Randi on YouTube

[Moochie]

S i g h


M.

 

[Anna Kadabra]

Rapid? Well, I'm no expert but it's my understanding that the victory of heliocentricity was a complex process, effected not by any one crucial observation but by gradual assimilation. Galileo brought the matter out in the open in 1610 with Sidereus nuncius. Despite opposition, heliocentricity was not RULED OUT, the way that the western scientific community RULES OUT psi. Perhaps modern western science is more against psi than the old church was against heliocentricity?

The acceptance of psi will likewise be a gradual process. Science "advances funeral by funeral". The 'old guard' of the reigning paradigm will die off eventually, and a new generation...one more open to new paradigms...will rise.

Just because a theory that was doubted was later proven to be true does not mean that all theories that are doubted will later prove to be true. Shocking logic. Therefore a completely pointless argument.

It's quite simple...show us the evidence. Scientists are pretty good like that, in the light of overwhelming evidence they tend to change their opinions. It sometimes take a while, but not 100 years That is kind of what the whole scientific method is based on.

 

[Stray Cat]

I've always wondered, exactly who (if anyone) refused to look through Galileo's telescope. I mean, it would have been so simple to look through the damn thing already. Cowards.

What you seem to be ignoring though was that Gallileo was, accurate in his observation, correct in his findings and had the balls to just say it as it was instead of wrapping it up in layers and layers of BS.

We can say that Galileo's result was truely universal (no pun intended) in that everyone who did (and still continues) to look through the telescope would see exactly the same result. It is not centered around a 'belief'

Now I'm not saying that psi is not a possibility, but so far, all research into it only seems at best to discover ambiguity and at worst reveals fraud, pseudo-science and the opportunity to sell a book or two to an audience of people who don't require the same level of proof as science does.

If Rhine's work had any validity, why don't people replicate it and unwrap it from the fog that surrounds it instead of writing books (or internet forum posts) complaining that it is misrepresented and not taken seriously.

Surely the best way to silence the critics is to prove them wrong! Not just to whinge about how wrong they are?