[ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer.
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Tue Dec 7 14:14:10 UTC 2010
On 7 December 2010 01:58, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Well, confirming doesn't work either, as Popper showed. I'm enough of a
> falsificationist to think that what you should try to do is find a bunch of
> ways to disconfirm your idea, test them, and if your good guess doesn't get
> disconfirmed accept it (provisionally) until you or someone else comes up
> with a better, more comprehensive, more powerful idea that doesn't also
> *unexplain* findings already pretty well corroborated by earlier
Yes, this is in fact more accurate. And in any event I think any science
involves some inevitable Occam-razor's assumption.
In this respect, the real debate is what may be the most economical
explanations for "psi" phenomena.
If I have to suppose that some angels from dimension X jumped out of a time
machine to falsify the data, telepathy sounds as a more plausible
explanation until and unless otherwise excluded.
Every time a phenomenon can be explained as a statistical artifact, I would
be more inclined to go with this solution...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat