Lusikka
New
Scientific skepticism is generally thought to be a defender of science. Defending science would presuppose truthfulness, but that is something the skeptics are not. Attacking pseudoscience and woo would be OK if it would not mean also attacking parapsychology by chosen facts, colored facts, and even using outright lies.
Wikipedia is lost to Guerrilla Skepticism. Unfortunately scientists use Wikipedia much and have not understood the realistic situation. Therefore I have proposed parapsychologists ought to make a site for a list of the innumerable outright lies skeptics have written. So far I have not received any answers to my propositions.
Much of all information is vulnerable to interpretation. It is rather useless to debate about principles or opinions. Therefore the list ought to contain only such details that are impossible to explain away. There are lots of such lies, I have gathered some of them.
An example from Wikipedia:
There are rather many chosen or false details written there, for example:
- the researchers were present only between 1995-97
- Brian Dunning is not a paranormal researcher
- the séances were held also elsewhere
- night vision apparatus was not allowed, but there was not always total darkness
- the film box was always examined
- it was not easy to open it and even more difficult to close it in darkness
- there was no follow-up because the phenomena did not continue
- rather ridiculous: even the Scole experiment site is not written as a link
My source: The Scole Report.
Wikipedia is lost to Guerrilla Skepticism. Unfortunately scientists use Wikipedia much and have not understood the realistic situation. Therefore I have proposed parapsychologists ought to make a site for a list of the innumerable outright lies skeptics have written. So far I have not received any answers to my propositions.
Much of all information is vulnerable to interpretation. It is rather useless to debate about principles or opinions. Therefore the list ought to contain only such details that are impossible to explain away. There are lots of such lies, I have gathered some of them.
An example from Wikipedia:
Mediumship:
A series of mediumistic séances known as the Scole Experiment took place between 1993–98 in the presence of the researchers David Fontana, Arthur Ellison and Montague Keen. This has produced photographs, audio recordings and physical objects which appeared in the dark séance room (known as apports).[146] According to paranormal researcher Brian Dunning the Scole experiments fail in many ways. The séances were held in the basement of two of the mediums, only total darkness was allowed with no night vision apparatus as it might "frighten the spirits away". The box containing the film was not examined and could easily have been accessible to fraud. And finally, even though many years have passed, there has been no follow-up, no further research by any credible agency or published accounts.[147]
[Two given sources:]
146David Fontana. (2005). Is there an afterlife?. pp. 324-351. See also www.thescoleexperiment.com
147"The Scole Experiment: Said to be the best evidence yet for the afterlife -- but how good is that evidence?". Skeptoid. 2009-11-10. Retrieved 2011-10-30.
There are rather many chosen or false details written there, for example:
- the researchers were present only between 1995-97
- Brian Dunning is not a paranormal researcher
- the séances were held also elsewhere
- night vision apparatus was not allowed, but there was not always total darkness
- the film box was always examined
- it was not easy to open it and even more difficult to close it in darkness
- there was no follow-up because the phenomena did not continue
- rather ridiculous: even the Scole experiment site is not written as a link
My source: The Scole Report.