jeffma@tekgvs.UUCP (Jeff Mayhew) (02/02/84)
"If the NOVA program on Jan. 17th seemed critical of psi research,
the skeptics would have said, 'See, they debunked psychic research
just like they did for UFOs and the Burmuda Triangle. NOVA is a
fine show, is it [sic] unbiased, and it makes sense.'"
"The fact that NOVA was, in general, positive about psi research
now makes the skeptics doubt the credibility of NOVA."
"This is one of the faulty arguments used by skeptics. For
example, Professor X, a well-respected, highly credible scientist
in field Y, has published positive evidence for psi. The fact that
he (or she) has done so clearly indicates the unbalanced nature of
his mind, and all future such evidence from him gives us just cause
to disregard him. He is now, perforce, a believer, and we know all
believers are biased."
Dean Radin
Well, now, Dean, it isn't quite clear to me who's setting up the Catch-
22 situation here. As a skeptic I must agree that, if NOVA reflected my
viewpoint on their ESP program by being critical, and the points they
used were valid criticisms, then I would agree with them. Since they
were rather uncritical, and failed to raise the issues I believe ought
to have been raised, I must disagree with them. Somehow this is
supposed to mean that I am rejecting results a priori?? "This is one of
the faulty arguments used by paranormalists. For example, Professor X,
a well-respected, highly credible scientist in field Y, has published
positive evidence for psi. The fact that there are serious questions
concerning this work should clearly not be given the same attention as
his miraculous results, as the skeptics are merely rejecting his results
as a blind, knee jerk reaction. Let's stop this persecution, and stop
picking on his experiments!!"
C'mon, Dean--I think this sort of an interchange is a waste of
everyone's time. I hope you don't want to settle an issue such as this
with glib, non sequitur innuendos about the motives of the critics (what
was that you were saying about faulty arguments??). The fact is, there
ARE serious questions concerning both the remote viewing work and the PK
work (not to mention "psychic archaeology," "psychic detectives," and
all that other stuff). I believe that NOVA did not provide the viewer
with adequate exposure to these questions. Since I'm not exactly
unversed in psychic research I feel justified in objecting to the
content of the program. I must also object to your assumption that this
means that I'm rejecting results on the basis of prejudice.
NOVA has an obligation to inform and educate rather than indoctrinate,
and I don't believe they met this obligation on the program in question.
Jeff Mayhew
Teklabs