(2017-09-10, 06:12 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]She was/is truly remarkable. I particularly admired her attempted debunking of the Pam Reynolds case (sorry Chuck) by making comparisons between Pam's recollections (when she had no brain function) and memory data derived from Eric Kandle's sea slugs.
Well, I suppose you can't say that her arguments lack peculiarity.
(2017-09-10, 08:14 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Arouet is here and has posted.
So it is. Why only once, though?
(2017-09-10, 06:12 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]She was/is truly remarkable. I particularly admired her attempted debunking of the Pam Reynolds case (sorry Chuck) by making comparisons between Pam's recollections (when she had no brain function) and memory data derived from Eric Kandle's sea slugs.
The problem is to attract reasonable sceptical viewpoints. I decided on Skeptiko that the real problem is that thoughtful sceptics are few and far between. People either:
1) Steer clear of ψ-related issues.
2) Become interested and are usually persuaded by some of the phenomena.
3) Find the very idea of ψ an affront to their scientific view of life, and don't play very nice with everyone else.
David