George R. Price
Since I have already stated at some length my views on psychic phenomena,' 11 I am reluctant to engage in continued arguments that can in no way settle the basic issue. As I wrote in the concluding paragraph of my paper, "the only answer that will impress me is an adequate experiment." Nevertheless, some brief comments on the statements by Soal, Rhine, Meehl and Scriven, and Bridgman are in order.
The most important portion of "Science and the Supernatural" was the section suggesting new experiments. My two colleagues at the University of Minnesota, Meehl and Scriven, are incorrect in stating that my argument "stands or falls on two hypotheses . . . (i) that extrasensory perception (ESP) is incompatible with modern science and (ii) that modern science is complete and correct." My argument stands or falls on the two hypotheses that (i) previous demonstrations of psi phenomena have not been convincing to most scientists and (ii) that it is possible to perform convincing experiments meeting all objections that parapsychologists have made to previous suggestions for public demonstrations.
The most significant points that the reader should notice about the
Reprinted from Science 123 ( 1956) No. 3184, pp. 17-18, by permission of the editor.
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: Philosophy and Parapsychology. Contributors: Jan Ludwig - Editor. Publisher: Prometheus Books. Place of publication: Buffalo, NY. Publication year: 1978. Page number: 196.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.