dir@cbosgd.UUCP (Dean Radin) (01/17/84)
Some lessons about science:
Well, psychic phenomena may be possible, but the history of discussion of
psychic phenomena is riddled with fradulent claims and with rather gassy
speculation on little hard evidence.
(Therefore it is valid to ignore all future evidence,
even 'hard' evidence, no matter who presents such
evidence, because it's probably fradulent.)
If there are serious and rigorous studies of psi being done, their signal
gets drowned out by the noise of the Uri Gellers and the people joyfully
telling us how quantum mechanics tells us all how we can read minds,
travel in time, and live forever.
(Therefore why bother listening to informed opinion?
The effort involved in sifting the wheat from the chaff
is probably too difficult anyway.)
... I'm not inclined to be too harsh on those who dismiss it out of hand
simply because the likelihood of something useful coming out of such studies
is worth less to them than the time and energy it would take to investigate
psychic powers....
(Therefore scientific investigations should be balanced against
the likelihood of their a priori finding 'something useful.')
Not all heterodox opinions and reported unusual happenings are worth
investigating; life is short and people have other things to do as well.
(Therefore we are justified in ridiculing those who find
such investigations worthwhile. Come now, there's no
room for mystery and the imprecise in science.)
Dean Radin - AT&T Bell Laboratories - Columbus - cbosgd!dirguy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (01/17/84)
Don't put words in my mouth.
Well, psychic phenomena may be possible, but the history of discussion of
psychic phenomena is riddled with fradulent claims and with rather gassy
speculation on little hard evidence.
(Therefore it is valid to ignore all future evidence,
even 'hard' evidence, no matter who presents such
evidence, because it's probably fradulent.)
Did I say this? NO. I didn't say *anywhere* that it was valid to ignore
all future evidence. I would, however, be far more careful in examining
claims made in favor of psychic phenomena.
If there are serious and rigorous studies of psi being done, their signal
gets drowned out by the noise of the Uri Gellers and the people joyfully
telling us how quantum mechanics tells us all how we can read minds,
travel in time, and live forever.
(Therefore why bother listening to informed opinion?
The effort involved in sifting the wheat from the chaff
is probably too difficult anyway.)
Did I say that it wasn't worth listening to informed opinion? Again, NO.
What I said was that the overwhelming majority of the opinion seems to
be on the level of the National Midnight Star, and that I'm not about to
harshly censure someone for dismissing most evidence for psychic phenomena
out of hand.
... I'm not inclined to be too harsh on those who dismiss it out of hand
simply because the likelihood of something useful coming out of such studies
is worth less to them than the time and energy it would take to investigate
psychic powers....
(Therefore scientific investigations should be balanced against
the likelihood of their a priori finding 'something useful.')
Yes! By "something useful coming out of such studies" I mean finding hard
evidence for or against psychic powers. It's not worth spending tons of
effort just to produce *another* case of "well, he said he was psychic but
he was just another clever stage magician."
Not all heterodox opinions and reported unusual happenings are worth
investigating; life is short and people have other things to do as well.
(Therefore we are justified in ridiculing those who find
such investigations worthwhile. Come now, there's no
room for mystery and the imprecise in science.)
Dean, I think a worthwhile investigation might be to see if you have telepathy,
so you don't have to guess at what somebody meant when they said something.
Your guesses haven't come out very well; in fact, they came out as worse than
chance. If you want to be paranoid that sceptics are out to make fun of
you, go ahead, but don't try to present it as reasoned argument. I don't
say one way or the other whether psychic phenomena exist or not; however,
enough reported "psychic phenomena" have turned out to be bullshit that
I see no point in chasing after sketchy reports and anecdotes. (Also, it
might be useful if certain defenses such as "well, having skeptics around
spoils the effect, so *of course* they don't see anything!", which I've heard
has been used, were recognized as bluntly saying that psychic phenomena are
not amenable to scientific investigation. Any phenomenon that only occurs
when people who don't believe in that phenomenon are around is rather hard
to believe in. People need not fudge data to invalidate it; they need merely
interpret such data through their own biases.)
Guy Harris
{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy