|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2003 : 11:44:56
|
If some of you have more patience than I do and would like to read this and comment, I'd like to see what you have to say.
http://www.psicounsel.com/wwudebunk.html
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2003 : 12:52:17 [Permalink]
|
The site is mostly just junk. But there was one thing that caught my eye and frankly, I do not know what to make of it. 'It' is the site below, maybe someone could comment on this.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
Thanks
Edited for content: Never mind! I did a little quick research and looked at some of the peer reviews and was astounded to discover the sloppy controls and experimentation protocol. I actually got a little excited - I would love if this hocus-pocus stuff was real! But alas, same old crap and my feet are once again rooted on the ground. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 10/30/2003 13:35:31 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2003 : 12:08:51 [Permalink]
|
Thank you, Gorgo, for posting the link to that article. At the very least, it tells us the source of Phantom's plagiarism in the old "Is Einstein's relativity theory wrong?" thread. Specifically, his Feb 13, 2003 post, which plagiarizes from argument #5, and his Feb 14, 2003 post, which plagiarizes from argument #2. At least, it was plagiarism if Phantom is not Winston Wu. He might be, but I'd need to see some evidence for that. 
The main problem with Wu's "rebuttal of skeptical arguments" is that it really should be "rebuttal of cynical arguments." He even admits as much in the introduction:quote:
Therefore when I critique skepticism here, I'm not referring to honest healthy skepticism, but the cynical kind that tries to debunk everything outside of the materialistic world view, publishes or reads one-sided magazines like "The Skeptical Inquirer", belong to organizations like CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigations of Claims of the Paranormal), and who consider James Randi's unwon million dollar psychic challenge to be proof that no one is truly psychic. This type of cycnicism masquerading as science is especially prevalent in the attitude of the popular skeptical newsgroup Sci.Skeptic. Not everyone who calls himself a skeptic fits into these categories of course. The true skeptic though, should be skeptical of his own beliefs and positions as well of others.
Of course, calling the Skeptical Inquirer "one-sided" is dishonest, especially when they've given space to Gary Schwartz for his response(s) to Ray Hyman.
But that's beside the point. Wu specifically states that the skeptics he is criticizing are really cynics, and then spends the rest of the article using the word 'skeptic', sometimes in combination with "hard-nosed." This is also dishonest, as the casual reader will conflate the two. He goes on to summarize and criticize some arguments which no self-respecting "true skeptic" would ever use, such as:
- "It is irrational to believe anything that hasn't been proven" (#1)
- "Paranormal and supernatural phenomena aren't possible because they contradict all known natural laws gained from science." (#10)
- "Miracles are impossible and defy everything we know about science and anatomy." (#19)
- "Alternative medical practices only work due to the placebo effect." (#20)
- "There is no evidence to support the existence of UFO's or the notion that we are being visited by extraterrestrials." (#27)
Additionally, Wu lists some arguments which skeptics use to defend skepticism. They are not arguments against the paranormal, as is implied. These include:
- "Skeptics don't have beliefs. They/I base our views and judgments on the degree of evidence." (#12)
- "A common myth is that Skepticism is cynicism. It is not. Skepticism is a method of inquiry." (#13)
- "Believers in the paranormal are thinking in primitive, irrational, childish and uninformed ways." (#14)
- "Skeptics are defending science and reason from a rising tide of irrationality." (#15)
Because of the above major flaws, "true skeptics" can take heart that Wu isn't critiquing them.
However, Wu makes some tremenedously faulty arguments in his rebuttals, and in the interest of defending "reality in general" from Wu and people who might believe him, a response should be made. Not including the above nine arguments, which are just wrong to make when arguing against the paranormal, there are 21 others (plus, the introduction needs to be tackled). Perhaps we can take them on one at a time, in a tag-team group effort, just a |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Maglev
Skeptic Friend
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2003 : 13:17:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The problems with Wu's criticisms are numerous. Among the five or so of his "rebuttals" which I read (instead of skimmed), a large percentage of the individual sentences could be faulted, some for more than one reasons. For this reason alone, even tag-teaming could take quite some time (at least, to do it right, and thoroughly deflate Wu's claims and logic).
If anyone else is interested, we should probably lay out some ground rules before actually beginning. For example, to disarm one of Wu's biggest complaints, we shouldn't use words like "delusional, irrational, gullible," etc. to describe "believers." We should also do first those arguments which do not refer to other arguments.
I'm new at this, but I may try my hand at it. I just printed out Wu's 56 pages long text, i'll read over the week-end (and will try to keep my cool while doing so :) ).
BTW, have you checked the rest of the web site? Click on "Return to The Skeptics" or click http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/index.html. The web site is maintained by Victor Zammit, a "Retired Lawyer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and the High Court of Australia", which re-inforces my beleifs in lawers (dont get me started!). The funny thing is that by he didn't need to specify that he is a lawer... It's painfully obvious (by his choice of words) that he is one.
I've rarely seen such intellectual dishonesty... For example, he defines himself as an Open Minded Skeptic, as opposed to Closed Mind Skeptics, like James Randi (which he calls J Zwinge Randi... huh? Either i'm missing something, or he his sorta infering that M. Randi is Jewish... Racists piss me off).
Ok, i'll calm down now :). Go check it out, tell me what you think...
|
Maglev
"The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
--Douglas Adams, on evolutionary biology. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2003 : 13:51:59 [Permalink]
|
Oh, I already checked it out, Maglev. It is only a lawyer who could possibly want the courts involved in deciding matters of science, and I've known several lawyers who would be sickened by that thought, themselves.
I also noted that Zammit's million-dollar challenge is so very different from Randi's that Zammit's is most-likely unwinnable. What 'rebutting' means is not defined, yet is the core of the challenge. Also, Zammit doesn't tell us whom we can contact to verify the existence of this million dollars. In other words, I don't think Zammit has a million bucks, and even if he did, challengers need only be told in the first part of the challenge that, regardless of their proposed methodology, it cannot successfully rebut all of the alleged evidence. Therefore, you lose.
It's funny: Winston Wu's complaints that skeptics call believers bad names are being hosted by Zammit, who feels free to use highly insulting terms to describe skeptics. If I were Wu, and cared about this appearance of hypocrisy, I'd be asking Zammit to take the article down.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2003 : 13:54:37 [Permalink]
|
| It does prove that we Australians suffer from to much exposure to the sun..... |
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2003 : 14:10:57 [Permalink]
|
By the way, if you decide to participate (Maglev or anyone else), you should probably announce (in this thread) your intention to tackle a particular argument before actually doing so. That way, no work will be duplicated.
Disputes over who gets to do which sections will be resolved with knifes and chains, in a pit populated by rabid chickens.
I plan on rebutting #11 tonight.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2003 : 14:33:24 [Permalink]
|
I thought the psi site made some interesting points. But they lost many points with me. For example:
quote:
Skeptics who use these arguments include honest doubters, cynics, debunkers, Atheists, Humanists, certain scientists bent on materialistic reductionist world views, those for whom science is their God (even though they won't admit it)...
That's the "we know more about your beliefs than you do" argument, which I hate. I don't know anybody who uses science as their God; Wu is projecting his own worldview there, I think.
quote:
First of all, just because something hasn't been proven and established in mainstream science doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true.
Well...yeah. But that doesn't mean it IS true or that it DOES exist. Uh...?
quote:
Fifth, just because something is unprovable does not automatically put it in the same category as everything else that is unprovable. For example, I can't prove what I ate last night for dinner or what I thought about. Without witnesses, I can't prove what I saw on TV or how high I scored in a video game either. But that doesn't mean that these things are in the same category as every story in the fiction section of the library.
This is actually a good point, although a highly subjective one. To a die-hard atheist, perhaps God existing really is as unlikely as pink unicorns existing.
quote:
Important variables increase the reliability of anecdotal evidence. The degree of reliability of anecdotal evidence can usually be measured by variables such as:a) The number of eyewitnesses.
He's giving too much credence to anecdotal evidence here, IMO. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable, as is human memory. A ton of research exists on both subjects.
quote:
3) Third, the claimant who already has his/her proof doesn't need to prove it to others to validate their experiences. NDEers often emphasize this. Their personal proof from their experience or encounter is a blessing, gift or message meant for them, not for the skeptics. In other words, the claimants, if sincere, have already proved it to themselves. Whether or not skeptics accept the proof is inconsequential to them. Skeptics can believe what they want, but what they think does nothing to change the reality of a paranormal phenomenon. The skeptics who only want to see proof from other people without looking for it themselves is totally missing out on their own transcendental experiences
Where's the "I give up" icon when I need it? Here I am, trying to think critically, striving to educate myself about science and immunize myself against charlatans--and instead I'm "missing out on my own transcendental experiences". Silly me!
