淘客熙熙

主题:【衲记包子】超心理学家驳斥反伪斗士魔术师兰迪 -- 衲子

共:💬25 🌺7 🌵1 新:
全看树展主题 · 分页 下页
家园 【衲记包子】超心理学家驳斥反伪斗士魔术师兰迪

发在了<文摘版>

链接出处

家园 甭管美眉说了什么, 花~!
家园 纳子你怎么了

你有点太执着了吧?兰迪你也反对?

家园 西西河怎么回事,科学探索整天讨论超自然伪科学?没有更好的话题了马?
家园 说得很对。这里不少饱学之士, 能不能讨论一下中国的航空

为什么航空技术与航天技术相比,与国外的差距那么大?

家园 答案在这里

http://www.cchere.net/article/580462

根据我的经验,这是必然现象。

家园 我就爱为underdog声辩,何况这伪科学有发Nature的paper

Puthoff, Harold and Russell Targ. "Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding" Nature, 1974, 252, 602-607.

魔术师兰迪又不是神圣的偶像,为什么不能反? 他既然可以反"伪科学", 咱们也可以反"反伪科学", 这叫否定之否定.

什么是执着? 我每天都要吃饭, 这算不算执着? 爱迪生试验灯丝的材料, 屡败屡战, 算不算执着?

家园 回花! 不过这个倾向就像&quot;凡是院士说的话就支持&quot;一样要不得
家园 嗯,应用技术与前瞻性理论问题都属于&lt;科学探索&gt;嘛.

航天运载工具(火箭,导弹,...)多是一次性的, 而航空的不是. 而且在当时,前者事关战略问题,国家的投入非常大.

家园 Nature Vol. 298 p414 29 July 1982

Correspondence

No "remote viewing"

A long drawn out controversy in Nature has followed the claim made by Puthoff and Targ(1) in 1974 that certain individuals can perceive objects or scenes blocked from ordinary perception by distance or shielding (the supposed phenomenon called “clairvoyance” by earlier generations). The most recent communications (2,3) raise issues about the content of Puthoff’s and Targ’s experimental records that can only be settled by direct examination of those records. However, their critic, Marks, has reported their refusal to grant him access to their records (2).

In an attempt to clarify this issue, writing as a bona fide investigator of long standing in this general area but having no prior involvement with these particular experiments, I recently requested access to the data on the Prince and Hammid series on which Puthoff and Targ based their original case for “remote viewing”. No reply has been received after an interval of two months, despite repeated approaches. It must be concluded that the evidence offered by Puthoff and Targ is not accessible to other investigators. In this sense their claim can no longer be regarded as falling within the scientific domain, and further public discussion appears unnecessary.

Christopher Scott

London N19, UK

1. Targ, R. & Puthoff, H. Nature 251, 602-607 (1974).

2. Marks, D. Nature 292, 177 (1981).

3. Puthoff, H. & Targ, R. Nature 292, 388 (1981).

家园 还有不少reference

大家可以去nature看看

家园 其实不必把1974年的文章拿出来,也不必用“CIA&quot;

其实不必把1974年的文章拿出来,也不必靠“CIA"来增加可信度。真的“特异功能”去拿兰迪的百万奖金就可以了,又能一劳永逸让兰迪闭嘴,又有钱收。。。

家园 【链接】兰迪的100万美元挑战---a big &quot;So What!&quot;

by Loyd Auerback

I might actually title this essay "Why I no longer care about Randi's One Million Dollar Challenge," but honestly "So What!" sums up my feelings these days...

外链出处

关键词(Tags): #魔术师兰迪
家园 既然是“so what&quot;, 又何必在乎别人说什么?

既然是“so what", 又何必在乎别人说什么?

家园 那篇Nature文章作者背景:两人皆为物理学家.Targ是调频激光

大功率气体输运激光、和可调等离子振荡器的发明人。Puthoff发明了可调红外激光,他对量子真空态、零点能 所作的理论工作在学界广为人知。见《The Field》Lynne McTaggart著,里面介绍了Puthoff在量子物理方面的工作。

呵呵,不能增加可信度,但至少能说明他们的工作不是你我还有Randi这样的半瓶醋可以想当然地轻易否定的。

全看树展主题 · 分页 下页


有趣有益,互惠互利;开阔视野,博采众长。
虚拟的网络,真实的人。天南地北客,相逢皆朋友

Copyright © cchere 西西河