Evidence for Psychic Powers

[zenmaster]

I've been trained in scientific methodology. I hold the degrees. I am technically one of their peers even if I don't do research in parapsychology.

You can't be a peer, even "technically", if you don't do research in their field. You should know that. So no, you are not qualified.

A peer is someone with a scientific basis and sufficient knowledge about the field.. You do not actually need to do research in the field, though it helps.Let me remind you that the person you pulled up to "demonstrate" that this parapsychologists experiment was incorrectly done, James Randi, has had no official training at all. He quit school to become a stage magician.

By no means was I appealing to Randi as an authority on the paper, or on the subject - he's not a scientist. I was pointing out the paper's lack of rigor and the degree of attention received.

I do have relevant training in research methodology, philosophy of science and a somewhat decent working knowledge about the field of parapsychology. I can certainly judge for myself the research performed and the merits of arguments for or against a case.

You've basically watered down the whole concept of 'peer' in scientific peer review.

Again, it's not about showing 'proof and hand waving'. It's about providing a falsifiable explanation of experimental evidence - empirical data. Saying it another way, the objective is not to attempt to bolster the opinion that psychic phenomena exists (as many attempt to do in internet forums, superficially, using 'magical thinking' - intuition supported by vague notions), as if to sway skeptics. It's about creating experimental methods used to explain, in a rigorous and reproducible manner, some hypothesis about the phenomena. The result is typically some measure of utility or an improved understanding of the mechanisms involved.

This is what I responded to. You indicated that it's important to see things from a scientific perspective and step away from opinions and vague notions.

So if you want to talk about the facts and real science, be my guest. Make no mistake, there is overwhelming evidence.

I've read over some of the criticisms and am still reading over the paper: 9 experiments. Let's talk. Which experiment do you think was explained adequately? We'll look at that one.