> That's essentially what you-- and others want: do a trick and
> prove to us psi exists-- and while you're at it, keep doing it until
> we are satisfied that you aren't faking.

Well, don't talk for me.

What scientists realise is that their minds and powers of observation
are flawed. That's why they use measuring tools, statistics, and
double-blind experiments to attempt to take their personal prejudices
out of the answers.

What people like me want is demonstrable proof. If psi exists, then it
can be either measured or statistically demonstrated. Where are these
studies that you keep referring to? (I'm curious, not trying to pull you
down. I'd be pleased as punch to find valid experiments showing that psi
does exist.)

> Scientists want the lay person to accept the idea
> that there are invissible masssless particles that zip through us all
> the time from space; particles we can't see, taste, feel or detect by
> film...

Uh, no. Scientists hypothesise (based on prior evidence and missing
information) that these particles exist.

They then create experiments (double-blind wherever possible) to test
whether the hypothesis is valid (i.e. could be true) or invalid (i.e.
couldn't be true). A key element of an experiment is that it must
predict a result. If the prediction turns out correct, it confirms (not
proves) the hypothesis; if incorrect, it invalidates the hypothesis. (It
can be considered a proof if it's an either-or: For example, either
horses' feet all leave the ground at the same time during each canter,
or they don't.)

If the experiments -- which must be repeated by different scientists to
be considered seriously -- indicate that the hypothesis is valid, they
then call it a Theory. (In layman's terms, a Theory is what is "true".)
That theory is built on, creating further hypotheses and experiments
(and new theories), until they find the limitations of their theories,
and either refine them (as with Newtonian physics) or discard them (as
with Copernicus's theories).

Scientists don't consider their conclusions as the Truth. Instead, they
consider them as guidelines towards the truth.

If we were to reject the scientific method, and rely on our subjective
observations, then the sun and stars would still be circling the world,
the world would still be flat, and you and I would not be typing on
computers.

Perhaps psychic powers do exist. At the moment, there is no evidence
that they do not; but likewise, there is no evidence that they do. For
simplicity's sake, scientists ignore its possibility until they come to
something that they can either measure or statistically validate. That's
why scientists ignore ghosts. It doesn't have to be "in a lab"; stars,
global warming and neutrinos don't fit in a lab, yet that doesn't stop
scientists from measuring, statistically analysing, hypothesising, and
experimenting about them.

As you can see, you should welcome the scientific method, as it would
validate your conclusions if correct.

If you can give us something that can be measured, statistically
measured, and experimented on (in a repeatable way), then we could
consider this further.

For example: You said, "As it now stands, I *consistently* get two out
of every three lottery numbers-- night after night after night-- for the
lasst twenty-two days; something that would be statistically impossible
if psi wasn't involved."

If you really can predict these, then -- wow! -- do so. Email us
/before/ each lottery with your guesses. If you reach a statistical
measure of at least 95%, this will be worthy of scientific
investigation. If you reach at least 99%, you will have many people
interested. 99.9% will get you in a lab ;-) !

Paddy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]