hereabouts of Challenge applicants and media mediums) is the familiarity psychologists tend to have with cognitive errors and biases, as well as things which influence both research participants' and researchers' beliefs to begin with. This seems relevant to Andyman's report that the survey showed

Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
Natural Scientists were more likley to believe in psi a priori or due to hearsay [whereas] ... The only ones to actually look at the evidence were the social scientists.

That's not to say that 'natural scientists' are incapable of understanding, or are simply ignorant of, these human elements; but it is perfectly possible to intellectually understand and accept a concept as valid, yet not behave consistently with that intellectual position. And where the concepts in question relate directly to the way we deal with the very concepts themselves (e.g. cognitive biases), it's all the more possible still. Maybe with some of these counterintuitive ideas (such as that clarity of a memory is not an indication of its accuracy) it takes a bit more day-to-day contact or personal experience with them before we can easily internalise them, which is where the psychologist may have more experience than the physicist.

It's not just about your training and experience; your starting point is equally important to that process of internalisation. If you start your paranormal research as a psi believer, the question as to why others might hold the same belief may well seem trivial (especially compared with investigation of the object of the belief), demanding too little of your attention to really allow for much exposure to the issue of reasoning errors as part of belief formation. But sceptics often tend to find the question of 'why people believe weird things' to be far more interesting than the investigation of the weird things themselves, and so have much more use for, and therefore contact with, cognitive and social influences on belief.

So that's a long-winded way of saying that awareness and familiarity with cheating is crucial for experimental design and critique, and clearly is something we might expect psychologists to be more familiar with than physicists; but in terms of the formation and then defence of those beliefs, I think there are some more significant influences.



Interesting topic though! I'd love to see an update on that survey (you've made me wonder whether my crossness when people claim that "more and more scientists are beginning to believe in [insert wacky belief here]" might not be misplaced!).
Nucular is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2012, 01:06 PM   #18
Andyman409
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 111
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Quite true, BTW I can never pronounce your hometown correctly.
It's pronounced Miss-is-aw-gah.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox View Post
That makes more sense than you think. By that I mean that people would believe it, not that it's real. It's complete BS.

Animals have ways of communicating and be tested. You can do the same FC test for dogs. Plants don't communicate so it's harder to debunk.
Consider all the classic mumbo jumbo about how plants grow better if you talk to them or let them hear mozart or what not.

Second, most plants that people raise are raised individually. My family had a dog that we all took care of, but the plants in the garden were soley my dad's doing. That made him feel in a way closer to the plant.
And when you tend to something for a long time, you have a certain emotional attachement to it.
I agree with you that animal psi is not too crazy. I mean, we are animals ourselves, right? Why should we be the only ones privileged to have psychic powers? Plants, however, do not have anything comparable to human or animal brains, or anything remotely similiar to consciousness. Unless one assumes some sort of animism or pantheism, I don't think they can make sense out of it. In other words, I see Sparky the psychic dog detective as being much more likely than Madame Widow the Tarot card reader.

Originally Posted by Nucular View Post
... That's not to say that 'natural scientists' are incapable of understanding, or are simply ignorant of, these human elements; but it is perfectly possible to intewhere the psychologist may have more experience than the physicist....

... Interesting topic though! I'd love to see an update on that survey (you've made me wonder whether my crossness when people claim that "more and more scientists are beginning to believe in [insert wacky belief here]" might not be misplaced!).
I suspect that this might have something to do with the general lack of familiarity with the psychology of belief amongst scientists. However, I still don't know how to account for the 34% of Psychologists who should know better. I guess psi was much more exciting and mysterious 39 years ago, before the biggest tests, like Stargate and Ganzfeld, proved inconclusive.

Also, I have never heard any parapsychologist claim that their pet belief is becoming more popular amongst scientists. If anything, they tend to whine about how they are not being taken seriously. Considering that 61% of psychologists in 2006 doubted the existence of God, and that the vast majority of cognitive and neuroscientists are materialists, I'd guess that the trend is in the opposite direction.

I would love to see an update of this survey, too. The closest I got was a survey that found that only 4% of members of the National Academy of Sciences believed in psi. Even more telling was that about 60% felt that psi research should be "permitted but not encouraged". According to the other survey, the majority opinion was the opposite: that psi research should be allowed and encouraged. This is a startling change.

