Proof of PSI
ed...@verifone.com
whether PSI/paranormal abilities/ESP/etc. exist or don't, may of those
against ESP seem to lean heavily on an assumption that:
'...if something that is claimed to be paranormal can be
duplicated by non-paranormal means, then that serves as
proof that paranormal phenomenon do not exist....'
These same people praise notable and self-admitted frauds such as
"the amazing Randi" and use their claims and "debunking" as their
"proof" against PSI. These same people claim to be either scientists
or taking a scientific position.
Sorry guys, this is NOT SCIENCE!
"Debunking" does not disprove PSI. All it does is prove that some
scientists and pseudo-scientists can be frauds....
To be fair, I should also say that debunking the debunkers does not
prove PSI either. Any proofs or disproofs of PSI should come from
rigerous experimentation, and until then any true scientist will keep
an open mind.
James Randi or Martin Gardner fanatic followers are practicing more
religion than science.
--
***************************************************************************
* Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. *
* Anthropologist, Writer, Editor - Ka`onohi`ula`okahokumiomio`ehiku *
* UUCP%"Ed...@VeriFone.Com" *
* "As the sun warms the body, so acceptance is the sunlight of the soul." *
***************************************************************************
Steve Olson
> In many of the postings I have read here concerning the current debate
> whether PSI/paranormal abilities/ESP/etc. exist or don't, may of those
> against ESP seem to lean heavily on an assumption that:
>
> '...if something that is claimed to be paranormal can be
> duplicated by non-paranormal means, then that serves as
> proof that paranormal phenomenon do not exist....'
>
> These same people praise notable and self-admitted frauds such as
> "the amazing Randi" and use their claims and "debunking" as their
> "proof" against PSI. These same people claim to be either scientists
> or taking a scientific position.
>
> Sorry guys, this is NOT SCIENCE!
Strawman argument. Find me a scientist who claims to have *proof* that
the paranormal does not exist. Until strong evidence of the paranormal
can be produced, the null hypothesis holds.
Show some strong evidence and the scientists will be attracted like bees to
honey. Such an exciting new field! A new source of research grants!
Science *wants* you to show something nifty. Its enough to bring on an
attack of wishful thinking...
Randi is a 'self-admitted' magician. That is a fradulent claim only
if you can demonstrate he is not a magician. Good Luck.
> * Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. *
--
-- Steve Olson
-- MIT Lincoln Laboratory
-- ol...@juliet.ll.mit.edu
--
Lydick, Carl
>In many of the postings I have read here concerning the current debate
>whether PSI/paranormal abilities/ESP/etc. exist or don't, may of those
>against ESP seem to lean heavily on an assumption that:
>
> '...if something that is claimed to be paranormal can be
> duplicated by non-paranormal means, then that serves as
> proof that paranormal phenomenon do not exist....'
>
>These same people praise notable and self-admitted frauds such as
>"the amazing Randi" and use their claims and "debunking" as their
>"proof" against PSI. These same people claim to be either scientists
>or taking a scientific position.
>
>Sorry guys, this is NOT SCIENCE!
>
>"Debunking" does not disprove PSI. All it does is prove that some
>scientists and pseudo-scientists can be frauds....
>
>To be fair, I should also say that debunking the debunkers does not
>prove PSI either. Any proofs or disproofs of PSI should come from
>rigerous experimentation, and until then any true scientist will keep
>an open mind.
>
>James Randi or Martin Gardner fanatic followers are practicing more
>religion than science.
Fanatics who follow them yes. Most of us who follow them, no. We merely point
out that: If something that is claimed to be paranormal can be duplicated by
non-paranormal means, then that serves to show that paranormality of the
phoenomon has not been demonstrated. If there is truly something paranormal
going on, then the preson demonstrating the paranormal phenomonon should be
able to show that he's not doing it by the non-paranormal means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick HEPnet/NSI: SOL1::CARL Internet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Scott the Great
>These same people praise notable and self-admitted frauds such as
>"the amazing Randi" and use their claims and "debunking" as their
>"proof" against PSI. These same people claim to be either scientists
>or taking a scientific position.
Nobody is saying psi does not exist. This is the same paranoid attitude
that creationists adopt when trying to discredit evolution. All the
skeptics are asking for is a repeatable experiment in the presence of
someone who is qualified to detect deception. I do not have the hubris
to claim that I am qualified to detect said deception. I need only
watch 5 minutes of Penn and Teller to realize this. When you buy a
car, do you take everything that the saleperson tells you to be the
gospel truth? If not, then why do you do so here?
>Sorry guys, this is NOT SCIENCE!
>
>"Debunking" does not disprove PSI. All it does is prove that some
>scientists and pseudo-scientists can be frauds....
I wouldn't call the parapsychologists "frauds", I would call them
wishful thinkers mostly with an occasional moron here and there.
>To be fair, I should also say that debunking the debunkers does not
>prove PSI either. Any proofs or disproofs of PSI should come from
>rigerous experimentation, and until then any true scientist will keep
>an open mind.
I've always had an open mind on the topic. However, I am not going to
accept the existence of a power which involves new laws of physics
simply because I can't explain how Nimrod the Redoutable can bend
eating utensils. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. Many of the greatest advances in science were initially
rejected because they didn't fit in with current ideas. They were
only accepted after an overwhelming amount of evidence indicated
they were correct. If psi is real, then James Randi's presence
in the lab is not going to inhibit it, nor will his precautions
to avoid fraud. Why do so many psychics flat out refuse to perform
in his presence? Here's an experiment for you. I am thinking of
a number between one and ten. If anyone gets it, I will
admit that they might be psychic. I have the number
clearly in mind right now and I have just written it on a notepad so
any remote-viewers have a fair shot. Any takers? This is real...
>James Randi or Martin Gardner fanatic followers are practicing more
>religion than science.
Gee, my religion constantly changes on the basis of new evidence. Please
name another religion that does this or stop calling skepticism a
religion. Thank you.
Scott Le Grand aka sml...@psuvm.psu.edu
James W. Meritt
}whether PSI/paranormal abilities/ESP/etc. exist or don't, may of those
}against ESP seem to lean heavily on an assumption that:
}
} '...if something that is claimed to be paranormal can be
} duplicated by non-paranormal means, then that serves as
} proof that paranormal phenomenon do not exist....'
I definitely would not statw trhis strawman as given.
I WOULD conclude that it would indicate that the paranormal phenomenon
theory is not necessary for that particular demonstration and that it
would not serve as proof that psi exists. And, as a "simplest
explaination", I would conclude that it is likely that particular
case was not psi.
Please produce the text of a quote (as you seem to indicate) of
someone who is presented as a scientist who presents your strawman
as you stated.
Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily
represent those opinions of this or any other organization. The facts,
however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone.
j...@sun4.jhuapl.edu or j...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu or meritt%aplvm.BITNET
ed...@verifone.com
> In article <2712.2...@verifone.com> ed...@verifone.com writes:
>
>> In many of the postings I have read here concerning the current debate
>> whether PSI/paranormal abilities/ESP/etc. exist or don't, may of those
>> against ESP seem to lean heavily on an assumption that:
>>
>> '...if something that is claimed to be paranormal can be
>> duplicated by non-paranormal means, then that serves as
>> proof that paranormal phenomenon do not exist....'
>>
>> These same people praise notable and self-admitted frauds such as
>> "the amazing Randi" and use their claims and "debunking" as their
>> "proof" against PSI. These same people claim to be either scientists
>> or taking a scientific position.
>>
>> Sorry guys, this is NOT SCIENCE!
>
> Strawman argument. Find me a scientist who claims to have *proof* that
> the paranormal does not exist.
I recall to the best of my knowledge that:
CSICOPS (though I can hardly call them scientists) and Randi have often
represented their "debunking" as evidence that the "paranormal" doesn't
exist. If they believe otherwise, let them so state that.
> Until strong evidence of the paranormal
> can be produced, the null hypothesis holds.
There is strong evidence that SOMETHING is going on that falls outside
the boundries of statistical probability. There is no adequate
hypothesis as to WHAT it is, or that is is paranormal. I don't
believe it is paranormal, I think it is very normal, but not yet
understood. I lump these phenomenon under PSI for lack of a better
title. PSI or ESP may be a misnomer, but the phenomenon has been
demonstrated many times.
>
> Show some strong evidence and the scientists will be attracted like bees to
> honey. Such an exciting new field! A new source of research grants!
> Science *wants* you to show something nifty. Its enough to bring on an
> attack of wishful thinking...
Not really, there is such a bias against PSI in the "scientific" community
that most researchers would be more afraid of LOSING their grants. The bias
has come about in part due to the actions of groups like CSICOPS and the
Bay Area Skeptics. I have personally seen letters sent to local universities
and colleges here either with their letterheads or from their members and
associates decrying the teaching of parapsychology in public schools!
Hate mail! In America, in the information generation!
Not only can't one believe in the paranormal, one is not even supposed to
research it, or even find out HOW!
>
> Randi is a 'self-admitted' magician. That is a fradulent claim only
> if you can demonstrate he is not a magician. Good Luck.
Randi practices deception and misdirection. It seems to me that his
"debunking" is just an extension of his "magic," and I believe one to
be as trustworthy as the other. To clarify the above, magic is a form of
fraud; one deliberately fools people.
Frankly, I don't believe that there is any such thing as magic or magicians,
only slight-of-hand experts, frauds and tricksters.
That is not to say that magic does not exist, I just don't believe so.
--
***************************************************************************
* Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. *
ed...@verifone.com
>
> Nobody is saying psi does not exist.
Come now, you are either naive, a liar or you don't read the posts
in this newsgroup....
Perhaps YOU don't say it doesn't exist, I get mail all the time telling
me how it has been "PROVEN" that psi is not real, and how it is
"IMPOSSIBLE" for one reason or another.
> All the
> skeptics are asking for is a repeatable experiment in the presence of
> someone who is qualified to detect deception.
That is not unreasonable. PSIists don't want sceptics (or anyone) to
believe without said evidence, we just want people to stop saying it
is impossible:
a. It's an unscientific position
b. We know better, even if repeatable proof does not yet exist
And... we may be lumping a whole BUNCH of separate phenomenon into one
bag, unjustly. All that we really know is that something is going on.
I don't claim to know what it is, yet many so-called skeptics are more than
willing to say what it is NOT. I have since found some skeptics who
support my viewpoint and approach skepticism scientifically. It may well
be that I am more skeptical than most of the skeptics I have heard from
regarding this subject.
> I've always had an open mind on the topic. However, I am not going to
> accept the existence of a power which involves new laws of physics
> simply because I can't explain how Nimrod the Redoutable can bend
> eating utensils.
A. What makes you think it involves "new laws of physics?" Do
you know more about this than the rest of us??
B. I care little what you believe. But if you want to tell me that
PSI doesn't exist, I will have to ask you to prove it.
> If psi is real, then James Randi's presence
> in the lab is not going to inhibit it, nor will his precautions
Boy for a scientist and a skeptic, you sure assume a lot! If it is a
natural ability of mind, they why WOULDN'T it inhibit it??
I'm not saying that it is, I'm just saying we can assume nothing.
> Why do so many psychics flat out refuse to perform
> in his presence?
Cause there ARE a lot of frauds out there, and some of the genuine
ones may feel hampered by a powerful skeptic mind. Others may feel that
he cheats (and they may not be unjustified in this), and uses
trickery to make genuine psychics look bad.
> Here's an experiment for you. I am thinking of
> a number between one and ten. If anyone gets it, I will
> admit that they might be psychic. I have the number
> clearly in mind right now and I have just written it on a notepad so
> any remote-viewers have a fair shot. Any takers? This is real...
>
(yawn)... right. That one is as old as the hills.
> Gee, my religion constantly changes on the basis of new evidence. Please
> name another religion that does this or stop calling skepticism a
> religion. Thank you.
Gee, how about Christianity, with now over 200 sects....
Anthony Veale
>Randi practices deception and misdirection. It seems to me that his
>"debunking" is just an extension of his "magic," and I believe one to
>be as trustworthy as the other. To clarify the above, magic is a form of
>fraud; one deliberately fools people.
>Frankly, I don't believe that there is any such thing as magic or magicians,
>only slight-of-hand experts, frauds and tricksters.
>That is not to say that magic does not exist, I just don't believe so.
>* Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. *
Who was it that said, "Sometimes the only appropriate response to life is
a good belly laugh?"
Come on, Ed, let's get this straight: a show magician practises deception in
his performance. In fact, the basis of the performance is that very art
of manipulative deception. You obviously know this is true. How can that
possibly be construed as fraud? Fraud involves misrepresenting the truth.
If a magician claimed that he could use his 'magical' skills for the
performance of real life sorts of things, say levitating the Crisco off the
top shelf rather than getting a stool, then he is being dishonest.
When most adults watch a performer doing magic, they _KNOW_ that it is
deception, and they knew it going in to the show. Magic is an honest trade
because magicians don't claim that what they are doing is _not_ trickery.
The general trend of Randi's debunking of Mr. Geller has been: performing
magicians can reproduce by using deception the things that Geller does.
But Geller both claims that he is not using deception and refuses to allow
the people best suited to spotting 'magician style' deception to examine his
methods.
--
Anthony Veale' ve...@coma.colorado.edu Don't ask me to buy a pig in a
Grad. Student VE...@JILA.BITNET poke. I've already got one. And
Dept. Physics JILA::VEALE I got it for half the price of
UColorado Boulder the one you're offering. - Me
David Utidjian
In your entire article you failed to cite a " Proof of PSI ".
Unfortunately for PSI research, it is because of charlatans like
Uri Geller that people stay away from it. Why do you blame the bearer
of bad news (Randi), rather than the cause (Geller).?? The tests on
Geller done at SRI in the early seventies were shown to have serious
flaws. This brought all of the results into question. Even the work
done by Rhine is under question. It is because of such sloppy research,
and out and out fraud that has given PSI a bad name.
There is NO way science can PROVE PSI phenomena(on?) does
not exist. All that they can say is that they have notseen
evidence for it that can not be explained by other means.
It is a waste of time to criticize the debunkers of the past.
Their debunking has already been done. Rhine is already dead so we
can't ask him what happened to the data he did not publish.
It is time to move ahead. It will not be easy. Researchers in PSI will
have to be especially careful in the future. For their efforts to
not be tossed out, out of hand, they must be sure that they do not
get duped. Their experimental technique must be ironclad. The record
keeping must be exact and beyond reproach. A tough task. They will
need people like Randi, who are trained in deception, to spot the
decievers. They will not need people like Uri Geller.
Get on with it...
-Dave-
Utidjian at your service...
Carl J Lydick
>> Randi is a 'self-admitted' magician. That is a fradulent claim only
>> if you can demonstrate he is not a magician. Good Luck.
>
>Randi practices deception and misdirection. It seems to me that his
>"debunking" is just an extension of his "magic," and I believe one to
>be as trustworthy as the other. To clarify the above, magic is a form of
>fraud; one deliberately fools people.
So you're against Randi.
>Frankly, I don't believe that there is any such thing as magic or magicians,
>only slight-of-hand experts, frauds and tricksters.
>That is not to say that magic does not exist, I just don't believe so.
Gee, this is almost exactly what Randi says. So then you agree with him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Roadster Racewerks
Actually, both Randi and Geller deserve each other, because they are both
frauds.
Suze
Jon J Thaler
>I recall to the best of my knowledge that:
>CSICOPS (though I can hardly call them scientists) and Randi have often
>represented their "debunking" as evidence that the "paranormal" doesn't
>exist. If they believe otherwise, let them so state that.
You are speaking from ignorance. I challenge you to find any statements
by CSICOP (in their magazine 'Skeptical Inquirer', for example) to the
effect that the paranormal does not exist. Most of their activities
revolve around pointing out errors in paranormal claims. It is unfortunate
that erroneous claims abound, but that's the situation.
>There is strong evidence that SOMETHING is going on that falls outside
>the boundries of statistical probability. There is no adequate
>hypothesis as to WHAT it is, or that is is paranormal.
This is the crux of the disagreement. I don't think that convincing
evidence exists. Of course, it depends what you are willing to lump this
category. I see that you are being very vague on this point. How about
picking a specific phenomenon to discuss?
>> Show some strong evidence and the scientists will be attracted like bees to
>> honey. Such an exciting new field! A new source of research grants!
>
>Not really, there is such a bias against PSI in the "scientific" community
>that most researchers would be more afraid of LOSING their grants.
This is pure nonsense. Why would scientists lose their grants if PSI were
shown to exist? What evidence do you have to back up your statement?
> I have personally seen letters sent to local universities
>and colleges here either with their letterheads or from their members and
>associates decrying the teaching of parapsychology in public schools!
>Hate mail! In America, in the information generation!
>Not only can't one believe in the paranormal, one is not even supposed to
>research it, or even find out HOW!
I see. You are advocating the teaching of astrology and creationism in the
public schools. I'm exaggerating, but the point remains: Public schools are
for teaching, not research. If you can't put PSI on a solid footing, then it
has no place in the public schools. Hate mail indeed! How about teaching
the two-fluid theory of electricity, too.
>Randi practices deception and misdirection. It seems to me that his
>"debunking" is just an extension of his "magic," and I believe one to
>be as trustworthy as the other. To clarify the above, magic is a form of
>fraud; one deliberately fools people.
You seem unable to distinguish between fraud and entertainment. I think
that most people in the audience of a magic show (maybe you are the
exception) know that they are being tricked. That's the fun of it.
The same phenomenon goes on in the movies
with special effects. Was 'Star Wars' fraudulent because the space ships
weren't really floating out there betwen the stars? I think your distaste
for Randi has gotten the better of you. Do you have *ANY* evidence
that Randi is being deceptive in his debunking activities?
Jon J Thaler
>SML...@psuvm.psu.edu (Scott the Great) writes:
>> Nobody is saying psi does not exist.
> Come now, you are either naive, a liar or you don't read the posts
> in this newsgroup....
You are fond of making this claim. Please point to a single post to
this newsgroup which says that PSI does not exist.
>> If psi is real, then James Randi's presence
>> in the lab is not going to inhibit it, nor will his precautions
> Boy for a scientist and a skeptic, you sure assume a lot! If it is a
> natural ability of mind, they why WOULDN'T it inhibit it??
> I'm not saying that it is, I'm just saying we can assume nothing.
The problem with this argument is that the complaints are almost
always raised after the fact. What controls are psi experimenters
willing to agree to ahead of time, and not complain about later?
If the answer is none, then extreme skepticism is certainly justified.
>> Why do so many psychics flat out refuse to perform
>> in his presence?
> Cause there ARE a lot of frauds out there, and some of the genuine
> ones may feel hampered by a powerful skeptic mind. Others may feel that
> he cheats (and they may not be unjustified in this), and uses
> trickery to make genuine psychics look bad.
You are fond of making this claim, aren't you. Do you have *ANY*
evidence that Randi cheats when he observes a psi performance?
A Kashko
>In article <2743.2...@verifone.com>, ed...@verifone.com says:
>
>>Not really, there is such a bias against PSI in the "scientific" community
>>that most researchers would be more afraid of LOSING their grants.
>
>This is pure nonsense. Why would scientists lose their grants if PSI were
>shown to exist? What evidence do you have to back up your statement?
>
You're confusing two things. It is irrelevant whether or not
scientists would LOSE their grants. The vital fact is, according to
ed...@verifone.com, that some are not researching
PSI because they are, rightly or wrongly, afraid of losing grants.
>> I have personally seen letters sent to local universities
>>and colleges here either with their letterheads or from their members and
>>associates decrying the teaching of parapsychology in public schools!
