I would like to correct my earlier post
Originally I wrote:
> for the true skeptic, there is no psi involved; that is, psi does not
exist. ;-)
To which Jeff responded:
>For the skeptic regarding psi (note that I left out the word "true"), there
is no evidence that psi is involved in John Edwards' act. >Furthermore, a
skeptic regarding psi may argue that, because there is no reliable evidence
for psi, it is reasonable to conclude
>that psi probably does not exist. But the skeptic regarding psi need not
argue for this latter point.
What I should have written is:
"for the _radical_ skeptic, there is no psi involved; that is, psi does not
exist".
When it comes to psi and skepticism, I like to distinguish between 'regular
skepticism' (for lack of a better term) and 'radical skepticism'. A
distinction analogous to behaviorism and radical behaviorism. According to
this distinction, psi is an impossibility for the radical skeptic and any
existing evidence of psi is due to faulty experimentation, outright fraud,
etc., etc. and should be abandoned because it does not fit with what we know
about the world, etc. To a regular skeptic, psi may or may not have already
been demonstrated empirically, depending on one's interpretation of the
evidence, but given psi's rich cultural, religious, and social history, its
existence is definitely within the realm of possibility.
___________________________________________
Miguel Roig, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Notre Dame Division of St. John's College
St. John's University
300 Howard Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10301
Tel.: (718) 390-4513
Fax: (718) 442-3612
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Http://area51.stjohns.edu/~roig
___________________________________________
winmail.dat
