At 5:48 PM -0400 9/19/00, Michael J. Kane wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Paul Brandon (I believe) wrote:
I did!
>> >The violation occurs in the fact that no one has been able to identify any
>> >physical radiation of any known energy source during brain activity that
>> >can be detected beyond the skull.
>
>And then Miguel Roig wrote:
>
>>So, because the mechanism for a phenomenon cannot yet be accounted for, we
>>should toss out any evidence of the phenomenon?
>
>No. We cannot discount the "evidence" that *sometimes* there is a tiny,
>but above-
>chance, match between senders' messages and receivers' guesses. However, why,
>in the absence of a theory that is compatible with physics, biology, and
>psychology,
>should such findings be considered evidence FOR psi any more than they are
>considered evidence FOR sensory leakage, other confounds, wishful thinking,
>etc.
>
>You're presuming that the presence of above-chance matches means that psi is
>responsible. That may be, but given the great difficulties in
>accommodating psi into what
>we know about the way the mind works, it is more parsimonious to consider that
>the alternative explanations are more likely than are the paranormal ones.
Well put!!
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
