Open-minded skepticism is the foundation on which science rests. But just as there are pseudoscientists who profess ideas as though they are grounded in empiricism (but aren't), there are also pseudoskeptics who present critiques as though they are grounded in knowledge (and aren't). After 25 years of investigating psychic phenomena, much of it in university and industrial research settings, I've heard every criticism imaginable leveled at this topic, from rants about how telepathy supposedly violates unspecified "laws of physics," to scientists claiming that this is the work of the devil (I'm not kidding). Some critiques are valid, and as such they've been extremely valuable in helping to advance the research. But the majority of so-called skepticism is more accurately regarded as pseudoskepticism. Such critiques are outdated, illegitmate double-standards, distortions of actual research, or flat out wrong. Pseudoskepticism is easy to sustain because it
Showing posts from January, 2006
- Other Apps
Here's a still from the new What the Bleep movie, subtitled "Down the Rabbit Hole." I was interviewed for what seemed like forever (probably about 4 hours). I don't recall the details of what I said, which will make watching the movie more interesting for me. So far, I've done about 30 interviews for television shows. This was my second movie-related appearance. The first was for a mini-feature on remote viewing, which can be found on the DVD of the movie Suspect Zero .
- Other Apps
I appear in the sequel to the highly successful independent film, "What the Bleep Do We Know," appearing in theaters soon. Who would have thought that a film that tackles difficult epistemological issues would be a hit? I suppose clever animation and a good sound track can make even fundamental questions in philosophy fun again.