Quote:
Originally Posted by Open Mind  Skidoo, to be honest I didn't think it was worthy of a response.  |
Oh that's nice.
Quote:
|
(Misinterpretation 1) I did not ask you for a definition of 'scientific skepticism', I clearly asked you to name 'scientific skeptics' and their published research.
|
It was clear from your earlier post that you didn't know the definition of
scientific skepticism, and it's clear from this post that you still don't.
Please try again.
Quote:
(Misinterpretation 2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skidoo Quote:
Originally Posted by Open Mind I think the analogy is fine. The 'solar neutrino problem' was a major discrepancy between measurements for 4 decades. Most solar neutrinos have energies that are below the detection thresholds for the heavy water detectors, therefore one could have a contrived a 'noise' argument until more recent years. | Huh? How do you "contrive" a noise argument in this context? Scientists had a theoretical model of the sun that predicted more neutrinos impacting the earth than what they were actually seeing. And in fact, after evaluating all of the evidence over time, the scientists actually self-adjusted one of their most fundamental models to account for apparent neutrino mass. | Skidoo, the analogy here could be pseudo-scientists (having done half baked research) also are contriving a noise theory.
|
What? This just doesn't parse. Let me help you out here.
You're saying that Dr. Novella et al are dismissing positive psi effects as noise ("contriving a noise theory"), when in reality there could be something there. You're attempting to support this position by comparing psi to solar neutrinos. You're saying that the inconsistent test results that found "hidden" neutrinos could have been dismissed as mere noise and those smallest neutrinos would have been consigned to eternal obscurity.
This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the solar neutrino problem. It wasn't the case that these scientists were detecting neutrinos they weren't expecting. They had the solar model, they were expecting to find a certain number of neutrinos, but they found far less. So they hunted. In other words, your analogy is inappropriate. Not that it would've helped your argument anyway.
Quote:
|
The evidence for psi has been reported by scientists (who have done the better research) for 80 years in labs (parapsychology) and even longer outside labs (psychical research).
|
80 years, and so much to show for it....
Quote:
|
It is just matter of time before psi is accepted.
|
Uh-huh. Sure.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by skidoo This is irrelevant. The physical model -- all of its parts intricately interrelated -- makes predictions. About neutrinos, among other things. Those predictions come true. Repeatedly. And when there is a discrepancy, the model is updated if necessary. | You just are looking mid process. Psi will most probably be one day be accepted, probably when some other stronger (non-psi) phenomenon is eventually discovered modifying theoretical physics, making predictions about the existence of psi.
|
There's this teapot I'd like to tell you about. It's in outer space. I'd like you to research it. I'd like you spend lots of money researching it. Sure, there's absolutely no evidence for it beyond meaningless anecdotes and a few dim telescope images taken by some sketchy "astronomers" (images that all reasonable people can't help but note look suspiciously similar to the Crab Nebula). But I want you to dedicate your resources to it just the same.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by skidoo There really is nothing there. No one is conspiring to squelch a bunch of positive psi experiment results. The fruits of psi research through history simply are what they are: Non-existent. | '....the overall results of parapsychological experimentation are indicative of an anomalous process of information transfer, and they are not marginal and neither are they impossible to replicate. |
Then why aren't they being studied? Because the potential implications are just not very interesting? Come on, seriously.
Quote:
In the face of this, the critic who merely goes on asserting there is no evidence for psi is using a tactic reminiscent of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraq’s former information Minister, in blindly asserting there are no American troops in Baghdad....'
Dr Adrian Parker, 'A compendium of evidence for psi' |
You're joking right? You're dredging up that crap Adrian Parker paper that was published by (guess who?)
Adrian Parker?
Any opinion (Dr. Parker's or anyone else's) based on that demonstrably shoddy meta-analysis (want examples?) counts for squat.