{"id":1206088,"date":"2023-09-09T03:53:41","date_gmt":"2023-09-09T03:53:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dissidentvoice.org\/?p=143770"},"modified":"2023-09-09T03:53:41","modified_gmt":"2023-09-09T03:53:41","slug":"heroic-skeptical-odysseys-into-parapsychology-part-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2023\/09\/09\/heroic-skeptical-odysseys-into-parapsychology-part-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"Heroic Skeptical Odysseys Into Parapsychology Part II"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>(Image is of young skeptics in action)<\/p>\n

Summary of Part I<\/strong><\/p>\n

The purpose of this two-part article is to present an eight-step method that a self-organized community of scientific skeptics developed specifically to investigate the claims of the existence of paranormal phenomenon. I began Part I with a survey of what the Yankee population believes about the paranormal, including psychic healing, ESP, the existence of ghosts and extraterrestrials\u2019 visitations to earth. Using the work of Jonathan Smith I categorized eight types of paranormal experience on a spectrum, based on how modest or extraordinary their claims are. The bulk of the article was to name the first three of the eight steps skeptics use in evaluating paranormal claims. This include the quality of sources, how sound the logic is as well as the quality of observation.<\/p>\n

In part two of my article, I complete the rest of the eight steps. These include quantitative reasoning (assessing probability); perceptual trickery; memory errors; the placebo effect and the possibility of hallucinations that can lead to false conclusions about the paranormal. \u00a0Furthermore, I identify four reasons why believing in the paranormal is not <\/em>harmless, either at an individual or societal level. I close my article with the optimal conditions for a good scientific process of investigation as well as how best to evaluate the most superior among competing theories. The image in the front of this article are young skeptics in action.<\/p>\n

Estimating Probability and Gauging of Chance<\/strong><\/p>\n

Are you more likely to die on a motorcycle or on a bicycle? Are you more likely to die on a bus or a train? Which is more likely, drowning in a swimming pool or in a bathtub?\u00a0 A psychic will claim it is big news that among 75 people in a room, she predicted there are two people there who have the same birthday. Did you know that the chances of this happening are 99%?<\/p>\n

People around the world are very bad at gauging chance occurrences. This is because quantitative rationality only goes back to the 17th<\/sup> century. Learning this skill takes special training in at least two courses: research methods and statistics. We also misjudge probabilities because of a lack of experience with the unusual which only becomes possible through familiarity working with large numbers.<\/p>\n

Heuristic mistakes<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

People are also terrible at estimating probabilities because we are prejudiced for numbers which stand out and are easy to recall. This is called the availability bias. Conversely, people underestimate the probability of rare negative events<\/em> such as the likelihood they will get injured in a car accident. Furthermore, we have slight biases towards optimism rather than seeing things as they really are. This is why smokers think they are less likely to die of cancer than other smokers. A knowledgeable but unscrupulous psychic or astrologer who knows these human tendencies can comfortably predict that you will have good fortune to persuade you that astrology works.<\/p>\n

Coincidences<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Coincidences are events that unexpectantly occur together in a meaningful way without any apparent causal link. Therefore, they could be interpreted as a prophesy or an omen. The average person is very bad at generating random numbers. This is because random numbers are just as likely to appear in clumps or streaks as well as simple alternations. Alternations like HTHTHT to the end of a page are too regular to be random. They need to include streaks like HHHHH or TTTTT. People underestimate the frequency of the size and the frequency of the clumps. Winning at gambling 3 times in a row is just as usual at alternating between winning and losing. For our purposes it is important to know that Blackmore and Troscianko have found that people who believe in the paranormal ability are especially prone to make mistakes in probability judgments.<\/em> This is called psychic bias.<\/p>\n

Perceptual Trickery<\/strong><\/p>\n

Barnum Effect<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Perception (how our senses are organized) is selective and distorted. We select (mostly unconsciously) what serves our interest and needs. Our perception is something like a spotlight that targets and intensifies some stimuli and ignores others. Our emotions and motivations guide this spotlight. Tricksters can, and do, take advantage of this. The Barnum effect is displayed in the following experiment by Bertram Forer\u2019s personality tests. He gave participants generic descriptions based on their horoscopes and found that subjects who were more likely to believe the results were true if: a) the subject thinks it only applies to them; b) the subject has confidence in the authority; and c) the horoscope reveals mainly positive traits.<\/p>\n

Cold Readings<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Stage magic is an old practice in which skilled sleight-of-hand is involved in deceiving an audience into making errors in perception. The range goes from simple card tricks to escaping locked jails to the feats of Houdini. Stage magicians are so good they have convinced PhD physicists under laboratory conditions that paranormal effects are real. For instance, that they can bend spoons and read pictures sealed in envelopes. Cold readings are a judgment about a stranger based on a combination of reading body language, knowledge of rhetorical techniques, behind the scenes investigation into a person combined with knowledge of how to create atmospheric effects.<\/p>\n

Jonathan Smith names five techniques in cold reading.<\/p>\n