Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yes Maxell, they are extremely paranoid here.
Steve, you seemed to take great exception to Someone characterizing you as having a mental illness. Why is your doing it alright?
For example, Professor Wiseman who is a well known skeptic and skeptical investigator is welcome to, and publishes his research debunking things like this in the Journal of the Society of Psychial Research (JSPR).
This really annoys many people here because this same journal also publishes research which supports paranormal findings as well. Both anti and pro paranormal studies and articles receive the same rigorous peer review. For example, a series of experiments by Dr. Gary Schwartz (who published results on mediumship in the JSPR) was recently rejected by the peer review process of the JSPR for reasons I am unable to give at this time since they haven't been released by the author.
Here you go again. Are you "in the know"? Can't you make a simple statement of fact without somehow suggesting that you are a confident of someone or other? As has been amply demonstrated, Schwartz is a hack. I suspect that even JSPR has it's limits
However, the closed minded skeptics here fail to recognize that this proves the JSPR is more level-headed and rigiorous than they want to give it credit for.
Booting Schwartz proves that they are level headed? Perhaps it proves that there are depths that even they will not descend to
It also proved that the data, which Schwartz reported, and which was found to be wanting, was honestly reported and not embellished in any way.
Proves no such thing. A simple test of your thinking abilities. Why does their rejection not prove that did not "embellish" or that if he did, he did not do it quite enough?
So the rejection by the JSPR of the Schwartz evaluation of Chris Robinson's dream precognition
underscores the integrity of the JSPR.
Are you suggesting that preceiving Schwartz research as dreck is a sign of integrity? The only way that this assertion makes sense is if you know for a fact that Schwartz provides dreck reliably and that JSPR correctly identified it as such. I will say that this is a telling slip on your part
Now the closed minded skepticks that populate this board are having a hard time with this. They also are having a hard time with the fact that the same hated JSPR publishes articles debunking such things as the Indian Rope Trick, myth or magic trick, it doesn't make any difference. They might want to notice that this same evaluation by Wiseman also appeared in their beloved Nature magazine which they hold up as a yardstick. So when people like Pyrrho
feel it is not necessary to debunk a myth, what he is really doing is saying that skeptical investigators like Richard Wiseman are on fool's errands. It is an insult.
Hang on a second. Are you suggesting that the idea of some Indian tossing a rope in the air and having a kid climb it and disappear is really worthy of serious investigation into some paranormal explination? Are you really so zero based intellectually and experientially that you would allow for one second that this is anything other than a trick? Do you think that every claim, no matter how transparently fraudulent should be seriously investigated? You think this had to be "debunked"?
But then since you are new here you will soon learn that there are cretins on this board who will insult anyone for a penny. Don't let it bother you and welcome.
You may be insulted for a penny, but it won't be your intellegence that is insulted, as Steve just did[/QUOTE]
Yes Maxell, they are extremely paranoid here.
Steve, you seemed to take great exception to Someone characterizing you as having a mental illness. Why is your doing it alright?
For example, Professor Wiseman who is a well known skeptic and skeptical investigator is welcome to, and publishes his research debunking things like this in the Journal of the Society of Psychial Research (JSPR).
This really annoys many people here because this same journal also publishes research which supports paranormal findings as well. Both anti and pro paranormal studies and articles receive the same rigorous peer review. For example, a series of experiments by Dr. Gary Schwartz (who published results on mediumship in the JSPR) was recently rejected by the peer review process of the JSPR for reasons I am unable to give at this time since they haven't been released by the author.
Here you go again. Are you "in the know"? Can't you make a simple statement of fact without somehow suggesting that you are a confident of someone or other? As has been amply demonstrated, Schwartz is a hack. I suspect that even JSPR has it's limits
However, the closed minded skeptics here fail to recognize that this proves the JSPR is more level-headed and rigiorous than they want to give it credit for.
Booting Schwartz proves that they are level headed? Perhaps it proves that there are depths that even they will not descend to
It also proved that the data, which Schwartz reported, and which was found to be wanting, was honestly reported and not embellished in any way.
Proves no such thing. A simple test of your thinking abilities. Why does their rejection not prove that did not "embellish" or that if he did, he did not do it quite enough?
So the rejection by the JSPR of the Schwartz evaluation of Chris Robinson's dream precognition
underscores the integrity of the JSPR.
Are you suggesting that preceiving Schwartz research as dreck is a sign of integrity? The only way that this assertion makes sense is if you know for a fact that Schwartz provides dreck reliably and that JSPR correctly identified it as such. I will say that this is a telling slip on your part
Now the closed minded skepticks that populate this board are having a hard time with this. They also are having a hard time with the fact that the same hated JSPR publishes articles debunking such things as the Indian Rope Trick, myth or magic trick, it doesn't make any difference. They might want to notice that this same evaluation by Wiseman also appeared in their beloved Nature magazine which they hold up as a yardstick. So when people like Pyrrho
feel it is not necessary to debunk a myth, what he is really doing is saying that skeptical investigators like Richard Wiseman are on fool's errands. It is an insult.
Hang on a second. Are you suggesting that the idea of some Indian tossing a rope in the air and having a kid climb it and disappear is really worthy of serious investigation into some paranormal explination? Are you really so zero based intellectually and experientially that you would allow for one second that this is anything other than a trick? Do you think that every claim, no matter how transparently fraudulent should be seriously investigated? You think this had to be "debunked"?
But then since you are new here you will soon learn that there are cretins on this board who will insult anyone for a penny. Don't let it bother you and welcome.
You may be insulted for a penny, but it won't be your intellegence that is insulted, as Steve just did[/QUOTE]
