From: Richard Loosemore (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Dec 30 2005 - 18:53:00 MST
Jeff Medina wrote:
> On 12/30/05, Richard Loosemore <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>What always amazes me is the ferocity of amateur scientists when dealing
>>with these issues. I use the word "amateur" advisedly: people who know
>>nothing about the actual experimental research work that has been done
>>in the parapsychology field seem perfectly happy to pronounce themselves
>>experts and hurl the most amazing torrents of abuse at scientists who
>>know a great deal more than they do. People who do that are not
>>scientists, they are scientist-wannabes.
> This is pretty hilarious, given the parapsychological credentials &
> evidence of knowledge that Sue Blackmore has in comparison to your
> lack thereof, Richard. By your own measure, welcome to
> scientist-wannabe status.
I was comparing my knowledge to yours, Jeff. I have read a couple of
hundred papers on parapsychology, presented papers myself, had one
publication and done several experiments. I organized two international
conferences on parapsychology, in 1983 and 84 and have appeared on
television and radio a couple of times, as an expert/experimenter. I
also have a qualification in mainstream psychology, and have published
in that field.
As both I and Damien have now pointed out, Sue's publication list is
long, thin and mostly irrelevant.
> It's also ignorant of the completely acceptable division of epistemic
> labor that humans practice. If physicists say John Doe's Unified
> Theory is junk, you're not a scientist-wannabe (or any other slur) for
> dismissing John Doe's claims without being a physicist.
It is, as you say, perfectly valid for someone who does not know a field
to cite someone inside that field, when it comes to choosing between
competing points of view in that field.
But you did not DO that. You attempted to dismiss an ENTIRE field by
citing one person in that field. It is amateurish to try to do such a
thing, while at the same time not having any knowledge of the actual
empirical work in that field, nor of Sue Blackmore's actual work, or her
very mediocre standing in it.
> To assert that phenomena so remarkable and world-changing as the
> paranormal would remain supressed because of some Grand Conspiracy of
> bigotry by The Scientists is so laughable and sad it hurts. If you
> can't see how implausible this is, I'm afraid you've just written off
> your cognitive credibility completely.
I said nothing whatsoever about a Grand Conspiracy, nor anything
remotely like it.
You put false words into my mouth and then denounce me for uttering them.
I do believe this was the kind of bigotry I was referring to. ;-)
End of discussion, thankfully.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 21 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT