[IP] more on Tax $$$ at work: Air Force report wants $7.5 million for psychic teleportation
Begin forwarded message:
From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@xxxxxxxx>
Date: November 12, 2004 2:54:42 PM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ip <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] Tax $$$ at work: Air Force report wants $7.5 million
for psychic teleportation
Dave - For IP if you want.
Curious iconoclast that I am, I decided to read the actual AF report
concerning teleportation.
I learned 2 things.
1) the USA Today article was written by someone who obviously did not
read the report. (Did Declan?) In particular the sentence "The report
calls for $7.5 million to conduct psychic teleportation experiments" is
completely inaccurate, distorting the actual words, probably because of
an FAS agenda. The report analyzes the costs for a set of
experiments, 90+% of which is to be focused on NON-psychic
teleportation experiments - experiments based on plausible, current
physical theories, which just happen to be a bit "out there". It does
not "call for" money at all - merely recommending how one might take
the next step in testing various physical approaches to engineering
teleportation. Reminds me of Willy Ley telling us how we might travel
to the moon.
2) The attempt by the author to describe the theories of highly
regarded physics professors (such as Kip Thorne of Caltech) seems
honest and does not seem to me to substantially misrepresent their
work, those parts of which I have read.
I've seen some ideas that were called absurd (such as Continental
Drift, which is now accepted, and non-biological origins of some
petroleum) turn out to be true after many years of disrepute, and other
very plausible theories held by senior people (inheritance of acquired
characteristics) turn out to be largely false. Argument from
prestigious authority is a weak way to establish scientific truth, as I
think we all know.
It saddens me that the FAS responds to such publications by putting out
press releases to USA Today, rather than pursuing the usual scientific
channels for challenge. Is the FAS a part of science, or merely a
political lobbying organization? Who is Stephen Aftergood? On what
basis is he an expert in wormholes, for example?
Now it may be that there is a larger context I don't understand. For
example, there may be politicians using the report to justify investing
in such projects. If true, that activity should be discussed and
judged, and I certainly think that other scientists should review the
report before funding such a hypothetical plan.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
begin:vcard
fn:David Reed
n:Reed;David
email;internet:dpreed@xxxxxxxx
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard