Message from discussion definition of parapsychology

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!stanford.edu!bu.edu!wang!news
From: war...@worlds.com (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: definition of parapsychology
Message-ID: <bajekp.dnt@wang.com>
Date: 20 Aug 91 23:13:11 GMT
References: <13590@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1991Jun24.162142.6550@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM> 	<2835.2882d653@verifone.com> 	<1991Aug14.161646.5392@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> 	<1991Aug16.115459.2880@verifone.com> <1991Aug18.191418.27302@hotmomma.UUCP>
Sender: n...@wang.com
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: WorldWide Software
Lines: 28

sdb%hotmo...@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne) writes:

>In article <1991Aug16.115459.2...@verifone.com> ed...@verifone.com
>writes:

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

>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?

Well put.  In fact, psi researchers should prevent skeptics from
reading their papers, as this has been shown to produce flaws in their
expermental method.  Paranormal means will not suffice, as these don't
work on skeptics (Next time Randi is on TV, invite a skeptic over and
your spoons will stay unbent).  Do you think we could shut down faith
healers if we all watch their TV shows and doubt hard enough?  Or does
the lack of effect from the presence of skeptics in the audience
demonstrate that it is not a paranormal effect that is being observed?

I'll leave you with this signature
-- 
/|/-\/-\       The entire world			Jerusalem
 |__/__/_/     is a very strange carrot
 |warren@      But the farmer
/ worlds.COM   is not worried at all.