I’m sad to report that John Maddox, former editor of Nature, has died. He was one of those fellows who shaped the direction of science for quite a long period of time with the power of one of the most influential science journals in the world.
I suspect every scientist of my generation read his editorials in our weekly perusal of the journal. The one I remember most vividly, and probably the one that got the most attention in general, was his ferocious denunciation of Rupert Sheldrake’s work — he went so far as to say that if ever there was a book suitable for burning, it was that one. So of course, I had to read it (that’s one of the pitfalls of calling for the destruction of books). And then, also of course, I discovered that Maddox was right on the money — that book was an astonishing pile of B.S. masquerading as science, and it’s true that Sheldrake is still peddling his nonsense.
We’ve lost a vigorous skeptic and humanist.
*raises beer in salute*
I’m not familiar with the man, being insufficiently advanced in age, but anyone who slammed Sheldrake gets kudos from me.
*Joins Newfie*
Carry it on, carry it on.
Damn shame, good guy.
*raises mug of fine coffee in salute*
I never drink this early in the morning.
To a humanist and a skeptic, he will be missed.
-_-
W R
You always hate to lose the good ones.
Condolences.
Favourite Maddox memory: him utterly owning Jacques Benveniste and the homeopaths by adding a condition on the publication of their paper showing the memory of water – that he and two other appointed people – American physicist Walter Stewart and skeptical magician and awesome beard-owner James Randi – could inspect their labs and experiments. Upon inspection, the whole thing fell like a house of cards due to lack of double blind.
Perhaps I’m missing something?
Maddox was the one who brought in Randi in the Benveniste affair. A great way to actually test an extraordinary claim.
PZ, thank you for the reference to Ruport Sheldrake’s work.
The fact that you and the late Mr. Maddox both reject(ed) his work out-of-hand make it a must read for us ‘skeptics’ of methodological naturalism.
FYI, the eye never ‘saw’ anything, nor the ear ‘heard’ anything.
Alas…
Raising a fine IPA in solemn toast to a fallen hero. Rather interesting that this IPA tastes just like the last one. Must be because of the morphic resonance between this generation of water, malt, hops & yeast and the ones that came before.
As Pat Condell said “If heaven isn’t fully licensed to serve alcoholic beverages, I don’t want to go.”
Steve P. needs to work on his reading comprehension. Maddox reviewed Sheldrake’s work, and determined that it was rubbish. I read Maddox’s opinion, and then went to read it myself…and discovered that it was rubbish.
That’s a strange definition of “out-of-hand” he’s got there.
Read Sheldrake in the late ’80s. I was unimpressed.
Yeah, my intro to him was also the Benvenista affair.
The cat had a situation that included a need for creativity. What does he do? He calls in a magician.
Class act there. Talk about “outside the box”. A proper tool for every job.
Well played.
(ii)D
Steve P
Smarm doesn’t seem to have the same appeal when it’s rooted in blind ignorance. You may want to try a new approach.
Y’know, unless ignorance is “your thing”, which it seems to be.
“The fact that you and the late Mr. Maddox both reject(ed) his work out-of-hand make it a must read for us ‘skeptics’ of methodological naturalism.”
Someone help me out here, I am not well versed in this particular brand of jargon. I am translating “methodological naturalism” as “science” and a skeptic of that would be someone who thinks there is some sort of metaphysical force involved.
That sound about right?
jqpublic
What he’s saying is that testing a hypothesis could conflict with the ideas he was brought up to accept without question, so he refuses to even consider ideas that there could be evidence to support. He refers to this distrust of reality as “skepticism” in a lame attempt to seem as though he has thoughts that have, even the slightest, depth.
I hope that clears things up for you.
Somehow, I also think this means he has a tiny penis, but, like STEVE, I simply know he HAS A TINY PENIS without asking any questions or looking into it in any way.
It’s a faith thing.
Is there anyone that can come close to this mans greatness?
I’m saddened like I was when one of my early my mentors George Sutton died before I could even begin my studies.
I mourn the loss.
From Wikipedia: “Sheldrake’s is not a scientific theory. Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned, in exactly the language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy.”
Not the best choice of analogy.
Anyone remember his editorial: “Is molecular biology yet a science?” He was an editor that exhibited both insight and foresight into contemporary science.
His words: “The great successes of the past few years suggest that living processes consist of well-ordered events executed under strict control, but a few numbers would give a different and more fuzzy impression.”
Fortunately he lived long enough to see this vision begin to be realized.
Right, exactly what I thought Mike. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRjQmZLT8bI Shitty analogy. Does anyone have the actual ’81 article? It’s so old on Nature I can’t even read it with my Univ access.
Re: “It’s so old on Nature I can’t even read it with my Univ access.”
Rupert Sheldrake is still a buffoon.
and he was not “punished like Galileo. ”
Galileo had the advantage of being Right.
Sheldrake does not enjoy that advantage.
His so-called research has been debunked by everyone from Maddox to Randi and even (gasp!) engineering professors.
@ 13,
I think I’d prefer the very fine company of all those godless people that are burning in hell.Much nicer to have a cold beer on a hot day anyway !
The bad news is the beer is served warm, British-style.
And it’s American beer.
Kitty, are you from Texas by any chance? Thought so. But yes, your intuition is correct.
You ignorance aside, anyone who knows anything about physical pleasure knows that applying the correct amount of pressure, at the correct time, for the correct duration, in the correct spot can satisfy ANY woman regardless of phallic length.
Guess Kitty needs a bit more information in this department. First, circumference is more important than length. Secondly, circumference is not always proportional to length.
Its ironic that a skeptic need be informed by a Catholic on such matters.
Life is a beach. Then you swim.
PZ, no I read your comments just fine. Your hyperskepticism keeps you from actually ‘thinking’ outside your HS box. Hence, reject out-of-hand. Its easy to read and declare ‘its trash’. Next.
But hey, but who am I too talk? Just ask Kitty.
Don’t get me wrong. I love science. It helps me build good furniture, make cool new technical textiles, and understand how to fix the kitchen drain. Hey its great!
But why would I want to enlist science to explain me to me? Science is by definition a subset of reality. How can it describe ALL of reality to me?
So Steve-O. Can we classify you as hypo-skeptical? And BTW, did you actually read Sheldrake’s book or books, or do you just know intuitively that his ideas are valid? I mean he gave up of the study of auxin and plant development, yet the field has managed to continue to make progress, without any resort to “morphic resonances” or such like.
And I don’t think we require empirical evidence of your *other* claim. I’m sure it corresponds to the Golden Ratio.
Steve P., like every other god-licker, thinks he knows more about the mental processes of atheists than they themselves do.
Even though he does not understand what science is, he thinks he has wisdom. Even though he cannot read well, he bases his life on a book. Even though he cannot write well, he comments on the internet.
What an indescribably, delightfully, deliciously, scrumtrilescently emptyheaded argument Steve. Because a particular method of experimentally verified form of objective inquiry can’t currently explain absolutely every last detail of physical reality, why pay attention to it at all when its findings are sometimes uncomfortable. Wonderful, incandescently brilliant insight. Thank you for that. imbecile.
Yes, because a book in which the most recent additions were made something around 2,000 years ago is going to be a good guide to reality.
What does the bible say about democracy, by the way?
Sheldrake sure is an odd one – he has a very good biochemistry (I think) degree from Cambridge Uni, but turned to the dark side.
I remember flicking through his first book when it came out in the late 1970s in a bookshop in Birmingham (the original one, in England) and coming to a passage saying how knee calluses on ostrich chicks (the calluses develop while they’re still in the egg) were inexplicable by natural selection because they develop before they could possibly be useful, therefore their development must be due to morphic resonance. As a biology student (then), that one passage made me think “this chap really is so woefully or wilfully ignorant on this simple issue, he can’t be trusted on anything”.
I have held him in contempt ever since, and I see he is now a regular at New Agey and The Troof events. Ugh. I despise him.
Anyone who shines a bright light onto these charlatans and idiots is certainly a loss. Requiescat in pace, John Maddox.
“Yes, because a book in which the most recent additions were made something around 2,000 years ago is going to be a good guide to reality.”
Isn’t a book also, you know, a subset of reality?
he went so far as to say that if ever there was a book suitable for burning, it was that one.
Just that one? Oh, no, several more come to mind for me, like, oh, Narcissus in Chains by Laurell K. Hamilton. Or Fearless Fourteen by Janet Evanovich. I hated them so much, my brain kindly put a little note in my memory banks about them that read: “I’ve erased all but the names of these and how neuron-damaging they were to us. If you try to add the data again, I’ll incapacitate you so much that you have to live with your mother again.”
Needless to say, I don’t bother to refresh my memory. Or pick up those books ever again.
It helps me build good furniture, make cool new technical textiles, and understand how to fix the kitchen drain. Hey its great!
That’s not science, you moron, that’s low-end technology. Very low end. Similar to the part of the gene pool you’re from.
Steve- Why do you have to post that kind of crap on a thread that is honoring a fantastic scientist? You are a selfish SOB and you deserve the insults you are getting. Shame on you.
BTW I am from TEXAS, shut your stoopid mouth about things you know nothing about.
Isn’t a book also, you know, a subset of reality?
Maybe.
Not necessarily.
Given that:
1. Subset isn’t the whole set.
2. The Bible reflects about as much reality as Pride and Prejudice, but the latter is both better written and more entertaining.
Ooooohh, that’s a new one. Is that a slam-dunk rhetorical trick or something?
Steve P babbling from ignorance@ 29,on a thread about a deceased scientist and science writer,
Poor Stevie,
I think you have been tricked.And you know fuckall about women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_and_male_orgasmic_disorders
#29 – So Steve P has some female acquaintances who take pity on him by faking orgasm? Or is his knowledge entirely theoretical, and not backed up by controlled experiments? (In which case he’s reading the wrong sort of magazine.)”ANY woman”! I suppose *that* can best be described as rampant nonsense.
Blake,
You miss the point entirely as most of you folks do, over and over again. How do you deduce that physical phenomena are all that exists? Of course, science is a sub-set of knowledge. How foolish of you to consider otherwise.
Hey, discover science all you like and have fun with it. We all do. It help us discover the wonders of the world. Great.
Hey, but I can’t help it. There is more to life than scientific knowledge. Limiting yourself to the observable is not a rational approach. It says you are only interested in partial knowledge.
To each their own, I guess.
But investing in the unobservable is?
What a weird thing to say !
LRA, have I entered an inner sanctum or something? I thought atheists were not into that sort of thing.
Truly sorry for treading on sacred ground. True to your description of me, I was totally selfish and ignorant of this aspect.
Aquaria, excuse me? Low-end technology is NOT science????
Can I quote you on that? Come on now, really.
I really don’t see how insults gain anything for you. How does that work?
Steve P – everyone knows that to please the women, you need to be smart and know multiple languages.
After all, what woman doesn’t enjoy cunning linguists?
Steve P,
Technology is not science, so low-end tech would also not be science. Technology is often a by product of science and new technology results from new discoveries and ideas in science, but it is not science in itself.
You’re right, Steve. Why limit yourself to reality when there are countless other fairy-tales to keep you busy?
Clinteas,
I don’t ‘invest’ in the unobservable. We’ve known for ages about unobservables? Why deny the obvious.
Jus’ cuz you can’t wrap your brain around the idea of the universe as the physical expression of the Mind means we should shut down this line of inquiry?
Because science is not equipped to handle such an idea, then that idea must be discarded? Says a lot about the power of science, doesn’t? ……. “Nope, sorry can’t go there. It’s not scientific. Nope can’t go there either. The only road open is the empirical highway. At least I can ‘see’ where I’m going”.
You’d think they woulda heard about auto pilot by now.
Haven’t read Sheldrake, but have run across the ostrich-callus thing before. The point is not that they develop before they’re useful (the same could be said about lungs, eyes, tongues, wings, feet, etc.). They are usually cited as potential examples of Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics, since calluses are normally acquired through use. The usual non-Lamarckian explanation is some kind of Waddingtonian canalization.
Comedy gold,right there.
Yes,Steve,I do think we should concentrate on actual problems of this world and this life,like poverty,diseases,global warming,you know,all this real stuff….
You are so right Robert, I was a cunning linguists twice yesterday and she was very pleased;-)
Steve P@48:
That is correct, technology is not science. There was plenty of technology (especially “low-end” technology) around before the human race started doing actual science. Even today, most technology and engineering incorporates large amount of heuristic and empirical knowledge without any formal scientific framework.
Scientific understanding often enables technological progress (and vice versa), so many people often conflate the two terms. However, they are separate.
If the universe is a manifestation of the mind, who’s the asshole that thought of Steve P.? Seriously, think of something else, like bacon.
LOL wut?
And “obvious unobservables”? heh.
“Obvious unobservables”? There’s a new oxymoron for you. If it’s obvious, you’ve observed it, dumbass.
Could something exist outside the reach of science? Yes. Can someone claim any knowledge about such things and remain intellectually honest? No.
Science is the only existing means to differentiate between true and false ideas of reality. Faith (and all “other ways of knowing” boil down to faith in the end) cannot do that. Feeling like something is true has no bearing on whether it is actually true.
Science. It works, bitches.
Steve P@52
No, but where do you think the line of inquiry will take you?
There are lots of untestable and unprovable models of the universe we can explore if you like. I mean, we could imagine the universe as the byproduct of a sneeze by the Great Green Arkleseizure as well, but aside from an irrational fear of white handkerchiefs, we won’t gain very much.
More seriously, we could view the universe as a giant simulation being run on massive computer hardware. Given the apparently mathematical nature of the structure of reality, this might even be correct. But we do we gain by thinking about this?
What do we gain from trying to see the universe as “the physical expression of the Mind”? It gains us no new understanding or predictive power. It offers no insights of value. It fails to explain what happened with the universe before Mind emerged (or, alternatively, it fails to have any relevance to the emergent bundle of behaviours I call my mind).
uknesvuinng@57 –
Stanz: “I couldn’t help it! It just popped in there!”
Venkman: “What? What popped in there?”
Stanz: “Look!”
Venkman: “What is it? Ray, what did you think of?”
Stanz: “It can’t be! It can’t be!”
Stanz: “It’s … It’s … It’s the STEVE-PUFT MARSHMALLOW MAN.
Stanz: “I tried to think of the most harmless thing … something that could never destroy us … something I loved from my childhood.”
Venkman: “AND YOU CAME UP WITH THAT?”
Maddox wrote in that article: “Sheldrake’s argument is an exercise in pseudo-science. Many readers will be left with the impression that Sheldrake has succeeded in finding a place for magic within scientific discussion and this, indeed, may have been a part of the objective of writing such a book”.
And he later said in a radio interview: “I am very worried indeed at the way that this will have comforted all kinds of anti-science people”.
I guess Maddox was right and our beloved Steve P is the living proof.
Right, right: the Baldwin effect (q.v.)
I suspect the ‘P’ in ‘Steve P.’ is for ‘pissant’
Whose ‘Mind’? Yours? Mine? Sideshow Bob’s?
‘Line of inquiry’? What ‘line of inquiry’? Your people stopped inquiring a long time ago; that’s the biggest part of the problem. You claim you already have the answers and all you need do now is select facts that allow those answers to continue to seem correct.
