ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (01/15/84)
#R:cbosgd:-83200:ucbesvax:6000014:000:955
ucbesvax!turner Jan 14 12:38:00 1984
/***** ucbesvax:net.misc / cbosgd!dir / 8:49 am Jan 14, 1984*/
Subject: Psychic Warfare - an informed opinion
2. Yes, the Soviets and associated Iron Curtain countries are
doing research in military and political uses of 'psi',
and we know (1)...
...(2) their political philosophy is not
prone to supporting anything that might smack of mysticism,
thus we are fairly sure they are serious about it and they
at least feel they're not wasting their money,...
We *are* talking about the same people who brought us T.D. Lysenko?
And I believe there was an official position for some years that
quantum mechanics was just a lot of bourgeois fulminating. To quote a
friend of mine (the first translator into English of Marx's mathematical
manuscripts): "You can prove *anything* with dialectical materialism."
How much more mystical than that can you get?
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)emjej@uokvax.UUCP (01/21/84)
#R:cbosgd:-83200:uokvax:3800006:000:783 uokvax!emjej Jan 19 21:31:00 1984 I saw said *Nova* episode on ESP. I was *EXTREMELY* offended; the program on nuclear energy at least made some attempt at rational discussion amid the technophobes... Consider the relative amounts of time given to the three (if my count was correct) skeptics vs. a much larger number of believers. Nowhere in the program was there evidence that they talked to a magician, or bothered to read the skeptical literature at all (I'd have been very interested in hearing from Lev Tepolov, a Soviet newsman whose articles on psychics in the USSR are said to be scathing). This is supposed to be the premier TV program on science? Ah, well; PBS meets Fred Silverman... "They laughed at Copernicus; they laughed at Galileo; they laughed at Bozo the Clown." James Jones
dir@cbosgd.UUCP (Dean Radin) (01/22/84)
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 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 - AT&T Bell Laboratories - Columbus - cbosgd!dir
edhall@randvax.UUCP (01/25/84)
-------------------------------- I think that all the skeptics are saying is that `extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'. Even in much more mundane areas of science an unreplicable experiment is never considered proof, no matter how positive the result. The history of parapsychology is so fraught with instances of fraud and cheating that the need for tightly-controlled, replicable experiments is considerably greater than in other fields, where deceit has only been a small (though existent) problem. Unfortunately, scientists are probably the easiest of groups to fool, as their trust in a logical and consistant world gives little room for a consideration of deception. Thus the skeptic's insistance that an expert in the art of deception--a professional magician--participate in the experimental design and be present at the experiment. Doing such is no less appropriate than electrical shielding of sensitive equipment, sealing chemicals against contamination, and other such routine matters of experimental design. And practically all `parapsychologists' resist efforts towards tighter controls in their experiments, *especially* the participation of a magician. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall (UUCP) edhall@rand-unix (ARPA)
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (01/28/84)
#R:cbosgd:-83200:uokvax:3800014:000:1721 uokvax!emjej Jan 26 10:03:00 1984 >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. It certainly does. If they had renamed the program "The Case *for* ESP", there would be no reason to complain (at least on that point). >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. Here we see one of the dodges of the parapsychologists, namely painting themselves as the voice of sweet reason and open-mindedness. In the situation mentioned, there's no *a priori* reason to disregard Professor X's papers--*IN FIELD Y* (well, assuming he doesn't drag "psi" into them), just as there's no *a priori* reason to believe Professor X's parapsychology papers. Expertise in one field needn't carry over into another (otherwise I might try having one of my math professors remove my tonsils--what with the university's financial situation, he might do it for less than a medical doctor would), and past experience shows that the expertise needed in studies of "psi" is knowledge of deceit (including logical and statistical fallacies) and statistics. James Jones