Actually, in the case of homeopathy and Benveniste, Randi was spot on. Also, peer review is unfortunately not very good at detecting systematic error that derives from scientists fooling themselves. It's even worse at detecting outright fraud. 1/https://twitter.com/Hayleystevens/status/1076431734307205120 …
-
-
Not all scientists are skeptics and the culture of science tends to be trusting. Not all magicians are skeptics either. For example, Penn was a climate science denialist and is now into some dubious fasting woo. Randi oversells the skepticism of magicians.https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/07/25/penn-jillette-interviews-michael-klaper/ …
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think it's about having a variety of folks with different experience so the group is more likely to avoid the "I can't see how I could be fooled" trap. Professionals in the field are useful assets, and the closest there is to someone doing the paranormal is a magician.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.