Quote:
Quote by: Jack  |
I'm rather confused as to what your attitude is. I suppose you mean the last paragraph in particular?
"Discussion about parapsychological phenomena has sometimes assumed emotional overtones, unsuitable to scientific discipline, and outspoken but contradictory opinions are still frequently voiced."
How does this differ from any other recent field of study? String theory? Quantum physics?
"Believers and nonbelievers in psi may base their belief or disbelief on what they consider to be the scientific evidence, on their personal experiences, or on some larger system of attitudes and values into which ESP does or does not fit."
This, albeit somewhat biased, says nothing on the subject of whether it exists or not.
It simplifies to "it may or may not exist," as is the case with any other recent field of study (string theory, quantum physics, etc).
"When such extreme and contradictory views are widely held, it is almost certain that the evidence is not conclusive either way and that confident conclusions are unlikely to be supported by a survey of all the known facts."
And somehow, from all that, they conclude that the hundreds of parapsychological institutes, as well as all of their scientific studies, are totally inconclusive, and deserve no further attention.
Extreme and contradictory views are very common in emerging fields of study, especially so in fields that are not yet backed by mainstream science. The early years of quantum physics were not much different -- emotional undertones and contradictory theories were prevalent. This does not justify calling the field forever inconclusive, nor does it justify ignoring the more recent developments in the field (which the article does).
Jack, I'm still pondering how this relates to my quote of veridical perception. You completely avoided the question of verifiable evidence, and you retorted with a summary of psychic phenomenon (one that is outdated, mind you).