Please remain calm...
I'm frankly amused by the angry flames licking at the web page with
Dr. Juan's article.
Why so much anger? Has someone been killed by Dr Juan?
Raped? Robbed? Their house burned down? Has Dr. Juan
defrauded little old ladies, the weak and infirm?
I don't see bibliographies posted either by Dr Juan or by any of the
correspondents who have preceded me. "What? Of course they
don't do that! It's preposterous" I think it's called proof by vigourous
assertion. "You're wrong because I say so and I'm willing to go all incoherent to make my point."
What I find usually works best is to resort to calm discourse. Something
like, "Gee, Dr Juan, I'm a little puzzled because I've never heard of
whales using ESP. Could you tell me where you got the information?"
Since science is always making new discoveries (you do know that Bell's
theorem was said to have been proved, don't you? Apparently the speed
of light is no longer the ultimate...you did know that, didn't you?), it would
seem sensible to take the approach of scientific inquiry.
When one starts off with a sentence like, "Dr Juan, you're wrong
and you probably eat babies dipped in ketchup because you say such
useless things!", then I don't think we get to find out if there're any
new or real scientific studies behind the statements.
For instance, maybe there have recently been noted levels of
communication unaccounted for by low frequency sonar. Perhaps
someone has posited the possibility of ESP or perhaps it's been
put forth as the only imaginable "hypothesis" (you will have heard
of those as well, I expect).
NOTE TO THOSE WITH NO SENSE OF SUBTLETY: THIS IS ONLY
AN EXAMPLE. YOU WILL HAVE HEARD OF THOSE OF COURSE.
I AM NOT SAYING WHALES ARE PSYCHIC. I'M ALSO NOT SAYING
THEY AREN'T. I'M LEAVING THE WHALES ASIDE AND ADDRESSING
THE ATTACKS ON DR JUAN.
Summary: Why don't you ask Dr Juan about where he got the information? It's OK to start a "dialogue". They're what happens
when both sides communicate civilly. Usually someone even