主题：【衲记包子】超心理学家驳斥反伪斗士魔术师兰迪 -- 衲子
家园 【衲记包子】超心理学家驳斥反伪斗士魔术师兰迪 发在了<文摘版>
家园 【链接】检验怀疑论者---怀疑地看待詹姆斯.兰迪 EXAMINING THE SKEPTICS
A Skeptical Look At James Randi
By Michael Prescott
Prescott和兰迪之间来来回回的争论记录,见:
其间,Prescott有联系到Puthoff让他澄清一些问题, Puthoff答道: "... You can quote me in saying that I say that Randi is a liar when he calls me a liar. My profession is as a scientist dedicated to reality and truth, his is as a charlatan dedicated to misdirection and tomfoolery to gain the moment. Let the audience figure out who is more likely to be lying!"
关键词(Tags): #兰迪，家园 其实不必把1974年的文章拿出来，也不必用“CIA" 其实不必把1974年的文章拿出来，也不必靠“CIA"来增加可信度。真的“特异功能”去拿兰迪的百万奖金就可以了，又能一劳永逸让兰迪闭嘴，又有钱收。。。
家园 那篇Nature文章作者背景:两人皆为物理学家.Targ是调频激光 大功率气体输运激光、和可调等离子振荡器的发明人。Puthoff发明了可调红外激光，他对量子真空态、零点能 所作的理论工作在学界广为人知。见《The Field》Lynne McTaggart著，里面介绍了Puthoff在量子物理方面的工作。
呵呵，不能增加可信度，但至少能说明他们的工作不是你我还有Randi这样的半瓶醋可以想当然地轻易否定的。
家园 恩，但是nature上有业内人士的看法吧 nature vol. 319 p444 6 Feb. 1986
Remote viewing exposed
....
Considering the importance for the remote viewing hypothesis of adequate cue removal, Tart's failure to perform this basic task seems beyond comprehension. As previously concluded (2), remote viewing has not been demostrated in the experiments conducted by Puthoff and Targ, only the repeated failure of the investigators to remove sensory cues.
David Marks
Christopher Scott
...
2.Marks, D. & Kammann, R. Nature 274, 680-681 (1978)
...
家园 嗯,所以结论应该是:现在学界对"遥视"有争议,主流持反对态度 家园 你可以找找puthoff和tart对Marks和Scott 1986年的回应么 看看非主流在74年的结论被否定之后，在争论中提出了什么新的让人信服的证据或者逻辑？
家园 后来有人成功地复制了Puthoff的实验. David Marks有评论 If the evidence is positive, it is either "flawed" or in need of "replication and further analysis". If it is negative it is accepted uncritically. Marks appears impervious to positive evidence of any kind. For example, commenting on the several successful replications of the remote viewing experiments carried out by Harold Puthoff, Russell Targ and Edwin May (funded for several years by various U.S. government agencies) he dismisses them all as "flawed in a variety of ways". In a chapter entitled "The Sloppiness Continues", Marks mentions positive results of a remote viewing experiment reported by Marilyn Schlitz and Elmar Gruber. Admitting that this was a successful replication of the similar experiments of Targ and Puthoff, Marks gets off this particular hook by stating: "However, we do not know how many nonsignificant studies remain in the investigators' file drawer. If it is a small handful, which seems likely, the... statistical significance simply melts away like snowflakes in the psring." He has no evidence that any such "file-drawer" studies exist. Marks has shown once again that when negative evidence is required to disprove a positive claim, he simply makes it up.
家园 没找到, 但找到一个搞动物心灵感应的生物学家答复Marks THE NEED FOR OPEN-MINDED SKEPTICISM
by Dr Rupert Sheldrake
The Skeptic Vol.16, No.4, pp. 8-13 (2004)
关键词(Tags): #动物心灵感应，家园 open mind是说 找到的那些实验缺陷就不是缺陷了？
家园 【链接】兰迪的100万美元挑战---a big "So What!" by Loyd Auerback
I might actually title this essay "Why I no longer care about Randi's One Million Dollar Challenge," but honestly "So What!" sums up my feelings these days...关键词(Tags): #魔术师兰迪，
家园 西西河怎么回事,科学探索整天讨论超自然伪科学?没有更好的话题了马? 家园 科普我是大力支持的. 版名既为<科学探索>而非<科学技术>, 那 就意味着我们可以探讨前沿的,有争议的话题.
超心理学不是伪科学, 这个帽子是少数反对者们扣的.
"超自然"只是个俗名, 实际上必是自然现象, 现在人们不了解其机制, 才安上个"超自然"的名称.
shibaozhong提到了外星人, 这不是伪科学, 一个侧面的例证: 如果美国没有任何关于外星人的蛛丝马迹, 她会投入大量金钱来资助探寻外星人的研究吗?
除非你相信旧约关于上帝造人的说法, 否则怎能接受广袤的宇宙中唯有地球这颗幸运的星体有高级生命居住?
总而言之, 我认为这些都是合法的科学问题, 没什么不可以讨论的.
当然,对于话题之偏重于这些方面,某些读者可能感到不快. 但这不是我的问题, 我就是喜欢这一类的前沿话题, 应该怪别人为什么不积极地作科普涅? 如果有5个人积极地作科普, 而我专给underdog申辩, 这样的话题分布就很正常了. 可惜大家都太懒, 于是显得我过于勤快了.