James Randi Is A Pompous Twit

[euphgeek]

Years ago I read about an experiment where psychics got an 80% hit rate even though they were separated from their subjects by a wall. I don't remember where I saw it...

Well, that's good enough proof for me!

Right, because since I don't remember where I saw it, that means it must not exist!

C'mon, you should know better than that.

 

What it means, is that you have not demonstrated anything with this example. If I were to tell you, "I can't find it, but some study indicated that Thalidomide causes birth defects," I would not have demonstrated anything whether it was true or not, and whether the study actually existed or not. That sort of thing happens to bode particularly poorly when trying to defend an extraordinary claim, since unsubstantiated extraordinary claims float on this sort of shaky, slippery evidence.

Yes, but you cut out the part where I linked to a JREF forum discussion on the experiment. Kind of important thing to leave out if you're going to mock me for failing to provide the study, don't you think?

[euphgeek]

As far as psychic abilities go, I only want them to be studied more.

How much more? Decades of study by independent labs around the world, the US government and the former Soviet Union is not enough to come to a conclusion?

No, because we haven't yet found out what's causing the phenomena.

[euphgeek]

As far as psychic abilities go, I only want them to be studied more.

How much more? Decades of study by independent labs around the world, the US government and the former Soviet Union is not enough to come to a conclusion?

 

He wants them to keep searching until they can conclusively prove what he already knows. IOW, he's motivated by true objectivity.

They haven't conclusively proved what you already "know," either.

[Vigile]

As far as psychic abilities go, I only want them to be studied more.

How much more? Decades of study by independent labs around the world, the US government and the former Soviet Union is not enough to come to a conclusion?

No, because we haven't yet found out what's causing the phenomena.

 

The point is, the studies have failed to prove there is a phenomena in the first place. This is where you are tripped up.

[Vigile]

As far as psychic abilities go, I only want them to be studied more.

How much more? Decades of study by independent labs around the world, the US government and the former Soviet Union is not enough to come to a conclusion?

 

He wants them to keep searching until they can conclusively prove what he already knows. IOW, he's motivated by true objectivity.

They haven't conclusively proved what you already "know," either.

 

All I know is there isn't enough evidence to believe, much less just think there might be something. I can't know this won't change. If it does, I'm fine with that, discovery is discovery. It's all interesting. But I can't spend time hoping they will discover unicorns, pixies and elves, all things that have at one time or another rested on the same types of claims and suspicions.

[bronxo]

James Randi is a fantastic guy. Why would his disbelief in these phenomenae stop them from happening in a controlled environment?

[euphgeek]

I would hope that you think that your beliefs are right. Otherwise are you just arguing your side for the sake of arguing it? Like in a debate class where you are assigned a side? Or just to play "Devil's Advocate?"

I do think my beliefs are right or I wouldn't believe them, just like all the other 7 billion people on the planet. But what I meant was that I'm not here to argue whether they are right or wrong. My original post only had to do with Randi's methods. Other people turned it into a discussion of my beliefs.

The natural would be explained via a naturalistic explanation. Psychics do not put forward any reasonable naturalistic explanations. They generally base their theories on yet to be tested or verified other theories. So, for example, perhaps if String Theory proves to be true then some Psychic theory based upon String Theory will prove to be true as well. But the Psychic Theory would not say how such a thing might work. It just pins its hopes on the strange bits and pieces of String Theory, the odd happenings at the quantum level that allow for "spooky" actions, and maybe it is there that the "psychic" also occurs? Figure out how the quantum world works and, ta-da, we've figured out the psychic as well. Or so the hope goes. But if String Theory fails? The the psychic lies elsewhere. Or String Theory succeeds but we have no progress in the psychic? We just don't know quite enough.

That's my whole point, that we don't know quite enough.

But no actual theory ever arrives. There's nothing to ever really investigate or test. Just some vague concept that someone should hopefully "discover" if they root around enough in enough places. And given enough vague references if one of them happens to be right some day then it is that one that is correct. The predicted theory. Offer a thousand theories for the origin of man and one of then happened to be evolution and Darwin becomes a very happen man when his is the one that happened to be the correct one. But that's not how it worked. He did quite a bit of work to develop his theory and it won out over the other theories. You need that to be taken seriously. Develop a real theory. Something that can be testable. And have it demonstrate how psychic powers are real. So far this is a dismal failure.

I agree with you except for the last sentence. A dismal failure would likely not have an 80% success rates in Schwartz's and others' experiments.

I don't seek superhuman. I seek human that would be in touch with "paranormal" or above and beyond normal ability. I cannot swim. Getting pushed into a swimming pool would panic me. A person with greater than average swimming ability should be at a much greater ease than myself in the same situation. Psychics are not. We are at the same level in situations where their "ability" should put them at ease.

Psychics are more relaxed about the concept of death, if that counts.

I am going to simply call bullshit on this entire paragraph. It reads like the ravings of a madman. I would walk quickly by someone if they were speaking like this on the street.

That's fine. I'm only telling you what I believe.

So you reject the basic tenets of christianity. How can you reject all of the basic tenets and yet maintain that you think it's a true religion? You've gutted it. You find its very core false.

No, because its very core is "love one another" just like every other religion. What I reject is the religious aspects of it. I'm probably not explaining it very well, but that's the best I can come up with right now.

A lot of scientists usually come up with a hypothesis and then go about trying to prove that hypothesis. They're biased towards their own ideas. They try to perform experiments that remove that bias. This gets coupled with peer reviews that allow others to review and replicate their work so they can see if their results are actually worthwhile. This is something that does not happen in the psychic field and excuses and apologetics are what gets offered in return. Since no one will step forward to put their "gift" or "talent" up for actual experimentation of the type I just mentioned, the reward is there as an enticement. One would think if displaying their ability in the local strip mall whenever the lonely woman happened by then doing so for the scientist or for the $1 million prize could also be done. But where the strip mall psychic never falters they suddenly have a moral issue "from beyond" when they are asked to better humanity through research or to pad their wallet in one large lump sum as opposed to many small deposits from those who likely cannot afford it.

For what it's worth, psychics can't read for themselves. To do a psychic reading, you have to get your ego out of the way and that's impossible when you're trying to do something for your own monetary gain. It's the same reason why attorneys don't represent themselves in court and why psychiatrists and psychologists don't work on themselves.

