Uri Geller - What do you think?

Dante, I don't disagree with any of that and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I simply meant that these kinds of investigations, where in the end it depends on trust in someone's judgement, aren't going to change anyone's mind. When I said "skeptical" it was the "I doubt that claim" not "I approach claims with the application of critical thinking" meaning of skeptical.

I included scientists in this case because they were the target audience for the Nature article, yet it did not lead to a widespread acceptance. And also because where widespread scientific acceptance goes, Skeptics follow (with a capital "S", the self-anointed skeptics you referred to).

Linda

excellent and interesting detective work ersby.

I picture ersby as old money, time on his hands, sitting in a castle, surrounded by books.

I think it's difficult for those of us who haven't read the book to judge from what's been posted here either the seriousness of the discrepancies or the likelihood of the explanations. In particular, how far the explanations are based on documented facts, and how far on speculation about how things might have been. If I get a chance, I'll see if I can copy the relevant parts when I'm next at a library that has it.

I'd find the idea of an accomplice outside more plausible than all the suggestions about pinholes and cable conduits, but if that's really how it's supposed to have been done the evidence would need to be spelled out. But perhaps these authors felt constrained by libel considerations?

I think it's probably best, in order to answer your questions, for you and Max to simply read the book. I don't think it's hard to find. It's one of those books which is handy to have on hand for reference. 

Linda

I think it's probably best, in order to answer your questions, for you and Max to simply read the book. I don't think it's hard to find. 

Yes - the British Library has it. That's the closest I get to sitting in a castle surrounded by books.

Dante, I don't disagree with any of that and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I simply meant that these kinds of investigations, where in the end it depends on trust in someone's judgement, aren't going to change anyone's mind. When I said "skeptical" it was the "I doubt that claim" not "I approach claims with the application of critical thinking" meaning of skeptical.

I included scientists in this case because they were the target audience for the Nature article, yet it did not lead to a widespread acceptance. And also because where widespread scientific acceptance goes, Skeptics follow (with a capital "S", the self-anointed skeptics you referred to).

Linda

That's fair, I don't disagree that this kind of discussion (I'm meaning very specifically the one that's gone on in this thread) is likely to change anyone's mind. Also fair point about the capital S Skeptics. Thanks for clarifying.

Oh, something practical like this. See this thread. The U.S. Military Believes People Have a Sixth Sense" 
How about figuring out how it works? Perhaps, if it's real it would give us a deeper understanding of how this universe works. If it's real who can imagine what practical applications might arise?

Only the Soviet Union ever spent a quantity of money comparable to other sciences -close to 500 millions per year if the DIA/CIA is to be trusted- and despite grainy PK videos gathering all the attention, it seems that most of that actually went into aerospace/military applications for telepathy. The American psi projects in which Geller was allowed entry, were pitiful by comparison and mostly focused on immediate practicality than theory.

Of course, the Soviets had some odd figures that were interested in telepathy early on, Stalin and Tsiolkovsky, so it should not be surprising that this was the focus once the French media conned them into lifting their ban on parapsychology decades later.

Proponents are willing to take it on faith that the experiments were performed without error. 

Some experiments may have been performed without error I think better describes what most of the proponents are angling towards. While many skeptics in this thread seem to know with certainty what really happened. Ironically, that certainty reminds me of Alex once he decided he knew the truth about psi and it was no longer worth discussing if you were in any way questioning it.

It's perfectly possible Alex does know the truth about Psi. Convincing others is a different thing, even if he wanted to.