[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
...I disagree strongly with scientists of the the "rationalist" type who claim to be the only arbiters of truth - they are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would also disagree with anyone who claimed to be the only aribter of truth. I doubt you would find any scientist, even those who would declare themselves "rationalist," who would make this claim.

As an aside, why do you insist on using the term "rationalist" pejoratively?

[ QUOTE ]
and they point blank refuse to accept any study that validates any kind of "paranormal" or "mystical" experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

The way you frame this is kind of a lose-lose situation for scientists. If they accept a study that validates "mystical" or "paranormal" activity, then they were wrong to begin with. If they do not accept the study, then they are "closed-minded rationalists."

I would suggest an alternative explanation--that the studies that indicate the existence of paranormal phenomena tend to be severely flawed, inconclusive, or irreproducible.

Wouldn't a study that definitively showed the existence of parnormal activity be so earth-shatteringly important and undeniable that it would be easily reproduced by eager adherents and skeptics alike throughout the world?

[ QUOTE ]
And what exactly does the phrase "refutes the arguments that science destroys spirituality" mean. You are using Sagan as a means to refute spirituality? Yet he denies this implicitly. What is your definition of "spirituality"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said anything about this. Are you asking me to justify what someone else wrote on Amazon? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think these ideas are wrong bdk3clash - let's hear your reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will readily admit that quantum physics in any capacity is well outside of my limited sphere of knowledge. I suspect the same is true for you, but for all I know you may have a doctorate in the subject matter.

Either way, for me to "debate" you on quantum physics as it relates to ESP would be an exercise in uselessness.

What I do know is that as science develops, quacks, mystics, and outright frauds try to associate their beliefs with the latest scientific advancements. This latest idea of "quantum mysticism" strikes me as old ideas in new clothes, but perhaps time will prove me wrong.

If history is any indication, I highly doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
So far all you have done is try to dismiss them and refer people to the fixed-agenda organisation Scicop.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've already been through this--if you really think that CSICOP arrives at conclusions a priori, then fine, but in my experience this isn't the case.

(I would like to point out that this line of thinking makes it much easier to reject any argument that disagrees with your conclusions, since they "already made their minds up" anyway.)

[ QUOTE ]
You must have thoughts and ideas on this, and I am sure we would all like to hear them, but you better have some good arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've presented them throughout this thread but, again, I would be out of my element (pun not intended) to discuss quantum physics.