Ray (Ex) writes:
Expressions like "ESP's critics, a group
that includes
most
mainstream scientists," is a gratuitous reference
to the
authority of scientists. I think that it would be closer
to the truth to say that most scientists have never
paid
any serious attention to ESP, so that the basis which
that
majority criticizes ESP is its own lack of knowledge.
Actually, that's false. Nearly every scientist that I have
ever worked with and studied with has given quite a bit of
thought to this and related issues. Having spent years in
college and graduate schools, and in "the real world" as
well, I can so that your caricature of scientists is false.
Again, you are creating strawmen to attack.
That to me is not very reassuring. Many articles
would be much better if the science lobby started to
show some restraint.
Huh? Who the hell are "the science lobby"? Please stop
your recriminations against "the scientists". You keep
making strawman arguments, with a clear attempt at the
deligitimization of anyone who tries to study controversial
issues in a controlled setting.
There is no "science lobby", and practically every
scientist I have ever discussed this issue with has been
open to accepting _any_ claim, IF there is proof.
Anecdotes, however, do not rise to the level of proof. You
just seem mad because your side has never been able to
offer any proof that the rest of the world will accept.
If you truly believe in these claims, then spend your time
gathering more proof, and less time making strawman ad
homenim attacks on "the science lobby". The more you do
this, the less your position is accepted.
A single well-written paragraph can more than
adequately
represent the views of the detractors. Trying to debunk
concepts that have never been proven, with equally
questionable data only makes for an article full of
sniping.
In other words, dump NPOV. Because NPOV demands precisely
the format that you want to remove. In contrast to your
false claims about scientists, a large number of scientists
have studied ESP, telepathy, telekinesis and other similar
alleged phenomenon for well over a century. Controlled
experiments have been run and repeated hundreds of times.
Articles on these subjects must, according to our NPOV
policy, report both the alleged phenomenon, and on the many
experiments run to study such phenomenon. Your format
would remove the vast majority of material on this subject,
thus biasing the article in favaor of paranormal claims
made without proof.
Credible sources for both sides of this argument are
available,
Yet this is precisely what you seem to be annoyed with;
large amounts of controlled scientific studies have been
published in peer-reviewed journals, but you get angry when
they are reported on within our articles. You keep
advocating that we remove nearly all POV's, and reduce our
articles to a "He said, She said" format. Sorry, but that
is not the way that NPOV works.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250