🚀 go-pugleaf

[]

In article <926@ulowell.UUCP> dean@mind writes:
>proper experiments in the first place.  For example, look at the breakdown 
>between scientists vs. entertainers listed as Fellows of CSICOP in the 
>Skeptical Inquirer.  
>
>Who is likely to have more reliable information?  Scientists working in the 
>field or entertainers who make their living debunking that field?

This is a poor argument.  CSICOP has published many excellent critisisms of 
PSI research.  The ratio of scientists to entertainers or deoderant testers
among their Fellows is irrelevant; the substance of their critisisms are.
There are in fact very few "entertainers" among their Fellows; there are
a couple of magicians, who do in fact have special skills relevant
to examining psychic research claims.  

While experimenter fraud in PSI research is rare, *subject* fraud is definitely
not.  A magician such as James Randi is well qualified to detect situations
containing or permitting subject fraud.  Scientists are not necessarily familiar
with precautions needed to prevent subtle trickery on the part of an
experimental subject. The number of such cases which have been exposed, and
the ease with which honest researchers have been fooled by the simplest and
most blatant of conjuring tricks is ample and eloquent evidence.
-- 

Russell Williams
...!{sun|styx}!elxsi!rw