# Science and the nonphysical/New discussion group

       This format of peer-reviewing is unfair and intellectualy dishonest. As it acknowledges only "credible" peers, how to expect sufficient reviews from those previously against the new claim, as acknowledging it could drive them to change their beliefs and life styles? Or, as an alternative, what possible kind of "really neutral" peers would you expect to find?
       Remember the link you posted above named The mind machine: a mass participation experiment into the possible existence of extra-sensory perception?. It is also just an abstract, which full text is available for purchase. Would you (or 'the peers') purchase some of the creationsts full texts to analyze them? Anyway we can see just by the abstract how scientifically tendentious it is. Of course the full text would bring score graphics featuring very few high scores, that would be subsequently *leveled down* by averaging them with the vast majority of low scores. OF COURSE, the correct (honest) procedure would be exactly detecting those very few high scores participants and test THEM APART, then again taking the best among these, and so on. I almost can hear skeptics replying: hey, this way it would be not fair... --Skytel 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
          You can set up experiments testing for "psychic phenomena" according to many different protocols. There is no shortage of people who claim to have "psychic" abilities. Pick the best "psychic" and describe a verifiable way to collect data from that individual using controlled tests. I suppose some people think the conventional scientific community is corrupt and that there is a conspiracy that prevents evidence for "psychics" and supernatural events from being published. There are journals that operate outside the scientific mainstream such as iscid that could be mined by a Wikiversity discussion group looking for published evidence of creation events that cannot be explained by conventional science. --JWSchmidt 02:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
       "I suppose some people think the conventional scientific community is corrupt and that there is a conspiracy that prevents evidence for "psychics" and supernatural events from being published." <- If there was run some really correct psychic experiment which results was statistically strikingly favorable to the psychic hypothesis, I can tell you what would be the response of mainstream scientists. They would answer like this: 'OK, we recognize the favorable results, BUT - that does not prove that it was BECAUSE OF anything related to psychic activity. We just cannot tell how did it happen, YET!'. Do you agree that this would be their response? Or do you find they would consequently begin to practice meditation and go to the church, or what else? --Skytel 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    "Creationists are using scientific arguments, scientific revisions, scientific experiments and conclusions. There are sites abounded with such scientific works." <-- In analogy with The $1 million challenge, maybe what we could do here at Wikiversity is create the "Skytel Prize" for scientific creationism. We could nominate, select and review published articles reporting data about supernatural creations and each year select the prize winning article. --JWSchmidt 18:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
       "In analogy with The $1 million challenge, maybe what we could do here at Wikiversity is create the "Skytel Prize"" <- I would not allow putting my name in such similar prize because I'm honest. The $1 million challenge makes use of the "one million fallacy", named thanks to its existence, but what I would call "the buncodebunker fallacy". It uses a magic trick method to deceive the public opinion, which is to disguise the impossibility of a future proof with the possibility of a future prize. The credibility of the prize *does not* imply in the credibility of the proof. The FACT is that, if one day some authentic psychic passes the testing conditions, wins the prize and the press asks the buncodebunker if psychic phenomena was finaly proven to exist, he will answer: "NO. Science is not able to tell this, but only that it couldn't find out whether the alleged psychic made a good trick or not!" Previously HIDING this crucial information is what deceives the public opinion, as the buncodebunker never expected neither said his testing will be able to prove authenticity. --Skytel 17:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
          We could start a Wikiversity discussion group for peer-reviewed articles about any type of supernatural or psychic phenomena.....such a group could be open to articles that report data documenting any type of supernatural or psychic events. --JWSchmidt 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
             "such a group could be open to articles..." Why should I believe they could be "open" just because of moving the discussion? Please, bring them here and I can present creationists links again. They could discuss psychic stuff here as a secondary supporting factor, as we have been doing. I understand moving this aspect of the discussion to elsewhere would prejudice the logic of the thread and raise suspicion over the seriousness of Wikiversity project. --Skytel 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
                I don't really care if such a discussion takes place here or on another page. Is there a scientific article that presents verifiable evidence for psychic or supernatural phenomena? --JWSchmidt 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
          "I don't really care if such a discussion takes place here or on another page." <- Well, maybe future searchers at this thread will see your careless as an (hopefully not) attempt to deflect this issue from straightforward analysis. "Is there a scientific article that presents verifiable evidence for psychic or supernatural phenomena?" <- THE GREAT problem for eventual articles is that NO evidence, no matter how striking they could be, would ever be accepted as "proof" by the materialistic scientific community. Simply put (again, sorry), science is still just not ABLE to find out WHAT phenomena ARE. Does not know what spirit IS, and does not know what matter IS.
          I would participate in a WIDE ALLIED WIKI CONJUNCT OPERATION discussion forum for scientific defense of the existence of such a "matter" thing. If you can call there more than one claimer, please call me... --Skytel 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
             Please, where is the original link to this "Science teaching materials for creationism" section? This section ideed copies the discussion at Colloquium page, but I couldn't find how one would see from there (or elsewhere) that the discussion is continuing in this section. Thank you. --Skytel 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There are links to this page from Science teaching materials for creationism#Continuing Discussion, Topic:Philosophy of Science#See also, What is science?#See also, etc. For a complete list of links to this page, use the What links here link in the toolbox at the edge of this page. --JWSchmidt 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, thank you very much. Good links. --Skytel 01:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)