Let us say a pole vaulter in practice does 15' 2".  Later you ask him to
Prove it, or you won't believe that feat is possible.  He may not be
able to, ever again.  Certainly you are right to doubt it, but to demand that
a psychic be 100% right 100% of the time is a bit naive.

Statistically, all a psychic must do to demonstrate psi abilities is to
perform better than chance.  Occasionally some psychics do perform way
above that, but it can't always be repeated.  This is a human ability,
not a mechanical one, and is subject to human frailties.

This is statistics.  ANYBODY will "occasionally perform better than chance" if
they try often enough.  To show any evidence of the existance of PSI, one must
consistantly do it.  I think you are being a bit (a LOT) naive if you
actually believe "all a psychic must do to demonstrate psi abilities" is
summed up by what you wrote.

There is no bona fide psychic, though.  At least not that I'm aware of.  If
there was one, just one, we could study that person and determine what it
takes to be a psychic.  Is it genetics?  Environment?  What notable things,
if any, affect this persons ability (sunspots, lunar cycles, etc.)?

Of course, what person is willing to step forward and be examined like a lab
rat if, indeed, they were psychic?  None, I'd guess.  Assuming psychic
powers did exist, I'd imagine that a true psychic would never openly admit to
being psychic.  Who needs the hassles of nonbelievers, bible-thumpers ("He
is the Anti-Christ."  One christian can ruin your whole day.) or, worse,
new-age freaks looking for "enlightment," who wouldn't know what the hell to
do with it if they found it.  In fact, I'd venture that a true psychic might
go so far as to pretend to be a hard-nosed skeptic . . .

         ---------   Doc

   [...self-serving monologues deleted...]
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ed, you deleted about 2.5 sentences here.  I must be quite a writer to
pack all those self-serving monologues into so few sentences.

   You evidently have a corrupted (comic-book) idea of just what
   psychic abilities are.  If you were to demand the same criteria of
   human physical abilities (or mental abilities) you would think that
   they, also, do not exist.

I ask no more of psychics than I do of the milkman.  He claims to be
able to deliver milk here every morning, and most mornings he does.
Actually, I ask less of the psychics, since I insist that my milkmans
reliability be fairly close to 100%. I wouldn't expect the same thing
of a psychic, but be impressed by something better than chance.

   Let us say a pole vaulter in practice does 15' 2".  Later you ask
   him to Prove it, or you won't believe that feat is possible.  He
   may not be able to, ever again.  Certainly you are right to doubt
   it, but to demand that a psychic be 100% right 100% of the time is
   a bit naive.

Well, first of all, I said nothing about demanding a psychics be 100%
right 100% of the time. But this is a good example. Athletes walk out
on the play field all the time, and don't always perform as well as
they would like, but they can still perform.  And a few can perform
reliably enough that they remain champions or members of championship
teams.

   Statistically, all a psychic must do to demonstrate psi abilities
   is to perform better than chance.  

That's very good Ed. So where are they?

If "they" are psychic at all, how come police keep suprising them?  :-)

That person was NOT teaching "psychic abilities" -- he was teaching
parapsychology, the scientific study of PSI phenomenon.
The difference is akin to someone teaching biology or someone
teaching how to reproduce....  

He left because he was broke, and unable to make a decent living, due to
the persecution of skeptics.  I have never heard of him teaching
psychic development classes, and I am part of the faculty at the college in
question.

        As far as Pendragon's 'persecution' goes, well, the Hawaii Skeptics
found that Pendragon had been representing himself as having a master'sin
psychology from USC and was a licensed clairvoyant; turned out that Pendragon
had no master's degree (a fact Pendragon later admitted) and that his license
was an excise tax license.

        And for _real_ persecution, Pendragon sued not only the Hawaiit
Skeptics, but also the University of Hawaii, certain academics at the
University, CSICOP, and James Randi (who wasn't involved with ANY of the
controversy). Pendragon's suit was dismised, and he was ordered to pay legal
fees to the defendants.
        The total? To the University people, a total of $4,212; to CSICOP,
legal fees and additional; costs of $3,975.23. (Plus an earlier cost of
$1,931.)

        Gee, some persecution. (Pendragon's wife is the lawyer who handled
his case; are these damages that costly to a lawyer?)

I acknowledge that there may have been other courses he taught before that
time, but I have no knowledge of them, I was addressing his course in
parapsychology, and I still think he whould have a right to teach it.

And how does where I teach make any difference in all of this?  Is this
supposed to be intimidating?  If I "only" teach at a community college
does this prove something?

