Second, in my opinion, you can only a scientific claims based on your own knowledge and experience. You do not have sufficient knowledge and experience you simply cannot judge the matter and you should remain neutral.
I meant to say:
You can only judge a scientific claim based on your own knowledge and experience. If you do not have sufficient knowledge . . .
Sorry about that. I am also sorry if this sounds harsh and judgmental. It is, but science calls for judgement and rigor. It also calls for people to reach a firm conclusion when the evidence is compelling. That was Bacon's point, which he reiterated: "We are not to deny the authority of the human senses and understanding, although weak; but rather to furnish them with assistance." Contrary to what some so-called skeptics say, it is not scientific to sit on the fence and declare that you cannot decide after BARC publishes an autoradiograph showing proof of massive radiation, and SRI publishes Sigma 90 calorimetry. See also my message from 16 May 2006 about Britz and Shamoo, and their sham objectivity.
I find it amazing how many professional scientists such as Britz never learned the fundamentals of the scientific method, that were worked out by Bacon and others in the 17th century. They know technique only; they fail to grasp the philosophical and logical basis of their own profession.
I also meant to say I think there is NO chance Randi will do his homework. I do not think he is capable of it.
I suppose that negative was clear from context. I probably swallowed the "no." It is frustrating having to depend upon a computer. Someday these voice input programs will understand meaning & context enough to make corrections like that, just as human secretaries do.
- Jed
