rationalskepticism.org

jerome wrote:

Will S wrote:Aren't you criticising the book for failing to achieve something which is, even in principle, unachievable? Or have you some clear idea of how the paranormal might be debunked? In order to satisfy you, what would the author of such a book have to show?

Simply addressed those academic peer reviewed experiments that appear to stand contrary to the main point of the book, and the "paranormal can now safely be put aside" argument thereof.

I'm still finding it difficult to be sure that I understand your approach here.

You seem to be criticising Wiseman for failing to consider some particular experimental work (' ... Schwarz, Beichel or Roy & Robertson's modern double blind studies with alleged mediums') which, in your opinion, provides very strong evidence for the paranormal. Is that right? Is that the basis of your criticism? Is that what you mean when you say: 'As a book debunking the paranormal it is a failure'?

If that's what you mean, it provokes a further question. Do you consider this work by Schwarz, Beichel or Roy & Robertson which Wiseman ignores to be innovative and unique? Are you saying that it provides evidence for the paranormal of a quality which previously wasn't available? So are you saying that Wiseman is simply out of date? That he's drawing conclusions which would have been acceptable in the past, but which have been overtaken by later research? If so, let's hope that there's a new edition of his book which considers this important work and, perhaps, reaches different conclusions. (Is this a 'Kelvin and radioctivity' situation? )

Or is your criticism more fundamental? Are you saying that, in addition to the work you mention, there's a whole body of experimental work, done by many different people, going back over, say, 50 years which provides strong positive evidence for the paranormal and which Wiseman selectively ignores? Are you saying that Wiseman is consistently and perversely going for soft targets and ignoring the hard ones? That would be a very serious criticism indeed, in which case I would have expected your Amazon review (which is, actually, a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger job) to be absolutely damning!

Could you elucidate? Because, if you are not making the more serious criticism, you would seem to be implying that good quality evidence for the paranormal has become available only fairly recently? Is that what you think?