“Yet scientists are required to back up their claims not with private feelings but with publicly checkable evidence. Their experiments must have rigorous controls to eliminate spurious effects. And statistical analysis eliminates the suspicion (or at least measures the likelihood) that the apparent effect might have happened by chance alone.Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the £740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe. Why don't the television editors insist on some equivalently rigorous test? Could it be that they believe the alleged paranormal powers would evaporate and bang go the ratings?Consider this. If a paranormalist could really give an unequivocal demonstration of telepathy (precognition, psychokinesis, reincarnation, whatever it is), he would be the discoverer of a totally new principle unknown to physical science. The discoverer of the new energy field that links mind to mind in telepathy, or of the new fundamental force that moves objects around a table top, deserves a Nobel prize and would probably get one. If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake.Yet the final indictment against the television decision-makers is more profound and more serious. Their recent splurge of paranormalism debauches true science and undermines the efforts of their own excellent science departments. The universe is a strange and wondrous place. The truth is quite odd enough to need no help from pseudo-scientific charlatans. The public appetite for wonder can be fed, through the powerful medium of television, without compromising the principles of honesty and reason.”

[Human gullibility beyond belief,— the “paranormal” in the media, The Sunday Times, 1996-08-25]

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update May 30, 2022. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "Yet scientists are required to back up their claims not with private feelings but with publicly checkable evidence. The…" by Richard Dawkins?
Richard Dawkins photo
Richard Dawkins 322
English ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author 1941

Related quotes

A. Wayne Wymore photo
Arthur Conan Doyle photo
Joseph Larmor photo

“The evidence is closing in more and more rigorously that the medium which transmits electrical and radiant effects must either completely accompany matter in bulk in its movements or else be entirely independent of such movements.”

Joseph Larmor (1857–1942) Irish physicist and mathematician

[Review of Electric Waves by H. M. Macdonald, 19 February 1903, 67, 1738, 361–364, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.319510002995080;view=1up;seq=421] (p. 363)

Santiago Ramón y Cajal photo
Carl Sagan photo

“What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Carl Sagan (1934–1996) American astrophysicist, cosmologist, author and science educator

1 min 10 sec
Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (1990 Update), Encyclopedia Galactica [Episode 12]

Richard Dawkins photo
Carlos Zambrano photo
Temple Grandin photo

“They may ask why nature or God created such horrible conditions as autism, manic depression, and schizophrenia. However, if the genes that caused these conditions were eliminated there might be a terrible price to pay.”

Temple Grandin (1947) USA-american doctor of animal science, author, and autism activist

NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity by Steve Silberman ISBN 978-0-399-18561-8, p. 428

“If you eliminate all the words of a subject, you have eliminated the subject.”

Neil Postman (1931–2003) American writer and academic

Language Education in a Knowledge Context (1980)
Context: As one learns the language of a subject, one is also learning what the subject is.... what we call a subject consists mostly, if not entirely, of its language. If you eliminate all the words of a subject, you have eliminated the subject.

Related topics