Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Rosen on Parapsychology.
Message-ID: <1952@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Oct-85 14:00:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1952
Posted: Wed Oct 23 14:00:53 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Oct-85 08:14:42 EDT
References: <985@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 45

> Rich, dogmatically repeating yourself is not equivalent to presenting evidence
> for your claims.  In over a decade of involvement with  parapsychology, I have
> heard no such statement made by a parapsychologist (though this is not the
> first time I have heard similar statements rather vaguely attributed to
> parapsychologists by critics).  If you know of any who have, Dr. Moss or
> others, give at least a vague citation.  Where did you hear or read this?
> Statements by psychics, "demonologists" or other non-scientists do not count.
> Common knowledge also does not count.
> 
> If you simply repeat the statement again, I will take it as an admission that
> you actually know of no such claim ever being put forward by a parapsycho-
> logist.  In other words, that (heaven forbid) Rich Rosen was wrong.
> 
> 		Topher Cooper

Given that I don't collect research on parapsychology, don't count on my
either repeating the statement or supporting it.  I have read enough about
it to know that this claim IS made when real serious scientists (not those
baised and looking to "prove" the notions, often ignoring scientific rigor
themselves in the process) demand rigor in experimental situations.  Proponents
of psi have insisted that this is a "bias" in and of itself, that insisting
on rigor interferes with the atmosphere necessary for the phenomena to occur.
Again (unfortunately), I'm not a collector of material on the subject, but
I feel sure that those who are will produce examples (if they read this
newsgroup).  You would seem to agree (regardless of whether or not it has been
said) that such an assertion is a sham.

In any case, the whole basis of the research into such phenomena is as
fundamentally flawed as religious belief (for many it seems to be a "modern"
substitute for "ancient" religion, much as some people turn to eastern
belief systems to substitute for the western ones).  Working from the
assumption that the phenomena do exist (wishful thinking in and of itself),
they engage in research to "prove" this, but along the way they interpret
the data AS THOUGH THE CONCLUSION WAS TRUE, thus "proving" the conclusion.
An example:  in ESP testing, some percentage of correct answers is considered
statistically average (i.e., if you were to just pick randomly the likelihood
would be that you would get, say, 20%).  A much higher percentage is taken
as "evidence" of ESP, but then SO IS an extremely LOW percentage!  (Wow,
that much of a deviation from probability?  It "must" be some psychic
phenomenon involved!)
-- 
"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
 to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
 being can fight and never stop fighting."  - e. e. cummings
	Rich Rosen	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr