Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bailey  SkepticInYourHead,
A big part of why I became more open to the concept of ? was the realisation that absolutely no evidence for what can loosely be described as ?-effects is ever accepted by the skeptics. As a last resort they fall back on accusations of fraud or vague philosophical considerations such as yours regarding Sherlock Homes! From what Alex has said, his transition to a believer in ? has been based on similar experiences while making his podcasts. |
Becoming a believer because the skeptics are mean is hardly a good reason.
Quote:
|
When I saw that video, I was impressed the cleanness and strength of the 'signal' and immediately started thinking of further experiments that might be possible. I guess you saw it differently!
|
Given that the criteria for identifying the 'signal' were only discovered after the trials were done I am not as impressed as you. Wait and see if it is reproducible and remains when the controls are tightened. That is assuming that Alex permits the controls to be tightened.
Quote:
|
You may be right that there is a conventional explanation for that that dog obviously knows, but you have to admit, that science has done a pretty good job of ignoring this (rather well known) phenomenon up to now!
|
Most scientists would not think that there is anything extraordinary to be explained.
One thing that is certain is that if there is a conventional explanation then Alex will never find it because he is not interested in pursuing conventional explanations.