Re:Can a Tarot Card Reading Be Defamatory?
by the_af on Tuesday January 03, 2023 @10:09AM
(#34232298)
I cannot access the link you posted.
> 1. Person A puts a picture in a vault. 2. Person B draws a picture of what they think is in the vault. 3. Person A groups the picture person B drew with three other pictures and hands them, along with the picture in the vault, to person C. 4. Person C compares the picture in the vault to the four drawings they've been handed and decides which is the closest.
Without knowing the details of the experiment, there are so many potential methodological problems there! Especially if conducted by someone on the fringe of science which doesn't understand how to do a proper experiment. For example, what's the communication between persons A, B & C. Is this double-blind? How are the other drawings chosen? What does "closest" mean, and is it mentioned verbally, do they fill out a form with rankings, or what? How are candidates B & C chosen?
It's ok to cast these doubts because the people who would conduct and participate in this kind of experiment belong to a self-selecting group that doesn't understand scientific experiments. They could of course be doing everything right, but there is good reason to be doubtful before we know the details.
Since, as you know, mainstream science doesn't currently consider PSI a real phenomenon. Would you say this is because of a conspiracy to suppress the truth. Claims about PSI aren't nothing new, so this isn't "new stuff" they are skeptical about.
> Note also, while there's ample evidence that a qualified remote viewer can draw an accurate picture better than chance
Where is this ample evidence? Does the mainstream scientific consensus agree with your assertion?
> Parapsychology reproduces much more reliably than regular psychology, there's too much scrutiny not to.
This is simply not true, but also: we are comparing parapsychology to science. There's no reproducibility and no scientific method to it. If you (you == not just you, Suo, but anyone) can reproduce parapsychological "experiments", how come you did not win the Amazing Randi challenge?
PS: the two experiments you posed don't even seem equivalent! We are still not demonstrating the question determines the cards!
> 1. Person A puts a picture in a vault. 2. Person B draws a picture of what they think is in the vault. 3. Person A groups the picture person B drew with three other pictures and hands them, along with the picture in the vault, to person C. 4. Person C compares the picture in the vault to the four drawings they've been handed and decides which is the closest.
Without knowing the details of the experiment, there are so many potential methodological problems there! Especially if conducted by someone on the fringe of science which doesn't understand how to do a proper experiment. For example, what's the communication between persons A, B & C. Is this double-blind? How are the other drawings chosen? What does "closest" mean, and is it mentioned verbally, do they fill out a form with rankings, or what? How are candidates B & C chosen?
It's ok to cast these doubts because the people who would conduct and participate in this kind of experiment belong to a self-selecting group that doesn't understand scientific experiments. They could of course be doing everything right, but there is good reason to be doubtful before we know the details.
Since, as you know, mainstream science doesn't currently consider PSI a real phenomenon. Would you say this is because of a conspiracy to suppress the truth. Claims about PSI aren't nothing new, so this isn't "new stuff" they are skeptical about.
> Note also, while there's ample evidence that a qualified remote viewer can draw an accurate picture better than chance
Where is this ample evidence? Does the mainstream scientific consensus agree with your assertion?
> Parapsychology reproduces much more reliably than regular psychology, there's too much scrutiny not to.
This is simply not true, but also: we are comparing parapsychology to science. There's no reproducibility and no scientific method to it. If you (you == not just you, Suo, but anyone) can reproduce parapsychological "experiments", how come you did not win the Amazing Randi challenge?
PS: the two experiments you posed don't even seem equivalent! We are still not demonstrating the question determines the cards!