Friday quote: Sam Harris on the paranormal
by KrauzeSam Harris, one of the New Atheists, on his stance on the paranormal:
My position on the paranormal is this: While there have been many frauds in the history of parapsychology, I believe that this field of study has been unfairly stigmatized. If some experimental psychologists want to spend their days studying telepathy, or the effects of prayer, I will be interested to know what they find out. And if it is true that toddlers occasionally start speaking in ancient languages (as Ian Stevenson alleges), I would like to know about it. However, I have not spent any time attempting to authenticate the data put forward in books like Dean Radin's The Conscious Universe or Ian Stevenson's 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. The fact that I have not spent any time on this should suggest how worthy of my time I think such a project would be. Still, I found these books interesting, and I cannot categorically dismiss their contents in the way that I can dismiss the claims of religious dogmatists.
While I do not share Harris' reverence for the paranormal, I do think he raises some good points about science and the attitudes of scientists. Yes, there have been a lot of frauds and charlatans dabbling in the paranormal, but this fact alone is not sufficient to stigmatize the paranormal. Looking past the personalities involved in a controversy is one of those things we expect scientists to be able to do. Some people will always be jerks and try to take advantage of the beliefs of others, but unless our knowledge of causality is to be ignored, this in no way influences the truth or falsity of these ideas. Science & Logic 101, right?
So why is it that when it comes to intelligent design, many ID critics want scientists to focus on the personalities? Why does the far majority of ID critics think that if they can just connect a supporter of intelligent design to the Wedge Document, they will have discredited intelligent design itself? Imagine if Sam Harris had instead said this:
While I find many things to criticize in the writings of people like Phillip Johnson and William Dembski, I believe that intelligent design has been unfairly stigmatized. If some biologists want to spend their days thinking and arguing about intelligent design, I will be interested in knowing their results.
Instead of being a role model for the open-minded scientist, Harris would now have posited himself in the camp of undercover theocrats and collaborators of the Forces of Darkness.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
So Hydrick wasn't a fraud
Comment by Doug — February 9, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
February 9th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Hi Doug,
Harris clearly acknowledges that many paranormals are frauds, so he would probable agree that Hydrick got caught blowing smoke.
Comment by Krauze — February 9, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
February 9th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
In truth, there is very little fraud associated with RESEARCHERS into the paranormal. One admitted case and two suspected cases over the past century, out of hundreds of researchers. No one has ever demonstrated any evidence that psi researchers are more dishonest than those in the rest of science.
As for people CLAIMING paranormal abilities, certainly that area is rife with fraud, and one reason that most modern psi research ignores ostentatious claimants and focuses on looking for psi among the general public.
Comment by MatthewCromer — February 9, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
February 9th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Hi Krauze,
I was just looking for any reason to post a video with Hydrick.
It's a Classic.
Comment by Doug — February 9, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
February 9th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I originally posted this on another thread, but it seems appropriate for the discussion here:
Krauze asks:
The problem is, for better or worse, that the phrase "intelligent design" has come to refer to the pseudoscience(s) peddled by Johnson, Wells, Dembski, Meyer, et al., who believe that the design of life has been scientifically demonstrated, subscribe to the goals of the Wedge Document, and believe that ID is ready for the public school system.
You and Mike, as far as I can tell, do not believe that the design of life has been scientifically demonstrated, do not subscribe to the goals of the Wedge Document, and do not believe ID is ready to be taught in the schools. I congratulate both of you for this. But until you guys (and like-minded folks) come up with scientific results for your brand of ID, it will be overshadowed by the egregious claims of the DI types.
In fact, if you ever do have legitimate scientific results to offer, I think you'll have to come up with a name other than "intelligent design", which at this point is about as irreversibly tainted as "phrenology".
I'll be interested in knowing your results, and I bet Sam will too.
Comment by keiths — February 9, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
February 9th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Is this actually true? It was my understanding that DI's official position is that it would not be productive to insert ID into science curricula at this time.
Comment by thechristiancynic — February 9, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
February 9th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Hi Keith,
Your reply is a good example of what I'm talking about in my post. I praise Harris' ability to disregard the personalities when it comes to the paranormal, then wonder why it is that scientists are expected to disregard this sound advice when it comes to ID.
In your response, you simply restate the fact that many scientists can't seem to look beyond the personalities, then state that it is up to people like Mike and myself to change this. This may be the case, but don't you find it the least bit curious how scientists can act so unscientific when it comes to this subject, exhibiting so many traits (stereotypes, myopia, etc.) that science is universally praised for avoiding?
As for how much ID critics would love it if only ID supporters would produce some scientific research, we never actually hear any evidence for this claim. ID critics even had a great opportunity to demonstrate their appreciation when it turned out that the Discovery Institute had funded the Biologic Institute, the purpose of which was to produce ID-inspired research. Instead, here's how Celeste Biever spun it in New Scientist:
Why didn't Harris or other ID critics write some words in encouragement for the scientists at Biologic Institute, telling them that they were looking forward to seeing their research?
"In fact, if you ever do have legitimate scientific results to offer, I think you'll have to come up with a name other than "intelligent design", which at this point is about as irreversibly tainted as "phrenology"."
Yes, let's hide our Trojan Horse inside a new Trojan Horse. We all know how appreciative ID critics are of that.
Comment by Krauze — February 9, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
February 9th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Great blog, Krauze.
Comment by MikeGene — February 9, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
February 9th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Exactly. For those interested, here's a blog where I address this.
Comment by MikeGene — February 9, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
February 9th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
thechristiancynic asks:
Hi CC,
The DI has been pretty schizophrenic about ID in the schools. See this comment I made last year at Uncommon Descent, which describes a dustup between Richard Thompson (chief defense counsel at Dover) and Mark Ryland (DI Vice President) over this very issue.
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
Comment by keiths — February 9, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
February 9th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Keiths,
Thompson isn't part of the DI, so you can't point to outside claims as evidence for schizophrenia. Here's an article that goes into it. http://www.discovery.org/scrip...
The DI position as far as I have seen , has been very consistent on this issue.
Comment by Guts — February 9, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
February 9th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Guts,
Thompson isn't part of the DI, but Meyer and DeWolf, who wrote the guidebook, certainly are.
The DI document you linked to says:
Here is an exchange between Bill Dembski and me, further down in the same UD thread, in which he raises the same objection:
William Dembski wrote:
My response to Dembski:
Dembski didn't respond.
So a DI booklet says that school boards can "permit, and even encourage teaching about design theory." Obviously the DI thought that ID was "ready for the public school classroom", as I asserted, and Ryland looks awfully foolish for denying it.
Comment by keiths — February 9, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
February 9th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Keiths:
No, if ID was ready for the public school classroom, or at least if the DI thought it was ready as you claim, then they would be mandating it's teaching rather than be nonchalant about it.
By the way, the entire quote is:
This is consistent with what they write in this article, where they "believe teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible" but that "mandating intelligent design politicizes what should be a scientific debate and harms the efforts of scientists who support design to gain a fair hearing in the scientific community"
Comment by Guts — February 9, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
February 10th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Guts wrote:
Okay, Guts,
Read the following excerpts from Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook, and then tell me, with a straight face, that the DI didn't think ID was ready for the classroom:
Not only do they say that "design theory" is ready for the classroom, they warn school boards that they may be in violation of the First Amendment if they exclude it!
http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/gui...
Comment by keiths — February 10, 2007 @ 12:18 am
February 10th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Keiths,
What you're missing here is that there is a distinction between saying "there is nothing legally wrong with teaching ID as an alternative theory because it is evidence based" and saying "All teachers right now should be required to teach ID because it's already been demonstrated". In other words the only thing wrong with teaching ID right now is that it hasn't passed the grueling test of honest scientific debate, when it does, thats when it should be taught. The reason why they display and explain on their website their position that ID should first pass the test of time is because they don't think it's ready at this point. Which is why they say:
Comment by Guts — February 10, 2007 @ 12:44 am
February 10th, 2007 at 2:03 am
Guts,
This is getting ridiculous. Why are you so attached to the idea, against all evidence, that the DI didn't change its position on this?
Let's distill the argument down to basics:
I wrote:
You wrote:
It couldn't be simpler. Two diametrically opposed opinions:
1. The DI thought ID was ready for the classroom.
2. The DI thought ID was not ready for the classroom.
The evidence: a legal guidebook written by a Director and a Fellow of the Discovery Institute.
Passage 1:
According to me, that passage (as well as all of the following passages) means what it says in ordinary English.
According to you, it means "The basis for excluding ID has evaporated, so we should continue to exclude ID because it is not ready for the classroom."
Passage 2:
According to you: "When science teachers seek to present design theory to their students, school officials need to make every effort to encourage them. So school officials should encourage them to present it, but not allow them to present it, because design theory is not ready for the classroom."
Passage 3:
According to you: "The exclusion of design theory from public school science curricula violates the First Amendment. We think you should exclude design theory from the classroom and violate the First Amendment."
Passage 4:
According to you: "Including discussions of design serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. You should continue to exclude discussions of design, thus keeping education exclusionary."
Guts, if you can't see how these passages utterly contradict your position, I'm afraid there's nothing else I can do for you.
Comment by keiths — February 10, 2007 @ 2:03 am
February 10th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Keiths,
None of the passages contradict my position, because they are making the point in that legal guidebook that teaching ID does not violate the law and that teaching it when there is good reason to do so is ok. That is why they use language like "authority". If you want to know their position on whether ID ought to be taught, why ignore the positions they have laid out explicitely on the issue? It is clear that the DI position is that there is evidence for ID, but they acknowledge, quite explicitely, that this message must be run through the filter of honest scientific debate before it can be ethically justified to mandate the teaching. Their position is it is about ethics not legality.
This is not unlike the way that ID critics ignore what Behe actually says and instead erect strawmen, why ignore what they actually say about the issue? Do you really think they are hoping no teacher reads their articles?
Comment by Guts — February 10, 2007 @ 2:19 am
February 10th, 2007 at 2:31 am
This thread isn't about whether the DI's stance on teaching ID in schools has been consistent. Any further posts out that tangent goes to the Hole.
Comment by Krauze — February 10, 2007 @ 2:31 am
February 10th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Krauze, my apologies for starting the tangent. It was a matter of curiosity that I expected had an easy answer (obviously not).
Comment by thechristiancynic — February 10, 2007 @ 9:27 am