Re: Attempt to put Paranormal discussion in context

From: Damien Broderick (
Date: Sun Jan 01 2006 - 16:46:32 MST

At 11:14 PM 1/1/2006 +0000, BillK wrote:

> > Here's a fairly recent summary by a physics Nobel laureate and a
> > professional statistician:
> >

>Of course the Utts report has been criticised in turn.

Different report, FWIW. Still...

>These reports and counter reports seem to go on for ever.

Yes. But also, crucially I'd have thought whichever side one favors:

<Neither Utts nor I had the time or resources to fully scrutinize the
laboratory procedures or data from these experiments. Instead, we relied on
what we could glean from reading the technical reports. Two of the
experiments had recently been published in the Journal of Parapsychology.
The difficulty here is that these newly declassified experiments have not
been in the public arena for a sufficient time to have been carefully and
critically scrutinized.>

Haven't seen anything in the subsequent 9 years indicating, though, that
either changed their opinions, except that the following is bitterly denied
by the Stargate people I've communicated with:

<In the time available to us, it was impossible to scrutinize carefully all
the of [sic] documents generated by this program. Instead, we focused our
efforts on evaluating the ten studies done at Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) during the early 1990s. These were
selected, in consultation with the principal investigator, as representing
the best experiments in the set. >

Dr May states that the material made available excluded the most
significant, to-this-day still classified work--understandably, since these
were of highly sensitive topics. Bugger, eh.

Damien Broderick

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT