Clash of the titans

This story from The Daily Grail only underscores my suspicion that media skeptics and debunkers are much less confident in their position than their bluster would suggest.

Note how Richard Dawkins simply refuses to discuss any actual facts or evidence, preferring to rely on verbalistic debating tactics. When Rupert Sheldrake declines to play along, Dawkins packs up his video gear and goes home.

Comments

[John]

Interesting how he flaunts himself as a big voice in the defense of reason, and is yet so unreasonable himself.

Dogmatism at its finest.

[Kevin]

It's only too true, unfortunately. The arguments offered by pseudoskeptics are almost always of a rhetorical nature, rather than a debate on factual findings and merits.In the end, no Theory of Everything will ever be demonstrably complete without being able to account for and explain phenomena which have existed at least as long as recorded history. If a particular theory cannot accomodate repeatedly observed human experience, the theory MUST be changed. If experimental techniques cannot register experienced effects, new techniques MUST be devised. Sweeping rhetorical dismissals of such experiences should themselves be dismissed. The weight of human and (especially) scientific history crushes the closed-mindedness of supposedly "steel-trap minds" which have long since rusted shut.

[Greg Taylor]

Thanks MP. I should note that I would love to hear Dawkins' account of this meeting - certainly, I'm a believer in hearing both sides of the story, as we no doubt filter memories the way we want to.

Even better would have been if they left the tape rolling, so we could all see/hear the conversation...

Kind regards,
Greg

[william]

Greg: very seldom do we get to see the behind the scenes action. Producers let us see what they want us to see.

I hear that randi tried to do what john Edwards does by doing cold reading and it went so bad they refused to air it. That would have been interesting to watch.

dr Swartz has offered any skeptic the opportunity to come to his lab and be tested and then come back in two years after practicing cold reading techniques and be tested again to see if they can match the results of the mediums he tested.

These skeptics claimed that with two years practice they could do what john Edwards does with a sitter under the same conditions. No takers yet to my knowledge.

[Michael H]

" . . . only underscores my suspicion that media skeptics and debunkers are much less confident in their position than their bluster would suggest."

Where there's bluster, there's insecurity.

[The Major]

The problem is though that once again, this programme will go out to air and people will take it as gospel (pun intended). Sheldrake's comments won't reach the mainstream domain and the paranormal will once again take a kicking in the eyes of the public.

[Greg Taylor]

The Major:

The programmes were broadcast last year, to much fanfare. I have written previously about another more minor point from the series.

Kind regards,
Greg

[Michael H]

So Greg, have you begun your book "The Scientism Delusion" yet?

[Leo]

Richard Dawkins should really do his research properly he attacks mediums yes there is no doubt a lot of them are frauds. Does he look into the evidence for survival after death NO. Richard Dawkins shoudl stick with zoology and stop crossing areas of inquiry that he has no knowledge about whatsoever.

[Tony in Quakeland]

My favorite moment in the exchange:

He said that if it really occurred, it would "turn the laws of physics upside down," and added, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

"This depends on what you regard as extraordinary", I replied. "Most people say they have experienced telepathy, especially in connection with telephone calls. In that sense, telepathy is ordinary. The claim that most people are deluded about their own experience is extraordinary. Where is the extraordinary evidence for that?"

Sheldrake's response seems self-evidently true. Based on actual experience in the real world, telepathy is ordinary and it has taken extraordinary hubris and blinkered thinking to miss it.

[Tim]

This is classic skeptical thinking. It's not about evidence, it's about blanket denial, protecting one's cherished worldview, and in the case of someone like Dawkins, preserving one's carefully nurtured and very lucrative media profile.

[John]

The popular webcomic xkcd is usually quite funny, but today's strip was just ignorant, and many of the replies on the forum about it were just as ignorant.

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17438

I decided there's no point in arguing with them.

[william]

Somewhere I read or heard on the radio that a remote viewer was able to locate an H bomb that went down with a plane using remote viewing. Personally the people I have seen on TV demonstrating remote viewing have not been that convincing to me at least.

