rick@iddic.UUCP (Rick Coates) (11/03/84)
<> I know that this (net.crypt) is not the correct newsgroup, so I am also posting to net.sci. Chuq writes: > I agree, there is no scientifically hard evidence for ESP > these days, but the lack of evidence doesn't prove the lack of the ability. I do not want to get into a heated controversy (Chuq seems like a good guy); but the lack of evidence is, indeed, the only possible proof of a lack of ability. I can prove the existence in a variety of ways, but the only proof of non-existence is a lack of evidence. The lack may be very thorough (as in the case of psi phenomena), but it is still a lack of evidence. This is not a nit-picking issue -- the nature of the proof is important in evaluating how valid a claim is. The periodical "Free Inquiry" has a very good article about the nature of scientific proofs in the current issue. "The Skeptical Inquirer" is an excellent source of information on paranormal phenomena. Rick Coates ...!tektronix!iddic!rick
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (11/06/84)
X From: rick@iddic.UUCP (Rick Coates)
X Chuq writes:
X
X >I agree, there is no scientifically hard evidence for ESP
X >these days, but the lack of evidence doesn't prove the lack of the ability.
X
X I do not want to get into a heated controversy (Chuq seems like a good guy);
X but the lack of evidence is, indeed, the only possible proof of a lack of
X ability. I can prove the existence in a variety of ways, but the only
X proof of non-existence is a lack of evidence. The lack may be very thorough
X (as in the case of psi phenomena), but it is still a lack of evidence.
X
X This is not a nit-picking issue -- the nature of the proof is important in
X evaluating how valid a claim is.
What if you are trying to decrypt some information, and no matter what
you have done, you have been unable to obtain anything meaningful.
Does that mean there is no message? All you can decide about the
contents is whether you want to stop looking.
(I have no proof that you have a nose. Therefore, you don't have one.)
To >prove< non-existence of something, you would have to do something like
prove 1> that the something produces a symptom,
and that the symptom is not present. (that is, if said symptom is a
known, measurable thing, or countable, if it is encrypted stuff)
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
^ ^jlg@lanl.ARPA (11/09/84)
> X From: rick@iddic.UUCP (Rick Coates) > X Chuq writes: > X > X >I agree, there is no scientifically hard evidence for ESP > X >these days, but the lack of evidence doesn't prove the lack of the ability. > X > X I do not want to get into a heated controversy (Chuq seems like a good guy); > X but the lack of evidence is, indeed, the only possible proof of a lack of > X ability. I can prove the existence in a variety of ways, but the only > X proof of non-existence is a lack of evidence. The lack may be very thorough > X (as in the case of psi phenomena), but it is still a lack of evidence. > X > X This is not a nit-picking issue -- the nature of the proof is important in > X evaluating how valid a claim is. > > What if you are trying to decrypt some information, and no matter what > you have done, you have been unable to obtain anything meaningful. > Does that mean there is no message? All you can decide about the > contents is whether you want to stop looking. > (I have no proof that you have a nose. Therefore, you don't have one.) > > To >prove< non-existence of something, you would have to do something like > prove 1> that the something produces a symptom, > and that the symptom is not present. (that is, if said symptom is a > known, measurable thing, or countable, if it is encrypted stuff) > > Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp > ^ ^ I have no proof that you have a nose - therefore I don't BELEIVE that you have one (Tycho Brahe didn't). If you try to decode a message, and no matter what you do you can't get sense out of it, then you can't conclude ANYTHING about the message that is encoded there. It may, in fact, not exist (noise on the data channel). Indeed, if you've tried eveything you know, you may as well stop looking since whatever the message is, you can't find it. The same is true of ESP. Lack of evidence is sufficient reason to stop looking (at least stop looking in the places that have yielded no evidence). It's not beyond the realm of possibility that future researchers will have a better idea where to look, and may even find something. But quit pointing to the same bankrupt anecdotal evidence that has not yielded anything in the past, and certainly quit theorizing about the nature of something that has yet to be reliably observed.
jlg@lanl.ARPA (11/10/84)
Sorry about the last posting here. I intended to respond to net.sci only. But since the original article was double posted, so was my response. All further discussion on this topic from me will be on net.sci.