From: Richard Loosemore (rpwl@lightlink.com)
Date: Mon Jan 02 2006 - 12:38:16 MST
I will take this opportunity to step in and say that I have not been
impressed by the quality of Sheldrake's work at all. I would never put
him forward as a shining example of good science. This, from reading
his early stuff and from listening to him at one conference.
Richard Loosemore.
Josh Cowan wrote:
> Anyone want to comment on "The sense of being stared at" By Rupert
> Sheldrake? For a quick overview and his response to critics from the
> Skeptical Inquirer check out:
> http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Staring/followup_full.html. Sheldrake
> claims that he's designed a replicable experiment showing approximately
> 60% of the time people can tell (when following the protocol) that they
> are being stared at. From an evolutionary standpoint being able to sense
> when someone is staring at you seems a worthwhile capability but if true
> it would fall under psi, no? If this capability is real then it might
> have some bearing on the sensory tools for AI. I tend to agree with
> CSICOP (publishers of the Skeptical Inquirer) most of the time but this
> time I'm less sure.
>
> I hope all had happy holidays... whenever they were.
>
> Josh
>
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> Yes, you are quite right: my mistake.
>>
>> I gave in to the temptation to be sarcastic. FWIW my use of Bogus
>> Tollens was not relevant to the argument anyway, since I had just
>> spent a lot of energy denying the implication.
>>
>> Mea culpa.
>>
>> Richard Loosemore
>>
>> David McFadzean wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/1/06, Richard Loosemore <rpwl@lightlink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is not to say the effect will always be impossible, just that
>>>> it is
>>>> completely invalid to suggest that BECAUSE parapsychologists cannot
>>>> produce a lottery application, THEREFORE the existence of paranormal
>>>> phenomena is suspect. Isn't there some kind of 2500-year-old rule of
>>>> logical reasoning that says that if A implies B you cannot deduce that
>>>> not-B implies not-A?
>>>
>>> No, that is a valid inference>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT