From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson)
Subject: Re: Parapsychology
Summary: Evidence vs ill-informed bigotry 
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:52:32 GMT

In article <2895@sol.deakin.OZ.AU> andrea@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Andrea Todkill) writes:
>In article <DAVIDB.92Apr8123701@inmet.inmet> davidb@inmet.inmet (David Barton) writes:
>>Without a definition of your terms, I do not know if you are
>>ill-informed or simply an intellectual bigot.  Is the work done at the
>>Princeton Engineering Anomoly Research center not "paranormal", or not
>>"scientifically verifiable"?  If you assert either, intelligent people
>>will disagree with you.
>
>I see. Since I disagree with you I _must_ be either ill-informed or
>intellectually bigoted. No other possibility at all. On the other hand,
>anyone who agrees with you is automatically intelligent. I thought this was
>sci.psychology, not alt.flame. 

Had your original post had some intellectual content based on reading
the relevant literature, rather than inflamatory remarks like those made 
by people who have not done their homework, you wouldn't have appeared
either ill-informed or intellectually bigoted. 

>>The best summary book is "Margins of Reality" by Jahn and Dunne.
>>There is still some discussion concerning their methods and the
>>interpretation of their results.  This discussion is not conclusive at
>>this time (except by dint of close-mindedness).  The results have been
>>replicated in part, by Dean Radin among others.
>
>Really? Then if there has in fact been some verified research proving
>paranormal forces, the researchers have been _extremely_ quiet about discoveries
>which if true would have overturned the entire field of research in physics.

My personal model for deciding when to make a big noise about research
findings is von Bekesy, who averred that doing five different versions
of an experiment should give adequate perspective to justify
publishing.  A good many physicists are interested, though none is
worried that the findings will overturn "the entire field of research in
physics."  Physicists, at least the good ones, realize that physical
models are not a finished product, that they _will_ be modified and
extended.  Some even concern themselves with tough questions about
integrating well-formed concepts of consciousness into physical models.

See, for example, the journal "Foundations of Physics", which is a forum
for philosophically and technically challenging articles addressing the
ill-defined "boundaries" of our physical understanding.  Among other
items, you will find an article by Jahn and Dunne on a Quantum
Mechanical model for aspects of consciousness (about 1985) and one by
Radin and Nelson describing evidence for conscious-related anomalies in
physical systems (1989).  Full references available on request, as is a
list of available PEAR technical reports and other publications.

On the other hand, your view is not unrepresented among physicists.
Nobel Laureate Phil Anderson expresses something like it in a "Physics
Today" article in late 1990, though it would appear that he, like you,
had not informed himself adequately concerning the actual evidence. 
(References to the article and responses on request.)

Roger N
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13612 sci.psychology:2313