No, Steve Pissant, the only line is the one with the baited hook attached, the one you – and people like you – are gullible enough to swallow.
We needn’t have worried about running out of loonies if PZ banned a few here and there.
Why do you quote a talk page?
We don’t. We merely find that we don’t need to make any assumptions about the existence of the supernatural. Principle of parsimony: Sire, je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.
Category fail.
Science is not knowledge. Science is the method to find knowledge – and it’s one-sided: it can’t tell you when an idea is true, only when it’s false.
Of course not, LOL!
It’s an application of the results of science!
To use the example you probably like best: The theory of relativity is science, building nuclear weapons is technology.
That would make you a polyglot, not a linguist. Linguistics = language science.
Define “know” and “observable”.
Erm… if I’m the solipsist (is that what you mean?), then science still works because (evidently) my imagination is self-consistent enough for that. Science may arguably be somewhat pointless in that case, but it still works.
(Insert T-shirt here.)
I don’t know that term. However, there’s apparently a genetic way to make calluses, and the ostriches have found it. It was selected for because ostriches can put the calluses to good use as soon as they hatch; that’s an advantage over having to develop them later. Is that what you mean?
On topic this time.
Why the hostility to Sheldrake? Think of all those poor folks that got wailed on way back when for their ‘eccentric’ views just to have them accepted post-humus.
Telepathy is bunk to you NOW, until you discover that our bodies have radio-like frequency signatures due to the electro-magnetic aspects of our biology. When that is discovered and you know how to tap into it, then you will discovere that lo and behold, we DO have telepathic abilities!
It is asking these type of questions that IS true science: Is it possible for people to read minds? In what way could this possibly take place? Do people in fact have a frequency signature? Do people’s brain waves travel outside the body? How could we devise a way to test this?
Thing is, your atheism/skepticism prevents you from asking these questions. You would rather say ‘ come on, that’s rubbish! There’s no way we can do that!!!
It seems rather that your(pl) atheism/skepticism comes before scientific inquiry, not as a result of it.
Open minds ask questions, closed minds prevent them. It is ironic that you all would claim to be open minded and those yahoo creationists are sooo closed-minded. Yet you disparage and ridicule those very inquiring minds that lead to new discoveries.
Go figure.
Oh my. I hope no-one’s wearing their Sunday Best, for the shit is about to start flying.
Steve P.:
No, it doesn’t – and note atheism is not involved, only skepticism – what it does is lead me to conclude that, pending future technological advances, people can’t read others’ minds (only interpret what other minds communicate by mundane media); this despite that I accept that everything has a “frequency signature”, that brain waves do “travel” outside the body (thus noninvasive EEGs), and that tests have been devised and failed to sustain the contention (cf. JREF) of mind-reading.
Skepticism is not a closed mindset, but one with an evaluation filter for new knowledge.
What technology—excuse me, science (snicker)—makes loonies and how do we turn it off? Or is that an example of something which is unobservable and therefore is knowable. Or whatever the hell Steve P’s point is…
Back on topic: My first recollection of / exposure to Maddox was also the Jacques Benveniste tests with Randi et al. The other thing I recall about Maddox was a few years later (early 1990s) when he ran a series of editorials demolishing Neville Hodgkinson’s HIV-denialism in the Sunday Times (London).
Hodgkinson and the Sunday Times were running a “campaign” against HIV-causes-AIDS (and AZT?), which they explicitly compared to the campaign the paper had run years before against Thalidomide as an example of how serious the “error” that HIV-causes-AIDS was. They were right about Thalidomide and were implying that made them right about HIV-AIDS-AZT-whatever. That causes Maddox (and many others) to more-or-less explode. It’s also one reason I, to this day, refuse ever take anything in the Times or Sunday Times seriously without independent confirmation from a reliable source (and am a bit dismayed when Pee Zed and others quote/link either paper, as I see it as equivalent to quoting/linking the National Inquirer or Faux News).
SteveP@67-
In no way does either atheism or scepticism prevent us from asking questions like these. Scepticism does require us to demand extraordinary proof, for these are extraordinary claims.
Yes, the human brain uses electromagentic activity. And it responds to electromagnetic fields. Heck, I swear that I often start singing to a song, then turn the radio on and have it join in at the exact same spot – that _could_ be my brain recognising the electromagnetic pattern of the radio (but is far more likely to be sheer coincidence, with my brain’s natural superstition kicking in to make it seem more important than that). But human brains using electromagnetic activity for telepathy got debunked ages ago. Why? Because it was shown that the brain can’t produce a strong enough signal to be detectable by a receiver as poor as the brain, even at touching distance. Which is not to say that radio-based telepathy isn’t possible, it’s just that humans don’t do that trick. One reason is that we live in a very noisy environment, for radio waves. Another is that detecting radio waves requires receptors of the same wave length or more, and as radio waves have wavelengths from 1mm to several meters, that’s a little inconvenient for your typical cell-based organism to evolve. This is why, for example, that the terrestrial eye, despite being independently evolved something like 30 times, always ends up resolving a visible spectrum that isn’t too far out of whack with what we humans see. Yes, some animals see into the infrared, and some (especially insects) see into the ultraviolet, but the entire spectrum visible to all animals on earth probably falls into a four-octave range or less. Because that’s the size of the wavelength that can be resolved by cells.
Can humans read minds? Yes, we can. We do it through a combination of body language and empathy, to the point where people in sync can literally end up finishing each other’s sentences. It’s freaky as hell, but it’s not magic.
Do humans have a frequency signature? By this, I assume you mean like a radio frequency, to which we could theoretically dial in to? Yes, as a matter of fact, we do – several. Some predators (like sharks) even use this fact as a hunting mechanism, tuning in on characteristic frequencies from quite a long distance away.
Do people’s brain waves travel outside of the body? Yes, as a matter of fact they do. That’s how an EEG works – it detects the brain waves from outside of your body. Just outside (the receptors are on your skin), but that’s for efficiency – they are very weak signals, and being subject to the inverse square law they drop off pretty fast. They are also fairly omni-directional, so having the receptors close to the skin, and lots of them in the characteristic pattern is necessary to be able to isolate where the brain waves are coming from.
How can we test this? With an antenna and radio receiver. That’s how you go looking for radio waves. To make it even better for the pseudo-science crowd: the earliest radio receivers were crystals. You can use crystals to tune in to brain waves! (Though these days we use electronic circuits)
How do we know all this? Because serious scientists did serious experiments to check all this out. Parapsychology is dismissed these days as bunk because a lot of research went into proving it was bunk (or, more accurately, failing to prove that there was anything to it).
Question is: Why a filter? Filter what? If you mean, ‘no that didn’t work. OK let’s try something else and see if that works’, then you’re talking. But if you mean ‘come on’ that’ll never work. you’re wasting your time.’ then that filter fails miserably.
How many people are like this? Too many to count. If Sheldrake keeps on trying, then finally he will make headway. The results of his work may turn out to surprise even himself. But one thing for sure is, if he heeds the negative(to put it mildly) commentary from so-called skeptics on this board, then yeah we’ll never know just what Sheldrake ‘could’ have discovered.
Whether you like it or not, he doin’ science alright; just not in some people’s ‘comfort’ zone.
Why are so many of you responding to Steve P? All you’re doing is encouraging him. Please, ignore him because he is the type of person that cannot be swayed from his opinion by evidence no matter how much that evidence contradicts his viewpoint.
PZ said “he went so far as to say that if ever there was a book suitable for burning, it was that one. So of course, I had to read it…” And that’s where we differ from Steve P; we will check out any information for ourselves, evaluate it and, if we find it compelling, change our mind. What we will not do is accept what some figure of authority tells us just because they are a figure of authority.
I hope that makes sense; I’m just not as eloquent as some of you at putting my thoughts into words.
bassmanpete,
Um, SIWOTI.
Also, see the comments on the Where a troll comes from thread. Also, it’s a Pharyngulean tradition.
We haven’t forgotten this is about the passing of John Maddox, despite that.
Steve Pissant writes:
“Open minds ask questions, closed minds prevent them. It is ironic that you all would claim to be open minded and those yahoo creationists are sooo closed-minded. Yet you disparage and ridicule those very inquiring minds that lead to new discoveries.”
Methinks Steve Pissant needs to have a look at this video on open mindedness:
He would be far more likely to make headway if he had a theoretical construct in place that he was evaluating against. You know – something to prove or disprove?
Collecting data for the sake of collecting data is important, and a vital part of establishing science in a new field of research. But it doesn’t get you the big brownie points – finding new theories in the data, using it to make predictions, and then proving the predictions right (or wrong) is what gets you the points.
Trying things at random trying to prove concepts such as “telepathy” isn’t science. Unfortunately, all the sensible approaches for proving telepathy have already been tested.
Basssmanpete,
Thanks for the encouraging words.
Kinda like yourself, huh. Nothing will nudge you away from your skepticism, huh. Yep. God does not exist. You KNOW that! The physical world is all there is. You KNOW that! Steve P.s a (fill in the derogatory blank, plz) cuz he just doesn’t get it!
Yeah, I’m delusional for thinkin’ just maybe……….
Do you even know what skepticism means, you dumbass? Here’s a hint: if some evidence comes up to support a theory then we rethink our position; until that point, and without any reason to think otherwise, we remain unimpressed.
For someone who thinks people are capable of understanding thoughts you do a pretty poor job of understanding words.
Steve P – in an earlier thread, another troller was asked what it would take for them to believe God does not exist. He was unable to provide an answer – a classic closed minded position. By contrast, a number of the skeptical posters here were able to show what level of proof would satisfy them.
So, the same questions for you: what level of evidence would it take for you to, say, believe that telepathy was not possible?
For myself, I would not even require evidence to believe it was possible. A solid credible theoretical construct without a shred of evidence (yet), but with testable predictions that can be evaluated would suffice. Alternatively, a public demonstration of someone reciting, at normal speaking tones, a long section of a randomly selected page of Wikipedia being read silently by a telepathic transmitter in a different room would provide a convincing demonstration that the phenomenon is real.
I’m sure the JREF, for example, has come up with other tests that would satisfy me as well.
So – what would it take for you to decide that telepathy does not exist? Are you open minded enough to consider the possibility that the physical world IS all there is, and the level of evidence required to convince you of that?
I am saddened to hear of the death of John Maddox.
Many fine memories reading his fine editorials and reading the journal under his watch. Makes me think back when times didn’t seem anywhere near as snarled, when it seemed most people actually knew the difference between left and wrong.
We sure could use more of the kind of sure-footedness that guide provided. Competence, intelligence, keen thinking, compassion, and a decent revulsion for false thinking, a guy who wasn’t afraid to say so whenever he encountered it.
John Maddox, a man who genuinely adored NATURE (both the actuality and the journal), is no longer. His personal configuration is gone. Yet we live in a universe which we once shared, and can continue to hold a memory of him. We may continue to grow by his example.
With such a man who was once alive and spoke his mind through his words for others to digest, that seems sufficient definition of the development of “grace” to me. As he would himself no doubt have agreed, there isn’t any human concept that isn’t vulnerable to monopolization by rank charlatans.
He will be missed.
@Steve P.
“Nothing will nudge you away from your skepticism, huh.”
You talk about it like that is a bad thing. That’s ok though, you can be as gullible as you want.
“God does not exist. You KNOW that!”
You shouldn’t try to anticipate what people’s positions here are, you seem to suck at that. Like many other claims, the one about your god just lacks evidence, hence it makes no sense to accept it as true.
“he physical world is all there is. You KNOW that!”
No, the physical world is. There might be more, but you’d be stretching the definition of existing, and if it doesn’t manifest in the physical world, it seems pretty useless to debate it. Physical or not, I’d still like evidence to be presented, instead of conjecture with no test in reality.
“Yeah, I’m delusional for thinkin’ just maybe”
Evidence would help you know. It’s the same standard that seems to work just fine in every other field of science. It really doesn’t help your position if your claims demand the scientific method to be changed to accomodate your particular convictions.
Steve P. (#52):
Perhaps you can explain what “the universe as the physical expression of the Mind” actually means so that we can try and wrap our brains around it. Because from where I’m standing, the expression is vague to the point of being barely intelligible.
So what exactly is “the Mind” (is the capital “M” significant, by the way)? What kind of thing is it, and what does it mean to talk about its “physical expression”? In what way would the universe be such an expression?
Because until you can actually state an intelligible hypothesis (since as T.H. Huxley pointed out, being intelligible is a hypothesis’s first duty), you don’t actually have anything resembling a line of enquiry.
Steve P.
Of course nothing will nudge me away from my scepticism; I’ll evaluate any evidence that comes my way and make up my own mind about it. And no, I don’t KNOW that god does not exist, nor that the physical world is all that there is. But until some compelling evidence can convince me otherwise (and, contrary to your assertion, I’m always prepared to look) I’ll live my life as if god does not exist and that the physical world is all there is.
No intelligent life here.
Warp speed, Scotty.
Janine Melnitz: Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?
SteveP: Sure, anything you say.
Steve P. (#84):
Ah, apparently being “open minded” means ignoring even the courteous replies and the requests for clarification, declaring victory and running away.
Someone better tell the OED that the definition of the term has changed.
Asking for evidence is indicative of a closed mind. Unfortunately, I’ve come across that concept many times, usually followed by statement of pure belief and an appeal for faith.
Wow Steve, you sure told us.
For those familiar with the YouTube scene… Tragic ends for Tony48129.
Steve P. and the other disciples of woo: What matters is whether a way of approaching the Universe works or not. Science works. Sheldrake’s approach, ID and all the New-Age Sew-Age out there do not.
Maddox will be missed, especially at a time when fewer and fewer people seem willing to be bothered with trivialities like physical reality. A salute to a fallen warrior of reason!
What are you doing with the coffee then, – swim in it :^?
Also not being honorary member of Morgenpilsens Venner is a sad state of affairs.
Coffee swimming is a candidate for a new Olympic sport. Three classes are proposed: Iced, Hot, and Frothy.
Re: Coffee in the morning.
It has always been my contention that the simultaneous arrival of coffee and the renaissance in Europe was not a coincidence. Science without coffee might not be impossible, but it would sure be a lot slower.
But what about all the first class science coming out of Britain? Do you think that Rutherford, Darwin, and Maxwell Clark drank coffee instead of tea? Did Lords Kelvin and Rayleigh swill coffee rather than have a nice cuppa? Cyril Burt may have been a coffee drinker but Sir Peter Medawar sipped his English Breakfast while zoologying.
Tis Himself, Coffee predates tea in England (and England came late to the renaissance)by about 7 years. In fact tea was first served (outside of royal circles) in coffee houses in England. Tea was harder to screw up, and so became more popular.
I did not need to read this level of cluelessness just after waking up. What a turd! After a couple well written posts about why he was incorrect that were even pretty nice he simply walks out declaring victory.
What Remains To Be Discovered, John Maddox, 1998
Then came the ‘merkins, who figured out how to screw up tea. Consistently. Why this was then celebrated with a famous big party in Boston is a mystery.
Then came the ‘merkins…
Merkins?
Steve P. at #67:
I’m arriving awfully late to this conversation, and some of this post overlaps with the excellent text from Robert (different Robert than myself) at #71.