For the record, I can't add links until I get 15 posts, so you'll have to google the surveys. Sorry

Last edited by Andyman409; 21st September 2012 at 01:09 PM.
Andyman409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2012, 02:13 AM   #19
GrandMasterFox
Graduate Poster
 
GrandMasterFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
I agree with you that animal psi is not too crazy.
Well, you'll have to define "too crazy". But overall you missed my point entirely. I was trying to say that plant psi is more likely to believed (for some) than animal psi.

Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
Plants, however, do not have anything comparable to human or animal brains, or anything remotely similiar to consciousness.
Says who? You realize when you are talking about people who believe in woo, then scientific mindset is out the window.

Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
Unless one assumes some sort of animism or pantheism, I don't think they can make sense out of it. In other words, I see Sparky the psychic dog detective as being much more likely than Madame Widow the Tarot card reader.
Have you seen Twin Peaks? In particular, the log lady?
GrandMasterFox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2012, 04:28 AM   #20
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,128
Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
It's pronounced Miss-is-aw-gah.
I just can't look at it and say it, even after I heard them say it on the TV.



As far as the stats, it was a study thirty years ago and there was huge potential for self selection bias. Less than half the surveys were returned and at that time there were still many old school teachers in the field of psychology.

Kind of frightening, even some of the teachers I had at the University of Illinois believed in whacky stuff. I hope that actual research based methodology has over taken all the woo. The woo meisters were a very small percentage at the U of I in the late 70s, but there were an astounding number of neofreudians in general at the time.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 23rd September 2012 at 04:32 AM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2012, 01:51 PM   #21
xtifr
Graduate Poster
 
xtifr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,299
Lets not forget that in the seventies, the Rhine Institute telepathy studies were still being taken seriously by a lot of people, and Uri Gellar was still actively fooling a lot of scientists. Things have changed a lot since then. If I were to pick a single point of time in the twentieth century to conduct a survey in the hopes of showing that scientists subscribe to woo, it would be the early seventies. The late seventies are only a little worse.

(Of course, until I get my time machine running, I'm limited to surveys that already exist. But just you wait!)
__________________
"Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it."
-- Anonymous Slashdot poster
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
-- James Nicoll
xtifr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2012, 02:30 PM   #22
Kaylee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,166
So, if it weren't for the efforts of Randi and CSI formerly known as CSICOP, how would the general belief in the paranormal have played out?

Per Wiki
Quote:
Randi entered the international spotlight in 1972 when he publicly challenged the claims of Uri Geller. Randi accused Geller of being nothing more than a charlatan and a fraud who used standard magic tricks to accomplish his allegedly paranormal feats, and he presented his claims in the book The Truth About Uri Geller.[20][40] Geller sued Randi for $15 million in 1991 and lost.[41]
and

Quote:
CSI was founded in 1976 by Paul Kurtz to counter what he regarded as an uncritical acceptance of, and support for, paranormal claims by both the media and society in general.
Would paranormality have been given more credence by more scientists and more of the general public for a longer period of time? Or would events have unfolded pretty much as they have? Perhaps other people or other organizations would have stepped up to the plate to do the debunking?
Kaylee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 12:32 AM   #23
Andyman409
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 111
Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox View Post
Well, you'll have to define "too crazy". But overall you missed my point entirely. I was trying to say that plant psi is more likely to believed (for some) than animal psi.
I didn't miss your point, I just had a different one to make. While you focused on why normal people believe wierd things, I focused on what they believe. The content of their belief is crazy; why they believe it, however, is not. Of course, it was probably niave of me to assume that the scientists polled would value evidence more than the general public does.

Originally Posted by Andyman409
I agree with you that animal psi is not too crazy...
My definition of "crazy", within the context of this post, refers to the content of the belief. That's why I pointed out that if we have psi, other animals are bound to as well. This makes animal psi seem less "crazy" than plant psi.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox View Post
Says who? You realize when you are talking about people who believe in woo, then scientific mindset is out the window.
Not entirely. Some theories, like Persingers, strike me as being far more plausible than others (Like Radin's quantum fluff). My bro had a psych professor that, being a materialist, believed psi operated like a built in radio.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox View Post
Have you seen Twin Peaks? In particular, the log lady?
I get your point that some people really do buy this stuff. On an unrelated note, Log lady would seem to complicate things further, since the log she carries is definatley dead.

