[ExI] Sigh

[Mike Dougherty]

2010/7/2 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> By "psi results" you mean an ASCII sequence posted by somebody I've never
> heard of onto a web-sight I've never heard of and peer reviewed by somebody
> I've never heard of. So if the results of events in the real world, where
> people will go to jail if there is any funny business, is incompatible with
> "psi results" where there are no consequences whatsoever for producing
> mountains of Bullshit then I'll have to side with the real world.

I suspect the set of "somebodies heard of by John Clark" is
statistically insignificant.  The set of "authorities trusted by John
Clark" contains either a single member or is actually the empty set.

And since I've already jokingly introduced set theory...  Is it
possible the boundary between the two sets "disbelievers" and
"open-minded skeptics"  (leaving the devout believers in another set
referred to only by this recursive statement) is caused by existing
membership of each set?  ex:  In the gestalt image that is alternately
a vase or two faces in profile, if the observer has never seen a vase
and is unable to perceive the negative space between profile spaces as
anything other than the part of the picture where the faces are not -
there is no gestalt and thus no vase.  Either side of this topic
probably has blinders that allow them to see what they already
believe.  I don't believe statistics and the many ways they can be
used to deceive even the statisticians any more than I believe the
convictions of the devoutly religious.