And the "legit" psychics are equally impotent when placed in front of the same said scientists or paying skeptics. Suddenly they develop psychic withdrawal that lasts the length of the tests which rightly require repeatability. A high score over one sitting is not a psychic home-run as much as that person may like it to me. The purpose of the test is repeatability just like it is for the scientist demonstrating a new cure or a new type of fuel. It must work for that person and for others. So take the psychic test. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. We need to know if this person can stand up over time or is a one hit wonder. A 100% hit rate is amazing unless they get a 50% or 25% or something else the next time. That might indicate guessing. And guessing 100% is near impossible but it is possible just like bowling a 300. You might be a 50 point bowler and get a 300. But you need to get the high 200's to be a pro. Otherwise it's a fluke.

 

Scientists may not pay a million to entice people but they do offer cash to participate in experiments. You can find this online and especially at colleges. It happens quite regularly. And for that money you must go and follow the rules laid out by those in charge. You are their guinea pig. If you don't follow the rules then you don't get paid. Psychics don't want to follow the rules but want special rules that conform more to their "ability" but that isn't how it works in this situation.

Did psychics want special rules in the Ganzfeld experiments or those done by Schwartz, Jahn and Dunn?

Like I mentioned earlier there is nothing to study more. You want someone to invent something to study something that you cannot explain. So what is that something they should invent to study that thing you don't know how it works? What is this vague concept and what device and/or procedure is used to investigate it? All things in the universe work on energy. Should we detect that? Some radiation? What wavelength? None of our detectors, to my knowledge, have found anything shooting into/out of our heads like a radio. So what now? Something new? Quantum level? We need to just invent something to do something there? None of the so-called experts in the psychic field know what but they blame the real scientists for not dumping lots of time and money into this "problem" when none of the psychics can sit down and do anything repeatedly in a setting of the real scientists choosing just to get the ball rolling? Not even for a million dollars if it works to the psychics advantage? So what is to study? Nothing. Just people saying something works. I think I'd keep my money. The psychics clearly saw that coming and it obviously pisses them off.

 

mwc

If you believe there's nothing there, I'm not asking you to study it. There's just some phenomena that science hasn't been completely able to explain, so I think it's a good idea for scientists to study it more.

[euphgeek]

As far as psychic abilities go, I only want them to be studied more.

How much more? Decades of study by independent labs around the world, the US government and the former Soviet Union is not enough to come to a conclusion?

No, because we haven't yet found out what's causing the phenomena.

 

The point is, the studies have failed to prove there is a phenomena in the first place. This is where you are tripped up.

They haven't proved there's such thing as psychic powers, but they haven't been able to fully explain what's going on, either.

[euphgeek]

As far as psychic abilities go, I only want them to be studied more.

How much more? Decades of study by independent labs around the world, the US government and the former Soviet Union is not enough to come to a conclusion?

 

He wants them to keep searching until they can conclusively prove what he already knows. IOW, he's motivated by true objectivity.

They haven't conclusively proved what you already "know," either.

 

All I know is there isn't enough evidence to believe, much less just think there might be something. I can't know this won't change. If it does, I'm fine with that, discovery is discovery. It's all interesting. But I can't spend time hoping they will discover unicorns, pixies and elves, all things that have at one time or another rested on the same types of claims and suspicions.

That's fine, I'm not asking you to believe in anything you don't want to believe in.

[euphgeek]

James Randi is a fantastic guy. Why would his disbelief in these phenomenae stop them from happening in a controlled environment?

I don't know, why doesn't anyone ever pass his "preliminaries" to get to take the actual test? Sounds to me like he doesn't want anyone to take his test and prove him wrong.

[mwc]

That's my whole point, that we don't know quite enough.

We don't know quite enough about what? I spoke on string theory as well as psychics. I did so for a reason.

 

I agree with you except for the last sentence. A dismal failure would likely not have an 80% success rates in Schwartz's and others' experiments.

This Schwartz? These ganzfeld experiments? Your only successes are failures.

 

Psychics are more relaxed about the concept of death, if that counts.

Who are they more relaxed about "the concept of death" and where might I find this information? Was it a survey? Or was it something you've just heard? Or did you just make it up?

 

No, because its very core is "love one another" just like every other religion. What I reject is the religious aspects of it. I'm probably not explaining it very well, but that's the best I can come up with right now.

I see. You seem to apply the term "religious" (or "religion") pretty liberally to things you just don't care for. You accept the religious "love one another" but reject the religious <whatever other message> you don't like because that is religion whereas the former is also religion but not religious. Conveniently mind bending.

 

For what it's worth, psychics can't read for themselves. To do a psychic reading, you have to get your ego out of the way and that's impossible when you're trying to do something for your own monetary gain. It's the same reason why attorneys don't represent themselves in court and why psychiatrists and psychologists don't work on themselves.

So this isn't being taken into account by Randi? And this wouldn't be taken into account if a natural disaster strikes? But it does get taken into account by your laundry list of personal favorite "scientists" that you have mentioned several times that have hit pay dirt (ie. that 80% number you throw around and so on)?

 

Why wouldn't someone design a test that isn't functional? Are you saying that Randi is asking a doctor to test his skills by lifting a heavy weight? Then when he fails he is a demonstrably bad doctor? It would seem if the money is getting in the way of success that it could be offered to a charity, or put aside altogether, which would then allow the psychic to go about their business without it getting in the way. I would think accommodations would be made that did not comprise the test(s) themselves. If Randi is rigging the test then it should be easy enough for someone to document, just like Randi is documenting the event, and make it known he is a fraud. Why is this not happening? If the test comes back as questionable and a re-test is desired then this should not be a problem however.

 

Inconvenient perhaps but both sides should want the best results possible, correct? No room for error or dismissal on either side. An air-tight case. I would want that no matter which side I was on. It would prove neither side was cheating no matter the outcome and it would leave no room for questions. So, as you said, there was a hole in the way, then I would be for patching the hole and repeating the test. I would want it all to be perfect so when I, if I were the psychic, repeated my performance with my obvious abilities, there would be no way for anyone to deny it. I would run the gambit like the psychic athlete I am and take my prize (metaphorically and/or literally depending). So why not also demand perfection in these tests and procedures instead of scoffing at it which seems to be the case for the psychics at the moment?

