Not a bad article, though you can see the bias. For example, there's good reason to conclude Randi isn't to be trusted and the $ 1 million challenge stinks of propaganda.
What I think they should have brought up were the issues with accepted conclusions, such as the variety of issues with Libet's readiness potential as proof there's no free will or all the questionable research - or just disregard for research - done to conclude psychedelics have no beneficial effect. They might also mention some of the questionable research done by Big Pharma.
Sometimes it seems to me the real problems with corporate pseudoscience get ignored so that parapsychology can be a bogeyman that doesn't upset potential funders.
Additionally, they might talk about parapsychological research that had good controls and protocols, even if this research could be further improved.
All that said, I did like how they were against the outright dismissal of parapsychological phenomenon and unwilling to jump to the shaming tactics some materialist evangelicals promote.
It's not a perfect article but it at least trains students to think about evidence that could convince them that parapsychology is real rather than trying to get them into the folds of materialist evangelism using derision and condescension.
Have to start somewhere, and it's a step in the right direction.
Maybe I didn't read it carefully enough. It seemed to me more like a primer in debunking.
Oh the article has issues and biases, but at least it offers the possibility that research into the paranormal can yield positive results.
It's a start toward decoupling science from materialist faith and shifting it into a position of agnosticism on these matters.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you, the article is deeply problematic. But my experience with racism, anti-paganism, and homophobia makes me feel like taking a sliver of good will, like the article offers, is at least leaving the door slightly ajar.
People have been conditioned in Western society to avoid being "taken advantage of" or "made to be fools" to the point that any expression of hope that there's more to existence than clockwork with indeterminate quantum flux is seen as worthy of derision.
Expecting huge change is, IMO, like expecting bigotry to vanish.
In the same way a bigot can be talk to me and say I'm okay for a Hindu darkie, we can take the article as at least putting a single step in the right direction.
The person writing the article then promotes some of the biggest morons to ever have an opinion when he writes "Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer, Phil Plaitt, and Richard Wiseman all have many resources available online, and are well worth exploring."
Really?
I would agree that these figures are controversial to those of us who question the (pseudo?) skeptical position, but how would you suggest getting people to understand the issues with materialist evangelism?
I read through it again just so I didn't misinterpret the original intention of the article... but to me the intention of the article by the author was the exact opposite of pointing out issues with materialist envangelism.... but trying to point out issues with PSI.
To me the article reads more like an Evangelistic Skeptic who is petrified at the thought that PSI and Parapsychology is slowly starting to get a foot hold within the Science community.. and maybe even being taught in Universities as something to look at.
The article reads like a "You know.... you may start to hear about studies in regards to Mediumship and PSI... but don't bother because it's just Pseudoscience and there is nothing to see there.... and you can be easily confused into believing that Homeopathy and Psychics are real... but here is why it's not... and whilst you are at it listen to Randi, Sagan, Shermer, Plaitt and Wiseman"