[Home]History of Parapsychology/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 16 . . October 26, 2001 9:10 am by Alan D
Revision 15 . . August 18, 2001 9:54 am by Rmhermen
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Added: 53a54,55


Larry, I just read your change to why some consider parapsychology to be pseudoscience. The notion that these studies have produced no real evidence seems to always be mentioned only tangentially. A parapsychologist might claim they are attempting to use observation to ascertain if a phenomena exists or not. How is this not scientific? It reminds me of James Randi's phony 1,000,000$ prize to anyone who can demonstrate magic, or any other "nonscientific" phenomena. If you can demonstrate it, its observable, and so conforms to the scientific method. he never has to give out a prize because it is always a "trick". scientists demean parapsychology because they consider it beneath study.

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: