Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1425 sci.misc:2261
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!ames!pacbell!well!sierch
From: sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...)
Keywords: skepticism debunking
Message-ID: <6689@well.UUCP>
Date: 1 Aug 88 15:21:18 GMT
References: <6445@megaron.arizona.edu> <492@metapsy.UUCP> <1653@microsoft.UUCP> <2366@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1663@microsoft.UUCP>
Reply-To: sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio)
Organization: Small Systems Solutions
Lines: 25


Randi is a self-confessed charlatan -- so why believe anything he says or
does?  He does fine on TV talk shows, but has no place in a scientific
"investigation".

The whole business of this investigation is out of place in the scientific
community -- disputed results occur all the time -- but do we dispatch the
inquisition?  If results can be duplicated at another lab, by those w/o
a vested interest in the outcome -- or if such results are not found outside
the aspirants' lab -- then we can come to conclusions.

Remember Bruno, Vico, Gallileo, Semmelweiss????????

I imagine if I were standing over your shoulder while you work, and you
"knew" I was there to scrutinize your work, would that have an effect on the
results?

BTW, I am skeptical about the results of these experiments -- but I don't
believe it would be too difficult to confirm or deny the results, nor
would it be too expensive.  So instead of spending money on the Spanish
Inquisition, why not fund a redo of the experiment?
-- 
	Michael Sierchio @ Small Systems Solutions

	sierch@well.UUCP
	{pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax,hoptoad}!well!sierch