Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1426 sci.misc:2262
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!lamaster
From: lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...)
Keywords: skepticism debunking
Message-ID: <12720@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: 2 Aug 88 16:05:10 GMT
References: <6445@megaron.arizona.edu> <492@metapsy.UUCP> <1653@microsoft.UUCP> <2366@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1663@microsoft.UUCP> <6689@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Hugh LaMaster)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 28

In article <6689@well.UUCP> sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio) writes:
>
>Randi is a self-confessed charlatan -- so why believe anything he says or

Randi is not a self-confessed charlatan.  When he is doing magic, he never
claims that it is anything more than what it is: entertainment.

>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

>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?

Well, one definition of a systems programmer is someone who can get the
system back up with about twenty people looking over his shoulder :-)

Scientists scrutinize each other's work all the time.  But, this time they
had some extra help from Randi, so someone must have suspected self deception
or worse.  Anyway, Inquisition?  Come on.  Now, sometimes a thesis defense
might be construed as an Inquisition, and since every PhD has already been
through that at least once, a laboratory visit ought to seem pretty tame...


-- 
  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117