Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1440 sci.misc:2282
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!gatech!ncar!boulder!pell
From: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Nature article /James Randi bashing
Keywords: homeopathy
Message-ID: <2498@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 3 Aug 88 17:33:43 GMT
References: <10465@lll-winken.llnl.gov> <20850@beta.lanl.gov> <2444@cxsea.UUCP> <5826@dasys1.UUCP> <1935@aecom.YU.EDU> <3014@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 50

In article <3014@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>
[On "Randi Bashing"]

>Randi goes around destroying illusions and cherished beliefs used to
>nourish hopes and excuse failings.  He offers only cold reality as
>substitute.  You expect people to thank him?

I don't think that questioning a persons credentials before believing what he
has to say is all that outrageous.  Randi is an expert on fraud.  He has
been very successful at pointing out stuff like the radio transmissions
used by Peter Popov to prompt him during his "faith healing."
If Benveniste or one of his associates was perpetrating an out-and-out fraud,
sleight of hand or something akin to this, Randi would be the one to detect it.
I remain unconvinced that he is qualified to comment on the validity of an
honest experiment.

Noone has mentioned the other investigators.  Does anyone know who they
are and if they are qualified?  One assumes the original reviewers were
fairly competent scientists.

I think that there are sufficient differences between a faith healer
and what Benveniste is saying to warrent a different attitude.  I have
no "illusion or cherished belief" reguarding the dilution experiments.
I would not be hurt at all if they were proved an artifact.
So far, however, I have seen only vague and unimportant attacks on the
method used, no "cold hard facts" disproving it.

If I have a "cherished belief" in this reguard, it would be that the best
way to test a scientific hypothesis is with the scientific method.
The best way to do that is to let other scientists test the idea.
That is one of the main reasons for publication.
In the end, the correct explanation will be discovered if _free_ inquiry
is permitted.
>
>
>No everybody.  Just the more vocal ones [believe in astrology etc.].
>Those of us who _understand_
>evolution, relativity and scientific method (as opposed to merely
>believing in them) consider them so obvious as to not merit repeated
>explanation.  We've also noticed that no amount of logic, debate and/or
>explanation will convince the mystics, romantics and vitamin pushers.  I
>once posted a 150 line condensation of a graduate text chapter on
>experimental design.  It was ignored. 

I think you are missing a possible explanation for this.  Perhaps it was
pompous and boring.  
I've certainly been guilty of the same.

-tony