Quote:
Originally Posted by ktb973  30 episodes is the same thing as doing 30 years of research, as many skeptics have done. |
Now wait a minute here. Are you saying that many skeptics have done 30 years of active, experimental research? My read is that while skeptics often
criticize parapsychological work, they seldom - if ever - do any of their own. Take for instance the fact that in Ray Hyman's
The Elusive Quarry, which includes most of his papers on parapsychology up until 1989, there is only
one report of original research on Hyman's part. Furthermore, that study was done in cooperation with a parapsychologist, in the parapsychologist's own lab.
Or, take the fact that in
A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology, a 700+ pages tome on skepticism and the paranormal where various leading skeptics contribute, there is - again -
only one article on original research, and that is Susan Blackmore's. And she hasn't done 30 years of research.
Now tell me, where are the skeptics that have done all this research you are talking about? And I hope you're talking experimental science and not debunking, because that's not research (unless there has been some kind of experimental protocol involved). Furthermore, the research should have been published the way scientific research is being published, that is in peer-reviewed journals. Does James Randi or his colleagues report their tests in any such journal? Now should we take tests that aren't being published, that aren't being criticized and looked over by peers, seriously? How can we, in these cases, be sure everything has been done correctly?