Last night Larry king was on UFO's and the one just seen in Texas. Not a great sighting with lots of video but many did see it. Also had a couple of ladies from phoenix that in 1997 a ufo that flew right over their heads the size of a football field and silent.

The ultra skeptic answer. Six wart hogs flying in formation very slow. I have heard that wart hogs are some of the loudest jets in the military.

Again I am fascinated how the human mind can block evidence. Even the Arizona governor at the time saw the UFO. But the skeptic kept saying they were not trained observers. Even pilots to him were not trained observers. Bet he thinks he is a trained observer and the only rational mind in the entire UFO debate.

From my point of view it is the ultimate in arrogance to think we are the only intelligent creatures in the universe. Kind of like when we thought we were the center of the universe and the sun revolved around our planet earth.

[Barbara]

What bothers me most about what I've read of Dawkins, which I admit isn't much, is what seems to me his absolutist approach. He's not really a skeptic at all. He's made up his mind to believe nothing but hard science, and that must be science that he approves of. For instance I have no doubt he would dismiss Gary Schwartz's science out of hand.

Absolutist approaches bother me a great deal, especially when wrapped in the label of skeptic. A skeptic is someone who hasn't made up their mind and who honestly questions what is. Dawkins has very strong opinions, and he's deadset on changing everyone else's mind to match his. This is the height of bigotry, as I see it, not skepticism.

[Roger Knights]

"He's not really a skeptic at all. He's made up his mind to believe nothing but hard science, and that must be science that he approves of. ... Absolutist approaches bother me a great deal, especially when wrapped in the label of skeptic."

The name I suggest for a scoffer who wraps himself in the mantle of "skepticism" is "scoftic." It's a coinage that was suggested by Marcello's Truzzi's accusation that CSICOP types are really scoffers in disguise.

[Leo]

Hi, Michael I came across this it had Alex Tsakiris skeptiko host on the skepic's guide to the universe it's under podcast #125 . One guy on there named Jay a friend of Dr. Steven Novella they said that for 100 years of psi research no positive evidence has come up that there is too much noise using the Ganzield Experiments as there example.

[Leo MacDonald]

here's the link http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive.asp

[Roger K]

Here's a great speech, recently held at Google headquarters in Silicon Valley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew
Dean Radin on "Science and the taboo of psi" 60 min + 34 minutes of Q&A.

A lot of evidence for psi - for those who haven't yet read The Conscious Universe & Entangled Minds.

>One guy on there named Jay a friend of Dr. Steven Novella they said that for 100 years of psi research no positive evidence has come up

Well, I think he just might be wrong.

:)

[Michael Prescott]

Sorry, last comment was by me.

[Greg Taylor]

Leo,

The Skeptic's Guide has some decent things to say. Then Jay opens his mouth and it's Randi-land all over again...George Hansen wrote about this macho tendency of the modern skeptical movement somewhere. And they wonder why they don't 'convert' people (funnily, Hansen also wrote about the religious terms used in describing modern skepticism!).

Kind regards,
Greg

[Greg Taylor]

Michael H.

I would love to write 'The Scientism Delusion'...I'm just having trouble finding a 30 hour day!

Actually, I may be just getting started on something of that sort - I have a commission to write a 5000 word article on the topic, which should give a good reason to do some serious research. Also, look out soon on the The Daily Grail for a big feature on Randi's Million Dollar Challenge.

Kind regards,
Greg

[Michael H]

Here's an excerpt from an article at the Common Ground website:

'Writes Richard Milton in his book Alternative Science: “From December 1903 to September 1908, two young bicycle mechanics from Ohio repeatedly claimed to have built a heavier-than-air flying machine and to have flown it successfully. But despite scores of public demonstrations, affidavits from local dignitaries and photographs of themselves flying, the claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by the Scientific American, the New York Herald, the US army and most American scientists.”'

Perhaps Dawkins should add Milton's 'Alternative Science' to his reading list.

The entire article on perception is excellent, I may have linked it here before:

http://commonground.ca/iss/198/cg198_seeing.shtml

[william]

“The claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by the Scientific American, the New York Herald, the US army and most American scientists.”'

Michael h: I have used that logic before with ultra skeptics how beliefs can overwhelm the rational scientific mind and how history has shown time and time again how new discoveries have been dismissed by the so called scientific experts.

But it does not seem to register with them. They hide again and again behind scientism. They seem to think that today scientists are incapable of making the same mistakes. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Last night my wife and I attended a presentation on Islam and Christianity at one of those mega Christian churches.

Well you guessed it the folks in the room felt they were the only ones going to heaven and guess who going to HE double I. The last night of the four night sessions is going to be on how to convert Muslims to Islam. Oh that ought to stir the hornet’s nest.

I went for the knowledge as the presenter has a PhD in world religions but he had a hidden agenda. Conversion.

I was impressed with the computer technology at the church. They really had their act together with names and printouts etc. even had a star bucks inside the church.

My point is these people were absolutely certain their religion is the only true religion just like the ultra skeptics are absolutely certain they are the only ones with a rational mind. I think it must bring some level of comfort to think that way.

[Art]

Just imagine how foolish Richard Dawkins is going to be after his body dies and he finds himself still conscious and floating through that tunnel into the Light. It's going to be hilariously funny. Who says God doesn't have a sense of humor?

[John]

I really do have to wonder how someone like Dawkins isn't afraid of death.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't bear the thought of oblivion. I only take comfort in the fact that survival seems so likely.

[Art]

The wonderful thing about studying NDE's and death bed visions is that "salvation" doesn't seem to have anything to do with belief whatsoever. The souls lessons are embedded in our everyday lives and it learns holistically in much the same way that young children learn before they start school. It's more imprinting than learning. Just by existing in a 3D + 1T Universe the soul learns what it means and how it feels to be separate, unique, individual, what it looks like and feels to live in a universe that has space and time, and what it's like and how it tastes, smells, sounds, feels, and looks like to be inside a physical body. Stub your toe or scratch an itch or brush your hair or your teeth and your imprinting on the soul memory engrams of what it's like to be alive in a physical universe. We don't have to jack squat, and what we believe is irrelevant.

[John]

The thing about NDEs and DBVs is they're not necessarily evidence of survival; they're just signs that the consciousness could be cast separately from the brain.

I take my solace in the fact that so many mediumistic communications have been veridical beyond chance; specifically the chess match that seems to prove that consciousness exists beyond the mind.

Yet I still have my lingering fears and doubts.

[william]

John bravo to you. You are one of the few people I have ever heard fully admit their fear of oblivion. Most hide it, refuse to admit it, or almost completely put it out of their minds or let some religious authority tell them they will go to a place called heaven if they believe exactly like they the authority believes.

I commend you for your honestly it is so refreshing to witness.

Even after 17 years into this research into life after death I still have days that doubt creeps in. Then I look at all the research that I have discovered that supports life after dearth and I tell myself “what is the probability of it all being wrong?”

There may be two types of people: those that say they have a fear of oblivion and liars.

[John]

Yep, William. I say the same about the life after death evidence. Why do we still have these doubts, despite the amount overwhelming evidence? Is it the irrational ego?

[Roger Knights]

"Just imagine how foolish Richard Dawkins is going to be after his body dies and he finds himself still conscious and floating through that tunnel into the Light."

I read somewhere recently, maybe in one of this site's threads, that a medium had contacted a couple of skeptics who'd passed over. They hadn't changed their minds a bit! (I think they were arguing that they weren't really dead.)

[John]

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17438&p=494643#p494643

I just made a post on the forums about parapsychology. How do I sound? (I am "Kles" here.)

[Hope Rivers]

"Yep, William. I say the same about the life after death evidence. Why do we still have these doubts, despite the amount overwhelming evidence? Is it the irrational ego?"

FEAR is the root.

What have we got to lose if we believe in eternity?

As someone once said to me, if we die and there's nothing.....well its too late anyhows.

This life becomes meaningful with Hope and purpose.

[Alex]

"Note how Richard Dawkins simply refuses to discuss any actual facts or evidence, preferring to rely on verbalistic debating tactics."

You guys are wasting your time with all of this complaining. I recommend paying a visit to ScienceBlogs to get a sense of the status quo within mainstream academia. The fact that they put up sophomoric posts like this indicates that these people are unlikely to give the evidence(they probably don't even know that it exists since they get all of their info on this subject from Randi, Shermer, etc.) a serious, unbiased assessment:

http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/2008/01/the_data_so_far_in_support_of.php

Forget about trying to convince other people.

[joki]

William and John, I absolutely agree with your comments regarding NDEs. I recommend again Stephen Braude s "Immortal remains", for me there is the best evidence collected and discussed with a high intellectual style. S B also shows the neurobiological and philosphical problems of NDEs, when these experiences are regarded as a good evidence. Eveb R. Moody stated similar concerns.

[Art]

The thing about NDEs and DBVs is they're not necessarily evidence of survival; they're just signs that the consciousness could be cast separately from the brain. - John
-------------------------------------------
Then maybe you can explain to me how it is that NDE'ers routinely make statements that parallel what Bohm and Talbot say about the holographic Universe? How does the brain come up with statements about life after death that exactly parallel what Michael Talbot wrote about in the The Holographic Universe? Read this 6 page online essay about the holographic universe http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html#zine and then read Mark Horton's NDE: http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/markh.html The corroboration, support, or parllels between them are obvious. How is that possible? How does the brain "come up with" these ideas? It's impossible to fully understand near death experiences without first understanding the holographic nature of the Universe. Near death experiences are a holographic experience par excellance. There is no way that some truck driver from Omaha or a housewife from Florida would know about the holographic universe yet they routinely have near death experiences and make statements about 360 degree vision, feelings of overwhelming connectedness and oneness, communicating telepathically, time and space not existing, being everywhere in the Universe at once, buildings that seem to be "made of knowledge", being able to focus on and experience any time and place in history they want to, etc. Dr. Kenneth Ring devotes a whole chapter in his book "Life At Death" to the holographic Universe and Dr. Melvin Morse devotes several pages to the holographic universe in his book "Where God Lives." It's the corroboration between the two that I find so amazing and evidential. It's like going to a trial and having two witnesses that tell exactly the same story. They may use slightly different language but they say the same thing. In Dr. Fred Alan Wolf's book The Spiritual Universe he makes the statement that thoughts are things and consciousness creates reality. In several NDE's that I've read they said they went into a library and it seemed to them that the building themselves were "made of knowledge." Suffice it to say that Dr. Oswald Harding wrote a whole book about NDE's and the holographic universe so I'll stifle myself and quit for now. If someone doesn't understand the holographic universe they can't or won't understand NDE's.

[Michael H]

John wrote: “I just made a post on the forums about parapsychology. How do I sound?”

Reasonable.

“Why do we still have these doubts, despite the amount of overwhelming evidence? Is it the irrational ego?"

Yes.

The quest for certainty is certainly fascinating. What is strange, and so difficult to communicate, is that the understanding of the nature of reality and the truth of immortality already exists within us. It isn’t so much about discovering something new as it is about realizing what’s already there. We rarely look in that direction though, because we’re transfixed by externals.

In reading through your post at XKCD, it’s clear that you’ve already begun to recognize this, John. You’ve already identified that both the theists and the atheists are operating from highly divergent belief systems that ultimately lead to nothing but endless arguments. It’s beyond obvious that no one has a corner on ‘truth’, though all of them (on both sides) would vehemently deny that.

To find certainty, the only thing I can suggest is that we need to learn to look beyond our own belief systems. And our own beliefs are within us, in the form of the thoughts that we think define us, the story we tell ourselves about who we are.

[John]

But how does that necessarily mean survival?

[Leo MacDonald]

Now I would not typically look a book at my local library conversations on consciousness by Susan Blackmore. i am always interested in other scientists opinions on the mind-body problem yes mostly all of them in the book are materialists except Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff who Susan Blackmore interviewed in her book.

Here's what Patricia and Paul Churchland answer is when Susan Blackmore asks them this question

Sue: Do you think consciousness survives the death of the physical body?

Pat: We do know that when large numbers of neurons die, as in alzheimers disease, deficits in memory occur, cognition is impaired, personality changes awareness of what other people are thinking and feeling, and awareness of time are impaired. I see this as a kind of fading of many aspects of the self and it capacities, and one cannot but feel that the person one knew and loved is no longer there. All the evidence shows that brain is necessary for functions associated with consciousness. I am not sure how consciousness could survive the death of the brain it it needs neurons to sustain it.

At a personal level, I should feel more settled about death and dying having understood that it is the end, than I would if I were trying to nourish an unrealistic hope in some kind of heaven. When I was a child, a friend who was a native Indian once remarked to me that he felt sorry for christians, as they labour under the delusion that he felt sorry for christians, as they labour under the delusion of a heaven, while he, in contrastm could prepare for finality, pass on the stories of a person's life, help them to die easily, and accept the finality for what it is. That struck me as sensible then, and it does so still.

Paul: I agree. Consciousness is just one sophisticated dimension of biological life. When my biological life ends, so does my consciousness. I am more content with this. The prospect of being conscious for an unending eternity is quite appalling. When my time comes let me sleep.

[John]

It's not so much consciousness ending that bothers me, it's the concept of consciousness ending for eternity that I'm not comfortable with. I'd be fine with a few millenia of rest, but damn it, I want to come back at some point. The universe is too miraculous to miss out on.

[Roger Knights]

"All the evidence shows that brain is necessary for functions associated with consciousness."

"ALL the evidence"? Huck Finn would call that a stretcher.

[william]

joki: I was referring to more than NDE's when I referred to my research. My first research in the early nineties was into NDE's as I had always wanted to study them after an article I had read in the 1970’s on NDE’s. But they did not convince me to any degree of high probability that life after death was a reality. All the data from theoretical quantum physics to spiritualism has from my point of view has given me the confidence that life after death and other dimensions exists.

Hope: you stated that fear is the root of doubt. What then is the root of fear?

“You guys are wasting your time with all of this complaining”

I was hoping our dialog would not be looked at as complaining. Richard Dawkins has been put in charge of some prestigious department about “truth” at some prestigious university in England. To remain silent would not be beneficial to the world and to the advancement of human knowledge. People looking to the Internet for answers to their questions I would think would appreciate reading both sides to the mystery of life after death and the paranormal.

Will we change Richard Dawkins? Absolutely not, only a significant emotional event in his life will give him the opportunity to consider data outside his existing paradigm. My interest is in the human mind and how it can filter data that does not agree with its cherished beliefs.

[Art]

But how does that necessarily mean survival? Posted by: John
-------------------------------------------

They are what they claim to be. Did you read the links I posted? No, I didn't think so. I get so tired of trying to explain it. There is no way I can explain it all in a few short paragraphs. The online essay about the holographic universe does an excellent job of explaining what the holographic universe is and it's implications. It's six pages, go read it, and then read Mark Horton's near death experience. Understanding the holographic universe and NDE's shows me the reason "why we are here." It's so simple. - Art

[Art]

excerpt from Mark Horton's NDE:
"This was very pleasant and comforting and went on for microseconds or billions of years, I have no idea since time just wasn't an operative construct and had no meaning or relevance to existence. I literally had the feeling that I was everywhere in the universe simultaneously." http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/markh.html

Another really interesting link about parallels between NDE's and the holographic universe comes from an online article about Emmanuel Swedenborg. http://www.soultravel.se/2004/040907-swedenborg/index.shtml

and a story from taste called "Riding the Dragon" that is fantastic and has a very holographic flavor to it.
http://www.issc-taste.org/arc/dbo.cgi?set=expom&id=00070&ss=1

[Leo]

It really depends on what interpretation of the mind brain relationship you follow most neuroscientists like the production/generator model because it simple where other scientists parapsychologists and some psychologists like Edward Kelly like the Transmitter/receiver model or filter model.

