[GaSS PaNiCC]

Originally Posted by Opcnup

1) You aren't changing the minds of the scientific comunity, if you are changing the minds of anyone its the lay comunity. But you aren't being skeptical in the sense that skeptics claim, or the sense that critics of skeptics claim that skeptics follow. Also, Creation science picked up its name because they want to redirect public oppinon, that doesn't make what they do any more attractive to scientists or any less of a misnomer, you are from what I hear an honest guy, don't play by their playbook, its beneath you.

2) I will listen to the raiden interview, but based on what he said in the clips he has zero credibility, he admited to doing something that is a huge scientific no-no.

3) I've heard some criticism of sheldrake, but I haven't really followed the issue. Just because other skeptics have not criticised him much doesn't mean that you shouldn't be more critical.

4) I disagree, its just that real research holds up to skepticism, just because you feel that it is real research doesn't mean you can give it a free ride and still claim that you are being skeptical of it.

GP It doesn't have to be bunk, however if you want to claim to be a skeptic you have to put research that has not been put to the test to the test. There are major components of psi research that are absolutely bunk and you would be lyeing if you disagreed with me on that issue, in science, real science, the burden of proof is on the unestablished notions, parapsychoilogy is unestablished to the default oppinion has to be that it is false for science to take place, then it needs to be proven that it is true, and you cannot prove anything without testing the studies, since they don't go to other scientists and instead go straight to the public skeptics have got to step in to stop them from running wild and keep them doing science, Alex isn't stoping them and grilling them, ergo he isn't being a skeptic, ergo Skeptiko is a misnomer; QED.

lol firstly alex is putting research into it he is interviewing the people directly for frig sakes lol. So is he supposed to find flaws in the controversial work without even consulting the scientists studying it? I think that is what your implying, the kind of skepticism your referring to is good to debunk people like John Edwards or Peter Popoff, but it DOES NOT work in the laboratory i'm sorry. That is where you need to do your homework before making conclusions, and not make them based on deluded assumptions. This is why you see so much tension with psi, people misinterpret what is being studied and clearly are not going to be taken seriously. I think you need to redefine your definition of skepticism in relation to science. I know where you're coming from, but the definition you provide does not relate in the context of science which is what this program is all about.