Originally Posted by DancingDavid View Post
I just can't look at it and say it, even after I heard them say it on the TV.
Say Misses, like Mrs. Robinson. Say Awe, like "Awe shucks". Lastly, say "gah", like gaffe. It can't be as hard to say as massachusetts, can it :0

Last edited by Andyman409; 24th September 2012 at 12:37 AM.
Andyman409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 02:26 AM   #24
GrandMasterFox
Graduate Poster
 
GrandMasterFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
Not entirely. Some theories, like Persingers, strike me as being far more plausible than others (Like Radin's quantum fluff).
The bold part is where you are going at the wrong direction.
It's not about what you believe, it's about what other people would accept.

Furthermore, you cannot judge what seems "logical". I mean seriously, plant psi seems far more logical to me than most known religions.
Which one is more popular?

Originally Posted by Andyman409 View Post
I get your point that some people really do buy this stuff. On an unrelated note, Log lady would seem to complicate things further, since the log she carries is definatley dead.
That would be no different than assuming a dead person can turn into a ghost. Some people think that plants have "impressions" from the things around them. Which would be no different than psychics who use "objects belonging to the person" they are trying to communicate.
Heck, it's the basis of homeopathy...

Others would say that plants actually have a consciousness the same way a child thinks he actually talks to his teddy bear. It's basically your imaginary friend that you just give it something to focus from.

As Penn Jillette said in a video I watched recently, Mormonism is bat **** crazy - but not more than any other religion. Just more modern.
GrandMasterFox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 02:04 PM   #25
IXP
Graduate Poster
 
IXP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,385
Quote:
In this manner 2,100 questionnaires including
Prepaid addressed envelopes were mai led out, and 990 usable rep I i es were
received during 1973.
So only 47% of the questionaires were returned. The 53% who thought it was nonsense threw them in the trash where they belonged.

IXP
__________________
"When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar
IXP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2012, 05:21 PM   #26
Andyman409
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 111
I really don't want to continue this debate, since I think we agree on virtually everything here. Let me clarify some things:

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox View Post
The bold part is where you are going at the wrong direction.
It's not about what you believe, it's about what other people would accept.
I dont think people who believe in plant psi are necessarily stupid, just that the belief itself is really stupid. The belief itself is intrinsically stupid because it lacks evidence or a framework that would make it consistent like a normal scientific theory. People have this psychological mechanism that allows them to ignore evidence, so long as they derive happiness from their belief. I think we'd both agree on that.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox View Post
Furthermore, you cannot judge what seems "logical". I mean seriously, plant psi seems far more logical to me than most known religions.
Which one is more popular?
I can evaluate the Evidence. But again, I know that people will believe whatever they want. We can disagree on which paranormal beliefs seem more plausible than others because in the end, we agree they are all ridiculous and false.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox View Post
That would be no different than assuming a dead person can turn into a ghost. Some people think that plants have "impressions" from the things around them. Which would be no different than psychics who use "objects belonging to the person" they are trying to communicate.
Heck, it's the basis of homeopathy...
In regards to Log Lady, How often do psychics carry around the corpses of the spirits they are channeling? Actually please dont answer that, you might find an example

I get the point, though. Some believe that apparitional experiences are the result of "impressions" left behind psychically when one dies. Its total hogwash, but I get how it could work.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox View Post
Others would say that plants actually have a consciousness the same way a child thinks he actually talks to his teddy bear. It's basically your imaginary friend that you just give it something to focus from.

As Penn Jillette said in a video I watched recently, Mormonism is bat **** crazy - but not more than any other religion. Just more modern.
Incedentally, I also believe plants have the same type of consciouness as teddy bears Anyways, couldn't have said it better than Penn in regards to Religion.


Kaylee and Dancing David, good finds! I am not surprised at the errors in the survey. After all, it was published in a Parapsychology journal, not a real one.

Last edited by Andyman409; 24th September 2012 at 05:33 PM.
Andyman409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.