Nick Lilavois wrote:
> Cardinal Chunder <xxxx at xxxx.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael Painter wrote:
>>
>>> Newton was a nut also. Read the whole article to see what others
>>> think about this.
>>>
>
>> Newton isn't even mentioned in the article, but regardless his
>> ideas might have been "out there" but he had the proof to back
>> them up.
>>
>> The same cannot be said of *anything* paranormal where there is
>> not the slightest shred of proof that psychic powers, telepathy
>> or clairvoyancy exist in any way, shape or form.
>>
>
> Wrong. Don't let your preconceptions and personal beliefs color your
> scientific objectivity- that was Brian Josephson's point.
My beliefs on this matter are only coloured by the fact that there no
proper scientific research to back up such claims. The field of the
paranormal is littered with plenty of flawed research, pseudo-science,
mumbo-jumbo, speculations, distortions and hearsay. If a REAL research
paper appeared that could withstand proper scientific scrutiny then I
would have no problem in altering my views.
At present this seems none too likely to happen. Frankly I would have
thought researchers into such stuff would be falling over themselves to
produce proper proof. I mean, imagine the plaudits that would be
bestowed on the person who finally proved beyond doubt that telepathy
existed! And let's not forget a certain 1 million dollar prize that's on
offer either, plus a lifetime of lucrative book deals and chat show
appearances.