Mr.Hammond escreveu:Não falei que Geller era adepto da cientologia. Eu mencionei ele porque você falou sobre periódicos indexados, e o APODman já mostrou uma capa da Science (senão me engano) com ele na capa. Você fez uma confusão dos diabos.
E quando eu falei "Existem estudos de caso que provam isso." estava só te sacaneando.
Sim, mostrou ele na capa, e daí? Vc conhece os desdobramentos? E as críticas aos estudos? Já apresentei diversas refutações. Posso apresentar mais, inclusive uma que sai na Nature que comenta a matéria da New Scientist:
http://www.uri-geller.com/content/research/nature.htm
(1) There was agreement that the paper was weak in design and presentation, to the extent that details given as to the precise way in which the experiment was carried out were disconcertingly vague. The referees felt that insufficient account had been taken of the established methodology of experimental psychology and that in the form originally submitted the paper would be unlikely to be accepted for publication in a psychological journal on these grounds alone. Two referees also felt that the authors had not taken into account the lessons learnt in the past by parapsychologists researching this tricky and complicated area.
(2) The three referees were particularly critical of the method of target selection used, pointing out that the choice of a target by "opening a dictionary at random" is a naive, vague and unnecessarily controversial approach to randomisation. Parapsychologists have long rejected such methods of target selection and, as one referee put it weaknesses of this kind reveal "a lack of skill in their experiments, which might have caused them to make some other mistake which is less evident from their writing".
(3) All the referees felt that the details given of various safeguards and precautions introduced against the possibility of conscious or unconscious fraud on the part of one or other of the subjects were "uncomfortably vague" (to use one phrase). This in itself might be sufficient to raise doubt that the experiments have demonstrated the existence of a new channel of communication which does not involve the use of the senses.
(4) Two of the referees felt that it was a pity that the paper, instead of concentrating in detail and with meticulous care on one particular approach. to extra-sensory phenomena, produced a mixture of different experiments, using different subjects in unconnected circumstances and with only a tenuous overall theme. At the best these were more "a series of pilot studies . . . than a report of a completed experiment".
Publishing in a scientific journal is not a process of receiving a seal of approval from the establishment; rather it is the serving of notice on the community that there is something worthy of their attention and scrutiny. And this scrutiny is bound to take the form of a desire amongst some to repeat the experiments with even more caution.
To this end the New Scientist does a service by publishing this week the results of Dr Joe Hanlon's own investigations into a wide range of phenomena surrounding Mr Geller. If the subject is to be investigated further - and no scientist is likely to accept more than that the SRI experiments provide a prima facie case for more investigations - the experimental technique will have to take account of Dr Hanlon's strictures, those of our own referees and those doubtless, of others who will be looking for alternative explanations.
Perhaps the most important issue raised by the circumstances surrounding the publication of this paper is whether science has yet developed the competence to confront claims of the paranormal. Supposedly paranormal events frequently cannot be investigated in the calm, controlled and meticulous way that scientists are expected to work, and so there is always a danger that the investigator, swept up in the confusion that surrounds many experiments, abandons his initial intentions in order to go along with his subject's desires. It may be that all experiments of this sort should be exactly prescribed beforehand by one group, done by another unassociated group and evaluated in terms of performance by the first group. Only by increasing austerity of approach by scientists will there be any major progress in this field.
Um abraço,
Vitor
