dean@mind.UUCP (Dean Radin) (11/18/86)
The topic of psi is appropriately discussed in sci.physics because anomalous phenomena challenge aspects of our current models of the 'way things are'. Anomalies do NOT necessarily require a complete rethinking of established physical principles; they do require, at least, some revision. For the last seven years, I have been engaged, part-time and full-time, in research on a variety of anomalous perceptual and energetic phenomena. As in any discipline, there is a great deal of literature available on the topic. Much has been published in specialized journals; other reports can be found in Foundations of Physics, Journal of Applied Physics, Proceedings of the IEEE, American Psychologist, and so on. Experiments on reverse causality have been successfully replicated; so have experiments on telepathy. (Even the super-skeptical CSICOP organization has not been able to explain away all empirical results.) Unlike other scientific fields, however, psi research provokes extremely strong opinions in nearly everyone, especially in those who do not know what they are talking about. One of the reasons I rarely respond to net discussions about psi, even though I could correct some glaring errors and dispel some myths, is that this forum cannot take the place of serious study. So, in spite of my belief that the topic is worthy of serious discussion in this newsgroup, I also believe that ultimately it is a waste of net resources because most people simply aren't willing or able to put in the time and energy necessary to study the literature.
weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) (11/19/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Keywords: I have cross-posted from sci.physics and am directing followups to news.groups,sci.misc only. Metadiscussions about the contents of a group just do not belong in the group. In article <218@mind.UUCP> dean@mind.UUCP (Dean Radin) writes: >The topic of psi is appropriately discussed in sci.physics >because anomalous phenomena challenge aspects of our current >models of the 'way things are'. So does the theory that the moon is made up of green cheese. A great challenge to our current models. So what? > Anomalies do NOT necessarily >require a complete rethinking of established physical principles; >they do require, at least, some revision. Like those little "reverse causality" anomalies you mention later? >For the last seven years, I have been engaged, part-time and full-time, >in research on a variety of anomalous perceptual and energetic phenomena. >As in any discipline, there is a great deal of literature available >on the topic. Much has been published in specialized journals; >other reports can be found in Foundations of Physics, Journal of >Applied Physics, Proceedings of the IEEE, Really? Anomalous and/or strange phenomena is one thing. From ball light- ning to white holes, sure, but no one misunderstands what such discussions are about. What sort of parapsychology has there been in "Foundations of Physics"? I look through that journal frequently. Or are you yet another one of those people who don't understand EPR? > American Psychologist, >and so on. This is physics? > Experiments on reverse causality have been successfully >replicated; so have experiments on telepathy. Really? Not as often or as well documented as the negative psi-effect of having a skeptical observer around. > (Even the super-skeptical >CSICOP organization has not been able to explain away all empirical results.) They have noticed how they don't repeat except in the hands of the select few. And folks like Schmidt don't reveal their original data for some reason or other. >Unlike other scientific fields, however, psi research provokes >extremely strong opinions in nearly everyone, especially in those who >do not know what they are talking about. And these psi people, in contrast, are really up on their quantum mech- anics when they invoke it? Hah! Why do you think John Archibald Wheel- er--well known for his extreme interpretations of QM--was disgusted when AAAS put two of these quantum quackers on a panel with him? Anyone can babble impressively with a little vocabulary training. Clever Hans lives! > One of the reasons I >rarely respond to net discussions about psi, even though I could >correct some glaring errors and dispel some myths, is that this >forum cannot take the place of serious study. So why do these articles keep coming anyway? Why does your ilk keep bugging sci.physics, and not, say sci.bio? Because you are trying to grab a bit of the superb preciseness that goes with physics and palm it off as your own? I admit the moderated group mod.psi has not worked, from being physical- ly unconnected, to not having a moderator, to the group not propagating. But there is the group sci.misc, home for all miscellaneous discussions concerning science or things tangentially of interest to scientists. >So, in spite of my belief that the topic is worthy of serious discussion >in this newsgroup, I also believe that ultimately it is a waste of net >resources because most people simply aren't willing or able to put in >the time and energy necessary to study the literature. I've looked at some of the pro-psi literature, and it smacks of the low- est quality. The best they offer suffers from embarrassing design flaws. And you get a bunch of people who whorship a mysterious god called coin- cidence. Whooptie doo. Now, I believe the topic can be discussed intelligently and fairly. BUT NOT IN SCI.PHYSICS! MOVE IT ELSEWHERE! (This last comment is directed to everyone who entered the psi discussion pro or con: There is this amazing feature that most news software has allowing you to move dis- cussions to more appropriate groups. I am using it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to use it. SO USE IT, DAMMIT!) ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
dennisg@pwcs.StPaul.GOV (Dennis Grittner) (11/20/86)
I think that psi is an interesting subject and it probably
belongs SOMEWHERE on the net but.....
I read sci.physics to find out about and explore physics - not
find out and explore psi. It seems to me that the old signal to
noise ratio problem exists ( for me ) here and it prevents me
from enjoying this newsgroup.
--
Dennis Grittner, Computer Services Manager, St. Paul Public Works
U.S.Mail: Room 700 City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th St., St. Paul, Minn., 55102
A.T.&T.: (612)-298-4402 UUCP:{your path to:}ihnp4!mmm!quest!pwcs!dennisg
"developing nuclear arms for peace is like fu**ing for chastity"rpjday@watrose.UUCP (rpjday) (11/20/86)
Dean Radin (dean@mind.UUCP) writes: > The topic of psi is appropriately discussed in sci.physics > because anomalous phenomena challenge aspects of our current > models ... What anomalous phenomena!?! I assume you have something in mind that is demonstratable to a group of skeptics, anytime, anywhere, and that you are willing to put under careful scrutiny and investigation? Despite the billions of unfortunate trees butchered for the sake of parapsychology reports, there is not a SINGLE paranormal event that any real pro-psychic researchers are willing to bet their reputations on. (Well, actually, that's not quite true; those that have have invariably damaged their professional reputations beyond repair; nowadays, they're just a lot more cautious.) It's a classic case of the old adage "where there's smoke, there's fire" being misused. As far as psi is concerned, it appears that, where there's so much smoke, there's smoke. Period. > Much has been published in specialized journals; You must be referring to irresponsible, unrefereed rags like the Journal of Parapsychology, who published three (yes, 3!) separate papers discussing a college student who used the technique of multiple end points to fascinate a group of unbelievably naive investigators. This incident was discussed by the statistician Persi Diaconis, who quite clearly pointed out how most people are suckered by statistical experiments in psi since they are just not aware of what is going on, and what the corresponding probabilities are. > other reports can be found in Foundations of Physics, Journal of > Applied Physics, Proceedings of the IEEE, American Psychologist, > and so on. ... and most of these reports are not particularly high on the paranormal. Most positive results are inevitably found in journals that deal exclusively with the paranormal, and in back issues of Reader's Digest. > Experiments on reverse causality have been successfully > replicated; so have experiments on telepathy. Telepathy?? News to me. Who did this? And where? (Timesaver -- if the names Puthoff and Targ, or the organization SRI has anything to do with the answer, don't bother wasting Usenet time to reply. Same goes for Uri Geller.) > (Even the super-skeptical CSICOP organization has not been able > to explain away all empirical results.) Ah, yes, the same kind of logic used by saucer freaks to PROVE that ET's really exist. Sample, hypothetical dialogue follows: Freak: "Oh, yeah? Well, what about THAT incident??" Skeptic: "Well, that turned out to be a weather balloon in the jet stream." Freak: "Oh, YEAH? Well, what about that OTHER incident?" Skeptic: "That was part of last night's meteor shower." Freak: "Yeah?? Well, what about that over there, then?" Skeptic: "That was a hoax dreamed up by some college students, clever, huh?" Freak: "Well, what about that, then?" Skeptic: "Not sure, I haven't really looked at that, yet..." Freak: "There, you see? You can't explain it, ha!! Flying saucers really do exist!!" Can you say "unexplained", boys and girls? Good. Now, can you say "unexplainable"? Very good. Now, can you tell me the difference between these two big words? No? Oh, well. Can you say "gullible"? One of the reasons that CSICOP can't explain some of the results coming out of pro-psychic labs is that these labs outright refuse to release important transcripts of the actual experiments. Puthoff and Targ from SRI are two of the biggest offenders along this line, with respect to withholding complete transcripts of their testing of the "psychic" Pat Price of his remote-viewing powers. > Unlike other scientific fields, however, psi research provokes > extremely strong opinions in nearly everyone, especially in those who > do not know what they are talking about. Uh huh. And what about those of us who actually take the time to study the literature, both pro and con, and DO know what we are talking about? Actually, I expect that I am going to be accused of what every skeptic is eventually accused of -- not having an open mind. To this, I can only reply ... "Having an open mind is like putting out a welcome mat on the front steps and being prepared to answer the door when anyone comes calling. It does not involve throwing open the door and yelling out, 'Come on in, nobody's home'." (paraphrased -- H. L. Mencken) "I like having an open mind, but not so open that my brains leak out." (Judge Harry Stone, Night Court) "Have a nice day." "No thanks, I've made other plans ..."
DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA (11/23/86)
From: Mike Dante <DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA> The comment on people being unwilling to study the literature would be an excellent one if literature citations were supplied. It seems to me that too many respondents on this net are more interested in showing off than in studying physics. Providing references would be most helpful for genuine students (such as professional scientists) and would be much more imprssive for those who get their kicks by putting others down. -------