Article can be found here: [www.skepticalinvestigations.org]
I disagree however, with the claim that Wiseman's methods are "brilliant." They are easy to see through, and based upon two simple tactics:
1. botching the statistical analysis,
2. using some arbitrary, irrelevant criterion to ignore or dismiss the data.
Frankly, I am amazed that anyone takes Wiseman seriously. I can only suppose that the deniers are so desperate to have their dying ideology taken seriously that they will accept Wiseman as one of their champions.
Genuine skepticism plays an important role in science, but skepticism is the practice of doubt, not of denial. These peoples are not true skeptics, but phony skeptics, deniers.
|Lies, damned lies, and what Richard Wiseman reports||204||Me||23-Dec-10 01:14|
|Re: Lies, damned lies, and what Richard Wiseman reports||60||Chris Carter||23-Dec-10 15:36|
|Re: Lies, damned lies, and what Richard Wiseman reports||182||Me||23-Dec-10 16:20|
|Re: Lies, damned lies, and what Richard Wiseman reports||54||Chris Carter||28-Dec-10 18:12|