How did it go with the staring experiment?

[The Swede]

Didn't Sheldrake get debunked? Or am I wrong?

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychi...randomization/

http://archived.parapsych.org/papers/07.pdf

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by The Swede

Didn't Sheldrake get debunked? Or am I wrong?

If you think he was debunked, present your evidence. Don't make unfounded accusations.

[paqart]

I'll agree with Sandy. Present some justification for the question if you want to start a serious thread. Otherwise, it may have to go away.

AP

[Arouet]

He asked a question - he didn't make an assertion.

Swede: can you provide more context? Was there a particular experiment you were thinking of?

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by Arouet

He asked a question - he didn't make an assertion.

Swede: can you provide more context? Was there a particular experiment you were thinking of?

It seems to me to be nothing more than rumor mongering. It would be akin to asking "Is it true that Randi has admitted to criminal activities involving young boys?". While there have been concerns about Randi's behavior with underage boys, he has never admitted to any wrong doing. But asking that question suggests guilt without having to put any effort into providing evidence. It's basically a cheap shot.

Skeptics often use this tactic. They will spread a rumor that someone has been debunked or caught cheating, when there is no actual evidence to support such claims. I don't think threads that are obviously put up to support this kind of deception should be tolerated.

[Nemo85]

Originally Posted by Arouet

He asked a question - he didn't make an assertion.

Swede: can you provide more context? Was there a particular experiment you were thinking of?

The results of the staring experiments conducted not only by Sheldrake, but also by other researchers (including self-styled sceptics) were reviewed and discussed in a special issue of the Journal of Consciousness (2005, vol 6) dedicated to the topic. This issue was later published in book form, Sheldrake And His Critics. The Sense of Being Glared at - I suggest people read it prior to making claims. Personally I do not like doing others' homework.

Didn't Arouet act as the self-styled sceptics' defense lawyer once again?

[Arouet]

Swede has described himself as half way between a proponent and skeptic.

I think that we should not always assume that questions being posed are rhetorical. Sometimes they are questions.

But perhaps Swede can clarify his question.

[Nemo85]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Swede has described himself as half way between a proponent and skeptic.

I think that we should not always assume that questions being posed are rhetorical. Sometimes they are questions.

But perhaps Swede can clarify his question.

There is no need to clarify the question.

The wording of the question implied that it was asked by a self-styled sceptic. I apologize if my impression was incorrect.

Have fun.

[Arouet]

Well, he's described himself otherwise. Maybe he'd do so differently today?

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

I still don't see any evidence being presented by the OP for his reasoning to question Sheldrake

Right, which is why I asked him to elaborate, rather than make presumptions on his motives. His OP was too brief, and doesn't really give much information about what he had in mind.

Really, it makes much better discussion. Much easier to deal with text rather than subtext. On an internet forum without tone it is easy to add in tone based on preconceived notions. Asking follow-up questions is a good way of helping to clarify unclear posts.