From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jan 03 2006 - 13:29:52 MST
My comment was not a reply to any statement made in this specific
thread, in particular from you or from Damien. I thought I was not
quoting anyone, but I quoted Damien's reply. I already apologized to
Damien offlist. It was a general comment on psi research.
And yes, I see a lot of "religious fervor" on both camps, I would say
On 1/3/06, Richard Loosemore <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> > Scientific methodology says that, if the result of the experiment is
> > that the apple falls, then the apple falls, and if the result of the
> > experiment is that the apple does not fall, then the apple does not
> > fall.
> > Unfortunately in this field (it is not the only one of course) there
> > is disagreement on what experimental statistics have actually shown
> > and how future experiments should be designed.
> > I would be interested in seing some experimental result that actually
> > proves something one way or another. I can imagine hundreds of
> > possible scientific mechanisms for psi effects, or in other words
> > hundreds of possible universes with psi, of course the issue is not
> > whether I can imagine a universe with psi, but whether psi actually
> > happens in our universe. I would say to the experts, try to design and
> > perform more and better experiments.
> > But I sense some "religious fervor" in both camps that does not seem
> > too scientific.
> > G.
> You have just said two things that many others have said in this
> discussion, with various different choices of phrasing:
> 1) "I would be interested in seing some experimental result
> that actually proves something one way or another."
> 2) "I sense some "religious fervor" in both camps that does
> not seem too scientific."
> My responses are:
> 1) Damien and I have repeatedly stated that there are enormous numbers
> of experimental reports published in journals, any of which could be
> read by anyone on this list if they wished. There are literally
> hundreds (and quite likely thousands) of reported experiments, of
> varying quality, but all conforming to the best standards of the
> research that you would find in, say, the mainstream psychology
> literature. But in spite of the fact that Damien and I have said this,
> the responders have carried on repeating the myth that there are no
> reliable experiments, and that they would like to see some.
> All sorts of objections have been raised, but these have either been
> addressed by Damien and I (mostly by Damien, who has had more patience
> than I), or we have pointed out that the objections are well known and
> have been considered in great depth in the parapsychology journals.
> Some of these objections, while sincere and carefully considered, are so
> easy to refute that it is almost embarrassing. (Would anyone like to
> succintly summarize what the objections are, btw?).
> So: people request an "experimental result that actually proves
> something one way or another" and we point out where those results can
> be found and mention the degree of reliability you will find when you
> read the reports. But then what happens? We find ourselves getting hit
> with the same question, over and over, as if we had said nothing!
> 2) Ummmm .... where is the "unscientific religious fervor", exactly?
> When have Damien and I been doing this? All we have tried to do is
> summarize what people would find if they read the published scientific
> literature on the subject.
> Please, if you would, catalog the examples of "unscientific religious
> fervor" that you find objectionable in the two camps and give us a
> summary of percentages. The percentage of ad hominem abuse? The
> number of times that someone has said something that does not involve
> pointing people toward empirical data?
> [NO, please don't: it would be a monstrous waste of your time! The
> request was rhetorical.]
> Richard Loosemore.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT