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

To my mind, he seems more open-minded than the people at both the extremes of the debate. When was the last time you heard one of the keener proponents say "only time will tell" who is right about the paranormal?

You're just being mischievous, Chris. His post clearly demonstrates that what you've stated is incorrect. He effectively agreed it was reasonable to be biased or a prejudiced bigot. What is open minded about that ?  

And we don't need time to tell us that psi is proven (if you look at the evidence). Survival is not proven of course, I never said it was although I personally accept it.

You're just being mischievous, Chris. His post clearly demonstrates that what you've stated is incorrect. He effectively agreed it was reasonable to be biased or a prejudiced bigot. What is open minded about that ?  

And we don't need time to tell us that psi is proven (if you look at the evidence). Survival is not proven of course, I never said it was although I personally accept it.

You've illustrated my point precisely. Your mind is made up. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but it obviously makes you less open-minded than someone whose mind isn't made up!

You've illustrated my point precisely. Your mind is made up. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but it obviously makes you less open-minded than someone whose mind isn't made up!

You've illustrated my point precisely. Your mind is made up.

That's an odd thing to say. I accept psi, yes...in that there is definitely something going on, an "effect" beyond what is explainable by materialist science. I don't see how any reasonable person could argue against that without using plain "denial" which some do of course. 

I experienced it for myself many times, so I "know" (for myself anyway). It would be dishonest of me to say anything else.

As for Berkelon being more open minded than me, why is he ? If he genuinely thinks that French is being reasonable then he's closed minded. Furthermore, what about you ? You're welcome here as an intelligent and thoughtful poster but this a psi forum...isn't it ? Most of the people here accept psi....do you not ?

Survival is not proven of course, I never said it was although I personally accept it.

I don't think 'of course' would automatically fit here. It might be said that in some people's opinion it isn't proven, while in other's opinion it isn't even a question, as it is already considered impossible.

You've illustrated my point precisely. Your mind is made up.

That's an odd thing to say. I accept psi, yes...in that there is definitely something going on, an "effect" beyond what is explainable by materialist science. I don't see how any reasonable person could argue against that without using plain "denial" which some do of course. 

I experienced it for myself many times, so I "know" (for myself anyway). It would be dishonest of me to say anything else.

As for Berkelon being more open minded than me, why is he ? If he genuinely thinks that French is being reasonable then he's closed minded. Furthermore, what about you ? You're welcome here as an intelligent and thoughtful poster but this a psi forum...isn't it ? Most of the people here accept psi....do you not ?

To clarify, I meant that I thought French - not berkelon - was more open-minded than the people at the extremes.

As for the rest of it, I'm not going to waste time arguing about it. I think it's self-evident that if someone's mind is definitely made up about something, then they're not open-minded about it - and I don't understand why they should want to be considered open-minded about it.

As for me, as I've said a number of times, I consider myself to be somewhere in the middle, with my inclinations varying according to what phenomenon we're talking about. And this is certainly not just a forum for proponents.

To clarify, I meant that I thought French - not berkelon - was more open-minded than the people at the extremes.

As for the rest of it, I'm not going to waste time arguing about it. I think it's self-evident that if someone's mind is definitely made up about something, then they're not open-minded about it - and I don't understand why they should want to be considered open-minded about it.

As for me, as I've said a number of times, I consider myself to be somewhere in the middle, with my inclinations varying according to what phenomenon we're talking about. And this is certainly not just a forum for proponents.

 "I think it's self-evident that if someone's mind is definitely made up about something, then they're not open-minded about it"

No they're not open minded now but presumably they had an open mind about it until the evidence persuaded them that they could reach a reasonable conclusion. I'm open to plenty of things but for me, psi is real and no evidence ever emerges that I've got that wrong. I'm well aware that true sceptics don't draw conclusions but they should also be unbiased ...so I'll redirect you back to French's statement.

 French > “I am biased in my approach to evidence relating to the paranormal … I make no claim to be a neutral assessor of the evidence”. 

I don't call that open minded.

And this is certainly not just a forum for proponents.

When did I say it was ?

When did I say it was [just a forum for proponents] ?

This bit of your post very much gave me that impression:
"Furthermore, what about you ? You're welcome here as an intelligent and thoughtful poster but this a psi forum...isn't it ? Most of the people here accept psi....do you not ?"

This bit of your post very much gave me that impression:
"Furthermore, what about you ? You're welcome here as an intelligent and thoughtful poster but this a psi forum...isn't it ? Most of the people here accept psi....do you not ?"

You're welcome here as an intelligent and thoughtful poster but this (is) a psi forum.

Is that a provocative statement ? How does that imply that sceptics are not welcome ?