Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1459 sci.misc:2319 Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!ctnews!pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge From: sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...) Keywords: skepticism debunking Message-ID: <506@metapsy.UUCP> Date: 5 Aug 88 05:56:12 GMT References: <1911@aecom.YU.EDU> <6445@megaron.arizona.edu> <492@metapsy.UUCP> <1930@aecom.YU.EDU> <498@metapsy.UUCP> <27780@bbn.COM> <503@metapsy.UUCP> <27939@bbn.COM> Reply-To: sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Organization: Metapsychology, Woodside, CA Lines: 47 In article <27939@bbn.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > The imputation of fraudulent intentions may be present but is surely > in the eye of the beholder (I haven't seen anything ad hominem -- has > there been such?). When we have design reviews in my part of BBN, we > bring in several off-the-wall, unrelated to the project, "bright > people"... JUST to make sure that we haven't gone down some bad path > due to myopia or wishful thinking or whatever. Sounds like a good procedure. And, I expect, part of normal scientific procedure. What I mainly object to is the marshalling of high-profile debunkers with lots of media coverage, when the standard procedure is simply to have other scientists (or "bright people") check the results. > Investigating the procedure still seems to me JUST as valid as > investigating the science. OK -- I see what you were driving at, and it sounds reasonable. > And, speaking of ad hominem attacks, I object to your use of "Psi > police". Well, it was not I who came up with the term "CSICOP" (read "Psi Cop"). Surely that was no coincidence? Perhaps one of our readers knows how that particular acronym was decided on. > Dramatic is as dramatic does: one might argue that the "dramatic" > part has already happened in the publishing of the original article > in Nature, and that if it proves to be bogus (as many, if not most > all, of us probably believe), Beneviste has _already_ gotten his > publicity and will be "famous" for a long time -- no one will bother > to follow the dry follow on articles that dispute or refute the > original, and it will probably be cited for YEARS to come, no matter > the outcome. By making a high-profile response, maybe the > *resolution* will garner as much attention as the claim. I don't think publishing scientific results is "dramatic" -- it is the human response to those data that contains the actual drama -- and politics. It sounded to me that *Nature* was trying to cover its backside and restore its public image by sending a high-profile individual like Randi out to disprove the result. I'd bet Beneviste did not seek and is not enjoying his notoriety. -- -------------------- Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301