On 11/26/09 20:20, somebody wrote:
>> Also if the potential benefits are high enough then even things with a
> tiny
>> chance of being successful should be studied.
>
> That's a fallacy, at least without quantifying that "tiny" (and it's next to
> impossible to quantify tiny in most such contexts since the "hypothesis" is
> irrational/non-scientific anyway). There's a tiny chance that my house is

	I fail to see how the hypothesis is irrational and non-scientific. At 
least not any more than communicating via radio would have been to some 
scientist 500 years ago.

> built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of dollars,
> which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?

	You've set up a strawman.

> Probabiliy of so called psychic phenomena being "real" is, for all practical
> purposes and by all intelligent accounts, is between 0 and 0. Any single

	Would that have been obvious to you 150 years ago?

	You're suggesting that some decades ago, when numerous people continued 
to make claims, at times with witnesses, that it wasn't worthy of 
investigation?

> cent wasted on such research is, well, wasted, and the only reasons for an
> intelligent human to bother  to do such research is employement and
> publishing.

	It seems you're merely redefining "intelligent" to be someone who 
doesn't "fall for x", where x is to your choosing.

-- 
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person 
who doesn't get it.

Post a reply to this message