Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom 
I know a lot more about the UFO phenomena that about parapsychology (by the way, I did my short thesis in psychology about the UFO phenomena, before moving on the field of psychology of religion and working on the question of paranormal beliefs), so I really know that he's wrong on this topic.
|
Specifically wrong on what?
Quote:
|
So Alex comments about how Sturrock is such a "good scientist" were really funny (and made things in perspective. Any scientist whit weird beliefs is a "good scientist" for Alex, and is to take seriously according to him. After the creationist, the dog comunicator, the "Secret" guy, now even the UFO believers are "good scientists" for Alex.
|
Venom, I also heard these interviews, Alex did not endorse anyone or make such claims... he interviewed them. Can you spot the difference?
Quote:
It's really "anything goes" if it's not mainstream good science. Only mainstream "good science" is, according to Alex, just not interresting, and of course, because it's mainstream science, obviously completely wrong.  ).
|
Venom why do you think only 'mainstream' science is good science? What does science have to fear from properly conducted research into anything? 'Anything' is up for scientific investigation.
Quote:
Also, I love the part when Alex ask Sturrock if his Journal is good. And guess what... He says is Journal is good!!! Amazing. 
What a dum question. I mean you can't ask any Journal editor and expect him to say: "Oh, yes, of course my Journal is pure pseudo-science crap". Alex, what answer did you expect from him, other than "my Journal is great of course (because it's MY Journal).
I'm sure if you ask the editor of the "Answers Research Jornal" (the new creationnist "peer-review Journal"), he's also gonna tell you how great and scientific is his Journal, and how difficult is the peer-review process for his publication...  |
OK Venom, so let us use other criteria to judge the quality of science and their journals ......
The number involving blind or double-blind methodologies in a range of scientific journals.
Physical sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.) = 0%
Biological Sciences = 0.8%
Medical Sciences = 24.2%
Psychology and Animal Behaviour sciences = 4.9%
Parapsychology and Psychical Research = 85.2%
*Only papers reporting experimental results were included in this survey; theoretical papers and review articles were excluded. All publications appeared from 1996 through 1998 unless otherwise indicated.
Articles and Papers - Scientific Papers - Experimenter Effects - How Widely is Blind Assessment Used in Scientific Research?