I’m more than a little surprised at the way casual near-slander is an apparently accepted feature of posts to the Boards these days. In the Pit, maybe… but elsewhere?
Why do some people feel entitled to first of all post fact-lite nonsense, which might be on show here for a day or two before I can reply, and only after the event, when the truth is gently explained, disappear with some half-baked apology? Whatever happened to asking a question first to get the facts straight?
We had the guy telling the world that ordering stuff via my site wasn’t secure (it’s about as secure as modern technology knows how to make it), then the guy alleging there was some sort of split-profit marketing scam going on between myself and Dex (utter horse spit), and now we have our friend rfs100 implying that I don’t know my stuff.
I thought these Boards are about fighting ignorance, not spreading it around?
My friend rfs100, I know that you meant no harm and were trying to make a positive contribution. And I do respect that.
Since you raise the point, let me explain. I’ve lectured on the history of psychic phenomena and scientific investigation of same at Oxford university, at Cambridge unviersity and at UCLA, to name but three. I don’t think these places are in the habit of hiring dunkwits who don’t know their stuff. I am very familiar with the work of J.B. Rhine, and I have most of the works he and his wife, Louisa, ever published. As an incidental side note, I even have an original hard back copy of ‘ESP in Life and Lab’ signed by Louisa Rhine herself.
I have a huge collection of books and related research materials pertaining to the history of scientific research in this field, including many original research papers which are or were hard to get hold of. And yes, I’ve actually read them and studied them. They aren’t just there to fill the bookshelves.
I’ve had the opportunity to discuss these matters with many key players on both sides of the issue, examples: Brian Josephson, Richard Wiseman, Russell Targ, Gary Schwarz, Susan Blackmore, Rupert Sheldrake and so on.
In short, I think I know my stuff.
Rhine’s work was historically significant in that he was among the very first to attempt a scientifically controlled study of psychic ability, and to devise a protocal to do so. He got the psychic debate out of murky Victorian candlelit rooms and into the lab. He applied statistical analysis of data to the problem. For all of this and more, he and his wife are rightly recognised as a pioneers of scientific research into ESP.
But I think you will be hard pressed to find any reputable person working in this field to day who believes that Rhine’s results constitute sound evidence of any psychic ability at all. If you want to know why, then you need to do more than just read a few cites I could post here. You’ll have to read the appropriate literature, with Terence Hines being a good author to start with.
If you want the short and simple answer, then here goes…
Question #1. Some people contend that when it comes to testing for psychic ability, the scientists should employ the services of someone well-qualified in deception as applied to the faking of psychic phenomena, both to help design the tests and administer them, to preclude the chance of fakery and cheating. Do you believe that this is a good idea?
If NO, then you need to study more of the available data, especially what Randi refers to as Project Alpha, and read Richard Wiseman and Peter Lamont’s excellent book on testing psychic claimants.
If YES, then we get to question 2.
Question #2. Tell me which person, well-qualified in the field of deception applied to the faking of psychic phenomena, was involved in desgining Rhine’s tests and supervising the way they were administered?
The correct answer is: no such person was ever involved by Rhine or his wife, Louisa.
In other words, they took no steps to preclude the fakery’ hypothesis. And in the field of psychic research, this is essential.
I repeat that this is the short’n’sweet, superficial version. The details are there to be read about, if you want to take the time and trouble to read about them.
I stand by my original statement about there being no scientific evidence to date supporting the ‘psychic’ hypothesis. I know about Rhine, I know about Targ & Puthoff, I know about Jahn, I know about most of the examples you can throw in my direction.
The opposite of a closed mind is not ‘an open mind’, it is ‘an informed mind’. I have one. I know about the stuff I write about and lecture about. It might be nice, and a bit more friendly, if you didn’t casually imply otherwise in a public forum.