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