How important is it to convince the scientific community that psi exists?

Why do you think that, though?

Probably because it's true.

I've said the same thing more than once.

Randi's money was nailed to the floor and you know it.

Probably because it's true.

Well, what it seems to signify is that however clear and strong the evidence for psi became, "sceptics" would still carry on denying its existence. Presumably that means they would carry on denying it even if they were secretly convinced by it. Whatever is meant by "sceptics", that doesn't seem a reasonable assumption to make.

Well, what it seems to signify is that however clear and strong the evidence for psi became, "sceptics" would still carry on denying its existence. Presumably that means they would carry on denying it even if they were secretly convinced by it. Whatever is meant by "sceptics", that doesn't seem a reasonable assumption to make.

"sceptics" would still carry on denying its existence.

NDE "sceptic" Gerald Woerlee (who is a very accomplished anaesthesiologist just to be accurate) has demonstrated this many times. For instance. He refused to accept the word of the chief witness in the well known denture case (Smit and Rivas) and continues to do so.

"Presumably that means they would carry on denying it even if they were secretly convinced by it. "

Generally not if they were convinced by it, no, probably not. But for those who know there's definitely at least good evidence (but not proof of course) I think some of them would and do pretend as if there's nothing, yes. I think their life's work and status, based on previous assumptions would be too much to lose for them.

This well used quote from Wiseman on remote viewing (for eg)

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510762/Could-proof-theory-ALL-psychic.html#ixzz4xlkOF5dE

"sceptics" would still carry on denying its existence.

NDE sceptic Gerald Woerlee (who is a very accomplished anaesthesiologist just to be accurate) has demonstrated this many times. For instance. He refused to accept the word of the chief witness in the well known denture case and continues to do so.

But disbelieving the statement of a witness about a spontaneous event is very different from what we're talking about here - a demonstration of macro-psychokinesis under controlled conditions. If someone could do that at will, and repeat it on request, how could it be disbelieved?

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

Again, arguments about standards of proof for statistical evidence are very different from what berkelon was suggesting.

But disbelieving the statement of a witness about a spontaneous event is very different from what we're talking about here - a demonstration of macro-psychokinesis under controlled conditions. If someone could do that at will, and repeat it on request, how could it be disbelieved?

He didn't disbelieve the witness, he accepted the testimony as a true and faithful account. But the part of it that didn't accord with his belief system, he refused to accept. Terrible behaviour and typical of many "sceptics."

 "what we're talking about here - a demonstration of macro-psychokinesis under controlled conditions."

Is psychokinesis the only effective anomaly to falsify materialism ? It's not my bag to be honest that's why I suggested NDE's and remote viewing.  Are you saying that if PK is false then all the rest of it is irrelevant too ?

Again, arguments about standards of proof for statistical evidence are very different from what berkelon was suggesting.

I gave you an example of a sceptic admitting that the evidence was there... and then refusing to accept it.

I gave you an example of a sceptic admitting that the evidence was there... and then refusing to accept it.

What we were talking about was the claim by Typoz that sceptics would refuse to accept a demonstration of macro-psychokinesis under controlled conditions, of the kind that berkelon suggested.