From: ChuckKuecker (ckuecker@mcs.net)
Date: Wed May 06 1998 - 06:35:17 MDT
At 12:21 5/6/98 +0000, Damien Broderick wrote:
>
>My own prejudice is about to show:
>
>I've spent a lot of time reading in parapsychology, good, bad and
>indifferent, and have done some experimental work of my own in
>precognition. My current best guess is that some claims of psi are valid,
>and that the record clearly shows that veridical non-inferential
>foreknowledge is possible (although in a vagrant, transient and
>irritatingly stochastic fashion).
>
Some otherwise rational scientists have extreme problems with even
considering certain topics. Isaac Asimov wrote wonderful science fiction and
as a scientist dismissed out of hand many ideas that did not match the
current state of knowledge in physics. 'Impossible!' was the title of one
essay - and he meant it!
It is fine to say 'under our current level of knowledge, this process is
impossible' - the qualifier allows you to gracefully accept the impossible
when someone discovers the way to do it. Psi is one thing that has had tons
of bad press, and bad sci-fi, so many scientists shy away.
There has to be room for 'silly science' research. Most of it will be found
to be horsefeathers, I am afraid, but there will be an occasional gem that
should more than pay the costs of supporting research on dead ends. Besides,
this research will keep some of the crackpots from entering politics or
becoming Presidential advisers..
Chuck Kuecker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:03 MST