Criteria For Interviewees

In what case is an interviewee not appropriate for inclusion on PQ? Does some controversial work in someone's past make them unacceptable to be included here, even if the interview is about another facet of their work?

In what case is an interviewee not appropriate for inclusion on PQ? Does some controversial work in someone's past make them unacceptable to be included here, even if the interview is about another facet of their work?

I suspect it would need to be covered on a case by case basis. I think what Vortex did in asking was great and showed sensitivity and perception.

In what case is an interviewee not appropriate for inclusion on PQ? Does some controversial work in someone's past make them unacceptable to be included here, even if the interview is about another facet of their work?

If the subject matter is clearly and directly psi related- mandatory.

If the interviewee is known for their work relating to psi- very important.

If the interviewee is also involved with controversy of some sort- maybe bad,, depends on the magnitude and type of controversy

I don't think hard and fast rules will be possible here.

It was easy on Skeptiko because Alex didn't need to seek consensus or conform to any rules. This will be harder, admittedly.

I want to ask you about some further topics that I may choose for my future interviews. These topics include:

1) critical psychiatry and antipsychiatry,

2) Intelligent Design vs. Neo-Darwinism,

3) cold fusion / LENR,

4) Electric Universe and plasma cosmology.

I hope these topics are acceptable for interviews. Are they?

I want to ask you about some further topics that I may choose for my future interviews. These topics include:

1) critical psychiatry and antipsychiatry,

2) Intelligent Design vs. Neo-Darwinism,

3) cold fusion / LENR,

4) Electric Universe and plasma cosmology.

I hope these topics are acceptable for interviews. Are they?

Not sure who you are asking but if an open question, I would ask what I have been asking over and over again the last several posts on similar subject matter:

In each of these cases, how do they relate to psi? If there is no direct relationship, then what is the rationale?

In what case is an interviewee not appropriate for inclusion on PQ? Does some controversial work in someone's past make them unacceptable to be included here, even if the interview is about another facet of their work?

I agree that it should be on a case-by-case basis, but if it is directly relevant to the subject matter, I would say it makes them less acceptable. If it is unrelated, then it's probably okay, unless it's a fairly egregious issue - like pedophilia, for example.

For example, the fact that Randi's partner was guilty of identity theft shouldn't exclude him, but the fact that Randi misrepresented his "Carlos" sting operation, should.

I have to agree that I'm not sure what Vortex's suggested topics have to do with psi.

Linda

[Ninshub]

I want to ask you about some further topics that I may choose for my future interviews. These topics include:

1) critical psychiatry and antipsychiatry,

2) Intelligent Design vs. Neo-Darwinism,

3) cold fusion / LENR,

4) Electric Universe and plasma cosmology.

I hope these topics are acceptable for interviews. Are they?

Hi Vortex,

I posted about this in the thread about Bauer:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-41...ml#pid7568

I think none of those topic would fit Psience Quest. I think we want the Psience Quest brand to be associated primarily with extended consciousness phenomena (see the categories in that forum), not as an all-purpose alt-science forum. And that therefore interviews carrying the PQ name should reflect that. It's one of the ways we're differentiating ourselves from Skeptiko.

Personally - and I'm guessing the same would go for the other founders/admins, but we'd have to check - I don't have any problem with you or other members doing interviews on these other topics, but they would be under your own name, not the forum's, and would be included in the sub-forums where they might fit (Alternative Views on Science, Other Stuff).

We are obviously not happy at having to restrict or disappoint forum members who would be keen on making those interviews, but we are trying to create a distinct identity for PQ and the official PQ interviews should reflect that IMO.

In each of these cases, how do they relate to psi? If there is no direct relationship, then what is the rationale?

I'm really struggling here.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but should I presume you would assert that one or more of Vortex's sample topics would be inappropriate?

I am going to assume for now that you will respond "yes".

So, my struggle is in reconciling part of your own quote in the "Definition of Psi" thread:

My personal definition is that it is about those things that are related to the non-physical aspect of our reality.

To me, every one of Vortex's subjects fit under the quoted text of yours I just provided.  Perhaps that's because I take "non-physical" to include broad concepts such as spirituality and meaning and purpose.

This whole discussion spawned by the Bauer interview idea has really thrown me for a loop.

I'm really struggling here.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but should I presume you would assert that one or more of Vortex's sample topics would be inappropriate?

I am going to assume for now that you will respond "yes".

So, my struggle is in reconciling part of your own quote in the "Definition of Psi" thread:


To me, every one of Vortex's subjects fit under the quoted text of yours I just provided.  Perhaps that's because I take "non-physical" to include broad concepts such as spirituality and meaning and purpose.

This whole discussion spawned by the Bauer interview idea has really thrown me for a loop.

You're right. Than answer is yes, it is not a fit,,, to all of the topics.

If my description seems to allow a fit, then it is clumsy wording on my part leading to misinterpretation of my meaning on your's.

I don't see how any of the listed topics directly connect to psi (ie: the mind's link to the non-physical/"extended consciousness/continuity of conc. etc). Actually I would refer to Chris's definition as the most concise I have seen.

I'll have a go at a definition of psi - an interaction between a mind and its environment for which currently accepted physical laws provide no mechanism.

To me, every one of Vortex's subjects fit under the quoted text of yours I just provided.

Sorry, but I really don't understand that. I can see that the first two could fit jkmac's definition, but (3) and (4) are just unorthodox theories about physics, aren't they?