 

Did psychics want special rules in the Ganzfeld experiments or those done by Schwartz, Jahn and Dunn?

Already linked to the others. Here's Jahn and Dunne.

 

But from the linked piece we get this:

Radin thinks the PEAR group replicated Schmidt's work in 258 experimental studies and 127 control studies. C. E. M. Hansel examined the studies done after 1969 and before 1987 that attempted to replicate Schmidt’s work. He notes: “The main fact that emerges from this data is that 71 experiments gave a result supporting Schmidt’s findings and 261 experiments failed to do so” (Hansel 1989: 185). That is the beauty of meta-analysis: you can transform a failure rate of nearly 4 to 1 into a grand success.

Fail.

 

And the summary:

Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about PEAR is the fact that suggestions by critics that should have been considered were routinely ignored. Physicist Bob Park reports, for example, that he suggested to Jahn two types of experiments that would have bypassed the main criticisms aimed at PEAR. Why not do a double-blind experiment? asked Park. Have a second RNG determine the task of the operator and do not let this determination be known to the one recording the results. This could have eliminated the charge of experimenter bias. Another experiment, however, could have eliminated most criticism. Park suggested that PEAR have operators try to use their minds to move a "state-of-the-art microbalance" (Park 2008, 138-139). A microbalance can make precise measurements on the order of a millionth of a gram. One doesn't need to be clairvoyant to figure out why this suggestion was never heeded.

They ignored the two biggest problems because it would have totally destroyed their project. No double-blind and no implementing more precise instruments. They wanted "special rules" so they could get the results they were getting.

 

If you believe there's nothing there, I'm not asking you to study it. There's just some phenomena that science hasn't been completely able to explain, so I think it's a good idea for scientists to study it more.

Look above. Read the links. When people in science, real science, not pseudo or quasi science, actually get involved it tends to show that bad science is taking place and the results are negative. There's nothing to study. What are you asking them to do exactly? When will you be satisfied?

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

James Randi is a fantastic guy. Why would his disbelief in these phenomenae stop them from happening in a controlled environment?

Because disbelief is 100,000 times stronger than belief. You only need one doubter in a church to undo the whole congregations belief. Actually, you only need one human's disbelief to stop God's will and power. At least according to the gospels.

[euphgeek]

We don't know quite enough about what? I spoke on string theory as well as psychics. I did so for a reason.

Either one.

This Schwartz? These ganzfeld experiments? Your only successes are failures.

So proclaims the infallible Skepdic, right? They wouldn't leave any information out that might cast the experiments in a positive light, would they? I'm not saying their criticisms aren't valid, but they do seem to have just a slight agenda.

Who are they more relaxed about "the concept of death" and where might I find this information? Was it a survey? Or was it something you've just heard? Or did you just make it up?

Reading books by famous psychics and informal surveys of psychics I know.

I see. You seem to apply the term "religious" (or "religion") pretty liberally to things you just don't care for. You accept the religious "love one another" but reject the religious <whatever other message> you don't like because that is religion whereas the former is also religion but not religious. Conveniently mind bending.

So are you saying that you reject 100% all teachings of any religion? Including the "love your neighbor as yourself" or "thou shalt not steal?" If you're demanding I be consistent in that area, you should be, too.

So this isn't being taken into account by Randi? And this wouldn't be taken into account if a natural disaster strikes? But it does get taken into account by your laundry list of personal favorite "scientists" that you have mentioned several times that have hit pay dirt (ie. that 80% number you throw around and so on)?

 

Why wouldn't someone design a test that isn't functional? Are you saying that Randi is asking a doctor to test his skills by lifting a heavy weight? Then when he fails he is a demonstrably bad doctor? It would seem if the money is getting in the way of success that it could be offered to a charity, or put aside altogether, which would then allow the psychic to go about their business without it getting in the way.

If he'd take the million dollars out of the picture, that would be fine with me. As I've said before, I feel that the money is just a gimmick just like Kent Hovind's gimmick.

I would think accommodations would be made that did not comprise the test(s) themselves. If Randi is rigging the test then it should be easy enough for someone to document, just like Randi is documenting the event, and make it known he is a fraud. Why is this not happening? If the test comes back as questionable and a re-test is desired then this should not be a problem however.

If anyone ever got past the preliminaries, you mean?

Inconvenient perhaps but both sides should want the best results possible, correct? No room for error or dismissal on either side. An air-tight case. I would want that no matter which side I was on. It would prove neither side was cheating no matter the outcome and it would leave no room for questions. So, as you said, there was a hole in the way, then I would be for patching the hole and repeating the test. I would want it all to be perfect so when I, if I were the psychic, repeated my performance with my obvious abilities, there would be no way for anyone to deny it. I would run the gambit like the psychic athlete I am and take my prize (metaphorically and/or literally depending). So why not also demand perfection in these tests and procedures instead of scoffing at it which seems to be the case for the psychics at the moment?

That's what I want in the scientific experiments. I don't feel like Randi has been working with these scientists in good faith.

Already linked to the others. Here's Jahn and Dunne.

 

But from the linked piece we get this:

Radin thinks the PEAR group replicated Schmidt's work in 258 experimental studies and 127 control studies. C. E. M. Hansel examined the studies done after 1969 and before 1987 that attempted to replicate Schmidt's work. He notes: 'The main fact that emerges from this data is that 71 experiments gave a result supporting Schmidt's findings and 261 experiments failed to do so' (Hansel 1989: 185). That is the beauty of meta-analysis: you can transform a failure rate of nearly 4 to 1 into a grand success.

Fail.

And the summary:

 

Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about PEAR is the fact that suggestions by critics that should have been considered were routinely ignored. Physicist Bob Park reports, for example, that he suggested to Jahn two types of experiments that would have bypassed the main criticisms aimed at PEAR. Why not do a double-blind experiment? asked Park. Have a second RNG determine the task of the operator and do not let this determination be known to the one recording the results. This could have eliminated the charge of experimenter bias. Another experiment, however, could have eliminated most criticism. Park suggested that PEAR have operators try to use their minds to move a "state-of-the-art microbalance" (Park 2008, 138-139). A microbalance can make precise measurements on the order of a millionth of a gram. One doesn't need to be clairvoyant to figure out why this suggestion was never heeded.

