Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!clyde!masscomp!ulowell!sdcsvax!sdchem!tps
From: tps@sdchem.UUCP (Tom Stockfisch)
Newsgroups: mod.psi
Subject: Re: psi researchers
Message-ID: <614@sdchema.sdchem.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Jan-87 17:46:51 EST
Article-I.D.: sdchema.614
Posted: Tue Jan 13 17:46:51 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Jan-87 18:49:01 EST
References: <926@ulowell.UUCP>
Sender: rickheit@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu
Reply-To: tps@sdchemf.UUCP (Tom Stockfisch)
Distribution: world
Organization: UC San Diego
Lines: 70
Approved: rickheit@ulowell.UUCP

[]

In article <926@ulowell.UUCP> dean@mind writes:
>In the U.S., there are perhaps three dozen full time researchers who have 
>actually performed psi experiments and are familiar with the relevant 
>literature...
>On the other hand, the vast majority of those who make their livings 
>"debunking" parapsychology have not and do not conduct their own 
>psi experiments, with very few exceptions.  Why?  Because (a) they a priori do
>not believe in the phenomena and therefore feel that such experiments would
>be a waste of time,

The CSICOP states in their charter that it "Does not reject claims on
a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but rather examines them objectively
and carefully."  CSICOP reports on members' experiments in almost every issue
of their journal.  Have you ever read it?

>and (b) because many don't know how to conduct
>proper experiments in the first place.  For example, look at the breakdown 
>between scientists vs. entertainers listed as Fellows of CSICOP in the 
>Skeptical Inquirer.  

Breakdown of CSICOP fellows as listed in Fall 86 issue of Skeptical Inquirer:

	scientists		18
	philosophers		8
	writers,publishers	8
	entertainers		3

That's 6 times as many scientists as entertainers.  Are you lying, or what?
If anything, I would say they need a few *more* magicians.
The fact is, if you have no experience with (entertainment) conjuring, and
you don't work with professional conjurers, you should not be testing
those who claim to have psi powers.  If you don't know how Mark Wilson does
all his sleight of hand, how can you be sure that your psi subject is not
fooling you?  The "scientists" at SRI were completely fooled by Uri Geller (who
is a former professional magician, current psi charlatan).

>Who is likely to have more reliable information?  Scientists working in the 
>field or entertainers who make their living debunking that field?

Nobody makes a living debunking psi.  Hundreds make a *killing* promoting
psi.
Are you saying that if you don't have a PhD you can't be a scientist?
I would consider James Randi a scientist when he is doing controlled studies.
He is a very clever man, and in my opinion does the best work in this field.

>In any case, the extent of experimenter fraud in parapsychology is no greater 
>(and I believe, less so) than that found in other scientific disciplines.  
>Witness the dozens of fraudulent medical research studies brought to light 
>in the last few decades.  

The problem is not with *experimenter* fraud, it is with experimental subject
fraud.
>    There is still not a single repeatable experiment to demonstrate the
>    existence of any psychical phenomenon, after over a century of ostensibly
>    scientific work.  
>
>Fact: There are several repeatable experiments that do demonstrate psi
>phenomena (see references below).
The references below don't look like experimental (as opposed to theoretical
or speculative) papers, judging from the titles.  Which of them report
(first hand) actual experiments?

>required for the demonstration.  If "every single time" is the criterion,
>then the criticism is correct...
>Note: this doesn't
>mean that Joe Sixpack will automatically be able to conduct a successful psi
>experiment.  But a sincere Joe Scientist probably can. 

The trouble is that NO Joe Scientist can repeat any of the positive experiments.

|| Tom Stockfisch, UCSD Chemistry	tps%chem@sdcsvax.UCSD