Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: Contempt prior to Investigation
Message-ID: <12239@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 7-Mar-86 22:09:58 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12239
Posted: Fri Mar  7 22:09:58 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Mar-86 00:09:45 EST
References: <435@ccivax.UUCP> <13400007@uiucdcsp>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 38
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:4369 net.sci:564
Summary: the contempt is well justified

In article <13400007@uiucdcsp> bsmith@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
>To the point at hand.  Very few things threaten "scientists" more than
>the mention of the worthiness of paranormal phenomena.  I usually get
>a great deal of enjoyment over watching these people spew forth an
>unending stream of obscenities.  I believe one's speech is indicative
>of both one's class and one's intelligence.  Moreover, I believe that
>each of us only has what we experience to go on--that and the
>experiences of people we trust, that is.  It seems clear to me that
>many "scientists" are, in fact, dogmatists and, in general, cannot
>give any acceptable reasons for their rejection of these phenomena.
>When confronted with the incredible volume of evidence concerning
>paranormal phenomena, most of these self-styled scientists are forced
>to use tactics which any truly intelligent person would find unworthy
>and disgusting, to say the least. By the way, I use "paranormal" merely 
>as a means of distinguishing that category of phenomena from those 
>phenomena we call "normal."

I would say the reaction is DISGUST, solely out of the exaggerated claims
of the paranormalists.  Your claim that there is an "incredible volume of
evidence" in favor of the paranormal is one such.  Evidence to scientists
consists mostly of either repeatable experiments or conclusions drawn from
a world picture based on repeatable experiments.  What does it matter to
anything that most scientists are dogmatic or are unable to give clear
and/or polite reasons for their rejection of the paranormal?  I'm SICK of
nut cases coming by my office and trying to sell me their theory of cosmic
vortices or their proof that ZFC in inconsistent or encryption schemes based
on keys recorded forty years in the future.  Am I being dogmatic when I
get rid of these parasites?  They've got "incredible volumes of evidence"
to prove their claims.  How exactly am I supposed to react when someone
tells me he can effect bacteria mutation rate by thinking about it?  I
am far more interested in my own work, and if the guy's claim turns out
to be right, then sure, HE can have the Nobel prize.  Until then, I'll
tell anyone who tries to convince me of that claim to put up or shut up.
No evidence, no audience!

(Please reread my description of evidence before replying.)

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720