Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[Simon Moon]

I have considered another possibility as to why I cannot be convinced of what skeptics say.  Yes, I am aware of that argument against Dean Simon Moon posted.  But my mind still remains open.

You seem to be implying here, that skeptics are NOT open minded.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

My mind is completely opened to claims that are supported by demonstrable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence, and reasoned argument.

Without those criteria being met, what should be the justification to believe your claims are true?

Perhaps this is because I really want there to be an afterlife of my dreams and my brain is not allowing me to be convinced when I should be convinced.  Maybe it is a defense mechanism my brain has employed.  As a result, my mind just continues to remain open no matter what anyone says to me.  But perhaps there really is a way for me to be convinced eventually.  Who knows.

So, you don't really care what is true (or likely true), you care more about the warm fuzzy feeling you get from believing what you want to be true.

I just can not relate to that way of thinking.

I want to hold as many true beliefs as possible, and have as few false beliefs as possible.


The best method ever discovered, as a path to truth, is demonstrable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence, and reasoned argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

What if my morning shit makes the sun rise? Debatable..right? We may never know.

[FatAndFaithless]

But what if Dean has performed the file-drawer analysis correctly?  That is a debate right there.  I am now open minded to what Dean or any paranormal proponent would have to argue in favor of Dean performing the analysis correctly.

So you're literally asking us "what if we had actual evidence for this thing"?  Then...we'd have actual evidence for said thing.  You can ask "what if" about anything.  What if we had evidence that the sun is really moved by a really buff guy in a chariot?

Asking "what if" is absolutely not a good basis to accept something as true or likely true or even possible.

[Succubus]

...As a matter of fact, there are skeptics who publish books that thoroughly address Dean's peer reviewed research...

Radin has a list of articles that are Peer Reviewed? It's a massive list and would take days to analyse, but then you know that don't you? I mean that's why you're here, to waste peoples time, innit!
But anyway Woo Two Names jumped off the page: Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff. Aren't those the guys who remote viewed mountain ranges on Jupiter? y'know, Jupiter the gas planet?
TD the only thing that distinguishes you from other unimaginative trolls is; you are a spectacularly boring person.

[polymath257]

But what if Dean has performed the file-drawer analysis correctly?  That is a debate right there.  I am now open minded to what Dean or any paranormal proponent would have to argue in favor of Dean performing the analysis correctly.

If you refuse to learn anything, then anything is possible. In this case, you refuse to learn enough math to determine a simple yes/no question. You also refuse to take the word of an expert in the area because it disagrees with what you *want* to believe.

As others have pointed out, that isn't open mindedness. It is being a lazy troll.

Now, you said you don't *want* to be a troll. Good. Then go learn something about what you are critiquing. At least enough to do basic math and science. Otherwise, resign yourself to trolldom.

[Simon Moon]

But what if Dean has performed the file-drawer analysis correctly?  That is a debate right there.  I am now open minded to what Dean or any paranormal proponent would have to argue in favor of Dean performing the analysis correctly.

If you refuse to learn anything, then anything is possible. In this case, you refuse to learn enough math to determine a simple yes/no question. You also refuse to take the word of an expert in the area because it disagrees with what you *want* to believe.

As others have pointed out, that isn't open mindedness. It is being a lazy troll.

Now, you said you don't *want* to be a troll. Good. Then go learn something about what you are critiquing. At least enough to do basic math and science. Otherwise, resign yourself to trolldom.

I would usually recommend a book like, "A Demon Haunted World" to TD, as an antidote to his poor critical thinking skills and gullibility.

But he has made it clear, that he does not want information that might refute his favorite magical story.

So, it is probably a waste of time.

[Succubus]

...But what if Dean has performed the file-drawer analysis correctly?...

No. Mr slight of hand slimy troll the term is: "file-drawer effect!"

But then you know this.

[Angrboda]

Some parapsychologists, such as Jessica Utts and Dean Radin, repeatedly declare that the evidence for anomalous cognition is compelling and meets the most rigorous scientific standards of acceptability. Others such as Dick Bierman, Walter Lucadou, J.E. Kennedy, and Robert Jahn, openly admit that the evidence for psi is inconsistent, irreproducible, and fails to meet acceptable scientific standards.

Anomalous Cognition? A Second Perspective

You seem to keep defining being a skeptic as being someone who simply denies a claim without examining the evidence. It's not hard to see how you conclude that skepticism is the same as closed mindedness, as you've more or less defined it that way. But a skeptic is simply someone who withholds belief until sufficient evidence for the belief is presented. You yourself do the same. In a perfect world, we would have complete information and the competence to fruitfully examine any claim. But we don't have such, so, in those areas where we lack such, we must depend upon some filter to evaluate the evidence. Choosing not to decide is itself a decision. You can remain agnostic about some claims, but not others. If you have children then you must make a decision about what to believe about vaccines. Failure to make a choice is by default a choice. You seem to have equated shortcuts such as relying upon the consensus of scientific opinion as being the same as being closed minded. It's not. You simply want to equate the two in order to smear that consensus.

[Angrboda]

I would love to be able to provide a fair and unbiased assessment of the evidence for psi and decide whether it exists or not. But this is simply impossible. Many people have tried and failed. In some of the best debates in parapsychology the proponents and critics have ended up simply agreeing to differ (e.g., Hyman and Honorton 1986; Hyman 1995; Utts 1995) or failing to reach any agreement (Milton and Wiseman 1999). The only truly scientific position seems to be to remain on the fence, and yet to do so makes progress difficult, if not impossible.

For this reason, if for no other, you have to jump to one side or other of the fence — and preferably be prepared to jump back again if future evidence proves you wrong. I have jumped onto the side of concluding that psi does not exist. My reasons derive from nearly thirty years of working in, and observing, the field of parapsychology (Blackmore 1996). During that time various experimental paradigms have been claimed as providing a repeatable demonstration of psi and several have been shown to be false. For example, in the 1950s the London University mathematician Samuel Soal claimed convincing evidence of telepathy with his special subject Basil Shackleton, with odds estimated at 1035 against the effect being due to chance (Soal and Bateman 1954). These results convinced a whole generation of researchers and it took more than thirty years to show that Soal had, in fact, cheated (Markwick 1978). Promising animal precognition experiments were blighted by the discovery of fraud (Rhine 1974) and the early remote viewing experiments were found to be susceptible to subtle cues which could have produced the positive results (Marks and Kammann 1980). As Hyman (1995, 349) puts it, “Historically, each new paradigm in parapsychology has appeared to its designers and contemporary critics as relatively flawless. Only subsequently did previously unrecognized drawbacks come to light.”

What Can the Paranormal Teach Us About Consciousness?

[robvalue]

Just to let everyone know, this guy is totally confirmed as a troll. He was banned on TTA while spouting all this same gibberish, after it was discovered he was a sock puppet of a previously banned member.