>>Hate mail! In America, in the information generation!
>>Not only can't one believe in the paranormal, one is not even supposed to
>>research it, or even find out HOW!
>
>I see. You are advocating the teaching of astrology and creationism in the
>public schools. I'm exaggerating, but the point remains: Public schools are
>for teaching, not research. If you can't put PSI on a solid footing, then it
Hmm... I have heard of schools here in the UK where as well as the
factual matter of science, the attitudes and practice of science are taught by
getting classes to do research: Real research onto problems where the teacher
does not know the answer. Some of this research is of scientific value. Some is
useful only as exercises. The fact is new knowledge is generated.
There is also a move ment for teaching history by practising the skills of a
historian, with packs of documents etc. These types of skill based learning are
routinely derided by nenaderthal reacrtionaries of all parties here.
>has no place in the public schools. Hate mail indeed! How about teaching
>the two-fluid theory of electricity, too.
History of science is quite a valid subject, although it should perhaps
be kept to the older pupils.
>
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
Seriously?
I should mention that posting this material on Usenet does qualify as
publication. And accusing someone of being a fraud, without adequate
documentation, is a libelous thing to say.
I'm forwarding your note to Randi, electronically, and I hope someone
over in England can get the word to Geller-- it might be fun to see Suze get
hit with a lawsuit from Geller that's NOT frivolous.
Gee, aren't I a _BASTARD?_
======================================================================
Brian Siano, aka [ "Mr. A. Hitler, the old Nazi thing, says
[ Mickey's silly. Imagine that! Well, Mickey is
Rev. Philosopher-King [ going to save Mr. A. Hitler from drowning or
[ something some day. Just wait and see if he
re...@cellar.UUCP [ doesn't. Then won't Mr. A. Hitler be ashamed!"
[ -- Walt Disney, 1933.
======================================================================
Toby Howard
Toby
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Toby Howard Computer Science Department, University of Manchester,
Lecturer Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K.
to...@uk.ac.man.cs +44 61-275-6274
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick
>factual matter of science, the attitudes and practice of science are taught by
>getting classes to do research: Real research onto problems where the teacher
>does not know the answer. Some of this research is of scientific value. Some is
>useful only as exercises. The fact is new knowledge is generated.
> There is also a move ment for teaching history by practising the skills of a
>historian, with packs of documents etc. These types of skill based learning are
>routinely derided by nenaderthal reacrtionaries of all parties here.
Fine. But for research to be a useful teaching tool, you're much better off
researching something that you've got good evidence exists.
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
> In article <2743.2...@verifone.com>, ed...@verifone.com says:
>
> >I recall to the best of my knowledge that:
> >CSICOPS (though I can hardly call them scientists) and Randi have often
> >represented their "debunking" as evidence that the "paranormal" doesn't
> >exist. If they believe otherwise, let them so state that.
>
> You are speaking from ignorance. I challenge you to find any statements
> by CSICOP (in their magazine 'Skeptical Inquirer', for example) to the
> effect that the paranormal does not exist. Most of their activities
> revolve around pointing out errors in paranormal claims. It is unfortunate
> that erroneous claims abound, but that's the situation.
Actually, I can find a few statements in the Skeptical Inquirer
claiming that many phenomena, such as psi, precognition, and the like, do not
exist.
However, I can also find even MORE statements saying that, even
though no solid evidence for a claim exists, one can't be justified in saying
that it doesn't exist.
Such is life at a magazine which encourages diversity of opinion. In
fact, I recall one article that made the case that science proves things in
an absolute sense-- this provoked a SLEW of letters from other readers
pointing out the fallacy in this assumption.
So what does this prove? That there is a diversity of opinion among
skeptics, that they debate their differences openly, and that no one article
can be used to honestly represent the 'official' opinion of CSICOP.
Ted Parvu
I'm not saying that we should teach phrenology in grade school. The University
of Arizona has a course in Paranormal Anthropology that I found very
enlightening. The prof. played pretty much a neutral role but he brought in
many speakers who believed in what they were doing from all over the paranormal
world. A lot if them came of as quacks but shouldn't we be open minded
enough to at least listen to other peoples view points?
And besides what if the administrators had said Kepler was crazy to try and
find any order to the universe other than the obvious that God did it and
kept it all working. Wasn't all science at one time considered paranormal?
Ted Parvu
t...@zeus.opt-sci.arizona.edu [128.196.206.42]
..{allegra,cmcl2,hao!noao}!arizona!zeus.opt-sci.arizona.edu!tjp
Steward Observatory, Mirror Lab, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
ed...@verifone.com
>
> Gee, aren't I a _BASTARD?_
No, Brian, more like a bustard, which is the swamp's version of a
_TURKEY_!
You flatter yourself; now go play with yourself.
I'm sure Suze knows, as does Geller and Randi, that opinions posted here
about public figures are hardly liabel.
so what, did you think you'd have poor Suze shaking in her boots?
Perhaps you are dangerous, but not the way you think. You had better get
some psychiatric counseling before you go over the edge.
>
>
> ======================================================================
> Brian Siano, aka [ "Mr. A. Hitler, the old Nazi thing, says
> [ Mickey's silly. Imagine that! Well, Mickey is
> Rev. Philosopher-King [ going to save Mr. A. Hitler from drowning or
> [ something some day. Just wait and see if he
> re...@cellar.UUCP [ doesn't. Then won't Mr. A. Hitler be ashamed!"
> [ -- Walt Disney, 1933.
> ======================================================================
--
***************************************************************************
* Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. *
Jamie Scott Nichols
> In article <2778.2...@verifone.com>, ed...@verifone.com writes:
> [When responding to Jon Thaler's posting]
> > I suppose you also think that quantum theory should not be taught in
> >the public schools? Since it is not on "solid footing?"
>
> Oh? So when did the footing of quantum theory crumble? It's been pretty sol
> as long as *I* can remember.
>
>
> > Tell me, do you REALLY have a doctorate? Or is your "DOCTORJ"
> >just some more nonsense? And if you _DO_ have a doctorate, please tell me
> >from where you received it. I have to know what colleges my children should
> >avoid.
>
> He has a Ph.D. I know him.
>
> Don't you think that something should be shown to exist before we throw it in
> the public school system? Would you prefer your local school to drop teachin
> mathematics and replace it with astrology. How ignorant are you?
>
> Good idea about your kids, though. We wouldn't want the nonsense that you
> spout to invade *real* institutions of science.
>
> Ray Swartz
> [whose office is down the hall from DOCTORJ's]
Ray...Though you may not know me, and even though the message you are
referring to was a bit more a personal attack than a logical argument...
There are a few pertinent points that have been made...
What about the SEVERAL theories that make up the basis for physics? Many
of the principles in physics are based on fact, but many are based on
theory...take the photon for example...It is a packet of light.. We say it
has no mass, since it is supposed to be pure energy...then how can
gravitational waves affect its path? If you say that gravity affects it
and yet it has no mass...doesn't that throw the basic equation of
gravitational attraction totally out of whack? A good portion of science
is based on theory, not solid fact.....so since science is pretty much
lacking a SOLID base in several aspects (trust me, I can name several
more) and it isn't totally fact....does that mean we should stop teaching
science altogether?
I don't think that psi should be taught in most public schools, simply for
the fact that most high schoolers can't deal with that kind of a subject
seriously...most don't even take that much science, so how can we expect
them to understand things that lean towards the parapsychologial end of
the academic spectrum?
Oh well...that's just my opinion...
This is from
psy...@bluemoon.uucp
psycho%blue...@nstar.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
ed...@verifone.com
>> I have personally seen letters sent to local universities
>>and colleges here either with their letterheads or from their members and
>>associates decrying the teaching of parapsychology in public schools!
>>Hate mail! In America, in the information generation!
>>Not only can't one believe in the paranormal, one is not even supposed to
>>research it, or even find out HOW!
>
> I see. You are advocating the teaching of astrology and creationism in the
> public schools. I'm exaggerating, but the point remains: Public schools are
> for teaching, not research. If you can't put PSI on a solid footing, then it
> has no place in the public schools. Hate mail indeed! How about teaching
> the two-fluid theory of electricity, too.
Maybe in Stanford parapsychology is the teaching of "astrology and
creationism," but everywhere else parapsychology is the study of PSI
phenomenon. Perhaps you have been standing in front of your linear
accelerator too long....
I suppose you also think that quantum theory should not be taught in
the public schools? Since it is not on "solid footing?"
And if not in public schools, then where DO we do research? And where
are we supposed to learn _how to do_ research, if not colleges, both public
and private. I was referring to the local public university system. Most
people must do research to get advanced degrees.... but... hmmm; perhaps
you are not _aware_ of that?
Tell me, do you REALLY have a doctorate? Or is your "DOCTORJ"
just some more nonsense? And if you _DO_ have a doctorate, please tell me
from where you received it. I have to know what colleges my children should
avoid.
--
ed...@verifone.com
Elizabeth Mccoy
re...@cellar.UUCP (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>tri...@agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks) writes:
>> Actually, both Randi and Geller deserve each other, because they are
>>both frauds.
>>
>> Suze
> Seriously?
> I should mention that posting this material on Usenet does qualify as
> publication.
Oh, I don't konw about that -- I thought that some of the occasional
debate on comp.org.eff.talk was whether BBSs in general should be
considered "speech," "press," or something new.
> And accusing someone of being a fraud, without adequate documentation,
> is a libelous thing to say.
> I'm forwarding your note to Randi, electronically, and I hope someone
> over in England can get the word to Geller-- it might be fun to see Suze
> get hit with a lawsuit from Geller that's NOT frivolous.
Well, if he *does* on the principle that Usenet is "press," then if
Geller wins, at least there'll be a presedent <sp!> for treating
computers as "press." And if that decision comes *before* the Secret
Service vs. SJ Games case.... Might be useful!
> Gee, aren't I a _BASTARD?_
Wouldn't know -- *I'm* not psysic. :-) (Or maybe :-(, depending...)
