Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!whuxle!pyuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!mhuxm!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!uokvax!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Psychic Warfare - an informed opinio - (nf)
Message-ID: <5208@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Jan-84 23:02:56 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5208
Posted: Fri Jan 27 23:02:56 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 31-Jan-84 02:59:51 EST
Lines: 36

#R:cbosgd:-83200:uokvax:3800014:000:1721
uokvax!emjej    Jan 26 10:03:00 1984

>If the NOVA program on Jan. 17th seemed critical of psi research,
>the skeptics would have said, "See, they debunked psychic
>research just like they did for UFOs and the Burmuda Triangle.
>NOVA is a fine show, is it [sic] unbiased, and it makes sense."
>
>The fact that NOVA was, in general, positive about psi
>research now makes the skeptics doubt the credibility of NOVA.

It certainly does. If they had renamed the program "The Case *for* ESP",
there would be no reason to complain (at least on that point).

>This is one of the faulty arguments used by skeptics.  For example,
>Professor X, a well-respected, highly credible scientist in
>field Y, has published positive evidence for psi.  The fact
>that he (or she) has done so clearly indicates the unbalanced
>nature of his mind, and all future such evidence from him gives
>us just cause to disregard him.  He is now, perforce, a believer,
>and we know all believers are biased.

Here we see one of the dodges of the parapsychologists, namely painting
themselves as the voice of sweet reason and open-mindedness. In the
situation mentioned, there's no *a priori* reason to disregard
Professor X's papers--*IN FIELD Y* (well, assuming he doesn't drag
"psi" into them), just as there's no *a priori* reason to believe
Professor X's parapsychology papers. Expertise in one field needn't
carry over into another (otherwise I might try having one of my math
professors remove my tonsils--what with the university's financial
situation, he might do it for less than a medical doctor would), and
past experience shows that the expertise needed in studies of "psi" is
knowledge of deceit (including logical and statistical fallacies) and
statistics.

					James Jones