Royal Mail's Nobel guru in telepathy row
tcerrato at optonline.net
Sun Oct 14 05:21:44 EST 2001
Nick Lilavois <no-email-reply at newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
news:khnestsdo91jvenaiaapd9lu7voug7op68 at 4ax.com...
> Cardinal Chunder <xxxx at xxxx.com> wrote:
> >Nick Lilavois wrote:
> > > Wrong. Don't let your preconceptions and personal beliefs color your
> > > scientific objectivity- that was Brian Josephson's point.
> >My beliefs on this matter are only coloured by the fact that there no
> >proper scientific research to back up such claims. The field of the
> >paranormal is littered with plenty of flawed research, pseudo-science,
> >mumbo-jumbo, speculations, distortions and hearsay. If a REAL research
> >paper appeared that could withstand proper scientific scrutiny then I
> >would have no problem in altering my views.
> I explained that situation in my post:
> That mentality is what has hurt study in this field for
> decades, creating a catch-22. If a legitimate scientist even
> suggests it is an area worth investigating, he is labeled a
> crackpot, does not get funding, and does not get published.
> That is more than enough to scare away anyone other than
> crackpots from studying the field, thus creating a
> self-fulfilling prophecy. It is only recently that such
> studies are beginning to gain legitimacy, thanks to people
> like Professor Josephson.
> >At present this seems none too likely to happen.
> No, attitudes are changing- there are legitimate scientists
> willing to study this field now. Did you see the links I
This is what they said when the Rhine Institute was first formed--then after
decades of generally positive psi research we know what a scandal their
results ultimately turned out to be. AFAIAC (and I was agnostic 'till then),
the paranormal field lost all scientific crediblity then and there. No one
will ever believe any such studies until ironclad oversight is proven--plus
for me, the blessing of Randy (the famous Magician and skeptic!)
> >Frankly I would have
> >thought researchers into such stuff would be falling over themselves to
> >produce proper proof. I mean, imagine the plaudits that would be
> >bestowed on the person who finally proved beyond doubt that telepathy
> >existed! And let's not forget a certain 1 million dollar prize that's on
> >offer either, plus a lifetime of lucrative book deals and chat show
> Like I said, there is no proof yet- just a significant
> amount of evidence that there is something here beyond mere
Well, remember Carl Sagan's famous comment about extraordinary claims
requiring extraordinary proof! I'll believe it when Randy does.
More information about the Neur-sci