Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site denelcor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!denelcor!james
From: james@denelcor.UUCP (James Torson)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Re: Chuq's comments about ESP
Message-ID: <590@denelcor.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Nov-84 12:47:47 EST
Article-I.D.: denelcor.590
Posted: Sun Nov  4 12:47:47 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Nov-84 07:13:45 EST
References: <1844@iddic.UUCP>
Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, Colorado
Lines: 21

> 
> I do not want to get into a heated controversy (Chuq seems like a good guy);
> but the lack of evidence is, indeed, the only possible proof of a lack of
> ability.  I can prove the existence in a variety of ways, but the only 
> proof of non-existence is a lack of evidence.  The lack may be very thorough
> (as in the case of psi phenomena), but it is still a lack of evidence.
> 
> This is not a nit-picking issue -- the nature of the proof is important in
> evaluating how valid a claim is.
> 
The nature of the proof certainly is important.  And, the nature of the lack
of evidence is important also.  Some people are fond of saying things like
"there is no evidence that <x> is harmful to the public."  Sometimes the
reason that there is no evidence is that there has not been a valid study.
Saying "there is no evidence" is quite different from saying "there was a
valid study and the results were negative"!

					Jim Torson
					Denelcor, Inc.
					Aurora, CO
		(hao, brl-bmd, nbires, csu-cs, scgvaxd) !denelcor!james