> The article had a lot of blue sky thinking--not
> actual studies. I just gave examples of paranormal
> topics supported by studies that I remembered--the
> ideas in the article you posted would be more
> likely to end up in a movie--or already have!!
Not true, the article itself was produced by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and referred to a published paper. It did free wheel a bit in discussing the motivation for the study and results.
Now I get that you likely have a negative scientific critique of the article and also perhaps the paper, I see your point about that.
But your examples of supposedly similar items were constructed to be as dramatic as possible, and more akin to politicking than objective criticism IMO. "Expanding Earth"? Really?
I could be shown to be wrong, though: can you provide any links for your examples (such as "Expanding Earth") to similar articles?
> Institutional science works in the world of
> empirically testable hypotheses, not untestable
> extrapolations. When I advise doctoral students
> about thesis topics, I make sure that they can
> deliver an empirical contribution to knowledge in
> a limited amount of time with available
Yes I see your point, a very sensible way to approach things.
> If it's not a professional career at stake,
> outside of the academic world, I'd support and
> even encourage a flashier topic or riskier design.
> When, and if those are carried out, they are most
> likely to end up in a place like paranormal.
Yes, again, I do see your point.
Speculation does not belong on our paranormal board unless it contradicts the current scientific "paradigm". Can you provide specific items from the Berkeley Lab article that you think are paranormal in nature?