Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!clyde!masscomp!ulowell!wanginst!inmet!nrh (Nat Howard)
From: mod-psi@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: mod.psi
Subject: Re: PSI vs scienterrific research vs wi
Message-ID: <963@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu>
Date: Wed, 21-Jan-87 15:09:13 EST
Article-I.D.: ulowell.963
Posted: Wed Jan 21 15:09:13 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Jan-87 18:48:03 EST
Sender: rickheit@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu
Distribution: world
Lines: 55
Approved: rickheit@ulowell.UUCP

[]

>/* Written  9:25 am  Jan 12, 1987 by mod-psi@ulowell.UUCP in inmet:mod.psi */
>/* ---------- "Re: PSI vs scienterrific research vs wi" ---------- */
>>
>>   Why hasn't science been brought to bear succesfully on psi? Elementary. 
>> Proper investigation of psi could take lifetimes. Your typical scientist (who
>>has to eat, too) isn't willing to risk his credibility and career on something
>> that far out in left field. 

Tosh!  Mapping human DNA will probably take lifetimes.  Filling in the 
holes of the periodic table took lifetimes.  The search for 
extra-terrestrial intelligence will take lifetimes (but gets some
funding, last I heard).

>>Why is it so far out? Because scientists are all
>> believed to be hopeless Mundanes (the term used by my Gifted friends) who
>> couldn't understand spiritual matters if they tried. The blade cuts both ways

False symmetry.  What about Susan Blackmore?

>> Sunny.
>
>I am a scientist.  (Does B.S. Engineering count as scientist?)

I don't know.  If you are engaged in *science* you are a scientist.
That is, you do well-designed experiments which can be duplicated by
others.  I certainly hope that you aren't implying that because you
had an engineering education, your later actions or beliefs are
"scientific".

>I am a psychic healer, and will attain my Reverend title in March.

Congratulations (I mean it!) but...

>	Psychic phenomena DOES bear up to the scientific method.

Oh?  $10,000 (and a great deal of media hype) is yours if you can
demonstrate this to James Randi (you will notice that demonstration to
outside observers is *part* of the scientific method, so if you cannot
do this, then *these* psychic phenomena do NOT fall into the category of
science).

If, by the way, you *would* call Randi, except that you *think*
he is biased and close-minded, then you are not being scientific:
why not call him and find out?

>I have repeatedly seen spiritual (psychic) healing techniques work in a 
>repeatable manner.  ANYONE who WANTS to find evidence of PSI phenomena, 
>can go to the Berkeley Psychic Institute ministry of the Church of 
>Divine Man, and see such.  You want to believe there is no evidence, 
>don't go there.

So send a representative to pick up James Randi and show him the error
of his ways.  AFTER that, make the assertion.