the difference is that Nancy's approach could yield results that fit into our understanding/definition of "hard science." i.e. she could develop a test that consistently shows anomalous effects in plants collected in crop circles as opposed to non crop circle plants.
But Matt Williams' approach also yields scientific results: Making crop circles and observing how people respond to them is just as scientific, albeit in a different way. Not all science has to be done in a lab. That is proper fieldwork.
As for his tales of derring-do with The Paranormal, however...
Btw, your suggestion of testing "plants collected in crop circles as opposed to non crop circle plants" is exactly what Levengood did but it would not necessarily yield significant results as the 'control' (i.e., standing crop) is not a proper control. That's how BLT came up with the loony assertion that bent/swollen/elongated/burst nodes were an indication of 'genuineness'. You'd obviously want to compare the sample with known naturally or mechanically flattened plants, as I think someone else here has explained already.
since I don't know you Rob I was just trying shorten the loop. I mean, arguing the existence of paranormal with a rationalist/materialist is like arguing the baby Jesus hypothesis with a fundamentalist Christian…
Oh, you were arguing the existence of The Paranormal? Sorry, I didn't realise. That's not what I was doing.
I've given you no real reason to assume that I'm a hardcore anything have I? Just because I laugh at MW's stories about man-made crop circles generating what you call 'the paranormal' doesn't make me a dyed-in-the-wool rationalist/materialist does it? Or maybe it does, to you. Not to me. I'm not so quick to rush to judgement. I would describe myself as a realist who doesn't believe in reason. Indeed, I am often critical of Rationalists. For example, here's some passages from my doctoral thesis, which I think you'll agree support this argument.
'As Freud found in his attempt to taxonomize ‘the Uncanny,’ where his subject matter always evaded the boundaries he set to contain them, the occult is an inherently messy business and [..] this problem is compounded when we treat it as if it ought to be coherent and subject to rationalist values.'
'Where, in the realm of everyday society, the sacred, performance, and the plastic arts are set apart from ordinary life, in the mystical realm norms are reversed: art becomes real life. Rationalists may view this as a regression to less perceptive reasoning, but it is also a way forward.'
'To these views I would add the suggestion that consensus is not what is being strived for; that is the monist assumption, which is inappropriate here. Rather, people are engaging in a struggle for plurality over polarity. Whereas the politics of polarity naturally tends to stifle intellectual development, a politics of plurality I would suggest (following Feyerabend) positively encourages it. I have seen many dyed-in-the-wool Rationalists who are simultaneously attracted and repelled by this innately Tricksterish dance, and become trapped. As such, the legend landscape becomes a graveyard of ambition to solve its mysteries “once and for all.”'
'I learned that the most salient feature of our engagement with mysterious phenomena is that the truth does not always lie in the most rational explanations, and people who think in straight lines are often the most easily deceived. I was experiencing what the biophysicist Rupert Sheldrake (2012) has called the science delusion[footnote] – a minor skirmish in a war of episteme.' [footnote] “The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality.” Flyleaf [Sheldrake, The Science Delusion (2012)].
…And so on. All pretty consistent with the line I've taken in my brief time here.
This was (and as far as I'm concerned still is) a conversation about claims by people around crop circles, a subject I've been directly involved with for thirty years. I was giving you (in part) the benefit of my experience of the kinds of stories it generates, which have nothing much to do with science. So what are they to do with? That was my point! (The point could be extrapolated out into other related areas, if you dare, though I suspect it was my suggestion that there are parallels to be found in Spiritualism that elicited your reaction to how you think I think, so perhaps we shouldn't go there.)
moreover, what's wrong with asking someone: mind=brain? consciousness an illusion? (my answers: no and no)
Nothing: I don't remember saying there was anything wrong with it. But it was off-topic, and has absolutely nothing to do with Matt Williams' stories, nor Nancy Talbot's claims.
"No and no" - okay, so what?
Mmm… 'people who think in straight lines are often the most easily deceived.' We could talk about that if you like……. We could start the discussion around the word "duped".