By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:03:26 +0000

It’s not so much who to believe as how to interpret. It’s hard to find fault with the data – it’s how you explain how it came to be that’s the sticking issue. Sceptics(tm) claim there must be (usually unspecified) errors somewhere, Believers(tm) claim it’s proof of everything from the existence of mind to survival of death. Those of us who just find it an interesting area to study try to work with what’s actually there (not as much as some people would like, but too much to sweep under the carpet).

By: tom

tom — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:36:29 +0000

The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research group (Pear, http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/) is another example of a parapsychology research unit at a respectable institution.
(tangential side note – have you noticed how many parapsychologists are from outside psychology? The princeton group started in engineering. Similarly, perhaps, many Creationists (parabiologists?) are physicists and chemists rather than from the biological sciences)
The Princeton unit have also found statistically significant evidence for psi-phenomena, they claim. The “Skeptic’s Dictionary” entry is a good starting point for a critical view of these claims, and probably also for thinking critically about the Koestler unit findings. http://skepdic.com/pear.html
Who to believe eh?

Comments on: Fortean Times on Koestler Parapsychology Unit

By: Paul

By: tom