Websites of interest

Here's a few interesting websites I've run across.

Stacy Horn's blog. Stacy is author of Unbelievable, an excellent book about the J B Rhine era.

Winston Wu's "debunking skeptics" site, SCEPCOP. In the spirit of the Skeptical Investigations website.

Interchange Laboratories, Inc. is developing a mind-machine interface technology.

Mark Zilberman's Intuition Tester and especially his "Artificial Intuition Device."

UC Irvine's Don Hoffman's "User interface theory of perception" and other papers and materials. Prof. Hoffman gave a very interesting lecture at the recent Parapsychological Association conference held at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I am a little confused by Vinstonas Wu's exact opinions. In some essays he seems to be saying that he approves of authorities such as Wayne Dyer, e.g.:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Conclusion.htm

whereas in other essays such as:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_New_Age.htm

he seems to be saying that Wayne Dyer is too vague to be of use.

I note that SCEPCOP is run by Wu and has recently been endorsed by Victor Zammit.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Anonymous said…
Another interesting site likely to be of use to parapsychologists is:

http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/

Martin is a critic of conflicts of interest in science.

http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/sciencecritique.html

is IMHO very relevant to psi research.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
WWu777 said…
Hi FB,
This is Vinstonas Wu. To answer your question, first of all, those two articles were written years apart. Second, my position on Wayne Dyer is that he is very inspiring, charismatic and has a lot of spiritual wisdom to share, which he mostly borrows from other sources, he admits, and packages it all together in an attractive feel good package. Nothing wrong with that. My only beef is that he takes the "thought creates reality" New Age mantra as a Gospel Truth and an all powerful force.

I never said that he was good or bad, I just listed the pros and cons of his message. No one is all right or all wrong. Most people's opinions contain elements of truth in them, as well as limitations, flaws and weaknesses.

I hope that clears things up for you?

Vinstonas
SCEPCOP
Friday, August 21, 2009
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven

Image
Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. "The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area ...
Read more

Feeling the future meta-analysis

Before Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem published an article on precognition in the prominent  Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, it had already (and ironically given the topic) evoked a response from the status quo. The New York Times  was kind enough to  prepare us to be outraged .  It was called " craziness, pure craziness" by life-long critic Ray Hyman. Within days the news media was announcing that it was all just a big mistake .  I wrote about the ensuing brouhaha  in this blog .  But the bottom line in science, and the key factor that trumps hysterical criticism, is whether the claimed effect can be repeated by independent investigators. If it can't then perhaps the original claim was mistaken or idiosyncratic. If it can, then the critics need to rethink their position. Now we have an answer to the question about replication. An article has been submitted to the Journal of Social and Personality Psycho...
Read more

Show me the evidence

Image
Critics are fond of saying that there is no scientific evidence for psi. They wave their fist in the air and shout, "Show me the evidence!" Then they turn red and have a coughing fit. In less dramatic cases a student  might be genuinely curious and open-minded, but unsure where to begin to find reliable evidence about psi. Google knows all and sees all, but it doesn't know how to interpret or evaluate what it knows (at least not yet). In the past, my response to the "show me" challenge has been to give the titles of a few books to read, point to the bibliographies in those books, and advise the person to do their homework. I still think that this is the best approach for a beginner tackling a complex topic. But given the growing expectation that information on  virtually any topic ought to be available online within 60 seconds, traditional methods of scholarship are disappearing fast. So I've created a SHOW ME  page with downloadable articles on psi a...
Read more