- 程序有所改变。发帖如还有问题请报告
- 【征集】西西河的经济学，及清流措施，需要主动参与者，『稷下学宫』新认证方式，24年网站打算和努力目标
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 纳子你怎么了 你有点太执着了吧？兰迪你也反对？
- 复 纳子你怎么了
家园 我就爱为underdog声辩,何况这伪科学有发Nature的paper Puthoff, Harold and Russell Targ. "Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding" Nature, 1974, 252, 602-607.
魔术师兰迪又不是神圣的偶像,为什么不能反? 他既然可以反"伪科学", 咱们也可以反"反伪科学", 这叫否定之否定.
什么是执着? 我每天都要吃饭, 这算不算执着? 爱迪生试验灯丝的材料, 屡败屡战, 算不算执着?
家园 Nature Vol. 298 p414 29 July 1982 Correspondence
No "remote viewing"
A long drawn out controversy in Nature has followed the claim made by Puthoff and Targ(1) in 1974 that certain individuals can perceive objects or scenes blocked from ordinary perception by distance or shielding (the supposed phenomenon called “clairvoyance” by earlier generations). The most recent communications (2,3) raise issues about the content of Puthoff’s and Targ’s experimental records that can only be settled by direct examination of those records. However, their critic, Marks, has reported their refusal to grant him access to their records (2).
In an attempt to clarify this issue, writing as a bona fide investigator of long standing in this general area but having no prior involvement with these particular experiments, I recently requested access to the data on the Prince and Hammid series on which Puthoff and Targ based their original case for “remote viewing”. No reply has been received after an interval of two months, despite repeated approaches. It must be concluded that the evidence offered by Puthoff and Targ is not accessible to other investigators. In this sense their claim can no longer be regarded as falling within the scientific domain, and further public discussion appears unnecessary.
Christopher Scott
London N19, UK
1. Targ, R. & Puthoff, H. Nature 251, 602-607 (1974).
2. Marks, D. Nature 292, 177 (1981).
3. Puthoff, H. & Targ, R. Nature 292, 388 (1981).
家园 甭管美眉说了什么， 花~！ 家园 回花! 不过这个倾向就像"凡是院士说的话就支持"一样要不得