Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: net.sci,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Parapsychology and sloppiness
Message-ID: <954@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 05:02:01 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.954
Posted: Mon Feb 10 05:02:01 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Feb-86 06:47:20 EST
References: <899@decwrl.DEC.COM> <402@aoa.UUCP> <192@ulowell.UUCP>
Reply-To: jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.sci:524 net.philosophy:4165

In article <192@ulowell.UUCP> dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) writes:
>I don't know about anyone else, but I was not around 8 months ago, and I am
>interrested in this topic. Parapsychology is getting around to being
>classified as an 'official' science (I think it should have been long ago)
>and thus should be allowed here (net.sci).
>						Gryphon

Most researchers in the field of Parapsychology would be more careful
than this.  Even the most avid supporters of Paranormal phenomena agree
that the main problem is lack of reproducable results and independent
verification.  Without this, there is no real evidence of a phenomena to
study, much less any good way to begin studying it.

I think this stuff should stay out of net.sci mainly because the only
responsible researchers in the field are not on the net (or don't
contribute anyway).  This leaves only the lunatic fringe - and room for
dogma on both sides.  And THAT kind of discussion certainly doesn't belong
here.  Maybe on net.religeon or net.occult. (Is there a net.occult?  Seems
like the net gets into arguments like this all the time and something like
net.occult would be a good way out.)

J. Giles
Los Alamos