From: Jeff Medina (analyticphilosophy@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 02 2006 - 11:42:14 MST
On 1/2/06, BillK <pharos@gmail.com> wrote:
> As Michael Shermer has commented:
> "But wouldn't that mean that this claim is ultimately nonfalsifiable?
> If both positive and negative results are interpreted as supporting a
> theory, how can we test its validity?
> Skepticism is the default position because the burden of proof is on
> the believer, not the skeptic."
It isn't that positive and negative (i.e., any) results are
interpreted as support. Richard is claiming specifically that:
- Believers in such experiments have consistently positive results
- Skeptics in such experiments have consistently negative results
Chance would imply a lack of correlation between one's belief and
one's results; there should be positive and negative variance in equal
amounts for the believers and the skeptics, but there aren't,
apparently.
Not that I support his take on psi. But there is a critical
distinction to be made between the object of your criticism and the
claim Richard's making, no matter what the explanation of these
experiments.
-- Jeff Medina http://www.painfullyclear.com/ Community Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.intelligence.org/ Relationships & Community Fellow Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies http://www.ieet.org/ School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT