Someone in the dysautonomia sub just pointed out "functional neurologists" are usually not even MDs, they are usually chiropractors. Lots of commentors noted they had been scammed by them. They waited months for an appointment, pay hundreds of dollars, and only realize that the "doctor" is not an MD once they are at the office.

People with dysautonomia are desperate and often suffer from cognitive impairment due to the condition. It's easy to fool people in such a position. Personally, I got fooled by one "doctor" (who claimed to be a dysautonomia specialist) who turned out to be an optomitrist. I only caught on once I saw she had her own line of supplements.

Is it even legal for someone with little to no medical training to call themselves a "neurologist"?

I was reading somebody criticize specifically blood splatter analysis, as having no real scientific backing, and meant to produce a "CSI" effect with the jury who assume the investigative techniques being discussed have more scientific backing then they actually do. Obviously some techniques, such as DNA and finger prints, are undoubtedly scientifically valid, but I was curious what people here have say about this?

Got some questions about a Hugh Dowding and the bit about him that military historians tend to ignore. Thought maybe skeptics might know something because many have knowledge of irrational people.

Base knowledge for the interested

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Dowding
• TDLR he was in charge of Fighter Command before and during the Battle of Britain. Got ousted from Fighter Command then retired from RAF and became a spiritualist.
• He was also a flying saucer believer.
• Member of the Fairy Investigation Society.

Questions

1. Was he always a crank or did he become one in retirement?
2. If he always was a crank was it used against him to get him fired from Fighter Command?
3. Are there any books or in depth articles about the crank side of him that are not written by cranks?

Thanks in advance.

Genuine question, because I don't do statistics...

If one were to design an experiment along the lines of Remote Viewing, how would one determine the odds of success sufficiently to demonstrate that the ability behind it is 'real', and not an artefact (to the point of getting real, legitimate sceptics to 'believe')?

Remote Viewing, for those who don't know, is a protocol for the use of some type of psi ability. It has 4 important aspects to it, and if any of them are not present, then it's not true RV. These are:

1. There must be a designated target for the remote viewer (RVer) to describe;

2. the RVer must be completely blind to the target;

3. the RVer must record all data of their RV session, such that any data not given doesn't count for the session (this does not necessarily preclude the possibility of adding data after a set session, but must be before the target is known - within limits);

4. Feedback on the target must be given to the RVer (either, showing the actual target, or giving them the target cue).

There are other, ideal, aspects that would be liked as well, such as anyone in direct contact with the RVer doesn't know the target, and anyone analysing whether the data is 'good' or not doesn't know the target until after analysing the data - preferably with a mix of optional targets to choose from.

Targets can literally be anything one can imagine. I've seen targets from an individual person to the front grill of a truck, to famous mountains and monuments, to planes and lunar landings. There are numerous videos available if one wants to go and see this in action. (you could choose to believe that the RVer has some sort of hint as to what the target is (or, was directly told) prior to the video... but that's an ad hominem, with zero evidence to support the claim (Other than "psi doesn't exist, so they must have cheated".... but, only pseudo-sceptics would do that)

So, as an example, if a target of a $5 note is given, how would one determine the probability that psi is involved, rather than (dare I say, 'chance') of the data/session being correct? How much accurate data must be given that is accurately descriptive of the target? How much 'noise' would be acceptable that is not descriptive of the target? How much 'unknown' would be required. Can one determine a percentage of how much of the $5 needs to be described? Again, all to the extent that it would be necessary to say that some 'psi' phenomenon would exist? (to at least, say, p <0.001) How many times would this need to be done? With how many RVers, and how many targets? And how consistently?

(At the moment, I'm ignoring other variables, and assuming fairly rigorous protocols are in place - certainly that the RVer is indeed blind to the target, and there's no communications between them and others who may know the target).

I'm asking this because s) I would genuinely like to know how to determine this for the sake of possible future research, and b) because I practice RV, and would like to know for myself whether I'm kidding myself when I get my 'hits', or I have sufficient reason to believe there's something behind it. I do recognise that much of the data could be describing so many other things.. but I also know that it most certainly wouldn't be describing the vast majority of targets. (I'm already aware that I've had hits that would be well above chance to that p <0.05, by identifying specific, unique aspects of a target, and for that one target only)

I've been suspicious of Ground News for a while. Their service is about exposing media bias, and showing who owns what, to get an idea of which influences might be at play. Their service is primarily about making this bias as transparent and easy to see as possible. Yet they themselves have anonymous investors.

In their FAQ, other than the income from subscribers, they say:

"Ground is backed by a handful of mission-aligned independent, individual investors, with no ties to corporate media, big tech, or government affiliations."

I have two questions:

1: How much of their funding comes from subscribers vs these "independent investors"? (AKA what money is really being relied on here to deliver the service.)

2: Who are these investors? (Is this an unreasonable question? I don't think so in the context of the apparent mission of this service.)

It seems really hypocritical to me to offer a service for exposing media bias while having anonymous investors, especially when we don't know how much of the service relies on that investor money.

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2016/12/OTH3-Telepathy-in-Mental-Illness.pdf

Page 195 grasps at straws, saying that the reason there aren't telepathy in disogranized and regressive psychosis could be from the tests being too structured for it. I'm pretty sure that it's equivocation fallacy, where people disorganized and "regressed" would just have outbursts instead of being curbed by people trying to have an orderly conversation, especially since some guy Ullman made a distinction between controlled and spontaneous telepathy. Also, "The belief that one can read minds has long been considered a symptom of psychosis, despite reports in the parapsychological literature of veridical telepathy" sounds like parapsychology is the problem then.

Similar to James Randi's foundation that used to offer $1 Million to anyone who could prove anything miraculous or pseudoscientific, nevermind any prize money or any reward whatsoever, who or what other organizations offer to help with any experiment or study of a pseudoscientific claim? And do they offer such help to anybody who steps up with a claim?

A common islamophobic trope is using the age of Aisha when she was married to Mohammed in order to accuse him of paedophilia and subsequently to denigrate Islam. The basis of this accusation are the Hadiths, Islamic teachings second only to the Qur'an, which state that Aisha was 6 when she married Mohammed and that she was 9 when the marriage was consummated.

In modern times the age of Aisha has been challenged but there's always been the concern that those saying she was actually older are ideologically motivated. However, in my travels around the internet I've just come across the best academic consideration of this issue I've seen and I wanted to share.

Below are links to an article summarising the PHD thesis and to the thesis itself but, to give the TLDR:

Joshua Little examined the historical record relating to the age of Aisha when she married Mohammed. He identified links and commonalities that led him to conclude that these stories had one origin, Hisham ibn Urwah, a relation of Mohammed who recorded Aisha's age almost a century after Mohammad's death. Little concludes that Hisham fabricated these stories as way to curry political favour emphasising Aisha's youth as a way of highlighting her virginity and status as Mohammed's favourite wife. It is worth noting that Little thinks it is likely that Aisha was at least 12-14 when the marriage was consummated but this re-contextualises the story given cultural norms of the era.

https://newlinesmag.com/essays/oxford-study-sheds-light-on-muhammads-underage-wife-aisha/

https://islamicorigins.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/LITTLE-The-Hadith-of-Aishahs-Marital-Age.pdf

Edit - I'm genuinely taken aback by the response this post has received. I assumed that this sub would be as interested as I am in academic research that counters a common argument made by bigots. I am truly surprised it is not.