From: Phillip Huggan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jan 01 2006 - 17:26:27 MST
I don't understand what your 1st sentence means. Disinvolve the skeptic from the psi testing procedure. Seal off any unbeliever particles or fields being emminated and continue the empirical testing. Feel free to use only believers along with inert observational tools and documentation, unless a camera gives off bad vibes too.
Mike Dougherty <email@example.com> wrote: Suppose a system exists in multiple states (ex: psi observed & explained, observed & not explained, not observed)
If that system is affected by each researcher that becomes entangled with it, then why can't we say that the involvement of a skeptic actually influences the results? Would anyone accept that the only way the research is valid is if there are no "non-believers"? This is completely counter to the scientific method of testing a theory. Maybe psi is inherently undetectable using this methodology. Sailors used lodestones to determine north-south bearing long before magnetism was proposed as the magic that made them work. Perhaps psi has a mechanism that we have not been able to determine. Perhaps it does not.
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 20 2013 - 04:00:34 MDT