🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec16.153024.27099@netcom.com>, friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin) writes:
:In <Dec.16.03.36.32.1992.28195@ruhets.rutgers.edu:farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
:
:>	2) All claims, for or against, based on documented evidence.
:
:Lorenzo, I'm afraid that if you really enforce #2, alt.hypnosis will
:cease to exist.  I don't know of any replicable experiments or falsi-
:fiable theories which completely explain the phenomenon ('tho those of
:you with a more academic inclination might be able to offer us some
:from the literature; I, for one, would be interested in seeing them).
:

As I said, they were just suggestions. My own approach to this, since
many of my areas of interest haven't been very good for applying the
scientific method, per se, is to base what I say based on what I have
experienced personally, examining this with liberal use of Occam's and
Hanlon's razors.

I think the sceptics of various phenomena often reject things out of
hand, assuming that if it doesn't fit in with their belief system
(BS), it can't be. If they were prepared to present, and open-mindedly
discuss their experiential evidence, we could have much more fruitful
discussions on all my favorite groups, with 'believers' perhaps
getting a little better grounded, and sceptics opening their minds a
little more.

:
:In those newsgroups where a referee is used, orthodoxy prevails, IME.

I didn't want to suggest a standard newsnet-type referee. I was
actually thinking of a open "referee", who would present comments on
the presentation of both sides, and indicate infringement of any
'rules of discussion', explicitly, with posts to the group.

			-lorenzo


				
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************