The Skeptical Inquirer (http://www.csicop.org/) has a series of articles about l'affaire Bem, including argument with psychologist James Alcock. I don't think that any physicists were involved, though.
For what it's worth, I knew Darryl slightly when he was a graduate student (we had the same advisor; Harlan Lane, at the time) -- he seemed sane then. And in classic science fiction, BEM referred to Bug Eyed Monsters. On Jun 9, 2012, at 8:25 AM, Michael Palij wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 05:14:17 -0700, Scott O Lilienfeld wrote: >> Daryl Bem was my undergraduate advisor at Cornell from 1978 to 1982. He was >> beginning to conduct work on psi (using the ganzfeld procedure, if I recall) >> even back then. He also spoke quite favorably about the possibiilty of >> paranormal phenomena in his courses. So he has certainly been open to the >> existence of psi for many decades. The article's implication that data >> "changed his mind" following many years of skepticsm of psi strikes me as >> exceedingly dubious. > > My dissertation advisor, Marvin Levine, who did his original research on > hypothesis theory (Harry Harlow was one of his advisors) and would go on > to do research in spatial problem solving (the area of my dissertation). > He was also a somewhat unconventional person (i.e., "flake") because he > had he practiced yoga and studied Buddhism before it was fashionable. > I was somewhat concerned about how these activities might influence > his view of science until we both were exposed to some research involving > PSI/telepathy. I was extremely skeptical of the whole business but wasn't > sure what Marv's reaction was. I asked what he thought and his response > impressed. Paraphrasing from a potentially faulty memory, Marv said: > > |"We know an awful lot about energy from physics and the big problem > |here is the person either doesn't know physics or how what he's talking > |about violates what we know about physics. Regardless of the results, > |he still has to explain how his results fit into what we know is true and > |valid in physics. > > Bem did not go into much detail about physics in his JPSP article but > when I looked at some of Bem's writing in the parapsychology journals, > he went into detail about the mechanisms (i.e., how the future affects the > present). I think the real question is how does Bem's explanation and > theory are inconsistent with current physical theory. Does anyone know > of any physicist's critique of Bem's theory or model? If Bem relies > upon empirical results for his beliefs, shouldn't be taking into account > what the standard results are in physics? > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a64900b&n=T&l=tips&o=18283 > or send a blank email to > leave-18283-13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a649...@fsulist.frostburg.edu Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=18285 or send a blank email to leave-18285-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
