From: Josh Cowan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 02 2006 - 10:14:53 MST
Anyone want to comment on "The sense of being stared at" By Rupert
Sheldrake? For a quick overview and his response to critics from the
Skeptical Inquirer check out:
claims that he's designed a replicable experiment showing approximately
60% of the time people can tell (when following the protocol) that they
are being stared at. From an evolutionary standpoint being able to
sense when someone is staring at you seems a worthwhile capability but
if true it would fall under psi, no? If this capability is real then it
might have some bearing on the sensory tools for AI. I tend to agree
with CSICOP (publishers of the Skeptical Inquirer) most of the time but
this time I'm less sure.
I hope all had happy holidays... whenever they were.
On Jan 2, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
> Yes, you are quite right: my mistake.
> I gave in to the temptation to be sarcastic. FWIW my use of Bogus
> Tollens was not relevant to the argument anyway, since I had just
> spent a lot of energy denying the implication.
> Mea culpa.
> Richard Loosemore
> David McFadzean wrote:
>> On 1/1/06, Richard Loosemore <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> This is not to say the effect will always be impossible, just that
>>> it is
>>> completely invalid to suggest that BECAUSE parapsychologists cannot
>>> produce a lottery application, THEREFORE the existence of paranormal
>>> phenomena is suspect. Isn't there some kind of 2500-year-old rule of
>>> logical reasoning that says that if A implies B you cannot deduce
>>> not-B implies not-A?
>> No, that is a valid inference>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 04:01:10 MDT