Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oakhill.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
From: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Parapsychology
Message-ID: <566@oakhill.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 23:56:06 EST
Article-I.D.: oakhill.566
Posted: Thu Oct 24 23:56:06 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 05:42:02 EST
References: <> <829@nmtvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel)
Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx
Lines: 54

In article <829@nmtvax.UUCP> nmhr@nmtvax.UUCP (Tracy McInvale) writes:
>
>>> Apparent paranormal phenomena has been elicited in the laboratory many
>>> (conservatively speaking, hundreds) times under conditions most scientists
>>> would consider highly rigorous, particularly if they were not informed that
>                  ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>>> the experiment were a parapsychology experiment.

>	This statement is pure, unadulterated horse hockey. I know of no 
>scientist who is informed as to the status of paranormal research
>and is not participating in such research who considers the techniques
>of these so-called "scientists" rigorous. Every scientific study has
>its own problems.

This statement is pure, unadaulterated horse hockey.  I know of no scientist
who is informed as to the status of paranormal research and is not
participating in such research who considers the top parapsychologist as being
any other than "scientist" and fully capable people.

>Paranormal studies abound in statistical errors,
>facetious assumptions, and a contemptuous disregard of previous
>research, negative or otherwise.

Take any one year of "Psychology Today" and I guarantee you'll find studies
abounding in statistical errors, facetious assumptions, and a contemptous
disregard of previous research, negative or otherwise.

>       The problem of purposeful fraud is not nearly as serious as the
>dilemma of ignorance in the laboratory. The majority of paranormal
>researchers have little or no knowledge of statistical methods of
>analyzing data. When these "scientists" do possess such knowledge,
>they often misuse the skill by drawing conclusions that to them seem
>obvious, but to outside observers seem facetious.

Having been around a couple of the "scientist" as you so call them, I wonder
what you are talking about.  Not only were they well grounded in statistical
methods but they actually went overboard being conservative in their analysis.

>The best way
>for ensuring the data is not mishandled is by allowing outside
>observers who are informed about the research to analyze the data
>through any series of tests possible.
>

And this isn't done?  I would love for you to mention some of the names of
the many scientist you think have looked at the field in depth and who think
it's all a joke.  (No I don't think the amazing Randi qualifies as a
scientist.)

I think some quick questions to these people would show just how well versed
they are in the field they so dis-approve.

Sincerely waiting but not holding my breath -- Dave Trissel
   {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet