At 12:56 PM -0400 4/3/01, Roig Miguel wrote:
>"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.
For the scientist, nothing is impossible; just very improbable.
In this case, either there is no such phenomena as psi, or the existing
laws of physics and biology need a major overhaul.
This is not beyond the realm of possibility, but give what someone referred
to as "weak and unstable evidence" for psi, it is more likely that most
scientists will reject psi.
As a radical behaviorist, I think that your "radical skeptic" is made of straw.
BTW: Skinner coined the term "radical behaviorism" as an extension of
radical as in root -- he was attempting to return behaviorism to Watson's
root assumptions.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
