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....
james@denelcor.UUCP (James Torson) (11/03/84)
Anyone who is interested in the question of whether there is real evidence for ESP and whether it is worthy of investigation should read "The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective" by Robert G. Jahn (Dean of the School of Engineering/ Applied Science, Princeton Univ.), Proc. of the IEEE, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Feb, 1982), pp. 136-170. The abstract states (in part): "... Over recent years, a sizeable spectrum of evidence has been brought forth from reputable laboratories in several desciplines to suggest that at times human consciousness can acquire information inaccessible by any known physical mechanism (ESP), and can influence the behavior of physical systems or processes (PK), but even the most rigorous and sophisticated of these studies display a characteristic dilemma: The experimental results are rarely replicable in the strict scientific sense, but the anomalous yields are well beyond chance expectations and a number of common features thread through the broad range of reported effects. ..." By the way, the author is using a computer in the study of these phenomena. Jim Torson Denelcor, Inc., Aurora, CO denelcor!james
avolio@grendel.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (11/05/84)
> Jim Torson > Denelcor, Inc., Aurora, CO > denelcor!james You know..... I *knew* Jim was going to post that article... -- Fred Avolio, DEC -- U{LTR,N}IX Support 301/731-4100 x4227 UUCP: {seismo,decvax}!grendel!avolio ARPA: grendel!avolio@seismo
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (11/05/84)
[Eat lines with a rusty diode and DIE]
Oh lord give me strength.
If you must read the work of that stouthearted Princeton engineer
then please read the appropriate critiques. Check the "Skeptical
Enquirer" for references. Personally I think the abstract statement
about the results not being significant in any formal sense just
about says it all.
Oh wow, he used a computer. I guess it must be right.
"I can't help it if my Ethan Vishniac
knee jerks" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (11/06/84)
> 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 can believe that anybody psychically insensitive enough to need to use a computer wouldn't have experienced ESP, and therefore wouldn't believe in it. AFter all, if it can't be measured in our physical laboratories then it must not exist in our physical world. Exactly. It is not of our physical world. It is of the spiritual world. We are spirits in a material world. -- exit {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems Inc.)
jhull@spp2.UUCP (11/07/84)
> 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. > > > >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. > > And we all know the earth is flat and the center of the universe. Remember that these were "'off the wall' speculations" at one time. > >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. > Really? What about the searches for various sub-atomic particles, e.g., quarks? How do you describe the research of the Rhine Institute? Furthermore, "science" deals only with repeatable phenomena and especially conditions for repeatability (see scientific method, definition of). Some phenomena are inherently unrepeatable, e.g., the Big Bang, but should that stop us from studying them? Other phenomena are, apparrently, unique, i.e., unrepeatable, at least in practice if not in theory. An example of this class of phenomena is the birth of a baby. (Oh, yeah? When did you see 2 babies with exactly the same chromosomes & genes? The same fingerprints?) Should we stop studying such phenomena? "Science" deals with this problem by classing otherwise unique phenomena by some common characteristic. My purpose in offering this is to prompt some re-evaluation of the common view of what science is and its appropriate role in our society. -- Blecsed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
north@down.FUN (Stephen C North) (11/07/84)
we report with profound embarrassment that he is using our computer. -- Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus!