Saturday, May 07, 2005

Andy Replies: The Case Against Psi (Part 1)

Here is Andy's reply to my psi email. He has graciously given me permission to post this and his other emails, although he did note recently:

I didn't write it for public consumption, so on my end at least, it's probably not very well thought out or, for that matter, very interesting.

I would have to disagree; I think Andy defends his position admirably in this and especially his next email (coming soon), and I thank him for letting me air this back and forth discussion.


Hmmm. I was kind of hoping for stuff that had been peer-reviewed from scientific journals. Not from Dean Radin or from CSICOP for that matter.

I got to see Radin speak a few years ago here in NYC. I just found it disappointing. I think he's playing on people's lack of knowledge about mathematics and quantum mechanics or perhaps he himself doesn't have a very good knowledge of mathematics and quantum mechanics. And Josephson is another disappointment. I'd love to have someone credible on the side of psi but it's certainly not him. If Radin's book is the best you have to offer as to what constitutes overwhelming evidence, then I guess we're at an impasse.

I'm familiar with most of the the areas you mention in your e-mail and I plan on reading up on the others. I don't think you could find anyone more into the idea of paranormal stuff existing, but I also have a strong background in mathematics and I understand how meta-analysis should be used properly and what constitutes evidence. I've yet to see it here.

I honestly didn't find anything particularly compelling in your e-mail, but I won't try and go through it point by point because those long back and forths get confusing and never come to any conclusions and you were kind enough to write the e-mail in the first place. But if there's one specific thing that I'm overlooking that you would suggest I take another look at as being solid evidence of anything in the PSI realm, I'd be happy to.

Take care,

NEXT: My reply to Andy's reply.

No comments: