Nick Lilavois <no-email-reply at newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
news:khnestsdo91jvenaiaapd9lu7voug7op68 at 4ax.com...
> Cardinal Chunder <xxxx at xxxx.com> wrote:
> >Nick Lilavois wrote:
>> > > 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.
>> I explained that situation in my post:
> That mentality is what has hurt study in this field for
> decades, creating a catch-22. If a legitimate scientist even
> suggests it is an area worth investigating, he is labeled a
> crackpot, does not get funding, and does not get published.
> That is more than enough to scare away anyone other than
> crackpots from studying the field, thus creating a
> self-fulfilling prophecy. It is only recently that such
> studies are beginning to gain legitimacy, thanks to people
> like Professor Josephson.
>>>>> >At present this seems none too likely to happen.
>> No, attitudes are changing- there are legitimate scientists
> willing to study this field now. Did you see the links I
> provided?
>http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/index.html>http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html>
This is what they said when the Rhine Institute was first formed--then after
decades of generally positive psi research we know what a scandal their
results ultimately turned out to be. AFAIAC (and I was agnostic 'till then),
the paranormal field lost all scientific crediblity then and there. No one
will ever believe any such studies until ironclad oversight is proven--plus
for me, the blessing of Randy (the famous Magician and skeptic!)
>> >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.
>> Like I said, there is no proof yet- just a significant
> amount of evidence that there is something here beyond mere
> chance.
>
Well, remember Carl Sagan's famous comment about extraordinary claims
requiring extraordinary proof! I'll believe it when Randy does.
