Is it fair to exclude one field of study by name in order to bolster one's claims that it can't exist?

Question

Found this while I was researching a while back, and I have my own opinions on this, but I'd like to hear from both sides of the argument on this.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

This is the Skeptical Inquirer's take on what constitutes critical thinking. Down the page a way, I found the following list:


The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations:

1. the burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant,
2. extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and
3. evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim


Doesn't this mean that the criteria are necessarily flawed, since they rely on prejudism and ipse dixit fallacy, combined with the fact that such a requirement for, say, mathematics would necessarily inhibit any kind of serious study in that field? Wouldn't the claim that the paranormal cannot exist (a common skeptical claim) therefore be completely invalidated as well?

Conversely, if we eliminate that last criteria altogether, what stops anyone from making claims based on an authoritarian viewpoint and making it stick? In other words, how do we know something is true based on what someone says? How can we trust that someone isn't being tricked by stage magic or some kind of misinterpretation of events (whether deliberate or not)?

Is it really fair to name the paranormal specifically as an exclusion based on the long history of authority within accepted fields of scientific study? Why or why not?

Answer 1

I think you may be looking at the whole thing a little too hard. If I understand what you are speaking about correctly, then I will say this & this alone. In science, whether physical or psychological there are always scientists and researchers who have the pros-(figuratively speaking), who have the benfit of claiming some pretty marvelous facts, like the existance of a celepod, or perhaps that of a prehistoric telun found in the Great Sahara Desert. The media and other experts will always be quick to disclaim and disporve such research & findings. But, these scientists, like I said, have just that, science on their side. Therefore, whatever the outrageous claim may be, they can uphold their research and therefore claim something as "true" or "fact."



With this being said, there is the other body of research that befalls the general public, and also makes it that much more difficult to prove findings and claims of something genuine. For instance, a man who lives out in the woods claims that he saw something bright and orange in the sky come zooming down and blast into the earth not far from his house. Immediately, science, the media, and the critical skeptics will be all over that, instantly trying to disprove what he has claimed. And, that's good. In order to come up with something authentic, all unnecessary facts, articles and other claims need to be thrown out the window, thus allowing the real scientific work to begin.



What did the man really see? Was he perhaps abusing some illegal narcotics, maybe even alcohol? Where does he live exactly, geographically that is? If it is high up in the mountains or down lying in a ravine-type valley then the possibilities of natural causes is always there. Comets and meteors can be seen easier the higher up you go... Questions can go on and on forever. What is it that this man, who works as a chemical engineer, married with two children, and has a solid reputation behind him have against him??? 1) He was alone when he saw this unknown object. 2) He doesn't have a solid piece of evidence to prove otherwise. And, above all, quite frankly, what does he know about science, other than being a practical-minded engineer?



Unless an individual has some kind of background in science, a real science truthfully that is, psychology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. the ability to clarify individual people is rather scarce and therefore, also makes it, most untrue at least 95% of the time.



Those who have certain aspects constantly working against them, such as lack of "serious" knowledge in a field of science---(and I'm not talking about reading a few books and learning about science that way. This is the cheap way out. I'm talking about researching over years & years of science, thus always branching out to other realms of science in order to locate the answers). People who have absolutely no knowledge and discipline in the patience of reality, and also lack commonsense, therefore ending up "jumping to conclusions."



Most of the practical and scientific world is and always will be quick to disprove claims of paranormal phenomenon, especially when it comes from a bystander, the common joe, or a person with the title---(Fantastical Parapsychological Researcher) or some nonsense story-book garbage like that. The truth is, if you don't have some sort of soldi works, whether it be a published work, research paper, college or university article, text or other similar book or magazine, even if you haven't written as a columnist in the mainstream, then you don't really stand a chance against the big leagues. Simply put, get yourself discovered as a real researcher and then you will be taken seriously. This is put forth for all the regular people in the world who are trying to make their bones in paranormal research.



The reason why science doesn't take the common public seriously when it comes to research or sudden ghostly findings is mainly because the general public is always quick to disclaim what could really be causing paranormal phenomena, and hold it against the standard scientific explanation that is really lying beneath the surface.



Typically, psychologists, parapsychologists, researchers, and other scientits have something standing beside them when it comes to making or claiming a scientific hypothesis. That is their research. generally, science doesn't go that extra distance like it does with the civilian population to disprove claims of the paranormal or supernormal that is, (speaking of other similar parapsychology events), because scientists and researchers are "already established." If you don't have anything to back yourself up with, unfortunately, you won't be taken seriously.



I hope this may have answered your question to some degree.

Have a nice day.

Cheero.

Answer 2

No, they aren't flawed that I can see. I'm not sure where your ipse dixit fallacy comes in, since these stipulations actually serve to eliminate the use of any such fallacy.



Regarding mathematics, it stands separate from knowledge gained by the scientific method in the sense that mathematics does deal with proofs, while science does not. Pure numbers constitute the whole of the mathematics "universe", if you will. However, these 3 stipulations still apply in the sense that if a mathematician claims he solved a centuries-old mathematical problem, he better show his proof. Otherwise, if he refuses you are justified in not believing him.



The claim that the paranormal cannot exist is not a very common skeptical claim that I can tell. I'm a skeptic and I never make that claim. Most of the regs here steer clear of making that claim too.



Regarding the last criteria, it pertains to the Argument By Authority fallacy. If an authority is saying something is true, that's probably pretty good reason to at least consider the claim, but it is not sufficient to justify a complete acceptance of the claim just by itself.



Regarding naming the paranormal specifically, it's probably because the article was focused on the paranormal, and also because paranormal claims are typically quite extraordinary when reviewed against our known science, while also being typically quite short on testable evidence.



Edit to add: Nope, I don't agree about the ipse dixit. For one, the full article is needed to give context to the focus on the paranormal, and like I said above the paranormal almost by definition stands apart from science in the lack of testable evidence for it, often compensated for by anecdotal testimonial. I think the special mention of paranormal here is appropriate.



Edit again: Nope, still don't agree. You're 100% wrong that Argument By Authority is accepted in scientific study. In fact, it's not at all. I've never read any journal article which supported a conclusion with "because we're experts and we say so, so just trust us on this". Rather, scientists provide testable, reproducible data which the realm of the paranormal pretty much by definition cannot provide (else it would not be paranormal), and this is why the paranormal is appropriately singled out here. So again I support the validity of these three statements.

Answer 3

I've been a reader of SI since before this article was written.While it may be the opinion of some writers(an ever changing variety of them).The paranormal cannot exist has never been the magazines"mantra".Rather,they point out it's never been demonstrated.At least not to a sufficient degree to show it does.

Honestly,I see no unfairness in the article and "Ipse dixit"(a new term for me)or "because I said so".Anyone finding that in the Skeptical Inquirer.They are just not reading the magazine.At least not in it's entirety.



Edit.In what fields are authority and or testimony considered proof?

Edit.#2 Authoritative testimony is a whole different thing.It's not simply taking someones word for something.It's backed up by documentation."I've seen telekinesis"no matter who says it.Is not authoritative testimony.Not without some kind of supporting,repeatable data.

Edit#3That's interesting about the girl but no AT.Do magicians have the power to supress knowledge of a spoon bending girl?Is it rational to believe the cognitive psychologist would just give up?If two guys who say they found a dead bigfoot can make national news for a week.A telekinetic child would be at least as big.



Short version answer No

Answer 4

I don't see how the criteria depend at all on an ipse dixit argument.

There is a difference between a claim based on expertise that can

be substantiated through the presentation of evidence and an

"ipse dixit" claim. Where scientists have difficulty with "alternative

practitioners" is in the public arena. It is often difficult for a layman

to tell the difference between two people talking with an air of authority,

who both appear to be "experts", one who may be telling the

lay person what he or she wants to hear.



A major component of paranormal methodology relies on the following:

1) extraordinary claims

2) spurious evidence in the absence of a supporting theory

3) the reliance on accounts from practicioners that lack an

objective referent



In the case of 1) some of these claims may not seem that

extraordinary to certain people. Some people already believe

in alien visitations, spirits, miracles, supernatural agencies....



In the case of 2) the paranormal believer does not seem to be

at all interested in counter examples, but tends to accept just

about anything that supports the notions that he or she already

believes in.



In the world of the paranormal, it does not seem that the

practicioners require a specifiic hard set of

definitions for what constitutes the alleged phenomenon, for

what counts as evidence, or what would act as evidence against

the phenomenon. Scientific standards require that we have some

methodology that predicts what we are supposed to see, and

furthermore, what would shoot down our ideas if they were in

fact wrong.



Furthermore, prosaic explanations seem to be

shunned in favor of the extraordinary. It is very fashionable in

the "alternate" world (whether we are talking about UFOs,

psychics, or intelligent design creationists) to claim that the

scientist is being a "materialist" and is somehow a "limited"

party-pooper.



Where scientific standards are employed in paranormal investigations

the "paranormal effect" in question seems to diminish. For

example, the ESP experiments of Rhine and others seemed initially

to show that there was something "extrasensory" going on. However,

as standards of experimental practice improved, the "ESP effect",

which usually involves a deviation from chance in a subject

predicting or selecting an outcome tends toward zero.



Is this "fair"? Fair usually refers to equality, and because not all

ideas and claims are equal, it is not "fair" nor should it be. Science

like life, is a hardball unforgiving game that doesn't care about our

feelings or our notions of equity, nor should it.

Answer 5

Critical thinking is absolutely important in life and in investigating anything from unexplained death to unexplained phenomena.

Using up space and time arguing with someone who considers their word the last authority is a waste.

In science something is observed and is measured and recorded and prepared. It is then presented to the scientific community for critique and replication. Many times this results in a disagreement as to what really exits. Many of our scientific facts are in fact theory that have not been refuted yet.

The contention that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence it silly. The more complex the evidence the chance for it to be faked.

The KISS principle is in effect no matter who, what, when, or where.

As for authority, we call them experts for a reason. But even experts can be wrong,criminal, or pure as the driven snow. So to take the word of an expert without evidence to support a claim is also silly.

It is simpler to say that the professor who wrote that article is biased and not open to discussion on the matter. He deserves no more credit than that.

Answer 6

Appeal to authority occurs everywhere, all the time. Students are taught to defer to professors because professors hold pass/fail authority. Citizens are taught to defer to the "authorities," meaning politicians and police. Courts use expert witnesses as authorities in their fields.



We have to do this because no one can be an expert in everything. So appealing to authority is a perfectly valid argumentative tactic.



That said, appealing to authority in an area where the individual has no demonstrated expertise is invalid. E.g., the media often defers to astronomers or physicists for pronouncements on topics in which they are rank amateurs. Asking a scientists for opinions on matters of psychology, politics, history, or "the paranormal," is worth no more than asking any random member of the general public.



Fortunately, many scientists are attracted to exploring the unknown because they don't trust authority. If they did, they'd have no motivation to question prevailing theories and assumptions.

Answer 7

I agree with valadent. Just like saying there's no such thing as Bigfoot. I think you should first go look for him and study about him and pay attention to things others say about him....like the recent news about him. Then....and only then...can you say he doesnt' exist. But ...just because you say it and don't believe about him...doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. Just "as far as you know " he doesn't. PD said he used to look for ghosts etc. and wanted to believe..but never found any proof..so he became a skeptic. (If I'm wrong, PD, correct me.) Maybe he stopped looking just before he was to have proof. I was older than PD when it happened to me. There's still time for proof to happen to you . I think sometimes it happens right before you die..or as you are dieing.

Red...this might not have been what you were talking about...just the best I can come up with an answer for how I understood it.

EDIT...PD..Come out ! Come out! Where ever you are!! lol

Answer 8

To study the Paranormal correctly, would be to study "every" part of the field. Now, that said, some groups only study one part of the field, especially since there are many things that are considered "Paranormal". To say though that one part may not be used as any kind of evidence is the most ridiculous excuse there is! It's like saying I believe in birds and I believe in flying but since I don't understand the true reason that birds fly, I can't and won't believe that some birds fly! PLEASE!!

Answer 9

No, excluding any field just makes that person look ignorant. The only way to know if it doesn't exist is to study, thus making it a field of study.