From: krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (Doug Krick)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: "experiments"
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:29:01 GMT
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

In article <EdsBhdG00WBM081=x3@andrew.cmu.edu>, de0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel S.
Efran) writes:
>> 
>>It's not only "not the best of experiments", it's not an experiment at
>>all.  What prediction are you testing?  The fact that someone who is
>>told to feel something in their hand is likely to report feeling
>>something in their hand?  And what is the control?  This is frankly
>ludicrous.
>>
>>You ought to realize that this sort of plainly silly discourse tends to
>>reinforce the perception of skeptics that the majority of psi-believers
>>are incapable of thinking clearly about the subject, and are ignorant
>>of the basics of the scientific method.

You're right.  Those "experiments" were NOT scientific experiments designed to
show HOW magic workes.  They were off-the-cuff things to show that it DOES. 
Because they were off-the-cuff, they were lacking things like controls.  Feel
free to add your own, etc.  It's just supposed to be a STARTING BLOCK, not the
end result, as many people here think!  (Also, since just about all of my
science was given to me at the H.S. level, I am admittantly NOT the best
person to devise a completely scientific experiment.  I admit this.  Can
someone out there design one for us?)

>I consider myself both a pagan and a skeptic.  I agree with Tim here.  Anyone
>interested in truly understanding the world around them should be ashamed to
>support such non-experimentation IN THE GUISE OF REAL SCIENCE, as this was
>presented.  The goal of true scientific experimentation is to understand
>how things really work, not to prove that you're right and someone else
>is wrong.  If you want to impress your friends or make converts, by all
>means do the "experiments" presented here.  They will probably be
>impressive, if you're lucky, because most people don't fully comprehend
>probability.  I don't know if magic works, but I do know that those
>experiments don't need to use it. You can get "impressive" results using
>just chance and normal human perception. This is how those "Psychic
>Hotlines" make a fortune:  They tell people what they want to hear, with
>no regard for truth, charge outrageous amounts of money (many pagans I
>know find that offensive by itself)....
>In short, they lie, cheat, and steal.  They prey on the credulous like
>con artists throughout history.  Is there anyone here who doesn't find
>that offensive, immoral?
>
>THAT is what the skeptics are fighting.  Not you.  


I am not an advocate of "Psychic Hotlines" and the like.  95%+ of them are
pure crap.  If you can devise an experiment that is completely scientific, I'd
like to see it.  The problem here is that magic does not contradict the laws
of nature.  Most skeptics expect to see blatent violations of the universe's
laws.  That's not going to happen.  I'm not out to prove HOW magic works, just
that it DOES.

Krikket  --  a.k.a. Doug Krick  --  krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us   

Supercalifragilisticsadomasochisim   !   Disclaimers?  We don't need no
   -- Need I say anything else?      !   stinkin' discalimers!
Newsgroups: alt.pagan