(October 26, 2015 at 2:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Science is supposed to be objective. The minute you say that one set of data requires more or less scrutiny than another you inject more subjectivity into the results. Nevertheless the most recent psi studies are very robust something ever critics have acknowledged. The early posts might have been true 20 years ago. Today its a different story.
Science is objective, because when you stop being objective, you are no longer doing science, but rather pretending to.
There are lots of things outside the mainstream that can have science done to them. Certainly, picking unseen cards, guessing numbers etc. can be controlled and enumerated.
However, your thesis that it's not sensible to bias toward some data over others is wrong. You have to look for the data which will shed the most light on a particular scientific question, and which was collected in the best possible circumstances-- i.e. you selectively choose data which is going to give you the most confidence in your results, not the data that best fits your theory.
Part of the problem with studying so-called "woo" subjects is that so much of the data is of such poor quality, and so many of the experiments are done in such poor circumstances, that finding good science in there is like finding a needle in a haystack.
