Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1973
Dr. Brian D. Josephson
In a talk in his BBC Radio 4 series ‘Think with Pinker’, Steven Pinker asked ‘why do so many of us believe in so much quackery and flapdoodle?’, characterising extrasensory perception as ‘paranormal woowoo’. I can imagine such language slipping out in the course of casual conversation, but on the BBC, in a programme where the text must have been carefully thought out in advance?
Something must have led to this being said in such an uncritical manner, so I thought I’d email Pinker to find out what had led him to speak in this way in regard to the paranormal. In response he came up with two arguments. The first has, at first sight, a degree of plausibility, and is the following: if there really are people with the claimed paranormal abilities, they could use these to win consistently at betting, and we would learn about that. However (as described in a recent Guardian article) it seems this does not happen, because when such people start to win significant sums of money the bookies take note, responding to the threat that they pose by imposing limits on how much they are allowed to bet. As a result, we cannot safely infer that there are no people who can use their paranormal abilities to win large amounts at betting.
“The system built up over the years to promote scientific advance has become one that narrow-minded people can use to block any advance that they deem unacceptable.”
Comments on Steven Pinker’s view of the Paranormal
by Brian D. Josephson, Ph.D. Cavendish Laboratory, University of CambridgeNobel Laureate in Physics, 1973 Dr. Brian D. Josephson In a talk in his BBC Radio 4 series ‘Think with Pinker’, Steven Pinker asked ‘why do so many of us believe in so much quackery and flapdoodle?’, characterising extrasensory perception as ‘paranormal woowoo’. I can imagine...
by Brian D. Josephson, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1973 Nobel Laureates’ Annual Meeting, Lindau, Germany – June 30, 2004 (download slides) Dr. Brian D. Josephson “The system built up over the years to promote scientific advance has become one that narrow-minded people can use to block any advance that they deem unacceptable.” Abstract: This...
by Brian D. Josephson, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1973
Nobel Laureates’ Annual Meeting, Lindau, Germany – June 30, 2004 (download slides)
Dr. Brian D. Josephson
“The system built up over the years to promote scientific advance has become one that narrow-minded people can use to block any advance that they deem unacceptable.”
This talk mirrors “Pathological Science”, a lecture given by Chemistry Laureate Irving Langmuir (1). Langmuir discussed cases where scientists, on the basis of invalid processes, claimed the validity of phenomena that were unreal. My interest is in the counter-pathology involving cases where phenomena that are almost certainly real are rejected by the scientific community, for reasons that are just as invalid as those of the cases described by Langmuir. Alfred Wegener’s continental drift proposal (2) provides a good example, being simply dismissed by most scientists at the time, despite the overwhelming evidence in its favour. In such situations incredulity, expressed strongly by the disbelievers, frequently takes over: no longer is the question that of the truth or falsity of the claims; instead, the agenda centres on denunciation of the claims. Ref. 3, containing a number of hostile comments by scientists with no detailed familiarity with the research on which they cast scorn, illustrates this very well. In this “denunciation mode”, the usual scientific care is absent; pseudo-arguments often take the place of scientific ones. Irving Langmuir’s lecture referred to above is often exploited in this way, his list of criteria for “Pathological Science” being applied blindly to dismiss claims of the existence of specific pheomena without proper examination of the evidence. We find a similar method of subverting logical analysis in a weekly column supported by the American Physical Society (4).
Comments on Steven Pinker’s view of the Paranormal
continue reading