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