[ExI] Psi and gullibility.

[John Clark]

 BillK wrote:
> 
>> 
> I think it is too simplistic to put psi claims down to only wishful
> thinking or madness.

That would be a simple explanation for psi's popularity in the culture, but not I think a simplistic one.

 Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> It [psi] produced many practical outcomes unavailable (at a given time) by any other data source.

Right, and I've got some swamp land I'd like to sell you.

> Psi (so far) doesn't produce results as reliable as on the ground intel

One of the great understatements of all time.

> Keep in mind that the US is the home of Dat Ole Time Religion, and that more than half the respondents in any poll of citizens declare their belief that the world was created by an anthropomorphic Father God some 6000 years ago. I've been told independently by several highly placed people in both the military and civilians wings of the psi program that it met extreme resistance, especially toward the end, from military decision makers who were convinced that the operatives were getting their results by demonic or diabolical means.

You are implying that the reason the Scientific Method can't confirm the existence of psi is the recent rise in republican bible thumpers. Never mind the fact that this lack of confirmation has been going on for centuries with zero progress, your excuse is MALE BOVINE FECAL MATERIAL!

> Some attempted applications did make money.

And some people have made money betting on the ponies, but I wouldn't invest in it.

> It's difficult to bootstrap something like this, because trained operatives are thin on the ground.

How many people who can read minds predict the future and see what's going on 12000 miles away do you need to make a successful company?

 John K Clark


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100127/c778d8e2/attachment.html>