The reason many skeptics say psi doesn't exist is that the evidence to date is that it doesn't exist. Or to remove all of these negatives, skeptics say there is little evidence that psi exists.
If someone holds a rock and let's it go we notice that the rocks drop. That doesn't mean every rock let go everywhere and every time will drop, but we believe all rocks will drop. That's an issue few would dispute, but I've seen discussions where it has been. Now take something a little more complicated. A drug trial may have a less certain result. Or it might be a toxicological study. So 10 subjects are given an experimental substance or placebo. If no subjects receiving the placebo showing a reaction, but all of the experimental group show a reaction do we in fact have evidence that the substance is a risk? What if the next study shows only 3 of the 5 experimental subjects showing a reaction. What if 10 more experiments are done and someone discovers complicating factors?
Pretty soon the initial positive result doesn't look as interesting. The result is a lot of murkier than the first experiment that was reported.
So we are left with a great deal of uncertainty in many issues. It is my understanding that the evidence for psi is on the same order as many studies in medicine. I think a good example of this was a study that splashed across news magazines claiming a caffeine-cancer link. Subsequent studies showed that the initial study was a false positive. It happens.Statistics: Posted by Nostradamus — 18 Mar 2010, 21:46
]]>