Originally Posted by MattFYF
The little [sic]
science research that seems to point towards psychic ability often is almost always flawed [sic]
- the research itself isn't peer reviewed [sic]
, the research methods themselves are seriously flawed [sic]
, the subjects are biased [semi-sic ]
, the testing isn't done accurately [sic]
and so the results are skewed [sic]
, and so on.
I feel bad for parapsychologists. Parapsychology must be, hands down, the most frustrating profession today. If you publish positive results no one takes you seriously. Your methods are criticized down to a pulp. And if funding and grant proposals weren't bad enough for normal
scientists, imagine what it's like for parapsychologists!
I'll ask you an honest question, MattFYF: how many hours have you spent reading:
- the Journal of Society for Psychical Research
- the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
- or the Journal of Parapsychology
Excuse me if I'm being presumptuous, but I'm going to guess zero
, suggested by the mere fact that you thought these journals were not peer-reviewed.
You wrote that all parapsychology experiments were flawed. I'm guessing you gathered this conclusion from other skeptics, who also gathered it from other skeptics, etc.
The problem is that no one with a pre-disposed bias against
parapsychology really wants to sit down for hours analyzing the million nuances of statistical psychology results. It's easier to just make a few one-ended observations and call it a day.