[extropy-chat] Bayes, crackpots and psi

[Damien Broderick]

At 01:26 AM 12/20/2004 -0500, Eliezer wrote:

>I have to ask myself what kind of researcher goes to all the effort of 
>getting a Ph.D. in parapsychology without being discouraged.

Perhaps the same kind who goes into AI without being discouraged.  The kind 
with ambition to succeed in a task that many deride but which would have 
very large payoffs.

As well, many of these researchers seem impelled by barely submerged 
spiritual yearnings, especially those who seek evidence of life after death 
and who theorize dualistic conceptions of the mind/soul. So it goes. Some 
of those who discover astonishing new things about physics are driven by 
the urge to find more horrible ways to kill many people; this does not 
invalidate their results.

>Give me flying teacups!

This is one of the paradoxes of accumulating knowledge. Alchemists start 
out seeking ways to turn base metals to gold, and find the secret of 
eternal youth; they end up paving the way for chemistry, whereupon the old 
claims and goals are put aside. It's true that there are still 
parapsychologists avid for floating speaking trumpets, tipping tables and 
ectoplasm, but they are few. This is not surprising, nor is it a scandal.

>Give me lottery numbers!

Give me some working AI code!

>Claim Randi's prize!

Eliezer, I thought you'd read Dennis Rawlins' excoriating essay on the 
sTARBABY fiasco? Has this portion slipped your mind? (It's a comment that 
echoes very many I've heard elsewhere.):

< As part of this effort Randi asked my advice on the Helmut Schmidt 
parapsychology experiment which some CSICOPs had been investigating. I 
simply urged that it be approached with all the caution KZA had thrown to 
the winds in 1975 and 1976. He assured me how cautious he was in the 
testing for his well-publicized [then] $10,000 prize for proof of psychic 
abilities (for which he acts as policeman, judge and jury -- and thus never 
has supported my idea of neutral judgment of CSICOP tests. "I *always* have 
an out," he said. >

Cambridge Physics Nobelist Brian Josephson recently complained about 
Randi's use of PR rather than scientific criteria for`failing' a paranormal 
claimant. I see his point, but have to admit that Randi was justified, 
since both claimants and Randi always agree in advance of the test to 
certain canons of success or failure. The claimant achieved her (bizarre) 
task to the muted tune of p < 0.02, but did not do as well as she'd said 
she would. Still, Josephson's complaint might be worth a glance (he's also 
an informed cold fusion fan):

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/

How messy these controversies are! If only they were as clear-cut and 
self-evident as uploading and molecular nanotechnology.

Damien Broderick