"This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not
thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what
you are doing.
Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny] y" -- This
machine.
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 128.109.157.30
Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again)
[When responding to Jon Thaler's posting]
>the public schools? Since it is not on "solid footing?"
Oh? So when did the footing of quantum theory crumble? It's been pretty solid
as long as *I* can remember.
> Tell me, do you REALLY have a doctorate? Or is your "DOCTORJ"
>just some more nonsense? And if you _DO_ have a doctorate, please tell me
>from where you received it. I have to know what colleges my children should
>avoid.
He has a Ph.D. I know him.
Don't you think that something should be shown to exist before we throw it into
the public school system? Would you prefer your local school to drop teaching
Jon J Thaler
> DOC...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>> In article <2743.2...@verifone.com>, ed...@verifone.com says:
>>> I have personally seen letters sent to local universities
>>>and colleges here either with their letterheads or from their members and
>>>associates decrying the teaching of parapsychology in public schools!
>> I see. You are advocating the teaching of astrology and creationism in the
>> public schools. I'm exaggerating, but the point remains: Public schools
>> are for teaching, not research. If you can't put PSI on a solid footing,
>> then it has no place in the public schools.
> I suppose you also think that quantum theory should not be taught in
>the public schools? Since it is not on "solid footing?"
> And if not in public schools, then where DO we do research? And where
>are we supposed to learn _how to do_ research, if not colleges, both public
>and private. I was referring to the local public university system. Most
>people must do research to get advanced degrees.... but... hmmm; perhaps
>you are not _aware_ of that?
> Tell me, do you REALLY have a doctorate? Or is your "DOCTORJ"
>just some more nonsense?
I will resist the temptation to get into a shouting match. I have a few
comments about Ed L'Esperance's ridiculous response:
* In the context in which it was used, the term 'public school' means public
elementary and secondary schools to most people. Private Email I received
about this topic indicates that I am not alone in this interpretation. I
bet that this is what the letters that Ed L mentions were talking about
also.
* I have no problem with people at universities pursuing research on
paranormal phenomena, and there are plenty of people who do just that.
I don't think that the data is very convincing, but that's a different
issue. We could discuss it, if anyone cares to. That would be more
interesting than most of the recent threads in this group.
* If Ed L thinks that PSI is as well established as quantum mechanics, then
he's living in a fantasy world. There is overwhelming evidence that QM is
a correct description of the world, and *ANYONE* can gather more if he
desires to. Too bad that's not the case with PSI. Even those people who
don't think that QM is correct are looking for extremely subtle violations
of the theory, not big holes. I suggest that interested people consult
sci.physics, where this topic comes up from time to time.
* It's too bad that Ed L's contributions to this news group have degenerated
into name calling. He used to make thought provoking comments, but no
longer. I'm a big boy and can deal with it, but we're wasting bandwidth
on nonsense.
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
> > In article <HTVN4...@cellar.UUCP>, re...@cellar.UUCP (Brian 'Rev P-K' Si
> >>
> >> Gee, aren't I a _BASTARD?_
> >
> No, Brian, more like a bustard, which is the swamp's version of a
> _TURKEY_!
>
The Bustard's an exquisite fowl
with minimal reason to growl
It escapes what would be
illegitimacy
by the grace of a fortunate vowel.
Rev. P-K-- "As a matter of fact, I DO play with myself, sonny boy."
Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again)
[in answering my statement that the foundations of quantum theory are solid]
>
>What about the SEVERAL theories that make up the basis for physics? Many
>of the principles in physics are based on fact, but many are based on
>theory...take the photon for example...It is a packet of light.. We say it
>has no mass, since it is supposed to be pure energy...then how can
>gravitational waves affect its path? If you say that gravity affects it
>and yet it has no mass...doesn't that throw the basic equation of
>gravitational attraction totally out of whack? A good portion of science
>is based on theory, not solid fact.....so since science is pretty much
>lacking a SOLID base in several aspects (trust me, I can name several
>more) and it isn't totally fact....does that mean we should stop teaching
>science altogether?
I hope you can name several more, because the one you named doesn't hold up.
One can say that a photon is a packet of light, or one can say that light is a
wave. The point here is that we don't just *say* it, but we can show it. The
photoelectric effect shows that light is a particle, as a wave wouldn't behave
the way that this effect shows it does. Also, a standard double slit
experiment will show that light can interact with itself. Since a particle
cannot do this (and travel the two different paths to the target), we can say
that light acts as a wave for *this* experiment. Since these experiments show
that light can act both ways, we cannot say that light is only one or the other.
In this case, the 'theory of light' is not a 'theory' in the sense that 'I have
a theory that the butler killed him', (i.e. a guess) but a theory meaning that
it is an organized body of knowledge about the behavior of light.
Creationists are fond of saying that evolution 'is only a theory', and they are
trying to imply that it's only a guess. In reality, the second definition is
meant when someone says the 'theory of evolution'. It is an organized body of
thought that describes the changes living creatures undergo over time. Natural
selection is a fact, as are mutations. The 'theoretical' house of evolution is
made up of many bricklike facts, that build upon one another to make the
organized structure. Just because some of the bricks are still being worked on
doesn't mean that the whole house should be condemmed.
So when you say that "Many of the principles in physics are based on fact, but
many are based on theory", you seem to be using the same wrong definition of
he word.
When Newton came up with his 'theory of gravitation' he was not trying to
explain *why* gravity works. He was simply stating that "it behaves like
this". Thus, in the sense of 'Newton's theory of gravitation', the word
'theory' here only means it is an organized system of explaining *how* it
works, not *why* it works. There were several deficiencies in his work. One
is that an assumption of his is never explicitly stated, that he is assuming a
flat spacetime. Since the definition of spacetime as we now know it did not
exist then, I believe we can forgive him this. Also not stated was that his
theory is limited to physical bodies that have mass. Since he did his
experimental work with weights, that is all he was attempting to describe.
So, Newton's 'theory of gravity' was an organized body of thought used to
describe the interactions of physical objects that have mass, in a flat
spacetime. As you can see, one shouldn't even try to apply Newton to a
massless particle, as you are not fulfilling his basic assumptions.
Einstein, with General Relativity, changed the assumptions. When spacetime is
allowed to bend, one finds that a photon will follow the curve. In other
words, one sees that light is affected by a gravitational force. And before
you counter that GR is "only a theory" (again, meaning "only a guess"),
remember that this effect, as have meny others that GR predicted, have been
observed. Again, 'theory' in this case means "an organized body of thought to
explain how it works".
So summing this up, I don't think that the terms 'theory' and 'solid base for
science' are mutually exclusive. You seem to think so.
>I don't think that psi should be taught in most public schools, simply for
>the fact that most high schoolers can't deal with that kind of a subject
>seriously...most don't even take that much science, so how can we expect
>them to understand things that lean towards the parapsychologial end of
>the academic spectrum?
Getting back to the original point of this thread, that of teaching PSI in the
public school system, I don't think it should be. My reason is simple, that
while many claims of PSI exist, there is no solid base for them. In fact,
there has yet to be any evidence that stands up to scrutiny. Since the
phenomena has not yet even been shown to exist, I don't believe we should waste
the already insufficient in-school time of teachers and students on studying
it.
Also, someone had made the argument that "how are researchers who want to study
PSI going to learn *how* to do it, unless we teach them about PSI". I believe
the reasoning here is also false. All branches of experimental science share
the same basic foundations; insure that you have an uncontaminated sample (no
cheating), have a control sample (for comparison), and statistics. I feel
confident that someone trained in *any* experimental science would be qualified
to set up a double-blind test of PSI and analyze the results.
What special training would you suggest to someone preparing to research
PSI that he couldn't get in another field of experimental science?
Ray Swartz
r...@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
am...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Where Are They Now?
No. 17: Mr. Ed, the Talking Horse
In article <2778.2...@verifone.com>, ed...@verifone.com writes:
Mycroft Holmes
one section, we did in-class experimentation with quite a wide range
of things that both border on psi and maybe not, but the idea
was that it wasn't *taught* there, but introduced...like I believe,
an open mind is the only way to learn...and if we don't know about
it, then we're all ignorant...
"Teach them of it's existance/history...then let their minds wander..."
-Mycroft
Mycroft Holmes
----------------------
Home:Fairbanks,Ala...@Earth.Sol.MilkyWay.gxy
Bitnet:fs...@alaska.bitnet
Internet:fs...@acad3.alaska.edu
ed...@verifone.com
>
> What special training would you suggest to someone preparing to research
> PSI that he couldn't get in another field of experimental science?
>
>
> Ray Swartz
> r...@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Well, I might start off with 'what phenomenon fall under the domain of
parapsychology' -- then go on to a study of what kinds of research and
discoveries precede the current theories, what the current theories are
(if any), and then go on from there...
Otherwise, we will not have qualified scientists doing PSI research!
Unless you have the appropriate background, how do you know how to
proceed? How do you know what has already been tried? etc.
Suggesting that any scientist is qualified to do PSI research is like
saying (extreme example -- please hold flames: I ACK beforehand)
that any scientist is qualified to do brain surgery research....
IF there is to be study of the PSI phenomenon in a scientific manner,
then parapsychology must be taught, and if not in public universities,
then where?
ed...@verifone.com
>
> Don't you think that something should be shown to exist before we throw it into
> the public school system?
Parapsychology (the study of PSI) exists as a scientific discipline. Has
since the 1940's or so, as I recall, perhaps even sooner.
PSI phenomena exist, but an adequate explanation for the phenomena does not
as yet exist. Yet "strange" things still happen. Some are shown to have
natural causes, some are still unexplained.
Attempts to capture the phenomena in the lab have had mixed results.
So we should give up? I am not advocating that EVERY student be required
to take parapsychology, but when it is offered, we don't need skeptics
groups and CSICOP to write letters to the administration (as happened in
Hawaii) to coerce them to terminate the classes.
For those of you who are interested, or who are speculating why I follow
this tack, that is my experience with CSICOP & skeptics.
> Would you prefer your local school to drop teaching
> mathematics and replace it with astrology.
Nowhere did I imply that this was my intention, asshole.
(Oops, sorry, my contempt for unjust harrassment just slipped out.)
> How ignorant are you?
Very. The difference between you and I is that I realize that I am
ignorant, and you imagine you are knowledgable.
>
> Good idea about your kids, though. We wouldn't want the nonsense that you
> spout to invade *real* institutions of science.
>
> Ray Swartz
> [whose office is down the hall from DOCTORJ's]
Hey, you birds of a feather, I am not the one advocating censorship of
public education....
I advocate academic freedom.
ed...@verifone.com
That I wrote:
>> I have personally seen letters sent to local universities
>> and colleges here either with their letterheads or from their members and
>> associates decrying the teaching of parapsychology in public schools!
>> Not only can't one believe in the paranormal, one is not even supposed to
>> research it, or even find out HOW!
>>
Teaching parapsychology (at least in this instance involved) is a survey of
reported effects and some research techniques that are used to investigate
these effects. Experiments are set up to try to detect and demonstrate
various unknown phenomena. What are you under the impression parapsychology
is? You are evidently mistaken.
> You can believe in the paranormal all you want, that is your right. But if
> you are going to teach it, put the evidence out where people can judge it.
Teaching parapsychology and teaching "psychism" are two different things.
Kinda like the difference between teaching physics and teaching time
travel...
> Why not teach the experimental method to people along with psi, so they
> can convince themselves of its existence. If psi is not amenable to the
> scientific method, what method other than faith do you have them use to
> accept its existence? Please elucidate.
That is exactly what parapsychology does.
Do you still have a problem with it?
>
> GXKambic
> standard disclaimer
Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again)
In article <2796.2...@verifone.com>, ed...@verifone.com writes:
>
>Parapsychology (the study of PSI) exists as a scientific discipline. Has
>since the 1940's or so, as I recall, perhaps even sooner.
SINCE WHEN?!? There has NEVER been any evidence that has shown this
to be the case. If you are so sure of it, present some. I hear a lot
of "it's known to exist" from you people, but you can never show it.
>PSI phenomena exist, but an adequate explanation for the phenomena does not
>as yet exist. Yet "strange" things still happen. Some are shown to have
>natural causes, some are still unexplained.
Again, show me. Sure, strange things happen. Like I went into the
parking lot today and my car was in a different place than I remember
parking it. So what. I've parked there A THOUSAND TIMES. So I don't
happen to really remember doing it this morning doesn't mean someone
moved it.
>Attempts to capture the phenomena in the lab have had mixed results.
They have NULL results. Show me some of these "mixed" results in a
well-controlled study.
>So we should give up? I am not advocating that EVERY student be required
>to take parapsychology, but when it is offered, we don't need skeptics
>groups and CSICOP to write letters to the administration (as happened in
>Hawaii) to coerce them to terminate the classes.
It's a waste of resources. FIRST, show that there is something there
to study.
>For those of you who are interested, or who are speculating why I follow
>this tack, that is my experience with CSICOP & skeptics.
>
>> Would you prefer your local school to drop teaching
>> mathematics and replace it with astrology.
>
>Nowhere did I imply that this was my intention, asshole.
>(Oops, sorry, my contempt for unjust harrassment just slipped out.)
But it obviously is. There are only so many hours that a student can
study. And you would have them spend their time on useless things. No
wonder this country cannot keep up anymore.
>> How ignorant are you?
>
>Very. The difference between you and I is that I realize that I am
>ignorant, and you imagine you are knowledgable.
To be more accurate, you might say that I accept what my experience
telling me about the universe, and you hold your world-view in spite
of experience.
>I advocate academic freedom.
You advocate fairy tales. When are you going to show that there is
anything there at all to study? I'm perfectly willing to be open to
the idea of classes such as this, when it has been shown that there
is something to study.
>***************************************************************************
>* Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. *
>* Anthropologist, Writer, Editor - Ka`onohi`ula`okahokumiomio`ehiku *
>* UUCP%"Ed...@VeriFone.Com" *
>* "As the sun warms the body, so acceptance is the sunlight of the soul." *
>***************************************************************************
Ray Swartz
"As the sun burns the body, so blind acceptance means 'You're gonna get burned
by reality'".
Jon J Thaler
>Parapsychology (the study of PSI) exists as a scientific discipline. Has
>since the 1940's or so, as I recall, perhaps even sooner.
>PSI phenomena exist, but an adequate explanation for the phenomena does not
>as yet exist. Yet "strange" things still happen. Some are shown to have
>natural causes, some are still unexplained.
>Attempts to capture the phenomena in the lab have had mixed results.
>So we should give up? I am not advocating that EVERY student be required
>to take parapsychology, but when it is offered, we don't need skeptics
>groups and CSICOP to write letters to the administration (as happened in
>Hawaii) to coerce them to terminate the classes.
We seem to be talking in a vacuum here. You are dribbling out the info
about this supposed censorship case. Why not just post two things, so
we can judge for ourselves:
* The course description as printed in the catalog.
* The letter objecting to the course. From whom, to whom, and the
resulting action.
If you don't do that, then we're just relying on your subjective evaluation.
Philip J Stephens
Um. Let's try to keep the flame wars to a minimum, shall we. We
don't want to scare away all the subscribers who are here to discuss
issues regarding the paranormal. All flames *ought* to be redirected
to sci.skeptic where it really belongs.
I'll make a few comments here and then followups will be going to
sci.skeptic.
Ray Swartz writes:
>>Parapsychology (the study of PSI) exists as a scientific discipline. Has
>>since the 1940's or so, as I recall, perhaps even sooner.
> SINCE WHEN?!? There has NEVER been any evidence that has shown this
> to be the case. If you are so sure of it, present some. I hear a lot
> of "it's known to exist" from you people, but you can never show it.
Um, Ray, I think Ed was saying that *parapsychology* has existed
since the 1940's, not phenomena that has been proven to be paranormal!
You ought to read the articles a little more closely before putting
your foot in your mouth!
>>PSI phenomena exist, but an adequate explanation for the phenomena does not
>>as yet exist. Yet "strange" things still happen. Some are shown to have
>>natural causes, some are still unexplained.
>
> Again, show me.
I think Ed has made it clear in previous articles that when he says
that PSI phenomena exists, he means that phenomena has been witnessed
to occur that has not yet being investigated thoroughly enough to
discover it's cause. If such phenomena *is* normal, then the
approapiate experiment will show it's reproducible and caused by the
known laws of physics and such. But currently there are cases of
phenomena occuring which have not been reproduced, meaning that we
can't place a judgement on how it happened.
Let's face it, the *basic* reason why we label certain phenomena
"paranormal" is because we don't yet understand it. I am generally
happy to go further and say that it's quite possible that such
phenomena is caused by laws or whatnot that haven't been discovered
yet, whereas others will be more conservative and say it's bound to be
explainable by current known laws. The latter is more accepted for
the obvious reason that no-one has yet managed to demonstrate that new
laws do exist!
>>Attempts to capture the phenomena in the lab have had mixed results.
>
> They have NULL results. Show me some of these "mixed" results in a
> well-controlled study.
It ought to be obvious that the reason why such phenomena has yet to
be captured is due to the causes of the phenomena being poorly
understood, hence meaning that the wrong controls have been put into
place. This is nothing ususual; the same process occurs when a
scientist is trying to capture a new phenomena that *is* based on
known laws. There are bound to be mistakes made in the beginning.
>>So we should give up?
>
> It's a waste of resources. FIRST, show that there is something there
> to study.
Ray, I realise that you must be so convinced that *all* phenomena
that is witnessed around the world *must* be due to known physical
laws, that studying all the "strange" cases must seem like a total
waste of time to you. That's an understandable position.
However, you shouldn't deny anyone the chance to investigate claims
of the paranormal if they so wish to. Who knows, one of those people
might discover something amazing and end up with a Nobel prize!
Now, let's face it, the question is not whether students should be
introduced to area of paranormal studies (or *should* not be); the
issue at hand is the practical question of whether schools should
include such studies in their ciriculum. This is, for obvious
reasons, a contentious issue since there are only so many subjects you
can cater for in a schooling system. Obviously there are going to be
arguments on both sides, and since it is equally obvious that we are
not going to come to an agreement very quickly, it may be best to drop
the topic rather than to draw it out into a lengthy (and ultimately
pointless) debate between two people!
<\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/><\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\>
< Philip J. Stephens >< "Many views yield the truth." >
< Hons. student, Computer Science >< "Therefore, be not alone." >
< La Trobe University, Melbourne >< - Prime Song of the viggies, from >
< AUSTRALIA >< THE ENGIMA SCORE by Sheri S Tepper >
</\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\></\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/>
Jon J Thaler
(Philip J Stephens) says:
>
> Let's face it, the *basic* reason why we label certain phenomena
>"paranormal" is because we don't yet understand it.
I don't think that this is correct. High temperature superconductivity is
not (yet) understood, but I doubt that many people regard it as a paranormal
phenomenon. The distinguishing features of most paranormal phenomena are
the phenomena themselves, not the explanations put forward. I think that
there are two general classes:
* Parapsychological effects: These include psychokinesis (PK), clairvoyance,
telepathy, precognition, etc. These are often studied by prople in
psychology (for example, Charles Tart at UC Davis).
* The other class doesn't have a name that I know of. It is a catch-all for
a bunch of effects that appear to violate physical law (maybe not so in
all cases). It includes astrology, dowsing, Kirlian photography, etc.
I think that the basic unifying theme here is that all of the phenomena are
'odd'. I don't mean this pejoratively, just that they don't fit into the
usual scheme of things. (Please don't flame; I am perfectly aware that
'usual' betrays my point of view.) Of course, my point of view compels me
to point out that another unifying theme is that they are all poorly
established phenomena - will-o'the-wisps, so to speak. I understand the
argument that this may be an inherent characteristic of these phenomena.