I’m glad you brought up telepathy because it’s a fascinating topic, not only from a scientific standpoint, but also for its civil/legal implications should such a phenomenon actually exist.
Before talking in more detail about science and how it would relate to the topic of telepathy, some quick background about me so you know from whence I speak. I’m currently a graduate student in educational psychology; though I’m interested in many areas of study (anthropology, biology, literature, physics, etc.), I’m speaking from a grounding in a social science, so if I fumble with some concepts from the natural sciences, it owes to the limits of my knowledge in those areas. I hope that I have enough fundamental understanding of the scientific method, however, to be able to explore the telepathy question with you in further detail.
Incidentally, one of the things I love about Pharyngula is that, should I be wrong about a subject, there are numerous regular posters here with advanced knowledge about many things who provide helpful and illuminating commentary so that I can learn more and improve my own understanding. I would encourage you to read the posts here in the same light; this really is a terrific forum for discussion.
So, telepathy. In order to start a scientific investigation of a phenomenon such as telepathy, it helps to have a good theoretical grounding from which to launch. Much of what we discover in life does, indeed, start from a simple, “I wonder what happens when . . . ” or “Have you ever noticed how . . . ” or similar, and many scientific endeavors have begun just so. Nevertheless, in this case, we might find some theories that can help us out.
We might, for example, start from the foundation that human communication occurs in several forms already very well-documented: hormonal (pheromones), tactile, visual (writing, body-language, sign-language), and aural (rhythm, speech, music, song, non-speech vocalizations). I may be missing some broad or specific categories (olfactory?), but for now, let’s go with those since this is a hypothetical example. I can consult numerous references in physics, chemistry, biology, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and so on, to establish this background, and this is helpful because I simply don’t have the time and money to recreate every experiment and observation that’s ever been done in the service of knowledge about human communication.
Now that I have some theory to start from, I need a null hypothesis (H0). Again, I’m used to null hypotheses formulation in a specific social science, so if this one is a poor example for the kind of physical scientific exploration required for telepathy, I’m happy to hear corrections. Let’s set our H0 as: it is impossible to communicate one human to another without recourse to conditions or tools invoking the documented hormonal, tactile, visual, and aural mediums. Remember, that’s the H0, so that’s what we’re hoping the results of our experiment will allow us to reject.
Now we need to establish the test conditions. Several posters have commented on what it would take to sufficiently demonstrate telepathy (or other similar phenomenon). Let’s look to their examples as an aid in constructing our experiment. We’ll want a control group, so we should find (randomly, if possible) a few people who have never expressed telepathy. We’d probably find this out from self-report, because at this stage, how else would we determine it? For the moment, let’s pretend that no psychology will enter into this study (I know, that’s a stretch, but stay with me), and that it doesn’t matter whether people believe in telepathy or not, or whether they’ll be subject to the placebo effect, or whether they won’t try to say what they think the experimenters want to hear, etc. Let’s just say we found some who claim non-expression of telepathy, and we have some who claim they do express telepathy. We would then want to significantly control the conditions of the experiment to rule out as much pure chance as possible, so perhaps we have two separate enclosed rooms, each with as similar conditions in light, air quality, acoustics, and so on. Let’s also say the rooms are not part of the same building, and are separated from each other by a distance of 150′ (half the length of a contemporary U.S. football field). We know that some forms of visual and aural communication are possible at 150′, so I feel it’s reasonable to suggest that telepathy (perhaps being the latest category we are hoping to add to the human communication literature, thus advancing the field, contributing to the lives of others, and, with any luck, sealing our names forever in the annals of science and history) should also be possible at 150′. In future experiments, we can vary this distance.
In post #79 Robert laid out some experimental conditions that we could invoke to test telepathy. We might have a self-reported “telepath” in one of the rooms, and a neutral individual in the other, having assured that there are no means of communication possible between the rooms via the other mediums already on the books. We might then have the neutral subject read some text out loud, while the telepath in the other room recounts exactly what they are “hearing” from the neutral individual 150′ away in a closed room under the specified conditions. Obviously, all rooms in the experiment are under observation. I confess now the limits of my experimental design capability and say I don’t know how to make the particular experiment above double-blind, so if that’s a necessary condition for this experiment, I will leave that up to better minds than mine. Regardless, all sorts of transmission experiments could be possible, not just “reading” what the distant individual is reading, but “sending” thoughts to that individual, and so on. The control would be the same thing, but with those individuals who self-report no expression of telepathy. As an added measure, I would want to involve, if possible, the expertise of someone like James Randi or Ricky Jay or another well-versed and observant magician to vet the procedure somehow against “tricks-of-the-trade” used in stage magic (and I say that with all due respect to the wonderful entertainment I find stage magic, i.e. illusion, to be).
All sorts of electromagnetic measurements could be taken as well, not to mention biological functions (heart rate, blood pressure, etc.). But in the end, let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the observations and analysis demonstrate some individuals were able to communicate that distance, under those sealed conditions, without recourse to sound, touch, visual indication, or other medium, and you feel justified in rejecting your H0. Excellent!
Congratulations, you’ve just done a pilot study! Now the real work can begin. You can continue to conduct the same experiments, with different subjects, again and again. In time, if you collect enough data supporting the idea of telepathy, then you’ve proved telepathy exists, right?
Sadly, no. What happens then is you publish, and this is critical. This allows others to review your work and call out any mistakes you may have made, asking important questions about your research. More importantly, it also allows others to replicate your experiments. With time, numerous repetitions of the experiments, including variations on things like distance, for example, may continually reinforce evidence of the phenomenon, at which time the scientific community as a whole can re-examine the existence of telepathy (note I say re-examine, not automatically accede to the assertion that telepathy exists).
All of this is the (very) long way to say that science has a built-in mechanism for trying new ideas and lending credence to them, or rejecting them as necessary. Rather than being closed-minded, science is very open-minded, but science requires evidence. The scientists are waiting. As soon as the evidence is in, reviewed, reproduced under controlled test conditions, published, reviewed some more, reproduced some more under controlled test conditions, then you will find many, many scientists acknowledging telepathy (at which time we have to undergo another very rigorous series of processes to investigate and analyze the legal implications of the phenomenon).
In the meantime, scientists continue not to believe (notice, I didn’t say “assert that they know”) in telepathy. What’s really great about that is, even though I don’t believe in telepathy, I can still enjoy it as a plot/story device in novels, short stories, poems, and films! I can further enjoy realizing that I still don’t need the phenomenon of telepathy to explain aspects about my experience or the universe I observe! The cherry on top of the sundae is that I don’t have to worry that someone out there is reading my thoughts (though just in case Monica Bellucci can read my thoughts, “Call me!”)!
Thanks for bringing up an interesting topic. Sorry this ran so long, and I encourage you to read some of the other comments here about science and the scientific method. There is an outstanding group of commentators here.
In the meantime, condolences to the family, friends, and colleagues of John Maddox.
No kings,
Robert
Am sure John Maddox appreciated this one:
http://www.afactor.net/kitchen/coffee/koffeeKantate.wav
And although they used a lot of coffee, it was through the usual channels.
I shall miss John Maddox. He once told me this story about a predecessor as Editor of Nature, a man called Brimble (Maddox pronounced the name with relish, sort of half way between ‘Brimble’ and ‘Brumble’). Brimble’s method of getting papers refereed was to go to lunch in the Athenaeum club in London (very posh London club, much frequented by bishops and the Great and the Good, election to it greatly coveted, blackballs frequent). After lunch, Brimble would walk around the coffee room, distributing papers out of a briefcase to defenceless members taking their afternoon nap in deep leather armchairs. Then he would return at tea time, and collect up the refereed papers.
I hasten to add that Nature has changed a great deal since those days.
Professor Dawkins,
Similar things still occur today. A couple of months ago I was visiting a colleague who said “I’ve got to go to a meeting, it’ll last about a hour, then we can go to lunch. In the meantime, here’s a paper I’ve been asked to referee. Would you look it over and tell me what you think?”
I’m embarrassed not to have recognised the name. (But then again I didn’t know Morgenpilsens Venner either.)
But at least I knew of the Benvenista fricassee. A great man by the sound of it. And thus a great loss.
Despite being a mad ox, Maddox was very Myers-esque. Kudos. Kosher.
One can only hope we will one day see another flagship journal editor of John’s caliber. in intellectual scope , editorial shrewdness, and rarer still humane good humor, he had few rivals in any language.
_Si monumentum requiris_ write Nature and ask that the Daedalus column be revived in his honor-
Aquaria [#38], I’m wondering if Laurell K. Hamilton picked up a Toxoplasmosis infection between husbands or something. She certainly seems sex-obsessed in her later books. Or maybe it’s just that they sell.
A long time ago I read about a test of telepathy, but the designers did no try to send words: they concentrated on sending one of two colors, red or green. Their results were better than chance, but not by much. I don’t remember enough about the methodology to be sure, but my impression was that they did not discard any tests for not producing. In the end, they concluded that there might be a channel of communication, but if so, it was very noisy. In other words, the experimenters got the usual marginal results which are typical of pseudoscientific experiments. Of course the conclusion was, “we have to do some more experiments.”
It would be nice to re-try an experiment with black and white as the “on” and “off” signals, since we don’t really know what colors look like to other people.
It would be nice to re-try an experiment with black and white as the “on” and “off” signals, since we don’t really know what colors look like to other people.
The most fascinating “paranormal” story I read was of someone radioing for help on what was, he found out later, a very busted radio. But it’s all anecdote and could easily be made up; in fact I know of too many instances of stories or movies being read into the public record as facts to credit it.
John Maddox was a good scientist who eventually lost the boundary between his own opinion and scientific experimentation. Believing, without justification, that his view was the only way, he was not above using an established scientific journal, Nature, to attack others with whom he disagreed and then relying on its prestige to encourage attacks on the “miscreants”.
We must never, in the understandable impetus to praise in eulogies, forget to scientifically expose the errors of this great mind so that others may not make the same mistakes.
His was a great 20th century mind but whose prejudices we must not allow to be carried forth into the 21st century.
One has to wonder which of his “attacks” was on something you hold dear.
ScepticsBane, care to cite peer reviewed primary scientific literature about what you are alluding to? Otherwise, you are just a delusional fool.