XPost: alt.paranormal.reincarnation   
   From: rgrentcom@kcnet.com   
      
   Agreed, but you are not proving that bad research doesn't exist.  You are   
   proving that the research done does not meet the criteria of what   
   constitutes good research.   
      
   Also, I wasn't writing about the validity of a type of research as compared   
   to another, I was writing about proving the existence of some (any) thing,   
   and that it is impossible to prove non-existence of some (any) thing.   
      
   Victor's joke bet/contest hinges on "proving" the "non-existence" of   
   paranormal abilities.  Which is not possible.  That's why it's funny.   
      
   Randi's joke bet/contest hinges on "proving" the "existence" of paranormal   
   abilities, which IS possible, but not the way he has set up the criteria for   
   research.  Which is why it isn't funny   
      
      
   "Steve S."  wrote in message   
   news:auIrc.95806$iF6.8418628@attbi_s02...   
   > If research is bad research, you can show logically that it is bad   
   research.   
   > Victor is citing good research, and one would have to resort to sophistry   
   to   
   > try to show that it is not good research.   
   > Steve S.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)