I have an interesting question (at least it's interesting to me...). Suppose
that PK is established as a reproducible and understood effect (in the
scientific sense). Will it remain a paranormal phenomenon, or will it then
become a part of the 'mainstream' science which the paranormal advocates
like to villify? I would savor the irony.
Richard Bielak
>So what is the problem with offering Paranormal courses in public universities?
[...]
I agree. I think things like astrology, creationism etc. should be
discussed in public schools.
Think of the following science lesson: the students follow their own
horoscopes for some period of time. A control group will follow
the horoscopes of their "signs", an another group will follow random
horoscopes that they think are their signs.
At the end compare the number and quality of matches in predictions
of the two groups.
Let the students draw their own conclusions.
My wife, who is a seventh grade teacher, did a mind reading trick in
her class (this was the "one-envelope-ahead" trick). Although the
students knew it was going to be a trick, they were still extremely
impressed - they wrote down their impressions before the trick was
revealed.
Once they were informed how the trick was done, the students felt
cheated and some got angry. Not a surprizing reaction. However, they
maybe less suceptible to fraud in the future.
...richie
--
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Richie Bielak (212)-815-3072 | Experience is no substitute for |
| Internet: ric...@bony.com | competence. |
| Bang: uunet!bony1!richieb | |
Jan Willem Nienhuys
>
>My wife, who is a seventh grade teacher, did a mind reading trick in
>her class (this was the "one-envelope-ahead" trick). Although the
>students knew it was going to be a trick, they were still extremely
>impressed - they wrote down their impressions before the trick was
>revealed.
>
>Once they were informed how the trick was done, the students felt
>cheated and some got angry. Not a surprizing reaction. However, they
>maybe less suceptible to fraud in the future.
>
People get upset if their belief (even if it is something unimportant)
is crushed in front of others.
J.W. Nienhuys,
Research Group Discrete Mathematics
Dept. of Mathematics and Computing Science
Eindhoven University of Technology
P.O. BOX 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven
The Netherlands
e-mail: wsa...@urc.tue.nl
Roadster Racewerks
Excellent!
This is all a reasonable person could ask...
Suze Hammond
tri...@agora.rain.com
Competence in one field
is no substitute
for experience in another.
Carl J Lydick
>the public schools? Since it is not on "solid footing?"
Oh no? Try explaining why a laser works without it. Try explaining why
blackbody radiation doesn't fit the classical-mechanical model without it. The
objections to quantum mechanics are not based on any inability to accurately
describe and predict phenomena not explained by classical mechanics, but on
philosophical interpretations that don't fit the expectations of some people.
Carl J Lydick
>of the principles in physics are based on fact, but many are based on
>theory...take the photon for example...It is a packet of light.. We say it
>has no mass, since it is supposed to be pure energy...then how can
>gravitational waves affect its path? If you say that gravity affects it
>and yet it has no mass...doesn't that throw the basic equation of
>gravitational attraction totally out of whack?
It has no REST mass. All this means is that a photon must always travel at the
speed of light. But apparently you haven't been paying attention to physics
for the last 50 years. We KNOW that Newton's statement of gravitational
attraction isn't completely valid, though it works quite well for most everyday
problems. That's why general relativity was developed.
>A good portion of science is based on theory, not solid fact.....so since
>science is pretty much lacking a SOLID base in several aspects (trust me, I
>can name several more) and it isn't totally fact....does that mean we should
>stop teaching science altogether?
Again we face somebody who hasn't got a clue as to what scientists mean when
they use the term "theory". A scientific theory is a model used to explain
observed facts. It'd be nice if we could throw away the term and use "model"
instead; it'd give the ignorant one less straw man argument. So how about
naming those "several more" examples of how science isn't based on fact?
>I don't think that psi should be taught in most public schools, simply for
>the fact that most high schoolers can't deal with that kind of a subject
>seriously...most don't even take that much science, so how can we expect
>them to understand things that lean towards the parapsychologial end of
>the academic spectrum?
And a lot of us don't want it taught in elementary and high schools because
there's no convincing evidence that it exists. It's a lot more honest to say
"I don't know why that happened" or "I don't know enough of the details of the
situation to explain it" than it is to say "I know why it happened: PSI".
Jon J Thaler
> ric...@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak) writes:
>>I agree. I think things like astrology, creationism etc. should be
>>discussed in public schools.
[...stuff deleted...]
>>My wife, who is a seventh grade teacher, did a mind reading trick in
>>her class (this was the "one-envelope-ahead" trick). Although the
>>students knew it was going to be a trick, they were still extremely
>>impressed - they wrote down their impressions before the trick was
>>revealed.
>>Once they were informed how the trick was done, the students felt
>>cheated and some got angry. Not a surprizing reaction. However, they
>>maybe less suceptible to fraud in the future.
>Excellent!
>This is all a reasonable person could ask...
>Suze Hammond
I'm surprised by your reaction. RB has reduced study of the paranormal
in the public schools to the same level as learning about consumer fraud.
In my opinion, this is a good idea. However, I am surprised that
someone who believes that paranormal phenomena are real agrees. I
certainly would not accept this approach to physics.
Jim Giles
|> I suppose you also think that quantum theory should not be taught in
|>the public schools? Since it is not on "solid footing?"
In terms of the relative precision of measurements, Quantum
Electrodynamics (QED) is the most thoroughly verified field
of any in science.
What's this got to do with PSI (which is the _least_ thoroughly
verified field of science - so much so, it hardly qualifies
as science)?
J. Giles
Roadster Racewerks
Well, like it or not (and I don't) psi has always been taken advantage of by
various charlatans wanting to make a buck.
Back in Renaissance and earlier (I'm primarliy a student of medieval culture..)
times, what later evolved into science was in the same position..alchemists were
either attempting to set the parameters of what we now call research, or were
doing slight-of-hand with gold and lead pellets to pry money out of gullible
monarchs, depending entirely upon the personal morality of the man in question.
People we now consider true pioneers of science were commonly dismissed by the
populace as being as unreliable as any other alchemist or astrologer. In some
cases the budding "scientist" fell into *both* camps, depending on his need for
cash. Brahe is an example...he was primarily *employed* as a court astrologer,
not a founder of astronomy, and "took the money and ran", as the saying goes!
One reason I'm so fond of the idea of serious research into the various
phenomena is that I'd like to see the quacks put out of business via the route
of finding out how psi works, so that the average Joe would have a clue when he
was being scammed. Sweeping it ALL under the rug simply appeals to the gullible
person's love of conspiracy theories, and gives psi an undeserved aura of
persecution and mystery.
Carl J Lydick
>One reason I'm so fond of the idea of serious research into the various
>phenomena is that I'd like to see the quacks put out of business via the route
>of finding out how psi works, so that the average Joe would have a clue when he
>was being scammed. Sweeping it ALL under the rug simply appeals to the gullible
>person's love of conspiracy theories, and gives psi an undeserved aura of
>persecution and mystery.
Fine. IF IT EXISTS. That hasn't even been demonstrated. If it doesn't exist,
there's nothing to sweep under the rug.
Carl J Lydick
>So what is the problem with offering Paranormal courses in public universities?
>of Arizona has a course in Paranormal Anthropology that I found very
>enlightening. The prof. played pretty much a neutral role but he brought in
>many speakers who believed in what they were doing from all over the paranormal
>world. A lot if them came of as quacks but shouldn't we be open minded
>enough to at least listen to other peoples view points?
No. The mere fact that an idea exists doesn't mean that it has merit. Now, if
one of these people had been able to show that what they were talking about
really existed, or even that the idea had a useful application, that's another
matter entirely, and of course, since the course you were taking was
anthropology, that's also a different matter. Understanding superstitions IS
an important part of anthropology.
>And besides what if the administrators had said Kepler was crazy to try and
>find any order to the universe other than the obvious that God did it and
>kept it all working. Wasn't all science at one time considered paranormal?
Kepler had an actual phenonemon whose existence was not at all in doubt to
study: the apparent motions of the planets. So far, nobody has produced any
convincing evidence that those studying the paranormal are not like the fellow
who was searching, blindfolded, at midnight, in a dark room, for a black cat
that wasn't there.
Kathryn Lawder
>>So what is the problem with offering Paranormal courses in public universities?
>
>discussed in public schools.
>Think of the following science lesson: the students follow their own
>horoscopes for some period of time. A control group will follow
>the horoscopes of their "signs", an another group will follow random
>horoscopes that they think are their signs.
>At the end compare the number and quality of matches in predictions
>of the two groups.
>Let the students draw their own conclusions.
I am reminded of my 7th grade Science Teacher (Catholic school layteacher)
who made a class assignment to select and study one "pseudoscience" and
present it to the class. He divided our class into pairs and away we went.
I recall presentations on psi phenomena
on dowsing (divining)
on dreams
and my partner and I investigated Astrology. I became so fascinated by
the subject that I learned how to construct natal charts and calculate
oppositions, trines, calculate star time of birth from latitude/longitude
and time of birth, the division of the signs into four elements and
characteristics common to these groupings, and to guess astrological
signs from individual's hand shapes.
My partner was not so motivated and was content to help with the graphics
and visuals for the presentations.
My fascination with Astrology persisted from 7th through 9th grade (from
1968-70).
Then I put it away and haven't paid much attention to it ever since.
However, it gave me an appreciation for the value of an open mind, and
the freedom to explore fields that lend themselves to scientific method
as well as those that don't. Just because Astrology does not lend itself
to quantitative and qualitative scientific method doesn't mean it is to
be dismissed as imaginary, quackery, or unworthy of notice.
IMHO, it's merely misunderstood, misapplied, and scientific method has
yet to evolve to the degree where tools are available with which it
can be systematically observed.
--
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kathi Lawder Be more than food for the moon
law...@ohsu.edu Be what you came here for
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kathryn Lawder
>>I don't think that psi should be taught in most public schools, simply for
>>the fact that most high schoolers can't deal with that kind of a subject
>>seriously...most don't even take that much science, so how can we expect
>>them to understand things that lean towards the parapsychologial end of
>>the academic spectrum?
>And a lot of us don't want it taught in elementary and high schools because
>there's no convincing evidence that it exists. It's a lot more honest to say
>"I don't know why that happened" or "I don't know enough of the details of the
>situation to explain it" than it is to say "I know why it happened: PSI".
And why not use such things as an opportunity to emphasize that it is possible
that certain things do exist in creation for which science has no clear
explanation? It is the existence of such questions that fosters ever more
wondrous and creative thinking/exploring/theorizing, the evolution of the
human intellect and the frontiers of science. How dismal an idea that
everything will eventually be known and explained, nothing left to find out.
Jan Willem Nienhuys
>
>And why not use such things as an opportunity to emphasize that it is possible
>that certain things do exist in creation for which science has no clear
>explanation? It is the existence of such questions that fosters ever more
Throw a coin. Observe how it lands. Explain? There is no explanation why that
coin happened to fall that way at that time. What does science say about that?
It says that it is random.
Many things for which "science has no explanation" are of such a random
nature. "Science" also does not pretend that there is an explanation.
What goes on in astrology is the wondrous capacity of people to "see"
all kinds of meaning in random patterns like the fall of cards, entrails
of animals, lines in the hand, tealeaves, coffeedregs, or planetary
positions. Another wondrous capacity of people is to trust strangers and
assume that what is said with an earnest face or with a show of emotion
must be true. A third wondrous capacity of people is that they can pick
up information from small details, sometimes without being even
conscious of it.
>wondrous and creative thinking/exploring/theorizing, the evolution of the
>human intellect and the frontiers of science. How dismal an idea that
>everything will eventually be known and explained, nothing left to find out.
If everything "would be known", that would mean that all relations between
everything would be clear.
If you would see a flower, you would instantaneously know how this flower
evolved (and hence you would grasp major parts of the history of all
living things on earth), you would remember all emotions and associations
in your life related to that and similar flowers, at the same time you
would know why you (and other people) have such emotions, you would
recall all works of art in which such flowers occurred, and what moved
the artists to paint them, and how other people appreciated those
paintings, you would understand the colors of the flower and so on . . .
You would be overwhelmed - and simultaneously understanding that feeling
too - by a single flower and by any other simple experience.
How dismal an idea! Better stick to finding infinitesimal little fibers
of understanding.
JWN
Scott Ballantyne
Just because Astrology does not lend itself to quantitative and
qualitative scientific method doesn't mean it is to be dismissed as
imaginary, quackery, or unworthy of notice.
Considering that several quantitative Astrology studies have been done
I find this remark odd. Perhaps it is being dismissed as unworthy of
notice because of the very quantitative studies that *do* exist.
IMHO, it's merely misunderstood, misapplied, and scientific method
has yet to evolve to the degree where tools are available with
which it can be systematically observed.
What aspect of astrology can not be systematically observered?
sdb
Roadster Racewerks
Kathi, you'd love to talk Astrology with my boyfriend. Ed has studied physics
and taught math, and developed a purely intellectual interest in asdtrology
during the 60s. ('scuse the typo). He eventually found that he was actually a
pretty good astrologer, even though he doesn't believe in Astrology! In fact,
he could make a living at it, but he got tired of people using his charts as an
excuse to sit back and refuse to do anything about their problems. He'd tell a
client they had a conflict in Virgo, and advise them how to get around that, and
the next thing he knew, they'd be sitting around telling people that they didn't
have to try to get along with the opposite sex, because they had this conflict,
see.... and Ed got pretty sick of that so he quit.
I can't do his theories justice, but as I understand it, he believes our
ancestors noticed certain patterns emerged in people born at similar times, and,
knowing no science as we do, came up with the best theory they could during
their times. He believes that what more likely is at work is a form of
synchronicity, such as we see in other repeating patterns in nature, and that
the stars are only handy "markers". No way does he believe the patterns they
make in the sky actually influence anything themselves.
Unfortunately, since he's closed that book in his life, the likelihood I could
get him online to discuss it is virtually nil...he wouldn't even consider doing
a chart for one of the posters here, not even when the guy offered to pay.
Suze Hammond
tri...@agora.rain.com
Richard Bielak
[...]
>How dismal an idea that
>everything will eventually be known and explained, nothing left to find out.
>
How dismal the idea that you have to go to paranormal phenomena to
look for unexplained things.
The more you learn about science, the more you realize how little is
known and how much more there is to find out. The Universe is
wonderfully complex.
Perhaps the problem is the way science is taught in schools. Until
they get to gradute school, the students get little chance of doing
research into the unknown.
Perhaps the problem is that scientific research is very hard work.
ed...@verifone.com
And how do you propose to find out if it exists when you (or others)
try to block research into the subject?
--
***************************************************************************
* Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. *
* Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, etc. -*- UUCP%"Ed...@VeriFone.Com" *
* Disclaimer: "Are you trying to tell me that these people are SERIOUS?" *
***************************************************************************
ed...@verifone.com
> In article <1991Jun27....@latcs1.lat.oz.au>, step...@latcs1.lat.oz.au
> (Philip J Stephens) says:
>>
>> Let's face it, the *basic* reason why we label certain phenomena
>>"paranormal" is because we don't yet understand it.
>
> I don't think that this is correct. High temperature superconductivity is
> not (yet) understood, but I doubt that many people regard it as a paranormal
I think the general replicability (by anyone following the formulas) of
superconductivity and like effects, makes it, by definition, normal, but
still odd, until we understand it. PSI effects are not generally
replicable by anyone follwing formulas, but seem to rely on things that
may be individual abilities, maybe something else, maybe quantumized chance
for all I know....
> phenomenon. The distinguishing features of most paranormal phenomena are
> the phenomena themselves, not the explanations put forward. I think that
> there are two general classes:
>
> * Parapsychological effects: These include psychokinesis (PK), clairvoyance,
> telepathy, precognition, etc. These are often studied by prople in
> psychology (for example, Charles Tart at UC Davis).
And by people in parapsychology, who are, perhaps, more qualified. That many
parapsychologists come out of psychology (which has its own problems with
proofs and general replicability) I think is assuming that these effects
originate from the mind, which has not been demonstrated (of course, neither
has the existance of mind been demonstrated.... does this make psychology
part of the paranormal? :-) ).
>
> * The other class doesn't have a name that I know of. It is a catch-all for
> a bunch of effects that appear to violate physical law (maybe not so in
> all cases). It includes astrology, dowsing, Kirlian photography, etc.
Hmmm. I wouldn't throw astrology in there; I would more lump it with things
like alchemy and ceremonial magic: ancient "sciences."
>
> I think that the basic unifying theme here is that all of the phenomena are
> 'odd'. I don't mean this pejoratively, just that they don't fit into the
> usual scheme of things.
Ah yes, hence the term, "para" (alongside) "normal" (usual). or unusual,
not usual, not normal, etc. You stated this well.
(Please don't flame; I am perfectly aware that
> 'usual' betrays my point of view.) Of course, my point of view compels me
> to point out that another unifying theme is that they are all poorly
> established phenomena - will-o'the-wisps, so to speak. I understand the
> argument that this may be an inherent characteristic of these phenomena.
Don't we also have will-o'the-wisps in particle physics??? Quarks and the
like? Does that mean we shouldn't study them? What are the chances of
me coming into your lab and "seeing" all the known particles in a visit of,
say, one hour? Can you produce them at will?
I agree: PSI phenomenon are elusive, and subject to the interpretation of
the person who experiences them, and difficult to research. I don't think
that these factors should cause us to ignore them; on the contrary, we
should research them more (given funding, time, etc.)
> I have an interesting question (at least it's interesting to me...). Suppose
> that PK is established as a reproducible and understood effect (in the
> scientific sense). Will it remain a paranormal phenomenon, or will it then
> become a part of the 'mainstream' science which the paranormal advocates
> like to villify? I would savor the irony.
I would think so, and would hope so. I think you unjustly malign those of
us who have interest in or have experienced PSI phenomenon. I do not vilify
science, just the opposite. I am in support of and I promote the
scientific investigation of PSI phenomenon. Something that is so
ubiquitous in human cultures must have some basis, whether that basis
is fantasy or some yet-unknown human ability or new laws of chance.
Speaking for myself, I do not vilify science; I am a scientist (social)
as well (I'd better not!). Merely, I rail against closed-minded
science. Science did NOT get where it is today through closed-
mindedness.
Granted, there are frauds out there, but this is hardly an adequate reason
to abandon lines of research. Shall we abandon chemistry or medicine
because some people sell quack medicines? Perhaps what is really needed is
a well-formulated parapsychology (I think it exists, but is poorly funded)
to investigate claims and formulate theories and collect data.
I think that a lot of the resistance to PSI phenomenon is based in belief
systems, and that a lot of that comes from our religious background.
Some people think that it is "the devil's work," some think that if PSI
exists, it will support the position that a god exists. Others rail
against it because it doesn't fit into what they believe, and if it were
true, it would remove the foundations of their belief systems.
And there are other reasons as well, some of which have been stated in
posts by those who hold them and which I won't repeat here because they
have already been stated.
Many other cultures have no problem accepting the existance of PSI
phenomenon, and some mainstream scientists in those (and in our) culture
also have no problems recognizing that some kind of phenomenon is occurring.
--
****************************************************************************
* Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. *
* Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, etc. -*- UUCP%"Ed...@VeriFone.Com" *
* Disclaimer: "It is refreshing to see intelligence on the net at times." *
****************************************************************************
ed...@verifone.com
> In article <2796.2...@verifone.com>, ed...@verifone.com writes:
>>
>>Parapsychology (the study of PSI) exists as a scientific discipline. Has
>>since the 1940's or so, as I recall, perhaps even sooner.
>
> SINCE WHEN?!? There has NEVER been any evidence that has shown this
> to be the case. If you are so sure of it, present some. I hear a lot
> of "it's known to exist" from you people, but you can never show it.
>
with PSI itself. Columbia U in NYC offered degrees in parapsychology,
perhaps they still do.
>>PSI phenomena exist, but an adequate explanation for the phenomena does not
>>as yet exist. Yet "strange" things still happen. Some are shown to have
>>natural causes, some are still unexplained.
>
> Again, show me. Sure, strange things happen. Like I went into the
> parking lot today and my car was in a different place than I remember
> parking it. So what. I've parked there A THOUSAND TIMES. So I don't
> happen to really remember doing it this morning doesn't mean someone
> moved it.
I will let your comment speak for itself.
Evidently PSI is not the only thing you're confused about.
--
***************************************************************************
* Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. *
* Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, etc. -*- UUCP%"Ed...@VeriFone.Com" *
Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again)
>PSI phenomena exist, but an adequate explanation for the phenomena does not
>as yet exist. Yet "strange" things still happen. Some are shown to have
>natural causes, some are still unexplained.
[and I responded...]
>> Again, show me. Sure, strange things happen. Like I went into the
>> parking lot today and my car was in a different place than I remember
>> parking it. So what. I've parked there A THOUSAND TIMES. So I don't
>> happen to really remember doing it this morning doesn't mean someone
>> moved it.
>
>I will let your comment speak for itself.
Whatever are you babbling about. I was giving an example. What does the
example say? Again, you still haven't presented evidence of PSI. We are
waiting. Put up or shut up, please.
Ray Swartz
Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again)
>
>Don't we also have will-o'the-wisps in particle physics??? Quarks and the
>like? Does that mean we shouldn't study them? What are the chances of
>me coming into your lab and "seeing" all the known particles in a visit of,
>say, one hour? Can you produce them at will?
Gee, this is fun!
First of all, the accuracy (in terms of predictive ability) of the
quark model has been established. This happened in 1973 when the J/psi was
discovered.
Actually, they *can* basically be produced at will, along with J/psis,
Zs, Ws "and the like". You may have to go to the right lab (while they are
running) and wait a few minutes. It would take you much more than an hour to
understand the equipment and the way the data is studied, though. But that
would be a shortcoming of *yours*, not the lab's.
>I agree: PSI phenomenon are elusive, and subject to the interpretation of
>the person who experiences them, and difficult to research. I don't think
>that these factors should cause us to ignore them; on the contrary, we
>should research them more (given funding, time, etc.)
They not only seem "difficult to research", they seem difficult to establish.
And until it is shown that something is there, why throw money at it.
There *have* been studies, and as yet, there has been no evidence. They found
nothing that could stand up to criticism. As I said before, if you don't have
enough evidence to convince a skeptic, you don't have evidence.
>> I have an interesting question (at least it's interesting to me...). Suppose
>> that PK is established as a reproducible and understood effect (in the
>> scientific sense). Will it remain a paranormal phenomenon, or will it then
>> become a part of the 'mainstream' science which the paranormal advocates
>> like to villify? I would savor the irony.
And suppose pigs had wings. How fast could they fly?
Don't savor until it's been established. You seem to be missing the step of
*establishing* the phenomena before you throw (more) money at it.
>Speaking for myself, I do not vilify science; I am a scientist (social)
>as well (I'd better not!). Merely, I rail against closed-minded
>science. Science did NOT get where it is today through closed-
>mindedness.
No, it got to where it is by believing what the evidence says. There is
as yet no evidence of PSI. It has nothing to do with close-mindedness, is has
to due with lack of gulliblity.
>Granted, there are frauds out there, but this is hardly an adequate reason
>to abandon lines of research. Shall we abandon chemistry or medicine
>because some people sell quack medicines? Perhaps what is really needed is
>a well-formulated parapsychology (I think it exists, but is poorly funded)
>to investigate claims and formulate theories and collect data.
But in the due course of history, the frauds were weeded out and any real gems
in the field floated to the surface. PSI has been a subject of debate (and
study) by various groups now for hundreds of years, and *nothing* has floated.
How many more studies do you have to do when you are already batting 0 for 1000,
0 for 10,000, 0 for 1E6...
Do you still believe in perpetual motion, despite all of the evidence to the
contrary? I think this is more than just an idle question. Every few years
someone comes up with a *new* perpetual motion machine. But as yet, we still
don't have any of them powering our houses. Would you say that this is due to
close-mindedness?
>Many other cultures have no problem accepting the existance of PSI
>phenomenon, and some mainstream scientists in those (and in our) culture
>also have no problems recognizing that some kind of phenomenon is occurring.
So apparently you are saying that there are major studies going on in other
countries? Then why hasn't it been established yet. Why haven't *they* come
out with proof?
Waiting (but I won't hold my breath)
Ray Swartz
Roadster Racewerks
Anybody else here old enough to remember when hypnotism was considered
"paranormal"?
And when the first dentists started using it instead of some anaesthesia, and
were threatened with ostracism from the profession...?
Tom Chapin
>I can't do his theories justice, but as I understand it, he believes our
>ancestors noticed certain patterns emerged in people born at similar times, and
>their times. He believes that what more likely is at work is a form of
>synchronicity, such as we see in other repeating patterns in nature, and that
>the stars are only handy "markers". No way does he believe the patterns they
>make in the sky actually influence anything themselves.
So how does this differ from the attitude of many or even most
professional astrologers? Does he think his idea is different,
except that the professionals keep an open mind about the
possibility of a scientific causal connection?
--
tom chapin t...@hrccb.att.com
Jim Giles
|> [...]
|> And how do you propose to find out if it exists when you (or others)
|> try to block research into the subject?
Depends on the research. Research which test _whether_ the
phenomena exist would be easy to perform and would be useful.
There are a lot of people do this - so far with no significant
results. Psychological research which studies _why_ people
are predisposed to believe this stuff without good evidence
might also be interesting. Research which _presupposes_ the
the existence of the phenomena without independently verifyable
evidence (like your friend Pendragon) is not scientific and no
government should be expected to shoulder any support for courses
or research with this bias.
J. Giles
ed...@verifone.com
> might also be interesting. Research which _presupposes_ the
> the existence of the phenomena without independently verifyable
> evidence (like your friend Pendragon) is not scientific and no
> government should be expected to shoulder any support for courses
> or research with this bias.
>
> J. Giles
Mr. Pendragon was teaching parapsychology, that is:
This type of phenomenon is observed, and this is how parapsychologists
are studying it, and this is how it can be studied.
Are you saying that PSI phenomena should be ignored? So if something
happens we should just say "it didn't REALLY happen" and go about our
daily business? Are there other things you would like ignored?
Or are you saying that the phenomenon should be studied by untrained people?
What is your (addressed generally not personally) problem?
Ah. I get it. If there is nobody qualified to study or research
paranormal occurrances, we can all go back to our comfortable
traditional beliefs and not worry anymore....
Perhaps we should eliminate a few more 'annoying' sciences and relegate
their studies to other fields as well.
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
>
> Mr. Pendragon was teaching parapsychology, that is:
> This type of phenomenon is observed, and this is how
parapsychologists
> are studying it, and this is how it can be studied.
>
course, but the others claimed to be able to teach his students to use ESP
and psychic abilities.
The course descriptions read like this:
MASTERING CLAIRVOYANCE
This advanced course is designed to further aid the student in
developing his or her clairvoyant skills and understandings. Intensive
workshops plus detailed lectures will promote practical uses for the
individual.
DEVELOPING TELEPATHY
Telepathy, mind to mind communication, is a psychic trait that has
been documented around the world. It is also a talent and a skill that can be
deliberately enhanced by individuals. This course explores the theories of
why and how telepathy works, as well as various meditations and techniques to
increase one's own telepathy.
PSYCHIC DEVELOPMENT
This course is designed to acquaint the student with the various
aspects of Parapsychology (ESP) in order to develop an appreciation of it as
a legitimate and valuable area of study. The course will begin with a general
survey of psychic study including its history and prominent research past and
present. Students will acquire training in the awareness of their own psychic
abilities and the beneficial positiive use of those qualities.
Seems to me that Pendragon was making some pretty grandiose claims as
to what he could teach his students to to-- it wasn't just an academic
overview of the subject.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Brian Siano, Delaware Valley Skeptics
Rev. Philosopher-King of The First Church of the Divine Otis Redding
re...@Cellar.UUCP "Ecrasez l'enfame!" - Voltaire
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Jim Giles
|> In article <27...@beta.gov>, j...@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
|>> might also be interesting. Research which _presupposes_ the
|>> the existence of the phenomena without independently verifyable
|>> evidence (like your friend Pendragon) is not scientific and no
|>> government should be expected to shoulder any support for courses
|>> or research with this bias.
|>
|> This type of phenomenon is observed, and this is how parapsychologists
|> are studying it, and this is how it can be studied.
That's exactly what I said. He is teaching that it's _real_. He
is teaching that it *is observed*. He is _not_ teaching that it
has only been _anecdotally_reported_, that it is not _verifyable_,
that no one can _replicate_ it, etc.. All these last properties are
the truth. By omitting them he is being intellectually dishonest.
As for teaching _how_ to study it - that's gross egotism at its
worst. First demonstrate there _is_ something to study, then try
to get a handle on how to study it. What would be appropriate to
teach would be how to set up experiments _with_adequate_controls_
to try to _detect_ the phenomena. Another appropriate thing to
teach would be how to analyze the results of others to see if there
were appropriate controls that were omitted. I've never heard that
Pendragon even _mentions_ such things. On the contrary, I _know_
that some of his remarks (all the ones I've seen) take _anecdotal_
evidence (that is, claims made with _no_controls_at_all_) at
face value.
J. Giles