Mark Richards wrote:
I think we may be at cross purposes. I think the difficulty is in identifying who the credible sources are, and with whom they are credible when you are dealing with things that some people think are pseudoscience and others think are suppressed truth.
Why is it difficult in this case? Are there articles in journals which meet standard practices of peer-reviewed academic research? Credible. Are there articles in the National Enquirer? Not credible.
Are there books published by respectable acacemic presses? Credible. Are there books published by "New Age" publishers who appear to publish anything which will sell? Not credible.
With ESP, the question is often framed in terms of statistical probabilities that thus-and-such could have been the result of chance or not. While we may not be qualified to directly assess the statistical evidence itself, we are qualified to look at such questions of: what is the training of the author? Does this person have a PhD in statistics from a reputable University? Does this person publish work in peer-reviewed journals?
I don't see any difficulty at all here, as long as we abandon the idea that neutrality requires epistemological nihilism.
In most cases, it is sufficient to simple state the unconversial facts in a reasonably complete manner. "A study conducted by Professor Smith at Harvard University and published in _Review of Statistical Psychology_ found thus-and-such. While this reflects the broad consensus of the scientific community, it is also true that a vast popular literature continues to promote..."
--Jimbo