cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) (10/23/85)
SUMMARY: Rather than the usual multilevel quotations I will attempt to
summarize. If anyone thinks I have summarized incorrectly then I will gladly
re-post the original.
ROSEN -- tells a story about Steven Hawking who discovered that some ostensible
paranormal effect which he studied disappeared upon enforcement of scientific
rigor (I guess that means controls). "Of course, there are always those who
will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an atmosphere of disbelief
in which such phenomena cannot appear."
I -- indicated (over several exchanges with others) that I thought that the
statement was a straw man, since I did not think that it was likely that any
parapsychologist had ever said it. Since the context was about scientific
evidence, psychics and the statements of other non-parapsychologists seemed
irrelevant. I pointed out that complaining about specific controls as
inappropriately interfering with the process was not the same as claiming that
all controls automatically preclude psi.
BALTER -- indicates that "major psi types like Thelma Moss" use the excuse.
I -- asked for a citation.
ROSEN -- repeats his claim that parapsychologists make such a claim "every
time serious scientific rigor shows up what they claim to be true." In
response to my statement about Dr. Moss he said the same thing again.
END OF SUMMARY
Rich, dogmatically repeating yourself is not equivalent to presenting evidence
for your claims. In over a decade of involvement with parapsychology, I have
heard no such statement made by a parapsychologist (though this is not the
first time I have heard similar statements rather vaguely attributed to
parapsychologists by critics). If you know of any who have, Dr. Moss or
others, give at least a vague citation. Where did you hear or read this?
Statements by psychics, "demonologists" or other non-scientists do not count.
Common knowledge also does not count.
If you simply repeat the statement again, I will take it as an admission that
you actually know of no such claim ever being put forward by a parapsychologist.
In other words, that (heaven forbid) Rich Rosen was wrong.
Topher Cooper
USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper
ARPA/CSNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl
Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for
them.rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/23/85)
> Rich, dogmatically repeating yourself is not equivalent to presenting evidence > for your claims. In over a decade of involvement with parapsychology, I have > heard no such statement made by a parapsychologist (though this is not the > first time I have heard similar statements rather vaguely attributed to > parapsychologists by critics). If you know of any who have, Dr. Moss or > others, give at least a vague citation. Where did you hear or read this? > Statements by psychics, "demonologists" or other non-scientists do not count. > Common knowledge also does not count. > > If you simply repeat the statement again, I will take it as an admission that > you actually know of no such claim ever being put forward by a parapsycho- > logist. In other words, that (heaven forbid) Rich Rosen was wrong. > > Topher Cooper Given that I don't collect research on parapsychology, don't count on my either repeating the statement or supporting it. I have read enough about it to know that this claim IS made when real serious scientists (not those baised and looking to "prove" the notions, often ignoring scientific rigor themselves in the process) demand rigor in experimental situations. Proponents of psi have insisted that this is a "bias" in and of itself, that insisting on rigor interferes with the atmosphere necessary for the phenomena to occur. Again (unfortunately), I'm not a collector of material on the subject, but I feel sure that those who are will produce examples (if they read this newsgroup). You would seem to agree (regardless of whether or not it has been said) that such an assertion is a sham. In any case, the whole basis of the research into such phenomena is as fundamentally flawed as religious belief (for many it seems to be a "modern" substitute for "ancient" religion, much as some people turn to eastern belief systems to substitute for the western ones). Working from the assumption that the phenomena do exist (wishful thinking in and of itself), they engage in research to "prove" this, but along the way they interpret the data AS THOUGH THE CONCLUSION WAS TRUE, thus "proving" the conclusion. An example: in ESP testing, some percentage of correct answers is considered statistically average (i.e., if you were to just pick randomly the likelihood would be that you would get, say, 20%). A much higher percentage is taken as "evidence" of ESP, but then SO IS an extremely LOW percentage! (Wow, that much of a deviation from probability? It "must" be some psychic phenomenon involved!) -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr