西西河

主题:【链接(集)】The Telepathy Debate -- 衲子

共:💬28 🌺36 新:
分页树展主题 · 全看首页 上页
/ 2
下页 末页
        • 家园 【评论】其实那个debate并没什么新东西

          Ganzfeld云云,Meta分析(系统评价)云云,都是老调重弹而已。很自然地,Sheldrake会专挑些对其立场有利的东西来来宣讲,而Wolpert显然没有特别准备,对很多研究只好实话实说自己认识不深,多讲自己的心得体会。如果这只是辩论比赛,我会给Sheldrake更高的得分。

          不过Wolpert的眼光不差,他说这是pathological science,而Ganzfeld及很多实验之所以一直都无法被公认为证明了psi的存在,最关键最根本的问题确实就是effect size不够。以至于Sheldrake虽然一开始承认effect不大,后来又多次强调什么10的多少次方分之一的chace due to random,对很多外行来说就像是暗示meta分析中的主要假设(psi存在)99.999...%成立,似乎是把统计学广告化、文宣化了。另一方面,把己方悲剧化,营造受打压形象,也是一些人进行宣传的常用手段。

          若主办方找来Ray Hyman或Susan Blackmore这样对psi类实验有大量经验者当反方,那又是另一番光景了。不过讨论内容可能会相当枯燥,艰深,无趣,那也说不定。

          一些连结:

          Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

          http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

          Skeptic's Dictionary关于Ganzfeld的介绍。

          http://skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html

          • 家园 对于我这种外行来说,

            这是一场比较乏味的辩论,实在是听得昏昏欲睡。我倒是耐心听完了,只不过,却没有耐性再写点什么。所以多谢您的讲解。让大多数没有耐心听的人,或者听到一半睡着了的人,比如说我,可以大体有个了解。

            说实话,我对于所谓的心灵感应并不是完全的否定。诚如这场辩论中所举的,电话的例子。很多时候,我们在接电话的时候,会无意中想到某一个人,而实际上这个电话是那个人打来的几率,要远远大于随机的水平。但是,现象是存在了,如果没有足够的证据或者研究来提出某个可信的(这个可信是建立在证据、常识和逻辑推理的基础上的,而不是建立在大众的认可上)解释,我宁可不去谈论它。因为,这种谈论,对于了解事物的真相没有任何的帮助,甚至会混淆人们的认识。

            我夏天回国的时候,很不小心的跟某位宗教人士进行了一场辩论。同所有的同类型交流一样,这场辩论舞客救药的滑向了列举各类我们无法用可信的理论来解释的现象和高举天命的大旗的理论上。而所有的目的只有一个,就是说服我相信那一个前提。我是坚定的可知论者,所以我敬谢不敏。实际上,科学的所有的基石,都构建在可知论这一小小的石头之上。唯心主义还是唯物主义,并不重要。很多人总是列举,众多的科学家,同时也是坚定的教徒的事实。然而他们忘了,宗教并不一定就意味着不可知。虽然宗教与不可知也不过是半步之遥。

            乱七八糟说了许多,希望大家没有看晕。

            • 家园 我也不是内行

              我同样不认为心灵感应什么的绝对不存在,但很多事情用常规心理学去解释更符合奥卡姆剃刀的原则。就拿一般人经历的预知来电来说,确实有几种认知现象能使人们认为他们猜对来电的几率大于随机几率---

              首先是有关记忆的availability bias:当人们发现自己猜对的时候,他们通常会有些惊讶,情感反应会增加,于是对这一事件的印象会特别深刻;而当人们猜错的时候,他们会觉得这是正常的,因此就没放在心上,更可能是直接忘掉自己曾经有过猜测。过一段时间,当你问他有没有经常猜对来电,他会觉得:‘有,有时确实会猜对,似乎成功率不仅仅是随机的几率’,这是因为他能一下子想起来以前猜中的那几次,却不会记得多少猜错的次数,于是判断就有了bias。

              其次是关于‘第六感’以及subtle cues:有时候人们会突然想起某件事、某个人,而他们完全不知道为什么会想起来,似乎是无端端就想起来了。但事实上,我们的思维并非真的那么‘无厘头’。催眠法和精神分析学派揭示了潜意识的存在,我们所意识到的部份,往往只是整个思维过程的一部份,甚至只是冰山一角。很多实验都证明了暗示能有效地影响人的思维和行为,被影响者懵然不知,但这种影响幅度一般相当有限(类似许多超感官实验的effect size),比如说单单透过暗示使一个正常人去犯法,这是不可能的,但使行人走路步伐变慢却完全可能。回到电话上,有时一些事先发生的事件能够预示即将来到的某个电话,人们不一定能有意识的发现这种关系并理性地推测出谁即将来电,但只要他们确实接触到了这些预示,有时候就会形成一种暗示,于是在一段时间内此人就会偶尔出现‘某某将要致电给我’的感觉,人们习惯将这种感觉称为第六感,因为这不是他们有意推断出来的,这种想法就像是凭空跑出来的。

              对那些不浮躁,肯认真做学文的parapsychologist来说,他们最头痛的就是subtle cues,因为关于心灵感应现象的实验,每一个trial必然要牵涉至少两个或以上的人/生物(比如还有裁判),这对于控制各种confound非常不利,很难保证没有任何的cues泄露出来,哪怕是大量自动化的automated ganzfeld procedures也不例外。如果是做更贴近实际生活的调查研究,则记忆上的availability bias也可能会成为严重的问题。再加上实验结果的effect size又小,拿这些数据宣称其证明了某某极具革命性的发现,很难不引起质疑。这些不是迫害与苛求,而是extraordinary claim就要有extraordinary proof来支持,这是parapsychology所必须面对的挑战。

              关键词(Tags): #availability#bias#subtle#cues元宝推荐:水风,
              • 家园 多谢您的回帖

                我认为,这至少是一个可信的解释。所以,就滥用了一下自己的权利。呵呵,这可是公事公办。

                原来想写点什么东西来反驳,查到了几个蓝头山雀的文章,准备一个个的翻译过来。突然就懒了,觉得没有意义把我有限的生命浪费在这些无聊的争论中。对又怎样,错又怎样?我生活中有着一大堆的难题,却跑到这里跟人谈这些无所谓的东西来消磨时光。更不用说要以天下为己任,路见不平,主持社会公道什么的了。我自己改变不了什么社会,至少我能够改变一下自己,起码让自己的生活更加积极向上一点。让自己和家人过得好一点。所以,以后到河里来的时间要少一些了。还请诸位多多灌水,我来负责灌花、灌麦乳精好了。

                生命不息,灌就不止。诸位,玩好。

        • 家园 双宝花
      • 家园 我曾经有老鼠盗水被淹死!哈哈!

        老鼠盗水被淹死

    • 家园 【视频链接】Sheldrake的Microsoft讲座

      外链出处

      "The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence"

      "延伸的心智: 近期的实验证据"

    • 家园 【选粹】

      Sceptics are very credulous when it comes to claims of sceptics. ... [False debunking due to predudices] shows it's a self-reinforcing system, reinforced by a system of taboos and prejudices, which I think, are a shame to science. I think that this is an outrage, really, that in a scientific world we have this kind of behaviour going on, which I think, brings discredit on the whole of science, and I think one of the things that really disillusions people with science is the feeling that science is not actually about evidence, it's about dogma, and my view is that science needs to be about evidence, not dogma, and personally, I see telepathy as a test case for this very principle.

      Telepathy is a taboo subject. It's an extraordinary thing that scientists who claim to be rational or rationalists, get extraordinarily irrational when it comes to the subject of telepathy. The belief in evidence just goes out of the window. It often arouses deep emotions, and I often wonder, why is it that people get so upset at the possible existence of telepathy? Why is it something so deeply disturbing? I think the reasons are historical. They go back at least as far as the ‘enlightenment,’ when the idea of the agenda was to push forward the science and reason and reject religion and superstition, credulity, folklaw and so forth. Somehow, telepathy - at that time, not called telepathy - but somehow, these psychic phenomena got put into the compartment of ‘superstition,’ and ever since then, rational people have been supposed not to believe in them.

      I think that's why (as a sociological fact) you won't find serious articles about this in broadsheet newspapers or on Horizon programmes on BBC, because these are beyond the pale of rational discourse, and educated people - not just scientists, but most university graduates - know that they're meant to be part of this ‘enlightenment’ project, and at least in public, are supposed to deny telepathy, or at least, not talk about it. The penalty for doing so is to be thought credulous, superstitious or stupid and no one wants to lose intellectual cast.

      So, I think that this taboo got established quite early on and it's somehow been in place ever since then. If you look at the controversies in the late 19th century, they were the same as today, the same kinds of arguments. The people in favour, said, “Here's all the evidence.” The people against, said, “It's impossible, the evidence is all not credible, etc.”

      It's very strange in science that some new ideas are perfectly acceptable. For example, David Deutsch who is a Physicist in Oxford has written a book on Time Travel. He's also written a book on Multiple Universes, the idea that every time a physical observation is made, the universe splits, and there's billions, trillions, quadrillions of parallel universes, completely unobserved. He holds down a respectful position in Physics in Oxford. There's no evidence at all for this postulate, and yet, this is quite tolerable within Physics. However, when it comes to the subject of telepathy, David Deutsch says very much the same as Lewis Wolpert. “It's total rubbish, not a shred of evidence.” I know he hasn't studied the evidence, but somehow the same person can have totally wild theories about paranormal universes and yet, this complete taboo against telepathy, co-existing in the same person.

分页树展主题 · 全看首页 上页
/ 2
下页 末页


有趣有益,互惠互利;开阔视野,博采众长。
虚拟的网络,真实的人。天南地北客,相逢皆朋友

Copyright © cchere 西西河