RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias

Start A New Topic | Reply

Post Info

TOPIC: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias

Posted By: John Posted On: Apr 21, 2009 Views: 2017	Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias What I find most interesting about this and other sites dedicated to similar topics is the amount of bias that enters into the comments that are supposed to be objective. I have yet to see a truly objective comment on this or any other site. People have pre-existing opinions and then present "evidence" to prove their fore-drawn conclusions. Science isn't about justifying one's beliefs. Beliefs shouldn't even enter into the process. Science is a method. Theorize, experiment, present the results. The results will either support or disprove the theory. (Of course, that's a simplification. The experiments must be controlled, facts need to be checked, etc. but that's the gist of it.) At no point in the process is there a place to say ("I believe...") So how does that relate this site? Well, two ways really. The first - this is for Keith: You've done an excellent job of presenting evidence, but you have not really remained objective. Re-read your page. Your belief - your fore-drawn conclusion is all over it. Your evidence supports your belief as one would expect, but this is not about your belief. It's about the facts and you've got SOME good ones. Others not so much. 1) The two main TK stunts, the most popular 'proof' of TK, are not TK. Absolutely correct. Not proof. Intriguing, but not proof. 2) I have never seen TK demonstrated. This is not proof of anything. It's only justification for your belief. 3) TK has never been performed under test conditions. Excellent point. As you mention, it does not prove that TK does not exist, but until controlled experiments are performed, there is no scientific proof. 4) Nobody has claimed the Randi prize money. This only proves that Randi has not seen a controlled test. At best this is redundant. At worst it doesn't prove anything. 5) No respected scientist in the world has ever claimed that TK exists. This again is not proof. No scientist is going to stick his/her neck out on a controversial topic without solid proof. It's right up there with bigfoot. It's justification for your belief, but not proof 6) No scientific institute of any repute has ever claimed that TK exists. Same 7) No respected scientific journal has ever reported claims that TK exists. Same 8) I can think of no reason for believing in TK. This is just filler. Doesn't even belong on the list. The bottom line is that there is one and only one relevant fact. There is no proof that TK exists. The question is: "Knowing that, where you do you from here?" Well, what does the lack of proof mean? It means what it says. There is no proof. It does not mean that TK does not exist, nor does it mean that it does. It brings you back to the one statement that is the foundation of all knowledge: "I don't know." Objectively, that's the only conclusion that you can draw. And there's an important difference between "I don't know." and "I believe it does not exist." The first is a statement of fact. The second is a statement of belief. The first is objective. The second is subjective. The objective mind is open to the possibility should the evidence present itself. The subjective mind will never find the evidence. It will never look for it because it does not allow for the possibility that such evidence exists. Now I suspect that you're not quite that dogmatic about your belief. But be careful. I only mention it because you claim on your page to be objective and I think if you reread your page you will see that you clearly are not. You are rendering an opinion with some facts mixed in. Now, for the believers in TK... There is no need for you to justify your belief in TK - or anything else for that matter. Belief is belief. But belief and fact are two different things. If you're looking for scientific proof, you need to understand that there just isn't any right now. Until a controlled, repeatable experiment can be performed that demonstrates someone moving something with nothing but their mind there is no proof. That does not invalidate your belief, nor does it mean that TK does not exist. It's just a fact. If you want scientific validation, the only way that's going to happen is with a controlled, repeatable experiment. There's no other way to prove it. Believe all you want until then, but no proof is just no proof. For those that offer conjecture about how TK is conceivably possible - understand that is only conjecture. Conjecture alone is not proof either. It's great start for formulating a theory, but without the rest of the process, the scientific method is being sidestepped. Scientific validation requires that the method be followed. l But, do yourself a favor; stop offering up conjecture as a means of trying to convince others of the possibility. Those who already agree with you will continue and those who do not will continue to point out the flaws in your ideas. There is only one way to change their mind and that is to present the results of a controlled scientific study that offers conclusive proof. Short of that, you're going to keep getting the same response. One other point - a "skeptic" isn't a bad thing. A skeptic is not the same thing an "unbeliever" though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. A "skeptic" is simply one who requires proof before conceding that something is true. Their purpose is simply to keep everyone honest. If you're honest with yourself, you will see that the proof on this topic is somewhat lacking and that they are perfectly correct to point out that fact. I hope this helps. John
Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Apr 22, 2009 Views: 2013	RE: RE: RE: RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias You have omitted the most important part of any belief system. In order to believe in a thing you need a REASON to believe. There is no reason to believe in TK As for your comment "You've done an excellent job of presenting evidence, but you have not really remained objective. Re-read your page. Your belief - your fore-drawn conclusion is all over it." That doesn´t make any sense. My main page was written AFTER I had carried out my tests and was a summary of my conclusions. That is obvious to any reader. When I carried out my tests IT WAS DONE WITH A VERY OPEN MIND, AND IF YOU READ THOSE PAGES YOU WILL SEE THAT IS OBVIOUS. Your comments are unjustified, more than that, they are wrong!
Posted By: Mitch Posted On: Apr 22, 2009 Views: 2009	RE: RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias "The bottom line is that there is one and only one relevant fact. There is no proof that TK exists." It's not just that.. there hasn't even been valid rumors to even entertain the notion that TK is anything more than an Urban Legend. Nothing. So to be purely objective on this issue is to ignore the bigger picture. *WHY* should the theory that TK exists be taken any more seriously than what it logically deserves? The answer is it doesn't. I think Keith has been as objective as necessary, at the level needed. I liken debating the issue of TK with debating the existence of unicorns. Because it's just as likely that unicorns exist as TK exists. No shreds of evidence for either. They're both urban legends of equal credibility.
Posted By: Mitch Posted On: Apr 22, 2009 Views: 2004	RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias "In order to believe in a thing you need a REASON to believe. There is no reason to believe in TK" Exactly. Objectivity without perspective is useless.
Posted By: John Posted On: Apr 22, 2009 Views: 2002	RE: RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias Hi Keith, How are you? First of all, let me say that my comments were not meant to put you down in any way or to tear apart your evidence. My comments to you were meant to be constructive criticism. I think that the pieces of actual evidence you suggest are accurate. I'm also not making any judgements about how open-minded you may have been when you conducted your own experiments. That was not my point. My point was that, on your page you say, "This is a very rare TK site in that it actually attempts to study the subject in an objective, rational and logical manner." That would lead the reader to believe that all of your statements about the subject (on the website) would be totally objective. But in actuality, you drift in and out of objectivity. Allow me to explain what I mean by that. To be totally objective, your page would have been limited to a presentation of the facts. (e.g. Here is the claim. Here is the experiment that I performed to test the claim. This is the result.) If you were to include a conclusion, to present it objectively you would use statements like: "The results of this test were not conclusive." or "There is no evidence to suggest that TK exists." and so on. Instead, you make statements like "Here are my reasons for believing that TK does not exist:" That is not objective statement. It is a statement of your own belief which is, by definition, subjective. You also you use statements like "I know there are a million excuses why TKers are not able to claim the prize..." That is another statement that betrays your bias. The whole paragraph that is begun with that phrase is a subjective statement that is made with the intention of leading the reader to reach a particular conclusion. Now this does not mean that your statement is wrong, nor does it mean that it is unjustified. It's just not objective. It shows that you have an opinion - which may or may not be based solely on the results of your experiments. That is, by its very nature, subjective. Do you see the difference? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just warning you to be careful of letting your own bias creep into your statements. It's pretty hard not to HAVE a bias, but whether you're performing experiments or presenting an objective analysis of the results, you have to be very careful to factor that out. That was my only point to you. Otherwise, you've done a very good job. Now I do have to address a statement that you just made in your response. Sorry, I couldn't let this one go: "You have omitted the most important part of any belief system. In order to believe in a thing you need a REASON to believe." That's a very nice notion but it is not accurate. It is probably quite true for you - and many people, at least most of the time, but it is not true for all. In fact, you wouldn't have felt the need to create this site if it were true for all. I think you will concede that many people have very irrational beliefs. People have fought WARS over irrational beliefs. Belief CAN be based on reason, but it's not required. In fact, there's a word specifically for belief without reason: "faith." Belief is a choice - nothing more. But YOU get to decide what criteria allows you to believe. Yours is reason. Would that it were always so simple. John
Posted By: John Posted On: Apr 22, 2009 Views: 2001	RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias Hi Mitch, Your defensiveness here really is not required. You obviously have an opinion, and that's perfectly okay. See my comments. >>"It's not just that.. there hasn't even been valid rumors to even entertain the notion that TK is anything more than an Urban Legend. Nothing." That's a subjective decision. I don't see how the existence of rumors or the lack thereof is relevant to an objective discussion of the topic. Even so, your statement is not accurate. It may not be enough for you YOU to entertain the notion. Obviously though, the rumors have been more than enough for many people to entertain the notion that TK is real. >>"So to be purely objective on this issue is to ignore the bigger picture. *WHY* should the theory that TK exists be taken any more seriously than what it logically deserves? The answer is it doesn't. "" I disagree - sort of. On a page that purports itself to be an objective study, I think it's necessary to be purely objective. What the reader does with that information is up to them. >>"I liken debating the issue of TK with debating the existence of unicorns. Because it's just as likely that unicorns exist as TK exists. No shreds of evidence for either. They're both urban legends of equal credibility. " A valid opinion and you're entitled to it. >>"Objectivity without perspective is useless. " I understand your point and, in the context that you mean it, I agree. However, objectivity without perspective also has its uses. Objectivity describes what is. What that means to each person is personal. Objectivity provides the framework from which perspective can be formulated. John
Posted By: Mitch Posted On: Apr 22, 2009 Views: 1994	RE: RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias Hi John, "Your defensiveness here really is not required." Actually, on the subject of TK and this site, my comments were no more defensive than yours were offensive. I simply had differing opinions on some of your conclusions. "You obviously have an opinion, and that's perfectly okay." My opinion is only relevant in that it's based on objectivity involving this subject, I formed that opinion *after* weighing the evidence. "It's not just that.. there hasn't even been valid rumors to even entertain the notion that TK is anything more than an Urban Legend. Nothing. That's a subjective decision. I don't see how the existence of rumors or the lack thereof is relevant to an objective discussion of the topic." No, it's an objective decision, it's the resulting conclusion of an objective examination of the subject of 'TK'. It's also part of the bigger picture. It's more objective than your narrow interpretation of what the discussion of TK should entail, it doesn't just go to the facts, but looks at them in their totality. "Even so, your statement is not accurate. It may not be enough for you YOU to entertain the notion. Obviously though, the rumors have been more than enough for many people to entertain the notion that TK is real." You misunderstood my meaning, my point wasn't that the rumors weren't enough to *initially* entertain the notion that TK is real, but that it's ultimately a *mistake* to entertain the notion that TK is real given that are no truly valid rumors to its existence, something that if you knew ahead of time, you wouldn't have entertained the notion in the first place. And again, that conclusion is based on a very open-minded and objective study of the subject of 'TK'. "So to be purely objective on this issue is to ignore the bigger picture. *WHY* should the theory that TK exists be taken any more seriously than what it logically deserves? The answer is it doesn't. I disagree - sort of. On a page that purports itself to be an objective study, I think it's necessary to be purely objective. What the reader does with that information is up to them." But Keith clearly was objective in his study of the subject, and with a specific and a step by step approach described how he got to his objective conclusion. And he formed his 'opinion' because of it, afterward.
Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Apr 22, 2009 Views: 1991	RE: RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias John. Let me explain something. This is a homemade website set up to amuse and interest people. I present facts and also give opinions. People like to read about my opinions for without them it would make a very dry read. I always make a very clear distinction between facts and what is my opinion. Not many people tend to read dry text books that only contain proven facts and I am trying to reach out to a wider audience. What it is not is a scientific document to be presented to my peers for their critical examination. With that in mind perhaps you can see how your comments are so misplaced. The research I carried out into TK was done scientifically, logically and without bias. The comments I make after are as a result of my findings. The list of reasons I give as to why I do not believe in TK are just that, a list of reasons, I do not claim that they are either facts or proof of the nonexistence of TK, so fail to understand why you criticise them as if they were. It is even headed up "Here are my reasons for believing that TK does not exist:" (Note the word "believing"!) I can´t make it any clearer and fail to understand why you have a problem with it. I also do not understand why you say it is not necessary to have a reason to believe in a thing. I am not talking about faith here, you introduced that, I am talking about belief in TK, it is not a faith. It IS necessary to have a reason to believe otherwise how or why could you believe in it? That would be senseless.
Posted By: John Posted On: Apr 23, 2009 Views: 1981	RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias Okay, let's take a step back here. First of all, you can totally ignore my opinion if you like. After all, I'm just some voice over the internet. I'm not your physics professor or your English teacher. It's your website. You can do anything you like with it. I'm not arguing that point. However, I would ask you to consider for a moment your audience and the purpose of your site. Who are you trying to reach and what is your point? I have to assume you are trying to reach those people that already have a belief in TK or are at least intrigued by it. After all, someone who doesn't at least have an interest in the subject probably isn't going to wander into the page and even if they did, you'd probably be "preaching to the choir" so to speak. So let's start off with that basic question. Maybe I have assumed falsely. You say "This is a homemade website set up to amuse and interest people." Amuse and interest whom? If it's created for people who already think that TK is a load of poppycock, then I'd say you're definitely going to amuse and interest them - if they show up here at all. Read no further, you've accomplished your goal. However, judging from the results of the poll on the way into this forum, it would appear that the majority of the traffic you are drawing would not be that group of people. So, let's say you're talking primarily to those who believe or are interested in the subject. If it were me and I was going to outline the results of my experiments and claim that it was an objective study, I would stick with the facts and not embellish it with my own opinion or beliefs on the subject - dry read or not. After all, how can I expect people with opposing ideas to give any credibility to my claim that my experiments were performed objectively and without bias if my own opinion and beliefs are all over my results? I can claim that I formed my opinions and beliefs as a result of my objective study, but that has about as much credibility as the TK videos all over YouTube. Never mind that I was very methodical. Nevermind that used control groups and a statistically random sampling of test subjects. How can I expect others to be convinced of that when I muddy the waters with my own opinion and beliefs? I could just as easily have set up my experiments trying to reach a particular conclusion that I had already formed. If my goal is to present solid evidence to those with a different opinion and have them give it any credence whatsoever, I've just 'shot myself in the foot' by including the subjective with the objective. I've just created one more site that makes no difference and I've wasted my effort. Perhaps I'm being too critical. I understand that this is a home-grown website. Maybe it's not fair of me to expect such a high standard. After all, it is the internet and it is what it is. All I'm saying is that it's not purely objective. When I read the opening paragraph on your main page, that's what I expected - or at least hoped for. That's not what I found. Given that the audience for your site appears to be primarily true believers (63% when I last looked), I don't think many if any will look at your conclusions and say "Damn, I've been wrong all this time. What was I thinking?!" If you want to reach that group of people, it would be my recommendation that you remove the personal beliefs, and tone down the sarcasm. If not, you can just ignore my opinion. Que sera sera. I hope this gives you a better understanding of where I was coming from. Hopefully, the critique will give you some ideas that you can apply. If not, such is life. John Oh, and to answer your question, the reason that I say it is not necessary to have a reason to believe in a thing is because it isn't. My point is that people believe in many things without reason because they choose to - not because it makes sense. Let's take 'faith' out of the equation because that seems to have confused the issue. I offer as an example that many people believe in the 'healing power of crystals.' If they've never been healed by a crystal, they've got no 'reason' to believe. They choose to. Many people believe in ghosts. If ghosts do not exist, they have no 'reason' to believe in ghosts. They choose to. Many people believe in TK. If TK does not exist, they have no 'reason' to. They choose to. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not, no proof is enough."? It's the same concept. Belief without reason is all too common - whether you like it or not. You can argue all you like about whether or not it SHOULD be that way, but nevertheless, that's the way it is.
Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Apr 23, 2009 Views: 1974	RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias I can see that you are of the opinion that anyone who has preconceived ideas about a test they are running is not able to perform a fair test. I think that is a rather sweeping statement, and applying your own rules to it shows it is only your personal belief as there is no evidence to suport it. What you are saying is no different to claiming that there is no point in pushing the button to test a bomb if you don't think it is going to work, your statement is that invalid. It makes no difference to my tests whether or not I believed in TK beforehand, I simply did what all the TK proponents do and then tried to figure out what was happening, which I did. After that I wrote up my page, which does of course reflect my opinion on the matter, that, after all, is why I ran the tests, so I could give an informed opinion. It therefore matters not what opinions I give or what bias I show, the tests were done as fairly as possible so I can say what I like with regard the outcomes. You seem to consistently confuse my comments, made after all the tests, with my objectivity in doing them. If people find that confusing and decide it renders the tests worthless, then they clearly have no understanding of test procedures. As for saying it is not necessary to have a reason to believe in a thing, I am almost speechless. There is always a reason, it may be misguided, wrong, silly, whatever, but always a reason. The reason why some people believe that crystals can heal is because they have been told by the practitioners that they heal, or by a friend who tried it, or read about it or saw it on the TV. There is always a reason! If not, as you maintain, then I could say to you that I believe Santa Claus is real and lives in the bottom of my garden. You would ask why I believe that and I would reply "No reason" and that would be good enough. I honestly think you are being very silly on that one, you are confusing having a reason with having facts. Anyway, enough of all that, it´s getting very tedious.
Posted By: Mitch Posted On: Apr 24, 2009 Views: 1971	RE: RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias "I would stick with the facts and not embellish it with my own opinion or beliefs on the subject" Once you've stated the facts, like Keith has, then your opinion is clearly backed up and justified. I haven't seen one thing Keith has said that hasn't been backed up by facts. The fact is, you CAN post both facts and opinions on one site, as long as you clearly label them as being so. Any person with an average i.q. and an open mind can follow this site without difficulty. And I applaud Keith for making a site that's not just informative but also entertaining. Mission accomplished, Keith. "I can claim that I formed my opinions and beliefs as a result of my objective study, but that has about as much credibility as the TK videos all over YouTube." That makes no sense whatsoever. If a person has clearly demonstrated a factual and logically objective study then you can't credibly claim that he formed his opinion because of preconceived notions, and it would be irrelevant anyway, the results and conclusions are what ultimately matter and they speak for themselves. The biasness here is of those who choose to ignore the facts surrounding TK. Keith is not a babysitter, nor should he be. Should he revamp his site to cater to biased minds? You're incorrect, this site is for people with OPEN minds. "the reason that I say it is not necessary to have a reason to believe in a thing is because it isn't" If you don't have a reason to believe in something but believe in it anyway then you're thinking without objectivity.
Posted By: John Posted On: Apr 27, 2009 Views: 1952	RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias Oh come on now. I did not say that it is impossible for someone who has preconceived ideas to perform an objective test. In fact, I keep pointing out that I did not take issue with your tests. I don't know how much clearer I can be on that point. My point is, was, and always has been that it is difficult for someone with an *opposing view* to take those results seriously when your presentation of the results is interlaced with your own opinions and ideas - even if those results are valid. I mean, seriously, if you saw another site that said, "Here are my results. I did this, this and this and then this thingamabob levitated 3 feet off the ground. Take that you TK skeptics! And another thing..." Would you give that site any credence whatsoever? Wouldn't you assume the guy was biased - even if he said in the beginning it was an objective study? Wouldn't you pretty much dismiss those results out of hand and assume he was a kook? You might go off and do your own tests - like you have here - but you wouldn't assume he was being objective. And, again using the poll results for entering this forum, it would appear that a huge number of the visitors to your site have, in fact, summarily dismissed your results - probably for the reasons I just mentioned. Now you don't have to do a thing about that. As I said before, it's your site. You can do what you want with it. If you're happy with it, you're happy with it. Mitch apparently is too, so at least you have a fan club. But you're not reaching the vast majority of your audience and working so hard to refute me point for point isn't changing that. Can you at least see that much of what I'm saying? Now, with regard to the reason to believe in a thing... you're right it IS getting very tedious. You're taking my statements out of context. Of course, there's always some reason that a person CHOOSES to believe in a thing. They were told something, which they chose to believe. They saw or heard something, interpreted it in a certain way, then CHOSE to believe in their interpretation . Hell, if you extend THAT reasoning, you could say that they believe because at some point in the past the accretion disc in this part of the galaxy formed the sun and planets and gave rise to life producing thinking beings that had the ability to believe or disbelieve. It may be the truth but it's beside the point. You said "In order to believe in a thing you need a REASON to believe. There is no reason to believe in TK." You were clearly talking about a reason to JUSTIFY a belief in TK because if we use the context you just stated in your response, there IS a reason to believe in TK. Someone told them TK is real and they chose to believe it, or they saw a demonstration and chose to believe it, etc. Now obviously, you were not originally speaking in that context. So to be clear, people don't need a reason to justify their belief in a thing because belief is a choice. People can stare directly at facts that prove the opposite of what they believe and still believe in a thing. They've been doing it for centuries. If that was not happening, Galileo would never have been excommunicated. Now, if you stop trying so hard to make everything I said wrong, perhaps you can take another look, see if there are any parts of the constructive criticism that you care about and, if you like, do something about it. If not, so be it. I'm done at this point. Good Lord. If you argue this much with someone who actually agrees with you, I'd hate to be someone who doesn't.
Posted By: Stethoscope Boy Posted On: Apr 27, 2009 Views: 1950	RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias what the hell are you trying to do here John?
Posted By: Mitch Posted On: Apr 28, 2009 Views: 1946	RE: RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias "My point is, was, and always has been that it is difficult for someone with an *opposing view* to take those results seriously" What you're saying is: Keith should alter his site meant to be informative but also* entertaining to cater to people with BIASED minds that already oppose the notion that TK is not real before they come here. That's a mistake for two reasons: 1. This site is intended to help people who are rational enough to have open minds on the subject. 2. If Keith made this site purely about cold facts and no opinions about the subject then it'd be like a boring college course project, it would lose its entertainment value, it's heart. I've listened to your points John, I understand them, and my opinion is.. they wouldn't be an improvement to Keith's site, they'd lessen it. "But you're not reaching the vast majority of your audience" If the vast majority of the audience comes to see a sci-fi movie, but instead finds out it's really a non-fiction drama, that doesn't mean it's not reaching the intended target of the site, it just means a lot of other people expecting to hear tales of sci-fi came to the wrong site to re-enforce their beliefs. The open minded people DO come here, I was one of them. There's just simply no way to filter out all of the fanatics that just come here to re-enforce their preconceived fantasies about TK, as I said.
Posted By: Mitch Posted On: Apr 28, 2009 Views: 1940	RE: RE: Scientific Method, Objectivity and Bias John, I also have to disagree with your contention that these fanatics ignore what Keith has stated simply because they *think* he's biased, they ignore what he's stated because they can't contradict or dispel anything he's said, and what he's said goes to the heart of the issues of TK. Secondly, it makes no sense for someone to be biased *against* the possible existence of TK. It's a fascinating concept. At the most someone may be 'skeptical' about TK, but if that skeptic does tests and study on TK with a transparent and common sense approach, and states facts that go to the heart of the issue which can't be disputed, and then encourages the people to do tests themselves and draw their own conclusions, then they have no credible excuse to ignore what he's stated unless they are biased beyond help. But that's a moot point anyway, Keith made this site for open minded people who want to learn more about the subject, not the biased individuals that you describe. Your notion is to sacrifice the multi-dimensional aspects here of both *facts and *personal thoughts that makes this site interesting in order to cater to those people who have shown an unreasonably reactionary threshhold to even *consider* alternative viewpoints about TK. Firstly, that strategy would fail to convert many of those types of people and secondly it would make this site more boring and less of an interesting read. But that's all been said before.

Pages [ 1 2 ] Next Page ->

Return to Telekinesis page