🚀 go-pugleaf

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 ..."