It's been around for a long time. Andrew Skolnick comes across as a classic material denialist. He's a biological journalist, and a wannabe 'scientist', however you might define the practice of science, although not one of the preferred open-minded kind. He's just a highly aggressive non-scientific pseudosceptic as described in Winston's excellent essays. Having said that, Victor Zammit is a little too credulous of various historical claims of mediums and so on, he represents info from proven frauds as though they have not been debunked. The reality lies somewhere in between the two positions. It's unfortunate that both parties are wrong in many places in their analyses.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder
on 13 Oct 2014, 22:42, edited 1 time in total.