From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Sensible interpretation of the unknown (was: I don't know).
Summary: Sensible is as sensible does
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:55:17 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Apr13.110606@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
}In article <1992Apr13.060139.13238@Princeton.EDU>,
}rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson) writes:
}> In article <1992Apr11.011318.6261@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
}writes:
}> >In article <1992Apr9.092904@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
}Ashlock) writes:

      [Lydick:]
}> >>The extensive negative results and weak positive results for psi
}> >>indicate the current sensible assumption about psi is that it doesn't
}exist.

      [Ashlock:] 
}> >Here I agree with you.

      [Nelson:]
}> What extensive negative results are you folks talking about?

      [The rest is easy:]
}   3,000 years of recorded history with millions of empirical attempts
}to develop psionic technology?  Compare this to say, empirical developments
}in artillery, lever technology, or mass psychology.  Gotta have it.

[some deleted, including my question whether Ashlock and Lydick were
merely agreeing, genially, on an unsupported opinion.]

}   Your calm seems to be slipping.  Psi has the same sort of burden to lift
}that alchemistry did.  And look what hgappened when people _did_ finally 
}produce gold out of "base metals".  Turned out to be nothing like what the 
}original theory wanted or proposed.
}
}Dan
}Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
}
}PS: congratulations.  You made the skeptical enquirer this month!

I think I saw the article, namely a report of a convention dealing
primarily with orgonomy.  It was a rather inaccurate job of reporting, at
least the references to my talk, but 'twas about on a par with the stuff
one sees at the supermarket checkout, where so many skeptics as well as
proponents seem to have derived their impression of psi "research" and
"evidence".

Yes, I admit annoyance with repeated totally unsupported assertions by
intelligent people like you and Lydick to the effect that there is
negative evidence.  Your handwaving about thousands of years of
experience is precisely equivalent to the handwaving by proponents of all 
manner of claims that there *are* supernatural or paranormal phenomena.  

And if thousands of years have not revealed the large scale effects that 
you invoke (presuming this is a resonable interpretation of your "psionic 
technology"), there is *no* protection in that record against small scale
effects that, while they have no practical value (we see no psi-mediated 
garage door opener on the market), do have profound theoretical implications
if they exist.  My interest in the whole business is to try to determine
first if they do exist, and if sound evidence is found, to try to define
the relevant parameter space, and then possible mechanisms/explanations.
I have put out some offers of papers, and have contributed to some
discussions on sci.skeptic almost entirely because I think the evidence
is good that there is some "there there", but still feel skeptical at a
level that would probably surprise you.  I have some doubt that this
forum can ultimately yield much in the way of serious and well-informed
criticism, at least anything new, but it is possible.  

Deepest apologies for any unwarranted 49 cent words.  (God, they used to
be only 25 cents!)

Roger N
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic