>It is difficult for scientists confined to a physical universe and using
>empirical methods to accept the possibility that information can come from
>unverifiable and untestable (detestable??) sources such as dowsing,
>clairvoyance, visions, and other paranormalities.

There is an implication here that I think is untenable--namely that such
things are untestable.  Certainly experiments under controlled, rigorous
conditions can determine whether results of dowsing or other "paranormal"
activities are statistically significant from chance or not.  If the results
are no different than expected by chance, no information has been
forthcoming (although I actually have had this thought, by implication,
challenged).  Randi's point has always been, to the best of my knowledge,
that when these activities actually are subject to such conditions, they
fail that test.

I think the philosophy of extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence, rather than anecdotal evidence, could well be adopted by more people.

Art Harris
Laboratory for Environmental Biology
Centennial Museum
University of Texas at El Paso
El Paso, TX  79968-0519
USA
Fax (915) 747-5808
[log in to unmask]