Google Groups Home
Help | Sign in
Message from discussion PSI/science was definition of parapsych
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
ed_l1  
View profile
 More options Aug 22 1991, 1:34 am
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic, alt.paranormal
From: ed...@verifone.com
Date: 21 Aug 91 19:16:00 GMT
Subject: PSI/science was definition of parapsych
In article <91229.100216DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:

> Ed L'Esperance says:

>>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.

> A typical Ed L statement.  The only skeptics that the psychics object to are
> those (like Randi) who expose their frauds.  They are perfectly willing
> to perform their tricks in front of an audience, so why can't they detect
> the presence of doubters by the failure of their methods?  It seems, Mr Ed,
> that it is the *KNOWLDEGE* of the presence of the doubters that makes the
> tricks fail, not their presence itself.  This routinely happens to Uri
> Geller, isn't that interesting?

Gee, Dr. J.  Seems to me that you are assuming that _all_ psychics are
frauds.  By extrapolation, then, I suppose I can assume that _all_ scientists
employed at Stanford are crooks?  Whether or not it is true in your case,
it is faulty logic.

Fact is, until we discover the nature of what causes PSI phenomenon (and
I admit it may be to purely mundane reasons, but I don't believe it),
we should explore every avenue, leave no stone unturned.  Seems like you
are a bit too eager to ignore a bunch.  This is science?

Your statement about the knowledge of the presence of doubters inhibiting PSI
may be true, or it may be the presence.  We don't know until we find some way
to test for it.  "Scientists" such as yourself seem too eager to jump to
unfounded conclusions -- I smell a rat, and it's coming from your direction.

--
***************************************************************************
*  Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744  U.S.A.        *
*  Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, etc.  -*-  UUCP%"Ed...@VeriFone.Com"   *
*  Disclaimer: Opinions Copyright 1991 Ed L'Esperance.     HANDS OFF!     *
*  Opinion #1: "Are you trying to tell me that these people are SERIOUS?" *
*  #2: "What do you mean 'just opinions?' -- that's all anyone has!"      *
*  #3: "'It's not my fault!'"  (Quoted from Han Solo, Star Wars I, 1977)  *
***************************************************************************


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2008 Google