interesting article, M. Ted...and your summation of it is clear. It is, however, reporting 'about' presumed statistics gathered by Sheldrake, who is also reported thusly:
"Rupert Sheldrake is far from being a reliable source, and on the basis of his previous escapades, anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a Ford Explorer. He may have misrepresented the hard sciences' stand on experimenter blinding, and his report may be unbalanced or exaggerated, especially in light of the low number of parapsychology studies represented in his survey."

Now, he may be absolutely right on in the survey he reports, but not all 'standard' scientific tests require "blind" comparisions....and of course, we hear nothing about the results of 'blind' testing in the 'standard' sciences compared to parapsyhchology.

I, myself, was once part of a study of drugs in which there were 3 control groups, one of which was given a placebo, and the others given different strengths of the actual drug...and not even the techs doing the test knew who got what...... In that case, 'blinds' were required, in other types of experiments they are not. It all depends on what you need to prove, test or discover....then the NATURE of the results becomes important...are you wanting statistics, or 'happenings'? (i.e....if all the participants in group 3 in my study died, conclusions could be drawn!...If 52% reported they 'felt better', MUCH different conclusions are appropriate.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*daylia*...."
I don't "believe" a thing about astrology, Bill. I know (not believe, but know) what I do to date through direct first hand personal observation and experience."

I never doubt that a person HAD the experiences they report, but I always 'take with a grain of salt' (that one the size of the Ford *grin*) most claims about the source and implications and conclusions to be drawn. When you say you "know" in this context, it is clear that you are using the word in a much looser way than I would like to see. In the scientific method, it is a pretty dicey term, reserved for times when absolute certainty needs to be talked about.

    Even in general discourse, one needs to be wary of the context. There is a BIG difference between saying "I know that tossing a lighted match in gasoline is likely to cause a big flare." and telling me "I know I saw the ghost of my grandfather" or "I know that the analysis of my astrological charts have been accurate."

Even the match/gasoline statement is not as precise as "I know that 2+2=4" because that is true by definition, and 1 time in a million that match may not cause a BOOM....but it is still pretty reliable, and we can easily agree to say "I know it is dangerous" because we agree on the basic rules in that case.

When we DO use words differently, then the logical problem of 'equivocation' can rear its head as people continue a debate, never stopping to note that one definition is more rigid than another.


"Is all this nitpicking necessary", she asks? *grin*...."well", says the stodgy philosopher, "only if you want the answers to be useful."