CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
|
|
|
23-09-2013, 06:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Hello guys. I promised to myself to do this. I have gathered evidence in favor of existence of subtle world.
I want to send it to CSICOP for examination. As I understand it, they are like volunteering skeptics, but more equipped to handle complex claims. My intention is to formulate the open letter and change it if you have any suggestions. Then I send it to the skeptics and also publish their response, of which they will be informed. I want to know that their fellow skeptics are watching. I want this handled professionally and to avoid personal emotional reactions, such as "not this shit again". Unless you suggest otherwise, I will send the e-mail to Benjamin Radford, Managing Editor - Skeptical Inquirer Please give suggestions as to the form and content in the letter. If you want me to formulate this in any more sensible or rational way, please point out which. Or tell me it is good as it is and I'll send it. However, before I send it, I have my doubts. I have just found this article and other articles in it, doubting the objectivity of CSICOP and some others. http://www.orgonelab.org/csicop.htm Apparently, CSICOP has acted against JDM in a biased manner before. http://www.orgonelab.org/carlinsky.htm If you think the accusations are crap, this one is not. http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnl...erview.htm ABSTRACT: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) has become the most publicly visible institution engaged in the debate on the paranormal. Initially CSICOP was primarily a scholarly body, but soon after its beginning it adopted a popular approach that fostered a more broadly based social movement. It actively promoted the formation of local societies with similar aims. Both CSICOP and the local groups have some distinguishing features. Prestigious scholars are affiliated with these organizations, a disproportionate number of magicians are involved, the groups are dominated by men, and many members hold religious views that are antagonistic to the paranormal. Despite the name of the organization, actual research is a very low priority of the Committee. In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing research itself. CSICOP’s highest priority has been to influence the media. Its rhetoric and activities are designed to appeal to a broad audience rather than to scientists who investigate unusual or controversial phenomena. Recently, the Committee broadened its focus to include areas outside the paranormal. Even if you are not sure, do you think it might be wiser to skip CSICOP and find some other investigative journal? (any suggestions? Do you think anyone in PLOS Biology would read this?) Alternatively, what do you think of the evidence against CSICOP? Should I still send the letter to CSICOP, but refraining from any controversial hints, hoping to slip under the radar? Do you think the open letter policy is sufficient to stop any foul play on the part of the journal? I smell some dirty politics here. Rembember, my government is 100% illegitimate and based on such corruption and secret pacts. This year I have seen - deliberate presidential amnesty of the worst imaginable, large-scale industrial bandits who impoverished whole towns (even those on the run returned just a few days before the amnesty, to be included in it) - Constitutional Court agreement with this mockery of law - sabotage of the new presidential elections by withholding a candidate's vote sheets - hundreds of billions worth theft of taxpayer money on overpriced solar energy deals - hundreds of billions worth theft of state property by the churches in so-called "Church restitutions" - a private state military service controlled by a Prime Minister's lover. And that's only some of what happened this year. It was much like that here all the years before. - and of course Barrack Hussein Obama, who wiretapped the whole world, can kill anyone in the world just by pressing a button, who read millions of iPhone users fingerprints and who freakin' tapped the Atlantic internet cable to track all the traffic between USA and Europe. If you still think conspiracies are improbable, you must be daft. So my tolerance for bullshit is very low. If you tell me I'm paranoid, I'll give you the finger and it won't be this one ![]() ![]() |
||||
23-09-2013, 06:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Good luck!
I don't really like going outside. It's too damn "peopley" out there.... |
||||
23-09-2013, 07:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
... remember when I said that papers marked "it's a conspiracy" will not be graded?
Yeah. This will not be graded. ... this is my signature! |
||||
23-09-2013, 07:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Well, there's no rule saying atheists can't be crazy.
If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying. ![]() |
||||
23-09-2013, 07:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(23-09-2013 06:19 PM)Luminon Wrote: Hello guys. I promised to myself to do this. I have gathered evidence in favor of existence of subtle world. The tone and content of your letter are not inviting. You do display a little paranoia and presuppositional accusation. Also, you have not really proposed anything but reviewing things they've already reviewed and debunked, so I don't see them responding the way you hope. You need to propose something original - an approach, an experiment, a test. Why not ask them to test you? P.S. The third reference is bullshit, too. Essentially an ad hominem attack. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. ![]() |
||||
![]() |
23-09-2013, 07:57 PM
(This post was last modified: 23-09-2013 08:05 PM by Luminon.)
|
||||
|
||||
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(23-09-2013 07:19 PM)Chas Wrote: The tone and content of your letter are not inviting. You do display a little paranoia and presuppositional accusation.I can chill down and erase the controversial points. But is there anything I should add, positively? (23-09-2013 07:19 PM)Chas Wrote: Also, you have not really proposed anything but reviewing things they've already reviewed and debunked, so I don't see them responding the way you hope.Well, they actually didn't. Martin Gardner gave Reich and JDM a bad eternal reputation based on the systematic libel of Joel Carlinsky. But CSICOP has no idea whatsoever of Oldfield, Korotkov, Provod, even Alfred, and most of DeMeo's experiments. They did not review these. If JDM is right, they did not even review Reich, they trusted the known slanderer Carlinsky with all his information. You still think they're competent? (23-09-2013 07:19 PM)Chas Wrote: You need to propose something original - an approach, an experiment, a test. Why not ask them to test you?Because it's besides the point, I want them to test electric field projectors, capacitor rooms, glowing vacuum tubes and other independent phenomena. And because I don't live in USA, I live in Europe. However, it's a good idea. I am now reading a new book about the brain. Mom says it contains a poster offer at a local military hospital to scan people's brains at an affordable price. She offered to pay for this experience for me. There is supposed to be a new technology based on a modern neurologic understanding and private research, that reputedly allows even to re-program deep set brain programs like PTSD. If that's so, I'd love to see how it works. I am in the capital city, but you wouldn't believe how backwards it is in many aspects. This is the first time I hear of any brain scan technologies available for the public, not even a psychologist here had anyone asking such questions. (23-09-2013 07:19 PM)Chas Wrote: P.S. The third reference is bullshit, too. Essentially an ad hominem attack.Well, I'd call it a sociological study ![]() But do you think that the openness of a letter is a sufficient... "threat"? (23-09-2013 07:06 PM)cjlr Wrote: ... remember when I said that papers marked "it's a conspiracy" will not be graded?That's exactly why I'm not asking you. Conspiracy is a natural consequence of business, politics, game theory and human tribalism. Coalition, corporation, alliance, pact, agreement, deal, cartel, oligopoly, collaboration, mutual understanding... and you haven't heard any of these? Man, the skeptics nowadays suck at humanities ![]() |
||||
23-09-2013, 08:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Yeah, why dont you let yourself tested? If you ever go to usa send the letter to them a few months prior?
I don't really like going outside. It's too damn "peopley" out there.... |
||||
23-09-2013, 08:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(23-09-2013 07:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:(23-09-2013 07:06 PM)cjlr Wrote: ... remember when I said that papers marked "it's a conspiracy" will not be graded?That's exactly why I'm not asking you. Conspiracy is a natural consequence of business, politics, game theory and human tribalism. It's also the thing the scientific method is literally ground-up-designed to pre-empt. There still need to be means, motive, and opportunity on behalf of the purported conspirators. I see none of them in evidence. EDIT: and also, fallacy much? A: conspiracies exist. B: therefore this conspiracy exists. NOPE ... this is my signature! |
||||
23-09-2013, 08:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(23-09-2013 07:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:(23-09-2013 07:19 PM)Chas Wrote: The tone and content of your letter are not inviting. You do display a little paranoia and presuppositional accusation.I can chill down and erase the controversial points. But is there anything I should add, positively? You are getting your information of CSI (as it is now known) from biased, out-of-date sources. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/dr._bearden_vacuum_energy http://www.csicop.org/.../hard_pseudo_sc...e_machine/ http://www.csicop.org/si/show/treatise_o...le_beings/ Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. ![]() |
||||
23-09-2013, 08:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
I won't pretend to understand all of what you're talking about in here.
The part that sounds familiar to me is your description of your experience, seeing auras and such, especially with living things. I've read of one other person who had similar experiences. He saw colors wafting off trees, people, and I think roads, maybe other things as well. He spoke with a neurologist, and underwent an extensive set of experiential tests. He was diagnosed with smell->sight synesthesia, an uncommon type of an uncommon sensory modality (more "common" is seeing sound, or assigning personality traits to symbols). The colors and auras he saw corresponded with odors, even odors he was not attending to directly. Now, I know you're a very smart guy, and have probably heard of synesthesia before. Do you think it's possible that your experience has a neuro-sensory explanation? If it could, then parsimony would suggest ruling out that possibility before inferring that the experiences are direct sensing of little-known universal properties. This page links to a couple of assessments that might indicate whether it's worth asking an expert in person. Like I said, I know little about the rest. Wilhelm Reich's name is familiar from History of Psychology, and some socialist readings. If you do decide to send this letter, I hope you get the result you're looking for. ![]() |
||||
![]() |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)