"Haunter" <Haunter at castles.com> wrote in message
news:3b39459a.973576277 at cnews.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:04:06 GMT, "Richard Norman"
> <rsnorman at mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >There was recently a query about ESP on bionet.neuroscience and
> >then a lot of flames about trolling and stuff. Then somebody
> >(I am having trouble tracing the names) wrote:
> >> Regarding the issue of technology and ESP, I thought you might find
> >> the following abstract of interest
> >>EEG AND SPECT DATA OF A SELECTED SUBJECT DURING PSI TASKS:
> >>THE DISCOVERY OF A NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL CORRELATE
> >>CHERYL H. ALEXANDER, MICHAEL A. PERSINGER,
> >>WILLIAM G. ROLL, AND DAVID L. WEBSTER
> >I have searched the National Library of Medicine (Pub Med).
> >I find there is an "MA Persinger" who is a fairly prolific researcher
> >Laurentian University in Ontario, Canada. His web page is
> > http://www.laurentian.ca/neurosci/persinger.html> >and his publication list does NOT include anything at all like
> >what is cited.
> >There is a WG Roll who did publish a paper entitled "ESP
> >and memory" in Int. J. Neuropsychiatry in 1966 but I don't
> >see anything by him/her since 1977.
> >I can't find anything pertinent by CH Alexander or DL Webster.
> >Please do NOT submit citations to bionet.neuroscience unless
> >they are in refereed journals. If you do want to talk about
> >"work in progress", please cite the names and institutional
> >affiliations of the individuals involved so that they can be
> >My own conclusion is that the paper cited is bogus, but I will
> >be very happy to retract that statement if someone can show
> >me evidence to the contrary.
> >I don't care what is discussed in alt.paranormal, but the subject
> >matter of bionet.neuroscience is, in fact, science which proceeds
> >by certain standards and criteria.
> Here's the cite...thought I included it.
> From The Journal of Parapsychology
> Volume 62/Number 2 June 1998
>> Published by Rhine Research Center
> since 1937.
Sorry, still not acceptable for bionet.neuroscience.
Even if you would accept the Journal of Parapsychology
as a peer-reviewed primary research article (which I don't),
the fact is that the paper cited is an abstract of a paper
presented at the 41st Annual Convention of the Parapsychological
Society. That is, the particular work is still not peer-reviewed
and therefore does not rise to the level of primary research.