Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Noble  When Alex blurted out in one of his podcasts that "Dogs-that-know are real and we're gonna prove it" he made his bias very clear.
I don't think that Alex is being deliberately dishonest but I do think that he is liable to fall into the typical patterns of self-delusion that true-believers are prone to.
We've got Alex who wants to prove that dogs are psychic and an owner who wants her dog to be psychic.
We've got a "first" trial that occurred two days after the "second" trial and some inconsistency about the total number of trials.
Why shouldn't I be skeptical? |
That is like dismissing an experimenter who said "Gravity waves a re real, and I am going to prove it!" - or dismissing a skeptic who said "Ψ is bunk and I am going to prove it!" - scientists are human beings as well, you know.
David