主题：【衲记包子】超心理学家驳斥反伪斗士魔术师兰迪 -- 衲子
nature vol. 319 p444 6 Feb. 1986
Remote viewing exposed
....
Considering the importance for the remote viewing hypothesis of adequate cue removal, Tart's failure to perform this basic task seems beyond comprehension. As previously concluded (2), remote viewing has not been demostrated in the experiments conducted by Puthoff and Targ, only the repeated failure of the investigators to remove sensory cues.
David Marks
Christopher Scott
...
2.Marks, D. & Kammann, R. Nature 274, 680-681 (1978)
...
看看非主流在74年的结论被否定之后，在争论中提出了什么新的让人信服的证据或者逻辑？
THE NEED FOR OPEN-MINDED SKEPTICISM
by Dr Rupert Sheldrake
The Skeptic Vol.16, No.4, pp. 8-13 (2004)
If the evidence is positive, it is either "flawed" or in need of "replication and further analysis". If it is negative it is accepted uncritically. Marks appears impervious to positive evidence of any kind. For example, commenting on the several successful replications of the remote viewing experiments carried out by Harold Puthoff, Russell Targ and Edwin May (funded for several years by various U.S. government agencies) he dismisses them all as "flawed in a variety of ways". In a chapter entitled "The Sloppiness Continues", Marks mentions positive results of a remote viewing experiment reported by Marilyn Schlitz and Elmar Gruber. Admitting that this was a successful replication of the similar experiments of Targ and Puthoff, Marks gets off this particular hook by stating: "However, we do not know how many nonsignificant studies remain in the investigators' file drawer. If it is a small handful, which seems likely, the... statistical significance simply melts away like snowflakes in the psring." He has no evidence that any such "file-drawer" studies exist. Marks has shown once again that when negative evidence is required to disprove a positive claim, he simply makes it up.
EXAMINING THE SKEPTICS
A Skeptical Look At James Randi
By Michael Prescott
Prescott和兰迪之间来来回回的争论记录,见:
其间,Prescott有联系到Puthoff让他澄清一些问题, Puthoff答道: "... You can quote me in saying that I say that Randi is a liar when he calls me a liar. My profession is as a scientist dedicated to reality and truth, his is as a charlatan dedicated to misdirection and tomfoolery to gain the moment. Let the audience figure out who is more likely to be lying!"
就意味着我们可以探讨前沿的,有争议的话题.
超心理学不是伪科学, 这个帽子是少数反对者们扣的.
"超自然"只是个俗名, 实际上必是自然现象, 现在人们不了解其机制, 才安上个"超自然"的名称.
shibaozhong提到了外星人, 这不是伪科学, 一个侧面的例证: 如果美国没有任何关于外星人的蛛丝马迹, 她会投入大量金钱来资助探寻外星人的研究吗?
除非你相信旧约关于上帝造人的说法, 否则怎能接受广袤的宇宙中唯有地球这颗幸运的星体有高级生命居住?
总而言之, 我认为这些都是合法的科学问题, 没什么不可以讨论的.
当然,对于话题之偏重于这些方面,某些读者可能感到不快. 但这不是我的问题, 我就是喜欢这一类的前沿话题, 应该怪别人为什么不积极地作科普涅? 如果有5个人积极地作科普, 而我专给underdog申辩, 这样的话题分布就很正常了. 可惜大家都太懒, 于是显得我过于勤快了.
找到的那些实验缺陷就不是缺陷了？
即使在科技杂志上发了文章，也必须有可重复的验证。正是，可以欺人一时，不能欺人一世。
主流科学界所不接受的，并不是一概否定。三十年后的今天，如果“遥视”成立，诺贝尔奖非其莫属。又怎么只是在一个小圈子里自我陶醉。
还不爱搭理兰迪，有钱也不拿。高！