Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Topher Ah! Got it. Supervision is a forbidden interpretation but superhearing is acceptable. |
Indeed. To follow your lead, we know people can hear things far away, but they can't see through buildings and hills.
Quote:
|
So, what you are saying is that solid evidence (for the acuity of hearing in dogs) should be ignored if it leads to a contradiction to your prior beliefs?
|
No, it should be taken into account quite seriously. Remember, I said that I don't think super-hearing or super-smell is the explanation. However, our alternatives are mind-reading dogs, dogs that can remote view, dogs that are prescient, etc. I just can't completely toss off the super-hearing thing, even with centuries of hearing research, in favor of these other completely nonunderstood choices.
Quote:
|
This one is, for example, designed that there are "Dogs that Know" when their owners are coming home. It doesn't say that they read their owner's minds (though there is speculation about that), that they can literally "see" their owners leaving, or that there is a specific sensory apparatus that provides that knowledge.
|
From the video: "Tommies telepathic link with his owner ..." I guess we have to use the alternate definition of
telepathic also.
Quote:
|
Yes, you have been using it incorrectly, but that is not how psi is defined.
|
Okay then, I'll start using the term psi to refer to research involving interesting sensory experiments with unknown explanations. But as soon as I hear someone make a statement in which he is assuming a "paranormal" explanation for the experiment, I'm gonna holler. I'd say that "Dogs who Know" video deserves a loud shout.
~~ Paul