Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1369 sci.misc:2172
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!oliveb!pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
From: sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...)
Summary: Randi's views were quite predictable.
Keywords: skepticism debunking
Message-ID: <492@metapsy.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jul 88 17:45:33 GMT
References: <1911@aecom.YU.EDU> <6445@megaron.arizona.edu>
Reply-To: sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Organization: Metapsychology, Woodside, CA
Lines: 30

I found the data on the Amazing Randi's investigation of the Nature article
unfortunate and unsurprising.

Randi already "knows" that nothing unusual could ever happen.  He is no
scientist, nor does he have the spirit of the true scientific investigator, in
my opinion, which is a committment to discover the truth, whatever it be.
Instead, he is committed to debunking.  He commits the same error as he
imagines to be committed by those he attacks -- starting out from a
determination to prove a particular point and then twisting the facts to fit
that viewpoint.  He, and his fellow "CSICOP" professional debunkers, are, in my
view, doing the scientific community a disservice by intimidating and
ridiculing those who have unusual ideas that could lead to major breakthroughs
in unimagined areas.  Perhaps 99.9999 % of these wild ideas are fallacious, but
if some are not and are not being given a fair trial because of the negative PR
generated by CSICOP, then we could be missing out on some pretty exciting
advances.  It's like the mutation theory of evolution -- perhaps 99.9999 % of
mutations are lethal or contra-survival, but if we took steps to eliminate all
mutation altogether, what would happen to evolution?  Fallacious ideas --
mainstream or otherwise -- are eventually discovered in the course of unbiased,
dispassionate investigation.  We do not need a special "thought police" to
protect us from ourselves.

I do think that a claim that lays waste to a useful scientific schema requires
a higher standard of proof than a claim that is compatible with that schema.  A
certain conservatism is beneficial.  But the possibility of error in the
received schema must always be considered to be there, for a true scientist.
-- 
--------------------
Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.  Palo Alto, CA 94301