Improbability Theory

I do not know.

What do you mean when you say you don't know? You don't know whether you think they sought weak effects, or you do think that but you don't know why you think it? 

Sorry, but I really don't understand this. I can't believe experimental parapsychologists are deliberately concentrating on weak effects, if there are stronger ones to be had.

As I said, I feel like a misfit in these discussions. It's really hard for me to interact because I feel like a fish out of water. Something is amiss and I don't know how else to express it more clearly. Equally, if I try to explain, it involves translating into terms and conditions set by other people, something which seems pointless.

Chris, I'm grateful for the contributions you make, they do keep what is becoming a fairly quiet forum somewhat active.

I've had a glance over at Skeptiko, and it's pretty silent over there too. Sure, there are some active threads with lots of posts, but they are of no interest to me, and certainly not why I originally joined that forum.

As I said, I feel like a misfit in these discussions. It's really hard for me to interact because I feel like a fish out of water. Something is amiss and I don't know how else to express it more clearly. Equally, if I try to explain, it involves translating into terms and conditions set by other people, something which seems pointless.

Chris, I'm grateful for the contributions you make, they do keep what is becoming a fairly quiet forum somewhat active.

I've had a glance over at Skeptiko, and it's pretty silent over there too. Sure, there are some active threads with lots of posts, but they are of no interest to me, and certainly not why I originally joined that forum.

I can understand the scientific approach isn't everyone's cup of tea, and I'm not one of those people who think it's the Only Path To Truth (though it's the one that primarily appeals to me). Actually my impression is that most people here are interested more in general discussion of these topics rather than experimental parapsychology. But I think as far as experiments go, the subject matter is necessarily limited to what can be observed under experimental conditions. Perhaps if "superstar" experimental subjects could be identified, that wouldn't necessarily be limited to weak effects. They have been studied experimentally occasionally, but they are scarce and tend to be controversial.

I don't know what personal reason PEAR ( Robert Jahn ) had for studying micro-pk.  Radin reason seems to be ideological.

As I said, I feel like a misfit in these discussions. It's really hard for me to interact because I feel like a fish out of water. Something is amiss and I don't know how else to express it more clearly. Equally, if I try to explain, it involves translating into terms and conditions set by other people, something which seems pointless.

Chris, I'm grateful for the contributions you make, they do keep what is becoming a fairly quiet forum somewhat active.

I've had a glance over at Skeptiko, and it's pretty silent over there too. Sure, there are some active threads with lots of posts, but they are of no interest to me, and certainly not why I originally joined that forum.

The reason Skeptiko and this forum are quiet is largely do to most members having convergent views. Any forum suffers this because there are limited things to say after awhile.  The only way to make a forum lively and keep it lively is to have widely divergent views, as you and me have seen people segregate themselves from people with widely divergent views. An example of liveliness is the thread started by Karmarling on evolution.

I can understand the scientific approach isn't everyone's cup of tea, and I'm not one of those people who think it's the Only Path To Truth (though it's the one that primarily appeals to me). Actually my impression is that most people here are interested more in general discussion of these topics rather than experimental parapsychology. But I think as far as experiments go, the subject matter is necessarily limited to what can be observed under experimental conditions. Perhaps if "superstar" experimental subjects could be identified, that wouldn't necessarily be limited to weak effects. They have been studied experimentally occasionally, but they are scarce and tend to be controversial.

I prefer jasmine tea when I have tea.

I have no idea how regularly psi occurs in the wild or even if it does, no one knows so he's wrong to make that claim. It's an assumption that strange events are psi.

Google his name, you'll find him. Sam Clemens popularized this phrase: There are lies, damned lies
and statistics. Andy has far too much emotion invested in his work to honestly evaluate it. That evaluation should be left to others that do not.

Well, I've tried and I've got no idea how to find a method of contacting Paquette. It's easy to slag someone who isn't involved in this forum and can't respond to such retorts, but I don't see his "passionate" nature as I see it as an reason to discredit him honestly. Guys like Krippner and such have been impressed by his work and he has defended himself well. Why should I expect him to do anything different if I invited him here to the discussion or just for comment through email?

I have finally found what seems to be his current website, and emailed him through it's contact section. So we'll see. As far as Hand's examples of coincidences go, I've heard a number of people in various reviews point out the fact that these might be miracles to some but to others they are far from the kind that land in the synchronicity territory. And in that regard amongst some other things, his book still leaves the mystery untouched.

Well, I've tried and I've got no idea how to find a method of contacting Paquette. It's easy to slag someone who isn't involved in this forum and can't respond to such retorts, but I don't see his "passionate" nature as I see it as an reason to discredit him honestly. Guys like Krippner and such have been impressed by his work and he has defended himself well. Why should I expect him to do anything different if I invited him here to the discussion or just for comment through email?

Whether Andy is right or he's wrong is not the point. Others with no emotional investment must evaluate his work. Only in that way it can (perhaps) be known if his claims are true or built on unintended or deliberate falsities.

Whether Andy is right or he's wrong is not the point. Others with no emotional investment must evaluate his work. Only in that way it can (perhaps) be known if his claims are true or built on unintended or deliberate falsities.

I don't think it's possible to have absolutely no emotional investment in something.