Monthly Archives: April 2010
Ouija boards…automatic writing…table tipping in spiritualist seances…dowsing in all its forms, including bogus bomb detectors…the Clever Hans phenomenon…applied kinesiology…New Age psychotherapy techniques that purport to query the unconscious…what do all of these things have in common?
They are all in some form or other the results of a well-understood and empirically well-established psycho-muscular phenomenon known as the Ideomotor effect.
Known mostly to psychologists, it is a phenomenon which has been repeatedly confirmed since the days of William B. Carpenter in 1852, who called it ‘Ideomotor action’ after his investigations into dowsing, and to paraphrase Dr. Ray Hyman, who after he tested this phenomenon has said that “honest and intelligent people can (and do…) unconsciously engage in muscular activity that is consistent with their expectations.”
It is a mechanism in which mental suggestiveness can produce results of unconscious or involuntary actions that may be erroneously viewed as paranormal or supernatural by those unaware of it, both body and mind influenced by the power of subtle, unconscious suggestion. The nature of the movement caused by the effect is the result of a mild dissociative state, in which the user’s conscious awareness of the motion he is performing is suspended, producing the illusion of motion seemingly caused by mysterious forces external to himself, often considered to be paranatural or otherwise mysterious in origin.
Such notables as psychologist William James, chemist Michel Chevereul, and physicist Michael Faraday have tested this phenomenon and successfully shown that many seemingly inexplicable effects or forces can be more parsimoniously explained as resulting from Ideomotor activity, such as moving a ouija board’s planchette, the rod or pendulum of a dowser, diviner or alchemist, the hands of a practitioner of Facilitated Communication, as well as some behaviors often attributed to hypnotic suggestion.
The Ideomotor effect, though most people, even quite a few scientists, are unaware of it, is a well-documented phenomenon and includes the following features:
- It amplifies the motion of a pendulum or other hand-held object, such as a divining rod in ways that the operator doesn’t consciously notice, and then…
- …The operator, completely unaware of his own agency in the motion, ascribes it to something ‘outside’ or ‘other’ than himself…
- …This ‘something outside’ is then thought to be some sort of paranormal, occult, or unknown scientific force, typically some sort of spiritual agency or ‘energy field’ in the operator’s vicinity…
- …Which then produces a powerful feeling, quickly snowballing into a full-fledged delusion, that the operator possesses some sort of unusual or special ability, power over, or sensitivity to unusual forces or influences…
- …And when thus used in attempts at divination this effect reveals no knowledge to the operator that he or she didn’t already possess, though the operator may not be aware that they know what they do on a conscious level. This is especially true when the effect is used in ‘water witching’ when the operator has unconscious knowledge of what local geological characteristics are likely to be in an area where underground water sources are to be found, and even if not, in most cases there is a fair likelihood of finding water by chance anyway.
In any case, success in this by the operator reinforces belief, failure is downplayed and forgotten, which causes…
- …the psychological reinforcement resulting from the dissociation of bodily motion and conscious awareness of it to magnify the delusional effect, setting in motion cognitive mechanisms that prevent the operator’s belief in the effect from being falsified…
…and as a result, many operators become firmly convinced of their own powers, even despite evidence to the contrary, such as a careful and patient explanation with a demonstration of the scientific understanding behind this effect.
Hey, guys. This post shall attempt to address a common fallacy, though technically a premise, or factual error, rather than one of pure logical structure, the False Premise, though more often than not used in the context of a logical argument, and therefore as a component of specious reasoning.
Simply put, the false premise is a statement, claim, fact or assertion that is simply not true, and which thus renders any argument using it automatically
invalid unsound or non-cogent.
A false premise can range from a simple myth or misconception that is held out of ignorance, willful or otherwise, to a claim or statement of belief resulting from a delusion, to a blatant, intentional prevarication, and this form of argument is often a common rhetorical tactic by pseudoscientists. Here are a couple of examples:
- Quantum Mechanics supports the idea that reality does not exist unless it is being looked at by a conscious observer.
- Quantum Mechanics explains telepathy as a result of the shared Entanglement of particles in separate brains.
The first is false, for one thing, because quantum observation has nothing to do with consciousness or even the possession of any other sort of function commonly associated with a living mind at all, it simply involves the effects on quantum entities by interaction through the physical act of measurement.
It is also false because Quantum Mechanics, as a widely-accepted and evidentially well-supported scientific theory, depends on the existence of reality in order to be true, no matter who is using it, when or where. QM makes the posting of this blog entry on the computer servers that you are not looking at (and are therefore not ‘consciously observing’…) possible.
The second is also false for two reasons: First, it’s pointless to explain something before it’s even convincingly established to scientifically adequate standards that the phenomenon even exists to be explained to begin with, and second, there is as yet no evidence of any quantum effects, especially entanglement, in the thus-far detectable activity of the human brain.
Three common variations of the false premise are listed and described below.
The first, the Big Lie is a false statement so huge that it is difficult, interestingly enough, for people to think that it would be told if it were not true. This is especially the case when it is told with genuine sincerity, as part of a personal misconception or even a delusion. Three examples follow:
- This starship is constructed out of corbomite. If you fire upon us, the explosion will destroy both our vessels.
- I wouldn’t do that if I were you. I’m a mirant. I can kill you just by looking at you funny.
- The scientific evidence for psi is compelling, just Google “evidence for psi” to see for yourself.
Note that that last example, slightly paraphrased, has been used on yours truly on this blog at least once, and was, though false and boldly stated, probably not an intentional falsehood on the part of the one making it.
Next, the Multiple Untruth, also known as the Gish Gallop when used by creationists.
This is the use of so many specious arguments at once that they are almost impossible to keep in mind, and though the opponent of the one using this fallacy may have the time to refute a few of them, only those most skilled in debate find the opportunity in the time they have to give a rebuttal to all of them.
This is often effective because since only a small number of misconceptions is refuted when this is employed, it conveys the impression of victory in the debate to the user’s audience.
I notice this one a lot on blogs by psi proponents, who ingeniously cram so many factual misconceptions and other fallacies into their arguments that even this evil skeptophrenic blogger finds it impossible at present to deconstruct even a single complete argument in the space of only a single rebuttal. Several such posts in a series are usually needed to deal with them in as much detail as I would like. I tip my Evil Pseudoskeptic™ hat to them, for now…
Thirdly, the Noble Lie: Plato is often credited with inventing this one, and he may indeed have. This is a fairly common debating tactic, a falsehood told for its rhetorical effect, and often for the supposed result of believing the premise.
This variant operates on the working assumption that those it is told to are intellectually incapable of handling the truth and/or so imbecilic that they cannot possibly see through it on their own.
Those thusly treated like imbeciles by being told the lie, should they already know or discover the truth, often have an emotional reaction to it and summarily dismiss out of hand anything said by that source from then on.
Plato’s work, the Republic, describes what he proposed as the ideal society, in which the complicity of its citizens to the social order was maintained by the Noble Lie.
I’ve found that if your aim is to engage in intellectually honest, truly constructive discussions, it’s a good idea to put forth the effort not to commit this fallacy, both by avoiding intentional falsehoods, and alleviating the use of unintentional misconceptions by looking up on and knowing what you’re talking about, however tentative and subject to future correction and revision that may be. Nobody can be right about everything, especially my Troythuluness. Fnord.
(Last Update: 2013/03/18, Deleted Dead Outgoing Links, Image Updated)
I try to avoid being too loud about my politics, and on this blog, I generally try to shy away from making much in the way of overt political statements — mostly.
Nonetheless, I do have political views, and I’ve noticed that most people aren’t very objective about their views regarding this, including, I suspect, Troythulu.
Politics is like sports — we pick a team, or party, that we really like and root for them. When they win the competition, we feel great, when they lose, we feel angry.
For some, politics is everything, and while it can lead to a crass expounding upon of said views, putting a political spin on things can also reveal interesting insights.
So this day I ask:
Is being part of a political cause one way in which you personally find meaning in life?
How good a source of meaning is that compared to other sources?
TNQ is a daily question that I pose to you, my readers, and please, do feel free to comment — I’m not an ogre. As per the title, TNQ is published each weekday at 12:00 PM