[Art]

After we die we experience the Universe as it truly is, a gigantic splendidly detailed hologram, which explains those overwhelming and infinite feelings of oneness and connectedness that so many near death experiencers talk about.

[Hope Rivers]

Michael H,

What if we had our certainty of an afterlife, accepted by science and humanity at large, will that be enough to appease our minds?

[John]

I dunno about Michael, but that would be enough for me, Hope.

I dunno. It constantly bothers me. It's always in my mind - death, eternity, life, everything. Constantly concerned. I'm going to try to get to a psychologist soon, but I really wish I could have a smoking gun to help calm me down.

[Michael H]

John wrote: “But how does that necessarily mean survival?”

Then Hope wrote: “What if we had our certainty of an afterlife, accepted by science and humanity at large, will that be enough to appease our minds?”

Now I write . . . ;-)

I find myself in a position that must be familiar to NDE survivors.

I’m certain of consciousness survival because I have experienced enough distance from my thought processes to see them as thought processes. It’s the momentary experience of pure consciousness that mystics refer to as ego death. So it’s kind of strange – I don’t believe in consciousness survival, it’s just part of my understanding of reality. I regard it as a fact. But, it’s a fact I’m incapable of demonstrating to anyone else.

So, to answer John, I don’t think that because I’m pointing in a given direction it necessarily means that one will always reach the same understanding by following that direction, though I see no reason that one couldn’t, or go well beyond where I have for that matter. My observation though, is that if you can get past the self-chatter that we all constantly carry on with ourselves, you’ll discover that there’s something else still there, something that far surpasses who you think you are. You’ll discover who you really are when you find the complete silence at your core.

The thing is, though, you have to do that yourself. It has to become part of your experience, not just a belief, or an understanding that somebody else has that belief.

And that kind of brings me to Hope’s question. I don’t think that scientific and social acceptance will ever provide absolute certainty for anyone, though it would provide some hope and encouragement, rather than the despair and discouragement the current public dialogue nurtures. I think that certainty will always be dependent on personal experience, but if there was a significant population that felt safe sharing their transcendent experiences in an honestly open dialogue, it could go a long way to helping others experience their own divinity.

In our current society, speaking of these things is regarded as ludicrous, and anyone who chooses to is branded by the skeptics as unreasonable at best; delusional at worst. Mystical experience is still regarded as a mental disorder by state-of-the-art psychology, despite the fact that mystical experiences are among the most positively transformational experiences people have. I’m apparently one of very few who interprets the existence of some 400 different schools of psychology as damning evidence that none of them have a clue. Well meaning, but clueless.

As for Dawkins, Shermer, Randi, Blackmore and their sycophants positioning themselves as the defenders of reason, I’d suggest that none of them have the slightest understanding of what reason is, and furthermore, that they are among the most deluded of the population at large. And all the while, blissfully ignorant of their ignorance.

They’ll survive too, though.

[John]

This might be where you and I differ, Michael. I don't "feel" survival to be a basic fact - I never have. I have to work it in to my belief system. While I try to take the facts at face value, and I believe that survival is the ultimate truth regarding the data, I still am not positive. Sometimes I feel like it's unlikely, then I remember the evidence, but I still feel concerned and afraid.

Perhaps it's just the depression talking? At least I'm not having panic attacks over it anymore.

I don't think psychologists generally regard mystical experience as a mental disease, though. Look at Vernon Neppe. He seems to be quite accepting as it. The psychologist I plan on seeing seems open to spirituality too. I don't think it's considered to be lunacy on the whole, at all.