Oh boy, I usually stay out of these kind of debates, but I found this critical "review" by Nickell absolutely absurd.
His only criticism appears to be multiple variants of "In what I suspect was......" or " I suspect such acts were........"
The thing is, I think scepticism and critical reviews are extremely important, but this is just mindless ideology masquerading as rational or scientific investigation. Absolutely worthless!
"I suspect" Joe Nickell really hasn't got a clue what he's talking about, and only similarly minded ideologues and dogmatists would find his post hoc rationalising convincing in any way!
PS - the Grosso book was quite interesting, I enjoyed it anyway!
EDIT - Wait a minute, I just noticed this was an article posted on the CSICOP website......getting upset at it's ideological, vacuous, entirely speculative & potentially dishonest dismissal of the phenomena is like getting upset at a dog for having a wet nose. As you were everybody!
(This post was last modified: 2018-11-19, 01:42 PM by manjit.)
His only criticism appears to be multiple variants of "In what I suspect was......" or " I suspect such acts were........"
The thing is, I think scepticism and critical reviews are extremely important, but this is just mindless ideology masquerading as rational or scientific investigation. Absolutely worthless!
"I suspect" Joe Nickell really hasn't got a clue what he's talking about, and only similarly minded ideologues and dogmatists would find his post hoc rationalising convincing in any way!
PS - the Grosso book was quite interesting, I enjoyed it anyway!
EDIT - Wait a minute, I just noticed this was an article posted on the CSICOP website......getting upset at it's ideological, vacuous, entirely speculative & potentially dishonest dismissal of the phenomena is like getting upset at a dog for having a wet nose. As you were everybody!
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)