They ignored the two biggest problems because it would have totally destroyed their project. No double-blind and no implementing more precise instruments. They wanted "special rules" so they could get the results they were getting.

I'm not saying that the experiments couldn't stand to be improved. Let's do that other experiment that could have eliminated most criticism. But let's also not look for reasons to dismiss studies just because they disagree with your beliefs. That's what creationists do.

Look above. Read the links. When people in science, real science, not pseudo or quasi science, actually get involved it tends to show that bad science is taking place and the results are negative. There's nothing to study. What are you asking them to do exactly? When will you be satisfied?

 

mwc

I will be satisfied when I see scientists studying the experiences of many people who, like me, are unsatisfied with the explanations of so-called debunkers who are just looking for reasons to not believe the results.

[mwc]

So proclaims the infallible Skepdic, right? They wouldn't leave any information out that might cast the experiments in a positive light, would they? I'm not saying their criticisms aren't valid, but they do seem to have just a slight agenda.

If their criticisms are valid then their agenda does not matter. It is your bias that is being revealed by dismissing their admittedly valid criticisms because of the source and a perceived agenda none of which do you address.

 

You want to name drop "successful" experiments that we should accept without examination. Then when a criticism is presented, though valid, you dismiss it because of an "agenda" by the critic. You are saying that these criticisms valid while trying to say they are not valid. You speak out of both sides of your mouth.

 

I could have just as easily linked to the ever popular Wikipedia or other sources which explain less and offer similar criticisms. I don't know what will satisfy you as a valid source or critique. You offered what? Nothing. Naked names and numbers as-if they were written in stone. The reality of the situation is these experiments are all poorly done and, by the standards of real science, failures. Get outside your bubble and investigate.

 

Who are they more relaxed about "the concept of death" and where might I find this information? Was it a survey? Or was it something you've just heard? Or did you just make it up?

Reading books by famous psychics and informal surveys of psychics I know.

Here's another place where I'll leave what I wrote and your response. Am I to do your homework yet again? I wrote this so I could (hopefully) get the information from you for myself. It appears you don't have it or don't wish to offer it.

 

I found this web page that kind of offered what you mentioned. But if that's what you had in mind I would start denying and back away from this if I were you.

 

So are you saying that you reject 100% all teachings of any religion? Including the "love your neighbor as yourself" or "thou shalt not steal?" If you're demanding I be consistent in that area, you should be, too.

Yes, because this isn't what you've been saying. I don't gut religions to suit my personal tastes. I never said that Christianity was a valid religion except for all the things that make it the religion that it is. You have done exactly that.

 

You need to look to the Code of Hammurabi since it precedes the Jewish laws, is secular rather than theocratic, and covers many of the laws in the Torah. You should also consider that Hillel gets credited with saying that the whole of the Torah is to love your neighbor:

The Talmud tells a story of Rabbi Hillel, who lived around the time of Jesus. A pagan came to him saying that he would convert to Judaism if Hillel could teach him the whole of the Torah in the time he could stand on one foot. Rabbi Hillel replied, "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it." (Talmud Shabbat 31a). Sounds a lot like Jesus' "Golden Rule"? But this idea was a fundamental part of Judaism long before Hillel or Jesus. It is a common-sense application of the Torah commandment to love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18), which Rabbi Akiba described as the essence of the Torah (according to Rashi's commentary on the verse).

That religions have concepts that they codify? Not my problem. To say they are valid but to gut all the parts that make them what they are so I can tolerate them? That's a problem. I can't ignore the whole of the Hebrew bible and all the atrocities like our friend Hillel did. Maybe you can? He sums it up pretty nicely when in the next chapter it mentions killing gays (and others as I recall...I'm not going to check).

 

But if I gut it to a few of the 600+ rules, the "nice" ones and some of the happy stories then I imagine we'll have one really swell religion. A "valid" one, yes? Universal truths and all? Not the icky stuff of course. That would be no good. Let's take and remove that. But the good stuff. Cross reference that with all the other "nice" stuff from the other religions and bingo we've got a winner. But that means we've invalidated the other religions. We've gutted them. They were all wrong except for what we wanted from them. We did what the xians did to Judaism. We took what we wanted and made our own. We told the owners of their religion they got it wrong. We gutted their religion and tossed them aside as idiots. How arrogant. They got it absolutely right. It is their religion. They want it that way. You want a religion then start your own but be honest about it.

 

If he'd take the million dollars out of the picture, that would be fine with me. As I've said before, I feel that the money is just a gimmick just like Kent Hovind's gimmick.

So it's just the money then? If it were gone then everything is just fine?

 

If anyone ever got past the preliminaries, you mean?

Don't be obtuse. You tell me. I'm not claiming to be psychic or anything. I have no idea what the issue is here unless you tell me. You've only made some claims but brought no evidence to back them up. So what is it that is the problem? In the test? In the preliminaries? In the whatever. What is going so horribly wrong? If it's not getting past the preliminaries then why should they have gotten through instead of excluded? Why can't they try again? I'm just asking some questions here hopefully get the idea across. If you've got some better info you can always just provide that.

 

That's what I want in the scientific experiments. I don't feel like Randi has been working with these scientists in good faith.

Why?

 

I will be satisfied when I see scientists studying the experiences of many people who, like me, are unsatisfied with the explanations of so-called debunkers who are just looking for reasons to not believe the results.

So you'll never be satisfied.

 

mwc

[ShackledNoMore]

Years ago I read about an experiment where psychics got an 80% hit rate even though they were separated from their subjects by a wall. I don't remember where I saw it...

Well, that's good enough proof for me!

 

 

Right, because since I don't remember where I saw it, that means it must not exist!

C'mon, you should know better than that.

 

What it means, is that you have not demonstrated anything with this example. If I were to tell you, "I can't find it, but some study indicated that Thalidomide causes birth defects," I would not have demonstrated anything whether it was true or not, and whether the study actually existed or not. That sort of thing happens to bode particularly poorly when trying to defend an extraordinary claim, since unsubstantiated extraordinary claims float on this sort of shaky, slippery evidence.

Yes, but you cut out the part where I linked to a JREF forum discussion on the experiment. Kind of important thing to leave out if you're going to mock me for failing to provide the study, don't you think?

 

Not really. It was just another thread on another forum where they were discussing some experiment, not a link to a study, or even a report of a study intended to corroborate your claim. Here is what you said:

 

Years ago I read about an experiment where psychics got an 80% hit rate even though they were separated from their subjects by a wall. I don't remember where I saw it, but I remember reading that James Randi looked at the experiment and declared that because he found a small hole in the wall, that was how the psychics must have been doing it. Sorry, but I don't remember all the details. But here's a post on the JREF forum where they're discussing an experiment with similar results (perhaps the same one).

 

http://forums.randi....hp/t-20697.html

 

Fortunately, there was a link to the article in the thread. Unfortunately, it was from 2004 and the link no longer works. Fortunately, I could pull it up from Internet Archives. A direct link didn't work for me, but if you want to see the article, just go to web.archive.org and paste in the link from the forum discussion into the search box and then select the earliest date, 4/11/04. Here is an excerpt from the article:

 

A total of 13 mediums took part in the SSPR study, carried out in Scotland and London. In each test the medium would sit in a different room from the participants and choose seat numbers they wanted to read from the audience. The audience, usually around 30 people, would enter a room out of sight of the medium and on their way in be given a random seat number. After the reading, adjudicators would distribute lists of what the mediums had seen and the audience had to tick which of the mediums’ statements applied to them.

The rules of chance would suggest an accuracy rating of 30%, but the mediums’ average was 70%, with some hitting 80% on some of the participants.

 

It sounds like this works like the daily horoscope with other standard tricks of the trade thrown in. Even the article admits that their methods have been scoffed at. This is not surprising, given that the use of fraud in the business is so well established and that no proof has turned up under scrutiny. If that study had actually even seemed at all promising, you can rest assured that it would be well known enough that it would be as well known as the Ganzfeld experiments and oft cited by proponents of psychic abilities being real. It only took me a few minutes to look this up and it was really your job,since you are the one making the claim, but is that really the evidence you wanted to present in support of psychic phenomena?

[euphgeek]

It sounds like this works like the daily horoscope with other standard tricks of the trade thrown in. Even the article admits that their methods have been scoffed at. This is not surprising, given that the use of fraud in the business is so well established and that no proof has turned up under scrutiny. If that study had actually even seemed at all promising, you can rest assured that it would be well known enough that it would be as well known as the Ganzfeld experiments and oft cited by proponents of psychic abilities being real. It only took me a few minutes to look this up and it was really your job,since you are the one making the claim, but is that really the evidence you wanted to present in support of psychic phenomena?

Actually, I'm not trying to prove psychic phenomena exists at all. All I'm saying is that due to some above chance experiments, there is evidence something is happening that should be studied more. If the scientific experiments are flawed, they should be repeated with the flaws removed. Flaws happen in scientific experiments all the time. It doesn't mean that the thing they're studying doesn't exist.

[JadedAtheist]

Your standard that you've set for belief in psychic powers seems quite minimal. Some experiments show above average results, some personal experiences coupled with those you trust and you're a believer; hallelujah.

 

I certainly trust my Christian friends but they're the same people who will testify in court that they've seen demonic activity or they've been involved in an exorcism or that Jesus appeared to them in a vision or that they've got the gift of tongues or the gift of prophecy and that Jesus gave it to them. I've had Christian friends tell me wondrous stories about healings and people being raised from the dead and all sorts of stuff.

 

Yet, since we're talking about some real extraordinaire shit here, I call bullshit. I think high levels of criticism are required when we're dealing with real fantastical claims. And let's face it, psychic powers are inconclusive not in the sense that it could go either way, but in the sense that there is no real good evidence for them.

 

Aside from that, your excuses (like psychic powers aren't 100% accurate) are failsafe mechanisms like faith healers use who blame the victim's lack of faith for the lack of healing that has occurred. When a hit occurs, it's real! When it doesn't, oh well, we know it's not 100% accurate!

[euphgeek]

If their criticisms are valid then their agenda does not matter. It is your bias that is being revealed by dismissing their admittedly valid criticisms because of the source and a perceived agenda none of which do you address.

 

You want to name drop "successful" experiments that we should accept without examination. Then when a criticism is presented, though valid, you dismiss it because of an "agenda" by the critic. You are saying that these criticisms valid while trying to say they are not valid. You speak out of both sides of your mouth.

I said that their criticisms may be valid but that they may be leaving out information that would cast the experiments in a positive light. I have read Skepdic before, they are by no means unbiased.

I could have just as easily linked to the ever popular Wikipedia or other sources which explain less and offer similar criticisms. I don't know what will satisfy you as a valid source or critique. You offered what? Nothing. Naked names and numbers as-if they were written in stone. The reality of the situation is these experiments are all poorly done and, by the standards of real science, failures. Get outside your bubble and investigate.

All I'm saying is that these experiments should be done better, not that we should trust the outcome with no reservations.

Here's another place where I'll leave what I wrote and your response. Am I to do your homework yet again? I wrote this so I could (hopefully) get the information from you for myself. It appears you don't have it or don't wish to offer it.

 

I found this web page that kind of offered what you mentioned. But if that's what you had in mind I would start denying and back away from this if I were you.

What homework? You asked me where I heard it and I told you. Do you also need a scientific study proving what I had for breakfast this morning?

Yes, because this isn't what you've been saying. I don't gut religions to suit my personal tastes. I never said that Christianity was a valid religion except for all the things that make it the religion that it is. You have done exactly that.

I'm saying that Christianity is a valid religion and has some beliefs that I also believe in, not that I believe in the whole religion. Some people need to believe in it and I don't think they're wrong for doing so.

