how stuff works

[Thanz]

I thought that Randi's criticism of the How Stuff Works description of ESP was a little heavy handed and, IMO, thin skinned of Randi. He seems to bristle at the idea that actual scientific experiments may be better than his prize, and neglects to mention that the portions he quotes are just summing up a longer and quite balanced article.

Further, the suggestion he makes that:
After all that, the writer admits the basic truth about all this brouhaha. He simply tells his readers:

When all is said and done, we simply don't know whether ESP exists. . . .
Yep. Just as I've said all along. Could have used just that thirteen words, and saved time, space, and labor.
is ridiculous. The site is called how stuff works - and it gives a good run down of the pro side, the anti side, and the experiments that people have attempted. All in all, much more interesting and informative that Randi's thirteen word suggestion. Also, I find the implication that they were somehow trying to hide the truth to be, at best, less than candid of Randi when you read the entire article.

[TheBoyPaj]

I agree that the whole article makes quite a balanced case, but then it does spend around a twelfth of the article directly addressing (some might say denouncing) Randi and his cause. No other person is mentioned in that sort of detail.

And the bits about Randi do seem to be inaccurate. This part in particular:

To many parapsychologists and ESP believers, Randi's challenge is just theatrics, like the psychic stage shows he exposes. Generally, legitimate scientists are not in the business of claiming prize money in publicized demonstrations, nor are they necessarily out to prove ESP's existence in the first place. The primary mission of science is to investigate truth -- generally speaking, scientists are not out to profess their own beliefs, only their own findings. By lumping legitimate researchers in with entertainers, skeptics may confuse the issue.

I don't know many legitimate scientists, but I am sure that any university faculty who is indulging in work in this field would welcome a one million dollar reward for all their hard work. I don't recall reading that Randi's prize is reserved for entertainers, indeed it has been directly offered many times to commercial businesses and those who claim to be scientists.

This paragraph seems to indicate that science is "above" the Randi challenge. This seems a bit sniffy and I think Randi is justified in retorting.

[Chad Noles]

Generally, legitimate scientists are not in the business of claiming prize money in publicized demonstrations, nor are they necessarily out to prove ESP's existence in the first place. The primary mission of science is to investigate truth -- generally speaking, scientists are not out to profess their own beliefs, only their own findings.

I find this statement to be accurate,and reasonable in it's accessment of scientific investigation.

The implication that the scientist would be awarded the prize money seems to be misleading.If ESP(as a blanket phrase) were proven in a laboratory setting,the subject of the test would be the proper claimant,wouldn't they?I think that the implication that scientific study could/should be conducted for a prize reward is a bit "over the top".