karn@mouton.UUCP (10/22/84)
It's obviously got to be a joke. I can't believe that anybody intelligent enough to use a computer believes in ESP. Still, it might be entertaining to see what somebody encoded into it, assuming I had the time, which I don't.... Phil
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/30/84)
In article <188@mouton.UUCP> karn@mouton.UUCP writes: >It's obviously got to be a joke. I can't believe that anybody intelligent >enough to use a computer believes in ESP. I find I'm terribly insulted by this. Don't make blind assumption on your own narrow views. 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. Look at the number of people who believe in God without similar hard proofs. The only thing I can say is: 'Don't knock it until you've tried it' chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
jlg@lanl.ARPA (10/31/84)
, Creationism, etc.) try to use the language and arguments of science to promote something which has none of the characteristics of a science. If the supporters of ESP and other pseudo-sciences were to classify their belief as metaphysical, and stop trying to make the rest of us accept their strange 'religon', that would be fine. Some have argued that these pseudo-sciences should be accepted as possible and studied out of a sense of intellectual fairness. This has two problems with it. First, it means that we have to study all new theories, even the real 'off the wall' speculations of people with no scientific background. Without any evidence of the plausibility of a theory 'a priori', it would be silly to run around checking out all these bizarre theories. Second, every time that such topic HAVE been addressed scientifically, the results are ambiguous or negative. However, the proponents of the pseudo- science then proceed to either redefine the phenomenon (making the scientific study irrelevant), or to denounce the scientific team for allegedly 'covering up' the 'truth'. Real sciences don't have this slippery effect. One tactic of the pseudo-scientist is to take his case to the general public, either in sensational reports or public pleas that the scientific community is trying to silence them. Propaganda is not a scientific technique though. And even if this ploy succeeds in converting large numbers of supporters, the scientific merit of the field hasn't improved one bit. The universe isn't a democracy - reality doesn't care what people think. Anyway, is this the correct topic for net.crypt?
jlg@lanl.ARPA (10/31/84)
> In article <188@mouton.UUCP> karn@mouton.UUCP writes: > >It's obviously got to be a joke. I can't believe that anybody intelligent > >enough to use a computer believes in ESP. > > I find I'm terribly insulted by this. Don't make blind assumption on your > own narrow views. 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. > Look at the number of people who believe in God without similar hard > proofs. The only thing I can say is: 'Don't knock it until you've tried it' > > chuq > -- > From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach > {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA > > I'd know those eyes from a million years away.... Anyone familiar with philosophy knows that there is a distinction between meta-physical and empirical subjects. Belief in God (god, gods, none) is a metaphysical question for which there is, BY DEFINITION, no empirical evidence. ESP on the other hand is proposed as an empirical reallity - even though no evidence is available to support this classification. Supporters of ESP (UFOs, Van Daniken, Creationism, etc.) try to use the language and arguments of science to promote something which has none of the characteristics of a science. If the supporters of ESP and other pseudo-sciences were to classify their belief as metaphysical, and stop trying to make the rest of us accept their strange 'religon', that would be fine. Some have argued that these pseudo-sciences should be accepted as possible and studied out of a sense of intellectual fairness. This has two problems with it. First, it means that we have to study all new theories, even the real 'off the wall' speculations of people with no scientific background. Without any evidence of the plausibility of a theory 'a priori', it would be silly to run around checking out all these bizarre theories. Second, every time that such topic HAVE been addressed scientifically, the results are ambiguous or negative. However, the proponents of the pseudo- science then proceed to either redefine the phenomenon (making the scientific study irrelevant), or to denounce the scientific team for allegedly 'covering up' the 'truth'. Real sciences don't have this slippery effect. One tactic of the pseudo-scientist is to take his case to the general public, either in sensational reports or public pleas that the scientific community is trying to silence them. Propaganda is not a scientific technique though. And even if this ploy succeeds in converting large numbers of supporters, the scientific merit of the field hasn't improved one bit. The universe isn't a democracy - reality doesn't care what people think. Anyway, is this the correct topic for net.crypt? Sorry for the duplicate - postnews here is having problems.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/01/84)
> ... 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'm afraid I tend to go along with Phil Karn, mostly. There is no real evidence for the Easter Bunny either, and I'm afraid that in the absence of it, I find I cannot believe in him. Much the same for ESP. Evidence which is not "scientifically hard" may suggest avenues of scientific investigation, but it *cannot* be cited as a substitute for the real stuff when it comes to establishing existence or nonexistence of something. I'm posting to net.crypt because that's where Chuq's comment appeared, but I suggest moving this to net.misc (or maybe net.religion...). -- "Where there's smoke, there's smoke. No further conclusion is justified." Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (11/02/84)
In article <15421@lanl.ARPA> jlg@lanl.ARPA writes: >> In article <188@mouton.UUCP> karn@mouton.UUCP writes: >> >It's obviously got to be a joke. I can't believe that anybody intelligent >> >enough to use a computer believes in ESP. >> >> I find I'm terribly insulted by this. Don't make blind assumption on your >> own narrow views. 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. >> Look at the number of people who believe in God without similar hard >> proofs. The only thing I can say is: 'Don't knock it until you've tried it' >> > >Anyone familiar with philosophy knows that there is a distinction between >meta-physical and empirical subjects. Belief in God (god, gods, none) is >a metaphysical question for which there is, BY DEFINITION, no empirical >evidence. ESP on the other hand is proposed as an empirical reallity - >even though no evidence is available to support this classification. >Supporters of ESP (UFOs, Van Daniken, Creationism, etc.) try to use the >language and arguments of science to promote something which has none of >the characteristics of a science. If the supporters of ESP and other >pseudo-sciences were to classify their belief as metaphysical, and stop >trying to make the rest of us accept their strange 'religon', that would >be fine. > >Some have argued that these pseudo-sciences should be accepted as possible >and studied out of a sense of intellectual fairness. This has two problems >with it. First, it means that we have to study all new theories, even the >real 'off the wall' speculations of people with no scientific background. >Without any evidence of the plausibility of a theory 'a priori', it >would be silly to run around checking out all these bizarre theories. > >Second, every time that such topic HAVE been addressed scientifically, the >results are ambiguous or negative. However, the proponents of the pseudo- >science then proceed to either redefine the phenomenon (making the scientific >study irrelevant), or to denounce the scientific team for allegedly 'covering >up' the 'truth'. Real sciences don't have this slippery effect. My main complaint was the blanket statement that happened to include me in a belief I don't happen to hold. I'm not asking anyone to believe or not believe in ESP (I do, for very subjective and unrepeatable reasons)-- I'm simply asking them to not brand people who don't agree with them as crazy types. The term is tolerance. My personal belief is that there is a scientific basis for many of the basic ideas behind ESP but that the knowledge of brain functions and other areas of science are not yet to the stage to allow us to understand why these things seem to exist and how to get at them in reproducible ways. Before the structure of the atom was known, an atom bomb would have been labeled as impossible-- a change of the state of the art in knowledge changed our beliefs in the possible. Abscence of proof too often is considered to be proof of absence-- any first year logic class teaches you otherwise, but we seem to forget that. Just because we haven't found it yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist-- it means it might not exist, or that we simply don't have the tools to find it. Tolerance-- believe what you wish, but give others that same right. Note that this followup is crosslinked to net.misc as this ISN'T an appropriate topic for net.crypt. Future followups to this message will show up in net.misc only (we hope). chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (11/02/84)
. >Second, every time that such topic HAVE been addressed scientifically, the >results are ambiguous or negative. However, the proponents of the pseudo- >science then proceed to either redefine the phenomenon (making the scientific >study irrelevant), or to denounce the scientific team for allegedly 'covering >up' the 'truth'. Real sciences don't have this slippery effect. I don't agree. I have seen where large established medical institutions have covered up medical discoveries by independents. Take a look at cancer research. They are just now releasing drugs that were known for their curative effects 20 years ago. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
jlh@loral.UUCP (Walter Mitty) (11/05/84)
FLAME ON!!!!! WHAT THE F*CK IS GOING ON HERE!! I'VE HEARD OF THINGS BEING POSTED TO INAPPROPRIATE NEWSGROUPS BUT WHY THE HELL ARE YOU DISCUSSING GOD AND RELIGION AND ESP AND OTHER COWTURDS IN NET.CRYPT??? FLAME OFF. Please move all this BS to other newsgroups. And Chuq, this is the last thing I expected from you.