You need to look to the Code of Hammurabi since it precedes the Jewish laws, is secular rather than theocratic, and covers many of the laws in the Torah. You should also consider that Hillel gets credited with saying that the whole of the Torah is to love your neighbor:

The Talmud tells a story of Rabbi Hillel, who lived around the time of Jesus. A pagan came to him saying that he would convert to Judaism if Hillel could teach him the whole of the Torah in the time he could stand on one foot. Rabbi Hillel replied, "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it." (Talmud Shabbat 31a). Sounds a lot like Jesus' "Golden Rule"? But this idea was a fundamental part of Judaism long before Hillel or Jesus. It is a common-sense application of the Torah commandment to love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18), which Rabbi Akiba described as the essence of the Torah (according to Rashi's commentary on the verse).

That religions have concepts that they codify? Not my problem. To say they are valid but to gut all the parts that make them what they are so I can tolerate them? That's a problem. I can't ignore the whole of the Hebrew bible and all the atrocities like our friend Hillel did. Maybe you can? He sums it up pretty nicely when in the next chapter it mentions killing gays (and others as I recall...I'm not going to check).

 

But if I gut it to a few of the 600+ rules, the "nice" ones and some of the happy stories then I imagine we'll have one really swell religion. A "valid" one, yes? Universal truths and all? Not the icky stuff of course. That would be no good. Let's take and remove that. But the good stuff. Cross reference that with all the other "nice" stuff from the other religions and bingo we've got a winner. But that means we've invalidated the other religions. We've gutted them. They were all wrong except for what we wanted from them. We did what the xians did to Judaism. We took what we wanted and made our own. We told the owners of their religion they got it wrong. We gutted their religion and tossed them aside as idiots. How arrogant. They got it absolutely right. It is their religion. They want it that way. You want a religion then start your own but be honest about it.

Just because I see essential truths in other religions and don't begrudge other people from following them does not mean I'm co-opting the religion. I also don't think my beliefs are superior to anyone else's.

So it's just the money then? If it were gone then everything is just fine?

Mostly. If it were, then the arrogant (not to mention illogical) attitude of "I'm right because no one's won the money" would be gone, too.

Don't be obtuse. You tell me. I'm not claiming to be psychic or anything. I have no idea what the issue is here unless you tell me. You've only made some claims but brought no evidence to back them up. So what is it that is the problem? In the test? In the preliminaries? In the whatever. What is going so horribly wrong? If it's not getting past the preliminaries then why should they have gotten through instead of excluded? Why can't they try again? I'm just asking some questions here hopefully get the idea across. If you've got some better info you can always just provide that.

Randi claims to want proof of psychic abilities. Yet he's not conducting real experiments on his own, just offering a million dollar reward, pretty much guaranteeing to attract the wrong sort of people.

Why?

Because when I hear about things like discrediting an entire experiment because he found a hole in a wall or when he describes scientists who don't want his help as "scurrying off to their Ivory Towers and slamming the doors" or even just referring to people as "woo woos" it makes me think he's a bit less than objective.

So you'll never be satisfied.

 

mwc

Yes, because that's exactly what I said.

[euphgeek]

Your standard that you've set for belief in psychic powers seems quite minimal. Some experiments show above average results, some personal experiences coupled with those you trust and you're a believer; hallelujah.

What's minimal to you is not minimal to me. And why shouldn't I trust my personal experiences? Are you implying that your beliefs are superior to mine because you don't trust your experiences?

I certainly trust my Christian friends but they're the same people who will testify in court that they've seen demonic activity or they've been involved in an exorcism or that Jesus appeared to them in a vision or that they've got the gift of tongues or the gift of prophecy and that Jesus gave it to them. I've had Christian friends tell me wondrous stories about healings and people being raised from the dead and all sorts of stuff.

And that's their belief. I wouldn't tell them that they're wrong because I wasn't the one who experienced it, but I wouldn't automatically believe them, either. I would filter it through my beliefs and interpret it in a way that makes sense to me, just like you or anyone else would.

Yet, since we're talking about some real extraordinaire shit here, I call bullshit. I think high levels of criticism are required when we're dealing with real fantastical claims. And let's face it, psychic powers are inconclusive not in the sense that it could go either way, but in the sense that there is no real good evidence for them.

No really good evidence for them doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though.

Aside from that, your excuses (like psychic powers aren't 100% accurate) are failsafe mechanisms like faith healers use who blame the victim's lack of faith for the lack of healing that has occurred. When a hit occurs, it's real! When it doesn't, oh well, we know it's not 100% accurate!

That would be a valid complaint if psychics had ever claimed that their abilities were 100% accurate. Human beings are imperfect, not automatons who can perform the same task with the same accuracy every time. Professional basketball players miss shots. Lawyers lose cases. Doctors' patients die when the doctor makes a mistake. Be careful of building strawman arguments. They're easy to tear down, but they don't make your argument any stronger.

[mwc]

I said that their criticisms may be valid but that they may be leaving out information that would cast the experiments in a positive light. I have read Skepdic before, they are by no means unbiased.

All I'm saying is that these experiments should be done better, not that we should trust the outcome with no reservations.

What homework? You asked me where I heard it and I told you. Do you also need a scientific study proving what I had for breakfast this morning?

Your responses to the information that I provided and/or my prompting for you to provide information. You offer nothing in return except for excuses. If what I offer is incorrect and/or biased then, by all means, give you correct and unbiased sources of information for everyone here to examine.

 

I looked for the studies you mentioned time and again as well as the quote that psychics are more comfortable with death than some group (everyone?). I came up short and you've been unwilling to back-up your own statements. I told you I was not a mind-reader. So I need actual links and pointers to information if I'm to investigate it for myself.

 

Just because I see essential truths in other religions and don't begrudge other people from following them does not mean I'm co-opting the religion. I also don't think my beliefs are superior to anyone else's.

Why must you keep repeating your mantra that your beliefs aren't superior to anyone else's? Who is that for exactly?

 

Why is it that you find the "essential truths" in other religions that the practitioners of those religions apparently seemed to have missed? That's quite an ability. Is it your hope that they will also find these "essential truths" and move beyond their religion as you did?

 

Mostly. If it were, then the arrogant (not to mention illogical) attitude of "I'm right because no one's won the money" would be gone, too.

Mostly? So what's the not "mostly" part? Imagine the money has been removed from the equation. Now what is the problem(s) that you want addressed? It was mostly money but not entirely so there must be something else that needs taken care of now.

 

Randi claims to want proof of psychic abilities. Yet he's not conducting real experiments on his own, just offering a million dollar reward, pretty much guaranteeing to attract the wrong sort of people.

Because when I hear about things like discrediting an entire experiment because he found a hole in a wall or when he describes scientists who don't want his help as "scurrying off to their Ivory Towers and slamming the doors" or even just referring to people as "woo woos" it makes me think he's a bit less than objective.

Who are the right sort of people? Do you know any of them? Why don't you and them all go take advantage of Randi's offer since you are for real and know exactly how to get things done exactly right. You can waive the money award, making sure this gets mentioned of course (not for personal gain but so it can't be used to his advantage), and use rigorous high standards on both sides. You can make sure everything is very exacting for the "preliminaries" and the "tests" (since these have never been explained what they are is uncertain). You can finally be the ones to demonstrate the reality of this whole phenomenon. A worthy goal. Take up the challenge.

 

Yes, because that's exactly what I said.

That is what you said:

I will be satisfied when I see scientists studying the experiences of many people who, like me, are unsatisfied with the explanations of so-called debunkers who are just looking for reasons to not believe the results.

 

You will only be satisfied once someone tells you what you want to hear. You dismiss anything else. Every scientist on earth could be put onto this project but you would dismiss them as (so-called) debunkers if they give you an answer you don't care for.

 

You have no test(s) in mind other than just accepting you and yours testimonies as valid and leaving it at that. Of course no one is going to study that. There's nothing to study. You turn away the explanations of anyone who suggests your testimony might be flawed or not quite what you believe it is and label them as "debunkers." You don't want anything studied in the true sense of the word. You want a collection of witnesses to be made to puff up your numbers to show how common this phenomenon really is. Then you want to pull out the No-true Scotsman fallacy whenever someone tries to actually put this "ability" to the test to weed out the fakes and frauds and to show how precious few "real" psychics there are in the world.

 

You can never be satisfied.

 

mwc

[euphgeek]

Your responses to the information that I provided and/or my prompting for you to provide information. You offer nothing in return except for excuses. If what I offer is incorrect and/or biased then, by all means, give you correct and unbiased sources of information for everyone here to examine.

Why? I'm not trying to get anyone to believe a certain way here. I thought you were asking me questions about my beliefs, not for me to prove beyond all doubt that they were true.

I looked for the studies you mentioned time and again as well as the quote that psychics are more comfortable with death than some group (everyone?). I came up short and you've been unwilling to back-up your own statements. I told you I was not a mind-reader. So I need actual links and pointers to information if I'm to investigate it for myself.

If you're that interested in it, Google is your friend. I don't have time to be chasing down endless links only for you to pull out Skepdic and tell me why they're all frauds. I couldn't care less if you believe the same way I do or not.

Why must you keep repeating your mantra that your beliefs aren't superior to anyone else's? Who is that for exactly?

Because I keep getting this vibe from people here that my beliefs are unwelcome and crazy, as if I'm trying to convert people. Ex-Christians aren't all atheists, you know.

Why is it that you find the "essential truths" in other religions that the practitioners of those religions apparently seemed to have missed? That's quite an ability. Is it your hope that they will also find these "essential truths" and move beyond their religion as you did?

Possibly. But only if they're ready. I believe nobody leaves their religion until their karma is finished with it.

Mostly? So what's the not "mostly" part? Imagine the money has been removed from the equation. Now what is the problem(s) that you want addressed? It was mostly money but not entirely so there must be something else that needs taken care of now.

His arrogant attitude. I'd like it if he stopped calling people with different beliefs "woo woos."

Who are the right sort of people? Do you know any of them? Why don't you and them all go take advantage of Randi's offer since you are for real and know exactly how to get things done exactly right. You can waive the money award, making sure this gets mentioned of course (not for personal gain but so it can't be used to his advantage), and use rigorous high standards on both sides. You can make sure everything is very exacting for the "preliminaries" and the "tests" (since these have never been explained what they are is uncertain). You can finally be the ones to demonstrate the reality of this whole phenomenon. A worthy goal. Take up the challenge.

Any psychic who goes in with the attitude, "I'll show them once and for all!" is pretty much guaranteed to fail. Besides, why should anyone go to Randi rather than an unbiased scientist?

That is what you said:

I will be satisfied when I see scientists studying the experiences of many people who, like me, are unsatisfied with the explanations of so-called debunkers who are just looking for reasons to not believe the results.

You will only be satisfied once someone tells you what you want to hear. You dismiss anything else. Every scientist on earth could be put onto this project but you would dismiss them as (so-called) debunkers if they give you an answer you don't care for.

You seriously got all that from what I wrote? You obviously haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing.

You have no test(s) in mind other than just accepting you and yours testimonies as valid and leaving it at that. Of course no one is going to study that. There's nothing to study. You turn away the explanations of anyone who suggests your testimony might be flawed or not quite what you believe it is and label them as "debunkers." You don't want anything studied in the true sense of the word. You want a collection of witnesses to be made to puff up your numbers to show how common this phenomenon really is. Then you want to pull out the No-true Scotsman fallacy whenever someone tries to actually put this "ability" to the test to weed out the fakes and frauds and to show how precious few "real" psychics there are in the world.

 

You can never be satisfied.

 

mwc

OK, whatever. I can't be satisfied. You win.

[bronxo]

Well, I think the situation is quite simple. Every effect that was ever demonstrated by so-called psychics, can be duplicated by natural means. Since I fail to see any evidence for the supernatural, I presume that these effects are, indeed, trickery.

[mwc]

Why? I'm not trying to get anyone to believe a certain way here. I thought you were asking me questions about my beliefs, not for me to prove beyond all doubt that they were true.

So your beliefs include randomly spouting the results of several studies as facts and dismissing criticisms as biased and having agendas without anything to back them up?

 

I questioned you about a number of things. You clearly mentioned some studies that you considered to be evidence that the psychic phenomenon was real. These would be facts not beliefs. I am the one that provided links to criticisms of these studies that you, again, held up as evidence not beliefs. You dismissed my links as biased and having an agenda while maintaining their criticisms of the facts, not beliefs, were nonetheless valid. Now you backpedal claiming we were only discussing beliefs and nothing more.

 

If you're that interested in it, Google is your friend. I don't have time to be chasing down endless links only for you to pull out Skepdic and tell me why they're all frauds. I couldn't care less if you believe the same way I do or not.

I did use Google. You found the information I provided...inadequate. You are the one refusing the offer to provide your own unbiased sources, sources with no "agendas," unlike the one I apparently chose to provide me (and others in this thread) with correct information.

 

Because I keep getting this vibe from people here that my beliefs are unwelcome and crazy, as if I'm trying to convert people. Ex-Christians aren't all atheists, you know.

And?

 

I thought you said these psychic powers had a naturalistic explanation? If they require some form of a theistic explanation then how can any scientist ever study them properly?

 

So theism has nothing to do with any of this as long as you were being honest about the nature of these things. I see this as the ex-c equivalent of the race card. You can go ahead and put that right back in the deck.

 

Possibly. But only if they're ready. I believe nobody leaves their religion until their karma is finished with it.

And onto your higher religion it would appear...

 

His arrogant attitude. I'd like it if he stopped calling people with different beliefs "woo woos."

It's the money and the attitude. Anything else or is that it?

 

Any psychic who goes in with the attitude, "I'll show them once and for all!" is pretty much guaranteed to fail. Besides, why should anyone go to Randi rather than an unbiased scientist?

So you and/or yours can't go in without that attitude? I just wrote what I wrote as an example. Not being a psychic I don't know the psychic "laws" that seem to come up whenever something is to be done. Point is with all this being known how is it they can't be compensated for and the tests taken?

 

Or is the simple act of taking the tests, for Randi, considered "I'll show them once and for all!" so no "legit" psychic could never, ever, take his tests? If that's the case then who cares? It's psychically forbidden by some never-world code and all must abide. Randi must be aware of this psychic catch-22. The rule of "A psychic must never be tested" or something like that.

 

And you've seemed to argue that an unbiased scientist doesn't really exist so there's no way to ever go to one of those. And being tested, to actual "prove" anything is part of that psychic catch-22 isn't it? Proving to Randi and proving to any scientist must be the same thing so even with an honest believing scientist the ultimate point of the research would be to prove that it is all real and factual. To "show them once and for all" and that means things won't work. It seems this will never get the research it deserves.

 

You seriously got all that from what I wrote? You obviously haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing.

I have paid attention to everything you have written. At least you've taken the time to clarify my misunderstanding...except you haven't. I guess I'm standing by what I've already stated for obvious reasons. I have paid attention everything you have written.

 

mwc

[Dhampir]

I like how he doesn't' "know what's going on" then suddenly gets very specific about the particulars. Little gems like "SOMETHING is happening" followed by "Psychics can't read themselves, that's why they never win the lottery, their egos have to be separate from it" which of course explains why no one has stepped forward to claim Randi's million dollar prize. He knows so much about what's happening, but can't explain even the basics.

[euphgeek]

So your beliefs include randomly spouting the results of several studies as facts and dismissing criticisms as biased and having agendas without anything to back them up?

 

I questioned you about a number of things. You clearly mentioned some studies that you considered to be evidence that the psychic phenomenon was real. These would be facts not beliefs. I am the one that provided links to criticisms of these studies that you, again, held up as evidence not beliefs. You dismissed my links as biased and having an agenda while maintaining their criticisms of the facts, not beliefs, were nonetheless valid. Now you backpedal claiming we were only discussing beliefs and nothing more.

There's a difference between providing evidence and providing evidence that will convince you. I'm not interested in the latter. If you want to know why I believe, I've laid out all my reasons. If you want to be convinced, that's something you'll have to do for yourself.

I did use Google. You found the information I provided...inadequate. You are the one refusing the offer to provide your own unbiased sources, sources with no "agendas," unlike the one I apparently chose to provide me (and others in this thread) with correct information.

That's right, I don't believe the same way you do. You found my sources inadequate and I found yours inadequate. Nothing wrong with differing beliefs, is there?

And?

 

I thought you said these psychic powers had a naturalistic explanation? If they require some form of a theistic explanation then how can any scientist ever study them properly?

I never said they "require" a theistic explanation, just that the explanations by skeptics and debunkers are (at least to me) inadequate to explain the phenomenon.

So theism has nothing to do with any of this as long as you were being honest about the nature of these things. I see this as the ex-c equivalent of the race card. You can go ahead and put that right back in the deck.

I've tried to be honest in my replies and answer questions as best I can but you're still treating me as if I'm trying to convert you.

And onto your higher religion it would appear...

My beliefs are not "higher" than anyone else's. There are people in every religion who are closer to God than I am.

It's the money and the attitude. Anything else or is that it?

That's all I can think of.

So you and/or yours can't go in without that attitude? I just wrote what I wrote as an example. Not being a psychic I don't know the psychic "laws" that seem to come up whenever something is to be done. Point is with all this being known how is it they can't be compensated for and the tests taken?

 

Or is the simple act of taking the tests, for Randi, considered "I'll show them once and for all!" so no "legit" psychic could never, ever, take his tests? If that's the case then who cares? It's psychically forbidden by some never-world code and all must abide. Randi must be aware of this psychic catch-22. The rule of "A psychic must never be tested" or something like that.

 

And you've seemed to argue that an unbiased scientist doesn't really exist so there's no way to ever go to one of those. And being tested, to actual "prove" anything is part of that psychic catch-22 isn't it? Proving to Randi and proving to any scientist must be the same thing so even with an honest believing scientist the ultimate point of the research would be to prove that it is all real and factual. To "show them once and for all" and that means things won't work. It seems this will never get the research it deserves.

When have I ever said or implied an unbiased scientist doesn't exist? The ideal situation, as I see it, would be for a scientist to set up a test and Randi can make helpful suggestions as to how to safeguard against cheating.

I have paid attention to everything you have written. At least you've taken the time to clarify my misunderstanding...except you haven't. I guess I'm standing by what I've already stated for obvious reasons. I have paid attention everything you have written.

 

mwc

I could say that you'll never be satisfied with any explanation I give either. Nothing wrong with that, that's just how beliefs work. I guess you could say the evidence that will convince me would probably have to be as strong as the evidence that would convince you.