Actually, you don't at all. (In fact, I keep wondering where the "Ed of yore" has gone, lol. Though personally I always thought your posts were okay--after I filtered enough to make them "G" rated...
).
I agree, though I think most of it is sloppiness, not "knowingly". I'm sorry to say in Schwartz's case that the flaws have been highlighted so often that sloppiness isn't an excuse any more, though. And, re: Schwartz, I felt sadly convinced that he was -knowingly- fraudulent when I read a description of his seminar by a friendly writer (Justine Picardie's "If the Spirit Moves You...")
Leaving dishes out is sloppy. Our spelling on this board is sloppy. Designing and poorly executing a scientific experiment, if you purport to be a scientist, is malfesence. No excuse. Whipping hell out of data (Princeton, Targ) when that is disipline independent is fraud. The fact that some of these people continue underlines the bankruptcy of the disipline. Tell me, in what eskimo village do you think those cold fusion guys work? In real science there is little forgiveness. In parapsychology there is absolution for all. This general problem makes the area stink to high heaven. I rarely read any serious work, on any subject EXCEPT PARAPSYCHOLOGY, with the first thought through my brain being "are they lieing?".
I don't know, Ed. But I think "clear and unambiguous" should work both ways...and it hasn't, that I can see.
You can't clearly and unambiguously demonstrate the absence of anything. It really only works one way. I won't bore you with the "extraordinary claims blah blah" stuff. Simply put certain people make certain contentions. They must prove it.
To lapse into tedium a bit: If you were looking for financial advice and you came to EdInc, Financial Services and I said "Yo...25% per annum tax free" what would your response be? You would want proof, I hope. It would not be up to you to disprove my contention. Here people are trying to get you to alter your belief system (and some your money too). As a wise consumer you must ask "is it true?".
Actually, I think for most p eople that it is. I really doubt that most credible researchers into this are intentionally "stacking the deck"...or else believers would have a lot more, lot more "definitive" results to quote.
I suspect that if they did not believers would have a lot less then the pittence that they have.
I think most professional researchers- -even those who might like ADC to be true--are professional enough to go where there research takes them....not to try to "phony it up". I can't prove it, but I'd be surprised if fraud was rampant.
They seem to get "hit by the faith" and elaborate way in advance of the data. Again, look at Pear. Based on nothing these guys were positing all sorts of silly mechanisms for non-existant results. To the point where the lack of results were results. Religion. The real sniff test is the unassailable fact that there is not an exemplar experiment that demonstrates ANYTHING in the realm of the paranormal at all, period. Some guy here said something to me about demonstrating schitzophrenia. Cute. The fact is that, wobbly psyhological diagnoses aside, you can demonstrate that. If it is real, you can show it. Real phenomena are, well, real.
One possible conclusion is that there's "nothing" to investigate. Another, of course, is that it is simply extremely difficult to scientifically investigate something as
out of our daily realm of experience as ADC would be, if it really exists.
I disagree. In the absence of a laboratory, these things seem to permeate life. Criminy, JE gets slammed by dead guys the moment the tape starts rolling. Science is really nothing more than formal questioning. Are you suggesting that ADC is beyond questioning? If it is a pure belief system and inherently non-falsifiable and you go for it then I submit that you have abrogated your primary responsibility as sentient human being, that is understanding. To each his own.
I'm trying to become more familiar with research into this, past and present, as I realize I know very little about it. I'll let you know if any of the above changes in the process.
By all means. While you are at it you might read a real scientific paper, it does not matter what the subject or discipline. The point is for you to see how real scientists approach problems. If I might suggest a couple of choices.
Karl Lashley was a founder of neuropsychology. He was an excellent writer and his pure science, formal papers are quite accessable. For a hoot dig up "the nesting habits of the Noddy and Sooty Terns" it was reprinted in "The Neuropsychology of Lashley" edited by Hebb et al. Don't have to read the whole thing, just get a flavor. In a different direction, there is a book entitled "King Arthurs Round Table" which is a series of essays on the examination of the table in Winchester Castle. Note the rigor, note the triangulation of methods in dating. Look, in fact, at real science. When you have done this go back and read Schwartz or any of these other guys and see why I an furious. What they do ain't science.
