Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.ARPA Newsgroups: net.crypt Subject: Re: article in net.general Message-ID: <15421@lanl.ARPA> Date: Tue, 30-Oct-84 17:01:56 EST Article-I.D.: lanl.15421 Posted: Tue Oct 30 17:01:56 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 2-Nov-84 05:19:34 EST References: <63@unc.UUCP> <> <1784@nsc.UUCP> Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 54 > In article <188@mouton.UUCP> karn@mouton.UUCP writes: > >It's obviously got to be a joke. I can't believe that anybody intelligent > >enough to use a computer believes in ESP. > > I find I'm terribly insulted by this. Don't make blind assumption on your > own narrow views. I agree, there is no scientifically hard evidence for ESP > these days, but the lack of evidence doesn't prove the lack of the ability. > Look at the number of people who believe in God without similar hard > proofs. The only thing I can say is: 'Don't knock it until you've tried it' > > chuq > -- > From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach > {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA > > I'd know those eyes from a million years away.... Anyone familiar with philosophy knows that there is a distinction between meta-physical and empirical subjects. Belief in God (god, gods, none) is a metaphysical question for which there is, BY DEFINITION, no empirical evidence. ESP on the other hand is proposed as an empirical reallity - even though no evidence is available to support this classification. Supporters of ESP (UFOs, Van Daniken, Creationism, etc.) try to use the language and arguments of science to promote something which has none of the characteristics of a science. If the supporters of ESP and other pseudo-sciences were to classify their belief as metaphysical, and stop trying to make the rest of us accept their strange 'religon', that would be fine. Some have argued that these pseudo-sciences should be accepted as possible and studied out of a sense of intellectual fairness. This has two problems with it. First, it means that we have to study all new theories, even the real 'off the wall' speculations of people with no scientific background. Without any evidence of the plausibility of a theory 'a priori', it would be silly to run around checking out all these bizarre theories. Second, every time that such topic HAVE been addressed scientifically, the results are ambiguous or negative. However, the proponents of the pseudo- science then proceed to either redefine the phenomenon (making the scientific study irrelevant), or to denounce the scientific team for allegedly 'covering up' the 'truth'. Real sciences don't have this slippery effect. One tactic of the pseudo-scientist is to take his case to the general public, either in sensational reports or public pleas that the scientific community is trying to silence them. Propaganda is not a scientific technique though. And even if this ploy succeeds in converting large numbers of supporters, the scientific merit of the field hasn't improved one bit. The universe isn't a democracy - reality doesn't care what people think. Anyway, is this the correct topic for net.crypt? Sorry for the duplicate - postnews here is having problems.