[extropy-chat] Re:John Wright Finds God

[John K Clark]

Me:

>> The compelling evidence was not gathered using good scientific methods 
>> and
>> the evidence that was gathered using good scientific methods is not
>> compelling.

Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>

> Like PEAR?

Yes, exactly like PEAR. It must be embarrassing when even fellow
parapsychologists, not exactly sticklers for good scientific method, can't
stomach such shoddy experimental technique. I quote Hansen Utts Markwick
from the "Journal" Parapsychology:

"PEAR's methods made it easy to cheat. Without the use of randomly selected
targets and adequate shielding of the agent from the percipient, it is
virtually impossible to detect even simple trickery. [.] The PEAR
remote-viewing experiments depart from commonly accepted criteria for formal
research in science. In fact, they are undoubtedly some of the poorest
quality ESP experiments published in many years."

I do disagree with Mr. Markwick on one thing, I don't think you'd have to go
back very many years to find equally poor ESP experiments, and yet again we
find the less rigorous the experiment the stronger the ESP.  Curious.

  John K Clark     jonkc at att.net