S
Sciborg_S_Patel
I think this is the questionable tactic part:
First she sighted her ten years of experience in 1987, then apparently after Berger's paper she says there's no reason to make any conclusions about Psi based on her work. From Carter's write up:
“I am glad to be able to agree with his final conclusion - ‘that drawing any conclusion, positive or negative, about the reality of psi that are based on the Blackmore psi experiments must be considered unwarranted.’”
If she cited her 20 years in the field in 1996, then half of that time falls under Berger's criticism of shoddy work. The questionable nature of her claim still applies, not to mention casts a shadow of doubt on that later decade.
Even if such studies had yielded significance, it is clear that such outcomes by now would have been scrutinized and dismissed by skeptics and proponents alike because of their experimental flaws and the haphazard conceptualization and execution of these studies.
Meanwhile, Blackmore is extremely vocal in decrying psi research in her writings, on television and radio, and before the skeptical advocacy group CSICOP (the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), citing her own work as the basis for her strong convictions.20 Her recent polemical works often seriously misrepresent her original work, with the distorted information being more consistent with her current skeptical world view. The present overview of her database suggests that drawing any conclusions, positive or negative, about the reality of psi that are based on the Blackmore psi experiments must be considered unwarranted.
First she sighted her ten years of experience in 1987, then apparently after Berger's paper she says there's no reason to make any conclusions about Psi based on her work. From Carter's write up:
“I am glad to be able to agree with his final conclusion - ‘that drawing any conclusion, positive or negative, about the reality of psi that are based on the Blackmore psi experiments must be considered unwarranted.’”
If she cited her 20 years in the field in 1996, then half of that time falls under Berger's criticism of shoddy work. The questionable nature of her claim still applies, not to mention casts a shadow of doubt on that later decade.