> Well, I have managed to find out that this post is
> in response to mine immediately above it, but I
> really would appreciate your quoting me if you are
> responding to me otherwise it really is very
> difficult for me.
> Correction: sceptics usually do support science. IQuote
Can you not see the paradox of your own
> position? Pseudo-Skeptics claim, they support
> don't know what a pseudo-sceptic is - it seems to
> be a term used by those who wish to avoid a
> possibility that their faith beliefs are entirely
> Which methodology are you referring to here?Quote
according to the methodology of Science
> Please cite the objective evidence for this.Quote
which is Science in it's purest form,
> Science says Psi effects are proven,
> Which ones? Where? How?Quote
so Skeptics turn on Science.
Your first statement says that you do not associate a methodology to science. Science by definition is a method of enquiry with a series of protocols, and statistical analyses.
For over a century this methodology has been applied to claims or suspicion of conscious or unconscious knowledge which bypasses the recognised senses. An example of this is at the top of the initial post of the thread, and replicated here: [www.deanradin.com]
Dean Radin's Presentiment experiments and their Meta-analysis over thousands of examples of replicated experiment. The classic example is of course arch-skeptic Richard Wiseman oft-quoted as admitting that psi was proven by the normal standards of science. He didn't like the result so he then demands that Science change it's parameters and protocols until the results match his beliefs. The classic pseudo-Skeptic.
I have a good idea of your response to this, only reputable scientists can be accepted in their results and the definition of an accepted scientist is that he must not produce results supporting psi.