Argh.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2003 : 23:25:06 [Permalink]
|
| I do believe Winston Wu used to post on the ACLU forum at AOL. That forum is gone now but I know the moderator of the skeptic section. I'm going to check into this a bit... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2003 : 23:36:59 [Permalink]
|
Well, crap. I decided to look for a little background on Mr. Wu or his article, and found that my little proposed project has mostly been done. A Logical Analysis of Winston Wu's Anti-Skeptic Article is a very good response to Wu's ideas. This article's authors (note use of the word 'we') aren't listed, but the article sits on Paul Sandoval's Web Site.
I would still much prefer a response to Wu's claims which wasn't so much "ad hominem this," "argument from ignorance that," etc.. In other words, one which is written with more of a popular audience in mind than a "logical fallacies 101" report. Not that the latter doesn't have its place, mind you, I just feel that such a refutation of Wu's points would be lost on most of the people who've read Wu and agree with him. There are also some points which I think the authors missed.
For examples, the authors don't spend much time on the (correctly identified) ad hominem of the "true skeptic" vs. "cynic" stuff in the introduction of Wu's article. I believe it to be the core incorrect assumption which taints the rest of Wu's article as a gigantic straw man argument.
Also, I think that since several of Wu's rebuttals are against arguments which seek to hypothesize non-paranormal explanations for supposedly paranormal events (such as Argument #20: "Alternative medical practices such as acupuncture, homeopathy, psychic healing, etc. have no scientific basis and all work due to the placebo effect or the power of suggestion."), and since Wu has claimed this is an invalid method of skepticism, I believe it is important to not even mention the original alternative hypothesis in the response. In other words, using the example above, it is sufficient to show that alternative medical practices have no scientific basis, period. Only when the question of whether they work at all has been answered can we, perhaps, go on to question why they might work. Claiming that they must work via the placebo effect would be a premature conclusion on the part of the skeptic. Pointing at the evidence and saying they work no better than placebo is fact. But now I'm starting to write a rebuttal myself, and getting sidetracked.
The authors also make the grave mistake of coming very close to contradicting themselves. In their "final comments," they say, "In this article, in all cases, Mr. Wu failed to support his conclusions with valid arguments." However, prior to this, they say, "Skeptics who use Argument #26 shouldn't. It is ad hominem. Mr. Wu's conclusion is correct." The fact that Wu neglected to support his correct conclusion will be missed, ignored, or purposefully downplayed by critics of "A Logical Analysis..." and used as a basis to discredit the entire rebuttal of the rebuttal. While it certainly isn't a fatal flaw to any skeptic, when a supporter of Wu's ideas finally notices it, it'll become a focus of unnecessary and avoidable contention. With a somewhat different wording, the authors could have avoided what I predict will become a hassle.
Anyway, if there's still interest in writing more of a "common man's" rebuttal to Wu's article, I'm still game. I don't think it'll "reinvent the wheel" so much that it would be a waste of time. At the very least, it's nice to know there's "backup" on the Web already.
I'd also like to share the Google search results for Wu's article, which lead me to "A Logical Analysis..." (aside from, of course, Zammit's own web sites).
Pro-Winston:
- A message on the Theos-Talk Email List
- NDE Rhetoric, Debunking the Debunkers? (in which another lawyer tries to make the case that science is like a courtroom, and again, like Wu, claims that "cynics" get more air time in the me |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2003 : 23:38:01 [Permalink]
|
| Dang, all that work, and I failed to get to #11 tonight. Sigh... |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2003 : 07:51:25 [Permalink]
|
| Wow. Lots of information so far. Thanks. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
JimTheBrit
New Member
United Kingdom
3 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2003 : 13:33:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, crap. I decided to look for a little background on Mr. Wu or his article, and found that my little proposed project has mostly been done. A Logical Analysis of Winston Wu's Anti-Skeptic Article is a very good response to Wu's ideas. This article's authors (note use of the word 'we') aren't listed, but the article sits on Paul Sandoval's Web Site.
Pyrrho, moderator at the JREF forums, wrote the rebuttal - see the email address at the bottom of the document. Confirmation here ('bout halfway down the page). |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2003 : 18:05:53 [Permalink]
|
Same email address as on the "Orbs" article on the same web site. Guess that cracks Pyrrho's secret identity. Still don't know why he used 'we'.
Welcome back to SFN, JimTheBrit. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
