On Friday, January 4, 2013 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 Stephen P. King <step...@charter.net <javascript:>>wrote:
> > So how ever many years ago you there confident that CERN would discover 
>> the Higgs?
> About 15, and in not one of those 15 years would I have confidently 
> predicted that nothing new about the Higgs would be discovered in the next 
> year, but I will make that prediction about the paranormal. 
>> And this post proves....? 
> That in the last 200 years research into the supernatural has produced 
> precisely ZERO results; and I'm not even talking about developing a theory 
> to explain how it works, I'm talking about obtaining enough experimental 
> evidence to show that a explanation is needed. We could be having this same 
> exact conversation about the paranormal in 1913, or even 1813 and you could 
> still be complaining that mainstream scientists (they were called Natural 
> Philosophers back then) were not paying enough attention to psi or ESP or 
> spiritualism or whatever. The field has not moved one inch in centuries, 
> not one Planck Length. As a result those doing full time ESP work today are 
> third or fourth rate, if they were really skilled in the art of 
> experimentation they'd be doing other things, they would never pick a field 
> as moribund as parapsychology. However if you're all thumbs in the lab then 
> parapsychology researcher is the perfect career choice because if you're 
> looking for something that doesn't exist a poor researcher will get more 
> encouraging results than a good one.
>> > Pfft, do better, John.
> If you disagree with me then show the courage of your convictions and 
> let's make a bet! If there is a article in Science or Nature or Physical 
> Review Letters about something (by whatever name) in the brain or in the 
> mind that violates the known laws of physics before January 4 2014 I will 
> give you $1000, and if there is not you only have to give me $100. I don't 
> demand a explanation of this new phenomena just that the editors of one of 
> those journals thinks that there is something interesting there, something 
> that needs to be explain. So do we have a bet? I'm completely serious about 
> this and if there is anybody else who would like to take this bet please 
> say so; come on, I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds. if you believe in this crap 
> then it's easy money.
>   John K Clark
That's like betting that the Catholic Church won't make Martin Luther a 
saint again this year.

If you notice, no private phenomena can be easily substantiated. There 
won't be any publications proving the fact that we laugh because things are 
funny, or that there is another way that blueness can be demonstrated 
besides seeing it for yourself.

Research of psi may indeed be misguided in trying to make public that which 
is so specifically private. To me, it makes sense that there is a directly 
proportionate relation, so that the more interior and esoteric the 
experience, the more resistant it will be to public examination. This seems 
to be our intuition - 'you're not going to believe this,' etc. 

This doesn't mean that there are not experiences which do not fit easily 
into a simplistic cartoon of physics which imagines thoughtless matter 
accidentally thinking. Science may forever preside only over the realism of 
public space, and forever sneer at private experience, or it may address 
privacy itself in a scientific and unbiased way someday. As has been 
pointed out here, quoted from Planck, it is not likely that the old guard 
of physics will ever be able to get beyond their own prejudice, and will go 
to their graves hanging on to the legacies of the 19th and 20th 
centuries...two centuries which may, like the fossil fuels which powered 
them, turn out to be anomalies.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to