jlg@lanl.ARPA (11/07/84)
> . > > >Second, every time that such topic HAVE been addressed scientifically, the > >results are ambiguous or negative. However, the proponents of the pseudo- > >science then proceed to either redefine the phenomenon (making the scientific > >study irrelevant), or to denounce the scientific team for allegedly 'covering > >up' the 'truth'. Real sciences don't have this slippery effect. > > I don't agree. I have seen where large established medical > institutions have covered up medical discoveries by > independents. Take a look at cancer research. They are > just now releasing drugs that were known for their curative > effects 20 years ago. > -- > > Robert A. Pease > {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap Cancer researchers seldom (if ever) cover up anything. Medical discoveries by 'independents' are usually widely touted by their proponents. The medical community at large doesn't attempt to cover up these discoveries - though they may advise people not to try the new stuff until it has been thoroughly tested. 'Independents', by that very fact are rarely in a position to pay for the kind of thorough testing required by the FDA, and until the new discovery is authorized by the FDA it would be irresponsible for any physician to recommend its use. The recent flood of new drugs onto the market was a result of the relaxation of certain FDA testing requirements. Even so, there are drugs with curative potential which are still not available, and probably won't be for awhile, because they haven't passed the required tests. I think this is completely appropriate for an industry which is so directly involved with the very lives of its consumers. As for cancer researchers 'covering up' unusual 'cures', I guess you are refering to laetril or something like that. Although there is well documented evidence of the bad side effects of laetril, there is no evidence that it has any beneficial effect on cancer. If such a drug were to be authorized, it would be a case where the 'cure' was worse than the disease - which is already a problem with some cancer treatments which are KNOWN to have beneficial effects.
cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper) (11/07/84)
LINES: 70 This really doesn't belong in net.crypt but since it has come up here I will reply here. <<A note came into net.general asking for help. A subject in an ESP (sic) experiment, who had been thinking onto a magnetic tape had died during a run. The subject, Albert Hall, while dying had pointed desperately at the tape before kicking off. The problem: decode the tape by applying a random collection of UNIX(tm) utilities to it. A fair amount of discussion ensued in net.crypt on the basis that the problem is essentially cryptographic in nature>> This message is clearly a hoax. First, without going into detail here, the author shows little knowledge of the field of parapsychology, either the terminology or experimental standards. This establishes the author as either incompetent or a charlatan. As the author him/her-self points out the field attracts many people in both categories. Second, the dramatic scene of Bert, dying of a heart attack, recording his final thoughts on tape is lifted directly from a recent SF movie entitled "Brainstorm". Third, Bert's name is obviously phony. The Royal Albert Hall is the name of a large concert hall in London. While I don't doubt that there are parents with the poor taste to name their children "Albert Hall", this plus the second point stretches my credulity past the breaking point. However, much of the discussion took as its starting point that there is "no scientifically hard evidence for ESP." This is simply not true. There exists a great deal of scientifically hard evidence. Though it has some "inelegant" characteristics, it is many times what would be required to establish a less controversial hypothesis. The question is not whether or not their is hard evidence but whether there is enough to overcome our (very reasonable) a priori theoretical bias against it. If your only source of information about parapsychology is "The Skeptical Inquirer" then you are somewhat in the position of having publications from the American Tobacco Institute as your only source of information about the health risks of tobacco. SI publishes a lot of good work but it is very selective about its targets. For the other side of things I would suggest a careful (even skeptical) reading of back issues of the "Journal of Parapsychology" and of the "Journal of the American Society For Psychical Research." If you can't get these, then I recommend the excellent (though necessarily rather limited) survey found in the Proceedings of the IEEE, February 1982 (Vol. 70, #2). It's entitled "The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective", and its by Robert G. Jahn, who is the Dean of the Princeton University School of Engineering. One final point ... Chuq stated a personal belief in ESP despite the lack of scientific evidence, presumably on the basis of personal experience. lanl!jlg responded with a discussion of the difference between empirical and "meta-physical" (sic) subjects. The claim being that ESP is a pseudo-science unjustly claiming empirical rather than metaphysical status. This is not a fair response to Chuq's comments. If I see ball lightning rolling down the street towards me, than this is strong, legitimate evidence for the empirical existence of ball lightning. It is likely to convince me of the reality of the phenomenon, even if it is not yet accepted by the scientific community (as it wasn't until relatively recently) and even if I don't have a camera so as to collect SCIENTIFIC evidence so as to convince others. My belief in ball lightning would be empirical and accusations of metaphysics or pseudo-science would be unjustified. This would be so even if my interpretation was wrong and what I had observed was, for example, an afterimage of an ordinary lightning flash. Ultimately, personal observation is the basis of all empirical evidence. Topher USENET: ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper ARPA: cooper%pbsvax@decwrl.ARPA CSNET: cooper%pbsvax@decwrl.CSNET work phone: (617)568-5819 home phone: (617)646-4018