|
Post by sandwiches on Feb 21, 2013 19:02:16 GMT
Another excellent review of this book: www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-heretics-adventures-with-the-enemies-of-science-by-will-storr-8495338.htmlThe Heretics: Adventures with the Enemies of Science, By Will Storr Colin Tudge The Skeptics and Randi (at one point supported by Nature) strive tirelessly to debunk all trials that claim to demonstrate the value of everything from telepathy to homoeopathy. Randi has offered a $1 million prize to anyone who can demonstrate any non-orthodox claim – and, he says, no one has seriously taken him up. However, says Storr, those who have tried to deal with Randi tell a very different tale: that whenever someone does rise seriously to his challenge, they can't agree on the rules.Most of us write off Irving as a dangerous nutter, while Randi is widely seen as the heroic defender of rationality and hence of truth. Yet they are two of a kind. Both are convinced that they are "evidence-led", but both defend their worldview to the death whatever the evidence may throw at them. So too, as Storr relates, do the fundamentalist Creationists who see Darwin as the anti-Christ – and the fundamentalist atheists who aim to shoot them. But then – there but for the grace of God go all of us. It's how our brains work.I must get the book, so I can get an insight into the psyche of those with extreme confirmation-bias.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Feb 22, 2013 3:52:11 GMT
The Skeptics and Randi (at one point supported by Nature) strive tirelessly to debunk all trials that claim to demonstrate the value of everything from telepathy to homoeopathy. That's a subtle bit of spin; the correct phrasing would be 'strive tirelessly to test all trials that claim to demonstrate the value of everything from telepathy to homeopathy'. People like Randi are fully supportive of the concept of trials, they just want to know how trustworthy they are, so they put them to the test. There have been trials of telepathy and homeopathy for at least a hundred years, yet even after all this time their claimants cannot provide any rational mechanism of operation, and the overwhelming bulk of evidence collected over numerous trials contradicts the claims made for both. At this point skepticism of trials claiming to present evidence for telepathy and homeopathy, is entirely reasonable. No he hasn't. It's any paranormal claim. Serious spin here. Randi tells almost the same tale; many claimants can't agree to Randi's rules (though others have). This does not surprise him since his rules (which are the same for everyone), are designed specifically to test for phenomena which cannot be more efficiently explained by theories other than those proposed by the claimant. This is entirely reasonable. However, there have been plenty of other claimants who have agreed to the rules, and been tested, and failed the test. In the case of Irving this is clearly true. I haven't seen evidence for it in the case of Randi. I have to say alarm bells went off when I read this part of the article. The propaganda reaches extreme levels here. Telepathy in humans and in dogs has been 'shown beyond what is normally considered to be reasonable doubt'? Where's the evidence? Sheldrake is being 'hounded'? Or is he being asked to present evidence? The Skeptics Society aims to 'root out unorthodox thinking'? Or is it that they seek to investigate extraordinary claims and uphold the principle of evidence based reasoning? Do they really 'worship' Randi? It's frequently accompanied by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
|
|
|
Post by neodawson on Feb 25, 2013 4:36:38 GMT
Really interesting to see a discussion about an Amazon review made an embittered ex-Catholic turn into a fierce debate about homeopathy.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Feb 28, 2013 0:06:21 GMT
And almost instantaneously, too.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Feb 28, 2013 8:46:28 GMT
Really interesting to see a discussion about an Amazon review made an embittered ex-Catholic turn into a fierce debate about homeopathy. It isn't actually about homeopathy, it's about the nature of evidence and valid methods of verification.
|
|
|
Post by neodawson on Mar 1, 2013 4:05:10 GMT
It isn't actually about homeopathy, it's about the nature of evidence and valid methods of verification. Of course it is.
|
|