3 ms·

https://centerforinquiry.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1996/03/22165045/p24.pdf https://centerforinquiry.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads...

• stevenhuang 9mo ago
  His analysis is flawed. > Despite Professor Hyman's continued protests about parapsychology lacking repeatability, I have never seen a skeptic attempt to perform an experiment with enough trials to even come close to insuring success. The parapsychologists who have recently been willing to take on this challenge have indeed found success in their experiments, as described in my original report. If the phenomenon we are trying to study is somehow intelligent, then the observer effect will see to it that skeptics will never progress towards understanding until they're somehow "ready", whatever that means. https://ics.uci.edu/~jutts/response.html https://ics.uci.edu/~jutts/response.html
  • someothherguyy 9mo ago
    She also says " There is little benefit in continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data. " Which is an insane thing to say and reveals her motivated reasoning.
    • stevenhuang 9mo ago
      The results have been collected using experimental rigour stricter than medical trials. The one's engaged in motivated reasoning are skeptics like you and Randy who refuse to engage with the data because of, ironically, motivated reasoning. The data is clear. Either point out the flaws in the experimental protocols or consider you have some metaphysical priors to update.
      • deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]