> You've picked a field of study I know nothing
> about, but I wonder how accurate your summary of
> the matter is.

Please, try not to form an opinion on a topic before understanding it... that's how science goes bad. There is a ton of hogwash out there on neurofeedback, but if you have access to a nearby university library (and some time to kill), see if you can find an article in a journal called "Brain Research" in 1967 by Barry Sterman. *shrug* I don't know if there's any validity to neurofeedback or not; but this guy seemed to be a legitimate researcher who stumbled onto something that was reproduced in later experiments.

> At the same time, as I said in my first post in
> this thread, I am skeptical of anyone who claims
> his field is being supressed. Consider some of
> the "scientists" who make this claim:

> Astrologers
. . . are really weird.

> Parapsychologists
. . . same as above.

> Alternative healers (magnet therapists, acupuncturists, reflexologists, chakra realigners, the list is endless)
. . . I think magnet therapy is a load of iron-filled manure. Acupuncture I have no experience with. I have had some really good experiences with reflexology, and one terrible experience with raiki (some chakra thingy). Honestly, I find that both the good and the bad experiences are disturbing to me on some deep level, because that whole area is completely outside of my world-view. I don't believe in it, I don't understand how or why it works... but I also don't stick my head in a hole and pretend that it doesn't exist. I just don't understand it. I wish that *somebody* would do some serious legitimate research into those areas, and find out what the heck's going on.

> Chiropracters who claim chiropractic is useful for things aside from making your back feel better (I have seen some who insist that moving around discs in the back will cure cancer)
. . . Can you say "cha-ching"? Even going to a legitimate chiropracter is like buying a subscription to an extremely expensive magazine filled with propaganda about how good the magazine is.

> I would just like to point out the difference
> between scientists choosing not to investigate a
> field and actively shunning those who do, which
> is the claim that started all of this.

Now that I think about it, there are actually three separate problems:

1) Fields of research (or researchers) that are shunned, resulting in a loss of knowledge
2) Fields of research that are ignored (not even researched enough to be disproved, which is a bad thing for the general public)
3) Research that gets distorted by internal / external influences. (Please refer to the link for one way in which this can happen.)

Question everything, and assume nothing. That way leads to objectivity.

- Enigma