Mark Richards wrote:
I think we may be at cross purposes. I think the
difficulty is in identifying who the credible sources
are, and with whom they are credible when you are
dealing with things that some people think are
pseudoscience and others think are suppressed truth.
Why is it difficult in this case? Are there articles in journals
which meet standard practices of peer-reviewed academic research?
Credible. Are there articles in the National Enquirer? Not credible.
Are there books published by respectable acacemic presses? Credible.
Are there books published by "New Age" publishers who appear to
publish anything which will sell? Not credible.
With ESP, the question is often framed in terms of statistical
probabilities that thus-and-such could have been the result of chance
or not. While we may not be qualified to directly assess the
statistical evidence itself, we are qualified to look at such
questions of: what is the training of the author? Does this person
have a PhD in statistics from a reputable University? Does this
person publish work in peer-reviewed journals?
I don't see any difficulty at all here, as long as we abandon the idea
that neutrality requires epistemological nihilism.
In most cases, it is sufficient to simple state the unconversial facts
in a reasonably complete manner. "A study conducted by Professor
Smith at Harvard University and published in _Review of Statistical
Psychology_ found thus-and-such. While this reflects the broad
consensus of the scientific community, it is also true that a vast
popular literature continues to promote..."
--Jimbo
--
"La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on
fr.wikipedia.org