Posts Tagged ‘ paranormal ’

Quantum


“If you think you understand quantum theory, you don’t understand quantum theory”, words attributed to Richard Feynman and as true now as when they were uttered. The quantum world is replete with examples that make a mockery of our intuitive understanding of the world. From uncertainty principles saying you can’t know exactly where a particle is and how fast it is going to electrons that can pass through solid barriers. Light that is both a particle and a wave, virtual particles and quantum foam, it’s a crazy world down there. Unfortunately this very impenetrability makes quantum theory ripe for misrepresentation and co-option by those who use it as a smokescreen to cover the initial implausibility of their claims.

The mysterious nature of the quantum realm makes it easy to think that almost anything is possible and so any claim that attaches to itself the concept of quantum mechanics becomes more reasonable by association. Telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, paranormal claims of all kinds have been subject to attempts to provide them with a plausible basis by tying them with quantum strangeness. Unfortunately, most of the unusual properties shown by atoms and subatomic particles are incredibly unstable and have a tendency to collapse on themselves and cancel out any spooky behaviour in a process known as decoherence. Mere interaction with other particles can provide an excuse for this process, unless you go to extraordinary lengths in a purpose built laboratory, particles tend to collide.

Another barrier to the likelihood of quantum mechanics as a framework for the supernatural is the De Broglie Wavelength, this is the effective wavelength of any body and is related to the wave/particle duality of matter and has a direct impact of the distance scales over which quantum effects are observed. For very small objects, like electrons the De Broglie Wavelength is large and quantum effects are pronounced, as objects increase in size this wavelength rapidly decreases until for classically sized objects, like brain cells, it essentially vanishes, taking all quantum weirdness with it. That’s a pity, I’d love to be able to walk through walls, oh wait, we have doors for that. 

Resources

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=312

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis

A Skeptic’s Perspective


A less formal post today, unstructured playtime if you like. This week I had not had a chance to write my usual contribution to my work newsletter. Instead I decided to search for a skeptical cartoon to use as a place holder until next week. I found two things, first that there aren’t very many good skeptically themed ‘toons around and second those I could find just seemed to portray skepticism as simple doubting. While this is a good place to start it certainly isn’t all there is to the skeptical outlook. While philosophical skepticism is concerned with whether there is any such thing as objective reality the modern Skeptical movement takes this for granted and seeks to supply a basis for rational inquiry and thought.

A skeptic attempts to examine claims objectively, trying to limit the effect of bias on their conclusion, both that of the person making the claim and their own. This is obviously not easy, we all view the world through a collection of filters that encompass all of our preconceptions, hopes, wants and needs as well as, for most of us, a desire to be part of a larger community. This can seriously affect how we interpret the events around us and hamper our ability to make sound judgments concerning the validity of claims that we make and that are presented to us a factual. As I have previously discussed personal experience as related through anecdote is extremely powerful in affecting the way people perceive the world. An emotion filled story about someone’s plight with an illness and subsequent miraculous recovery is often enough to convince most people of the efficacy of a treatment.

For a skeptic however, certain minimum standards of evidence must be met before we can evaluate the plausibility of a claim. The more unusual or outrageous the claim the higher that minimum standard becomes. This is because prior plausibility must be considered as part of the evaluation process. We all do this in our lives, when we consider how likely a friend is to keep that promise to arrive on time we think back to previous occasions when they were early or late and decide how likely it is that they will make it this time. We consider the prior probability to their claim of punctuality. A friend who is habitually late will score lower that one who has proven time and again that they can read a watch. In the same way a skeptic will consider the evidence that has come before when looking at the claims of Homeopathy, Chiropractic, Therapeutic Touch, psychics, mediums, cryptozoologists, etc.

So, if you meet a skeptic remember that they are not simply trying to ridicule paranormal experience but are attempting to apply reason to the world around them and are hoping that they are providing an example for others to do so as well. At least that’s the way I see it. Happy critical thinking.

Open Minds


Have you ever had anyone accuse you of being close minded? It’s quite unsettling and very difficult to refute without back peddling so fast you could win the Tour de France in reverse or sounding incredibly arrogant. I don’t really have a problem with appearing arrogant but lets look at this thing called Open Mindedness. The usual people who use this phrase, and they wield it like a bludgeon, do so with the seeming belief that it means approximately: “Accept without question”. This is certainly one way to look at it but I think the better definition would be: “Use all available resources to come to a reasonable conclusion”. Unfortunately my definition requires something that is distressingly close to effort.

I would agree with many that being open minded is a good thing but those that brandish the admonishment of “Closed Minded” seem to do so as if it is a talisman to ward off them that would subject their claims to rational scrutiny. And in so doing reveal themselves to be ones whose minds have shut up shop, drawn the blinds and quite possibly, gone fishing. The ability to view all propositions with an eye to determining their merit or lack-there-of without reflexive dismissal nor acceptance is the mark of the truly open mind. It is also inordinately difficult to do.

All claims should be open to criticism and rational discussion. Those that are backed up with reasonable arguments and evidence should be accepted, those that are not should be considered, at most, provisional. The accusation of close mindedness should not be a substitute for evidence or used as a blockade for preventing inquiry and analysis. So next time someone doesn’t buy into your pet theory, step back and consider who has the more open mind.

Resources

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=262

Ad ignorantiam


One of my favourite logical fallacies is the argument from ignorance or Ad ignorantiam. This is lucky as it is one that gets quite a workout in the paranormal and related UFO camps. The basic explanation of this fallacy is as follows: that the absence of knowledge is a positive argument for a position. In other words that a lack of information is itself proof. For example, those that favour the alien spacecraft explanation of UFO sightings may assert that as we cannot attribute every occurrence of lights in the sky to natural phenomenon, aircraft, weather balloons, swamp gas etc. this proves extraterrestrials are visiting Earth. In this way proponents can take negative evidence and turn it into a positive argument for the existence of aliens.

Another example is of hauntings, often these will consist of feelings, lights and sounds. If a rational reason for these is not readily apparent or cannot be found it is natural for some to leap to the conclusion that it is caused by ghosts. Hear a rhythmic banging at night? must be a ghost. Are there unidentified soft voices audible in your home? must be a ghost. This fallacy is a very easy trap to fall into due to our innate need to have a narrative that explains the world around us and does so in a way that conforms to our preconceptions about how we think the world should work.

The fallacy can also work the other way, by citing negative evidence as definitive proof that something does not or cannot exist. The difference with this side of the fallacy however is that continued negative evidence increases the strength of the argument whereas the reverse is true for the cases above. For example were I to say that I have not seen fairies at the bottom of my garden therefore they do not exist, this would be a fallacy. However, the experiment of people failing to see fairies happens millions of times a day and so makes the case ever stronger, but not certain. You never know.

Resources:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers