Hello, my name is Jeremy McCracken. I have a wide range of interests, but tend to learn a great deal about them. They include:
- Any social studies subject, particularly local history of my area (Akron, Ohio)
- Computer science, particularly history
- Paranormal and hauntings
I'll be writing on some of these in the future.
I'm still working on the Parapsychology book. It's coming along well, but could still use other people's input (unless, of course, you alter the wording to say that the definition of parapsychology is "a fake science". People do that on Wikipedia; learn to be neutral.)
Parapsychology IS a fake 'science'. Not a question of neutrality, but of complete lack of evidence!
I saw this quote on wikipedia and liked it:
In the heated conversation going on, one harsh critic said:
"It is not objectively proven to exist, and there is no mechanism known to science by which it can exist." This actually is true. But his attitude of ridiculing something that has been functionally used by public institutions, and well documented as such, is unprofessional and he should take he pet peeves to some other article. Actually, although people have wierd theories, nobody knows the mechanism for gravity to work. But, the apple still falls with the observed mathmatical predicted speed as developed by Sir Issac Newton.
Remote viewing is not standard science because it can not pass the tests of the scientific method. But working practical use has been made based on the current status of a functioning working theory that has been proved at least statistically significant by those who have funded serious projects that produced working results. This article can state what Remote Viewing is by those who created, used, and supported the term. After all, even if you do not belive it to be true, and this is all some big hoax, including all the documents of the United States Government, it still has a definition in detail that belongs in Wikipedia.
Running a big red virtual marker through it and calling it "horsefeathers" is just childish behaviour and borders on libel against the working careers of professionls who have spent decades working on this and producing documentation. Nobody is saying this is proven science, but nobody should mass delete valuable reference information, or be crude and insulting, because they have a personal vendetta that this all somehow just can not have anything to it. Bptdude 06:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)