Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp
From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson)
Newsgroups: net.crypt,net.sci
Subject: Re: Chuq's comments about ESP
Message-ID: <1135@shark.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 13:49:58 EST
Article-I.D.: shark.1135
Posted: Tue Nov  6 13:49:58 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 04:08:15 EST
References: <1844@iddic.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 28

X   From: rick@iddic.UUCP (Rick Coates)
X   Chuq writes:
X   
X   >I agree, there is no scientifically hard evidence for ESP
X   >these days, but the lack of evidence doesn't prove the lack of the ability.
X   
X   I do not want to get into a heated controversy (Chuq seems like a good guy);
X   but the lack of evidence is, indeed, the only possible proof of a lack of
X   ability.  I can prove the existence in a variety of ways, but the only 
X   proof of non-existence is a lack of evidence.  The lack may be very thorough
X   (as in the case of psi phenomena), but it is still a lack of evidence.
X   
X   This is not a nit-picking issue -- the nature of the proof is important in
X   evaluating how valid a claim is.

What if you are trying to decrypt some information, and no matter what
you have done, you have been unable to obtain anything meaningful.
Does that mean there is no message?  All you can decide about the
contents is whether you want to stop looking.
(I have no proof that you have a nose.  Therefore, you don't have one.)

To >prove< non-existence of something, you would have to do something like
prove 1> that the something produces a symptom,
and that the symptom is not present.  (that is, if said symptom is a
known, measurable thing, or countable, if it is encrypted stuff)

Brian Peterson  {ucbvax, ihnp4, }  !tektronix!shark!brianp
				    ^         ^