--- In PSI_research@yahoogroups.com, "Olavi Kiviniemi" <okivi@...>
wrote:
>
> What does general public think about the science called
> parapsychology? As a rule they don't see any difference between
> parapsychology and New Age.

Even if you are right (doesn't "any difference" be little harsh?) I
think it is not a great deal. Public opinion about science in general
is better only because of professional popular science and good
education. Both are more or less missing in the parapsychology and
there is a good reason.

So far resources are as minimal in the field as they are (and because
field is under public controversy), there is not effective way to
educate much the public view. And, in spite of aggressive skeptics
with planetary size egos, bigger half of people seems to have quite
positive attitudes towards the field, so there is almost as less
reasons to focus more resources to public education than there is
reasons to send messages to extraterrestrials what earthly
parapsychology really is. They doesn't understand you even if they
are listening and if they do, they possible already know what is need
to know!

However, I greatly respect them who want to use their time to write
good-quality books about psi research in spite of that they doesn't
sell as much as New Age. It proves you have right attitude to
be "public nutcase"!

> Most mainstream scientists have the same view,
> because they believe in what the skeptics say
> and the skeptics say so.

You forget most relevant point: science is not democracy. Halleluja!

In current situation we can only hope of good theory about psi
phenomena (if psi is real), it is the only way to change the
attitudes of mainstream sciences. Second possible strategy is to
forget whole concept of psi for a while (in the empirical
parapsychology) and focus only anomalistic psychology's point of
view. It is my opinion because modern parapsychology has now done as
much and seems that only ways to make progress is to get a miracle or
some kind of revolution in the whole field.

> That general confusion can be seen clearly in the category chains
> used by booksellers, libraries and discussion forums, for example:

Irony is that at the same time one finnish skeptic claims also that
categories are misleading but he has quite different reason:
parapsychology (as the other "frontier sciences" and neoreligions
like new age) should be cathegorized as superstition!

> Suomi24 > Keskustelu > Uskonnot & uskomukset > Rajatieto >
> Parapsykologia.
>
> Translated: Suomi24-forum > Discussion > Religions & beliefs > New
> Age > Parapsychology.

No, it is not very exact to translate "rajatieto" as New Age. It
means literally borderlines of knowledge. More or less valid term in
english seems to be "fringe sciences" (my english is not fluent but
I've read my semantics).

The term was originally created for readers of the oldest finnish
borderline magazine Ultra as the term which cover large scale of
material from flying saucers and parapsychology to new age and
alternative medicine. Nowadays it is used in libraries and finnish
media.

I know that your point of view is that finnish "rajatieto" scene has
been totally corrupted by New Age, but still it is not the same thing.

> 1. To take a clearer distance to religions and New Age.

You has to remember that there is people who are needed in
parapsychology if we want to have the subjects of research,
economical resources or even persons who has part in the research
work itself. Many of those people would make distance in
parapsychology if we make wrong kind of distance in New Age or if we
use wrong methods. Many people feels at least some kind of sympathy
towards new age. Maybe we have to use this for scientific purposes
instead of directly get apart of it.

> 2.. The direct and undisputed lies that skeptics tell about
> parapsychology and parapsychologists ought to be listed publicly,
> clearly and in detail, especially in many sites in Internet.
> I have already gathered some points in my files. The list would
> be _very_ long.

And unfortunetaly very unsexy. I fear that only efficient method to
question the reliability of those skeptics (which doesn't mean all of
skeptics) in the public would be less nice. Usually only efficient
way to answer information war is to use same methods than the
opposite part. And I suspect that most of parapsychologists are not
ready to go same level with them since public view really is better
than you could think if you trying look things from skeptical
egosphere. Public attitudes will change if we try to get as dirty as
the skeptics you told of. Related to that, winning the skeptics (at
least worst of them) is not so great victory. So, current choices may
be more like leave the game and loose a bit or continue and loose
badly.

> 3. Parapsychologists ought to let mainstream scientists
> check all papers before publishing them.

And if mainstream scientists don't want to because of their
attitudes, let's get a few martian scientists to do that. Seriously,
parapsychological journals still have many mainstream scientist and I
think that there is not a way to make much progress without more
money. So, in most part parapsychological community has done a great
job.

-Peter