Oh, I get it, now the skeptics will start persecuting anthropology....
"Dear Dr. Simone:
        We the skeptics of the world believe that Ed L'Esperance should
not teach anthropology because he believes in ESP.  In fact, you can
see for yourself, ESP is almost his middle name!"

As far as your other comments go, you sure seem to be able to get more
information than I.  I know some of it is valid, but I can't vouch
for all of it.  In any case it goes beyond my original contention, which is
that Pendragon was barred from teaching parapsychology in community
outreach courses due to a hate-mail campaign by skeptics.

Maybe the other things you mention were also injustices, but so what?
Do two wrongs now make a right?

Try The Parapsycological Review or other places where this sort of
information is likely to be published.

Back issues should be available, at least through interlibrary loan,
at your local university library.  

Studies of PSI have been made with the scientific method.  Some were
negative, some were positive, some were inconclusive.

One paradoxical conclusion is that if we _are_ working with an ability
to affect the conscious (or sub or un-conscious) process, then this can
also affect the results of any experiment, by affecting the processes of
the researcher.  If someone can find a way to eliminate that shortcoming,
research could be more meaningful.  In any case, more scientific research,
and more _careful and thoughtful_ scientific research is needed.

We need to get beyond proving that PSI exists, and start trying to
uncover the mechanisms behind it.  If, as some psychics claim, that the
presence of doubters inhibits their ability (not an unreasonable claim
if the nature of PSI is transmission of unconscious thoughts via _any_
means) then we need to eliminate doubters from the experimental process.

Now I'm sure that Siano is going to jump on me for that one, so in advance
Brian: because fire doesn't burn underwater does not mean that fire does
not exist.  Now go back to your cave.

So is there anyone out there who says we _shouldn't_ research PSI?
If so, why?  Are you afraid of finding something?  
I think research of all kinds should be done, even if it proves that
PSI doesn't exist (i.e., that another phenomenon can account for all the
observed anomalies).  So far, that hasn't happened.

  In any case, more scientific research, and more _careful and
  thoughtful_ scientific research is needed.

   We need to get beyond proving that PSI exists, and start trying to
   uncover the mechanisms behind it.  If, as some psychics claim, that
   the presence of doubters inhibits their ability (not an
   unreasonable claim if the nature of PSI is transmission of
   unconscious thoughts via _any_ means) then we need to eliminate
   doubters from the experimental process.

So the `care' in the scientific research is the need to eliminate
doubters from the loop?  Probably a good idea to eliminate any serious
criticisms of experimental protocols too, since such criticisms `have
been shown to interfere' with PSI?  And we must also remove any
impediments to trickery, since such impediments to trickery have
repeatedly been proven (and using the scientific method!) to prevent
PSI effects.  I'm sure, once the doubters and protocol police and
impediments to trickery are out of the loop, that PSI effects will
abound, because, in fact, that *has* been demonstrated many times.

   Now I'm sure that Siano is going to jump on me for that one, so in advance
   Brian: because fire doesn't burn underwater does not mean that fire does
   not exist.  Now go back to your cave.

Combustion can and does take place underwater, in the presence of
doubters and with protocol police at large.

   So is there anyone out there who says we _shouldn't_ research PSI?

Not me.

Right off hand the challenge to name a scientific fact that was easier to
observe than to prove brings to mind the first studies of the existance of
oxygen/air.

Given the best techniques and equipment available at the time, the proof that
air or oxygen existed was quite difficult to prove, but was postulated from
the observed effects of withdrawing access to air, which was a lot easier to
accomplish.

My point is that I believe science is still in its infancy, despite our high
opinions of ourselves our descendants will probably find us as primitive as we
find Lavoisier and his contemporaries...

Reality is created by consciousness.   A consciousness that does not
believe in ESP, etc. has already been proven to create interference with
existing psychic abilities.  Go look it up in th Handbook of
Parapsychology.

You might say that those people have negative ESP, because many
unbelievers actually have negative results that are FAR less than
chance, indicating that there is the possibility that their minds can
successfully avoid teh correct answer.  This also interferes with the
abilitiy of psychics when you put the two together.

Steve

]You might say that those people have negative ESP, because many
]unbelievers actually have negative results that are FAR less than
]chance, indicating that there is the possibility that their minds can
]successfully avoid teh correct answer.  This also interferes with the
]abilitiy of psychics when you put the two together.
I'd like to see data that unbelievers have significantly poor results.
-Ekr

  Do you have any references by more than one investigator?

YES!

Steve