more on Tax $$$ at work: Air Force report wants $7.5 million for psychic teleportation

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
Date: November 12, 2004 2:54:42 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: Ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
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 interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

Attachment: dpreed.vcf
Description: