James Randi Is A Pompous Twit

November 4, 2011

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.

Yes, there's a difference between what I can objectively know (the former) and what I believe (the latter).

November 4, 2011

I just spent the weekend with him and he is neither pompous nor arrogant. and he loves scientists. and the feeling is mutual. Bill Nye was there as well.

A man in his late 80s riddled with cancer has a right to feel impatient at times.

so you think he should spend the million dollars on something more useful? like perhaps scholarships for students going into physics and biology? that would sure be a cool idea.

http://www.randi.org...holarships.html

and maybe instead of saying he's less likely to be tricked than a scientist, he could TEAM UP with some scientists, like maybe neurosurgeons or physicists or astronomers. yeah that would be pretty cool too.

http://www.randi.org...86-jref-fellows

Great, all good things to do. Nobody, least of all me, is begrudging him for any of that. But does that mean he is above criticism? Honestly, as one who believes in psychics, he's seen by believers as someone who is at best not credible when it comes to debunking due to his belligerent and confrontational approach.

I think "pompous" and "twit" are more ad hominem than criticism. Very rarely pompous, but NEVER a twit. and he has certainly earned pomposity. that's kinda part of a magician's stage presence.

Twit? seriously? sounds like something hollered in the schoolyard circa 1870.

November 4, 2011

Let's see. A million bucks for verifiable evidence of psychic abilities., with no risk on the part of the claimant. I don't see the twit part. Sounds like another bullshit psyshic blowing smoke to me.

Of course. No need to investigate on your own to verify. Just accept the fact that nobody has ever claimed the million dollars as proof that no psychic abilities exist. The same way Kent Hovind knows that evolution doesn't exist.

That's only one of the many reasons we know that no psychic abilities exist.

November 4, 2011

Let's see. A million bucks for verifiable evidence of psychic abilities., with no risk on the part of the claimant. I don't see the twit part. Sounds like another bullshit psyshic blowing smoke to me.

Of course. No need to investigate on your own to verify. Just accept the fact that nobody has ever claimed the million dollars as proof that no psychic abilities exist. The same way Kent Hovind knows that evolution doesn't exist.

That's only one of the many reasons we know that no psychic abilities exist.

Correction: one of the many reasons you believe that no psychic abilities exist.

November 4, 2011

I think "pompous" and "twit" are more ad hominem than criticism. Very rarely pompous, but NEVER a twit. and he has certainly earned pomposity. that's kinda part of a magician's stage presence. Twit? seriously? sounds like something hollered in the schoolyard circa 1870.

Point taken, but how would you describe someone who attacks and ridicules your beliefs and refuses to consider the possibility he may be wrong?

November 5, 2011

[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.

So you're saying you actually provided evidence? That would mean that I have failed to recognize your evidence as such. So what was your evidence again?

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?

I must have missed your sources. Could you point them to me again?

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.

And these explanations would be? And how are they inadequate exactly when compared to the proper answer?

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

Of course.

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

That's all I can think of.

Then the testing process is fine since that has been omitted as a complaint.

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.

There's no reason for this. You've said that the money and attitude were the problems with Randi. The testing is fine. Now the testing is in question as well?

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.

You could say this but you'd be incorrect. I am providing information along with facts. You're highly evasive and working hard to equivocate are positions as "beliefs." The evidence shows your position to be in the wrong. You have nothing to support your "beliefs" other than belief. Research, and history itself (since you enjoy personal experience and history is nothing but), shows that I can hold firm in knowing that psychics are frauds.

mwc

November 5, 2011

http://www.skepdic.com/projectalpha.html

Read it.

November 5, 2011

http://www.skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html interesting critique of the ganzfelds

November 5, 2011

So you're saying you actually provided evidence? That would mean that I have failed to recognize your evidence as such. So what was your evidence again?

The Ganzfeld experiments, as well as those done by Schwartz, Jahn and Dunn.

I must have missed your sources. Could you point them to me again?

Here's a link to Dr. Scwartz's website. You can look up the Ganzfeld experiments on Wikipedia and on this page you can find publications from PEAR on remote viewing, some of which were done by Jahn and Dunn.

And these explanations would be? And how are they inadequate exactly when compared to the proper answer?

Claiming that all psychics use cold reading techniques and/or lucky guesses. That they're all frauds. Those are just two that I can think of off the top of my head.

Of course.

Yes, there are even some atheists and agnostics who are closer to God than I am.

Then the testing process is fine since that has been omitted as a complaint.

As long as the testing is done in an objective, scientific manner instead of using it to try to prove a negative.

There's no reason for this. You've said that the money and attitude were the problems with Randi. The testing is fine. Now the testing is in question as well?

Ah, so there's no need for scientific experiments because we already know all there is to know, huh? Or were you just trying to get me to say something that you could trap me with so you can claim you were right all along and that my beliefs are invalid? Fortunately, I saw your trap coming a mile away, which is why I answered, "That's all I can think of." So that, just like James Randi, "I always have an out."

You could say this but you'd be incorrect. I am providing information along with facts. You're highly evasive and working hard to equivocate are positions as "beliefs." The evidence shows your position to be in the wrong. You have nothing to support your "beliefs" other than belief. Research, and history itself (since you enjoy personal experience and history is nothing but), shows that I can hold firm in knowing that psychics are frauds.

mwc

You can, but it's still just a belief. Unless, of course, you're claiming that scientists have already discovered everything there is to know about all possible natural laws. Or that all the knowledge in the entire universe is crammed into that space between your ears. By claiming that you "know" and that I'm "wrong," you're saying that you're smarter than every single other scientist that has ever lived on the face of this planet. Are you really making that claim?

If you'd really like to prove me wrong, prove that the existence of psychic abilities defies any known scientific law.

November 6, 2011

The Ganzfeld experiments, as well as those done by Schwartz, Jahn and Dunn.

The same old stuff. At least there's links to sources it seems (and not biased ones with agendas like the ones I offered I hope...we wouldn't want that mistake twice).

Here's a link to Dr. Scwartz's website. You can look up the Ganzfeld experiments on Wikipedia and on this page you can find publications from PEAR on remote viewing, some of which were done by Jahn and Dunn.

Looked through Dr. Schwartz's book pedling site-a-torium. It appears precious little is given up for free and I'm not buying his wares to obtain his "self-science" or whatever he's calling it. I did find the following informative (or "informative") when it came to how to be a proper skeptic:

True skeptics not only know that they don't know something for sure, but they are genuinely open to changing their minds and growing in light of new evidence. In a deep sense they are humble and open-minded.

Pseudo-skeptics often are typically disbelievers - i.e. they are firmly entrenched in believing "no" about certain things. Although they may "claim" that they are open to new information, they typically react with strongly unfriendly if not hostile criticisms when their beliefs and assumptions are challenged by new ideas and evidence.

Pseudo-skeptics typically make extreme statements. They will sometimes categorically state that something is impossible, or they will make sweeping false statements such as "no evidence exists" or the experiments are "all flawed" or even the scientists in question are engaged in "pseudo-science."

Probably the most abusive of pseudo-skeptics tactics is to denigrate and dismiss carefully documented (and replicated observations in real life as being "anecdotes" and being "worthless" as potential scientific evidence. Even if the evidence was collected carefully using established standards in mainstream science, the findings are typically ignored or rejected as having any scientific value. The key phrase here is "any."

Psychologically speaking, simply labeling and denigrating carefully and responsibly documented evidence obtained in real life as being "anecdotal" is like labeling and denigrating caring and responsible African Americans as being "n.....r.'s." Sure, not all evidence observed in real life has been collected carefully and responsibly, just as not all African Americans (or any other regional or ethnic group, for that matter,) are caring and responsible - the key is wise discernment here, not biased dismissal.

I love that highlighted part. He could have went for a "Hitler" reference but instead pulled the race card. That's just classy.

I already looked at the Wikipedia page on the ganfield experiments and have looked to see that they're tainted by the great debate over by the two initial presenters way back when. The automated studies appear to be different but I've not read up on those.

There are a great many papers on the last site so I will have to get back to that unless there is something more specific you can point me to there.

Claiming that all psychics use cold reading techniques and/or lucky guesses. That they're all frauds. Those are just two that I can think of off the top of my head.

When all the studies indicate that this is what is going on then it seems to be the reasonable thing to conclude. If this ever changes then the reasonable thing to say would change as well.

No man can break the sound barrier and live. That was the reasonable thing to say. People didn't simply stop and say "You're right. I think I will go pick my nose in the corner." They did eventually find a way to break the sound barrier and live. To do it repeatedly. They didn't force people to say "People can break the sound barrier and live! You don't know! You should rephrase the way you talk. You should say that we might be able to break the sound barrier and maybe live possibly some day in the future maybe." That's nonsense. They proved it. Then the speech changed to adapt to the new reality.

The reality won't change because people open up to the possibility. So getting everyone to think "Yeah, I think psychics are possible" won't suddenly see psychics popping up on every street corner and really being legitimate psychics. They won't be reading minds and bending spoons without any trickery. That's not reality. Prove it. Break the barrier and the change of mind will follow. Run the mile in under four minutes. Break the sound barrier. Do these things and people will follow like they always have. Fail under actual scrutiny like you have for the past 130 years and you should be prepared to have the albatross of failure hung about your neck.

Yes, there are even some atheists and agnostics who are closer to God than I am.

Yep.

As long as the testing is done in an objective, scientific manner instead of using it to try to prove a negative.

Do your cited studies pass this test? Are they done in an "objective", scientific manner?" They don't seem to from the information I've seen so far.

I'm not sure what the negative you're referring to here.

Ah, so there's no need for scientific experiments because we already know all there is to know, huh? Or were you just trying to get me to say something that you could trap me with so you can claim you were right all along and that my beliefs are invalid? Fortunately, I saw your trap coming a mile away, which is why I answered, "That's all I can think of." So that, just like James Randi, "I always have an out."

You use wiggle words to avoid your own argument? That should tell you something about yourself.

You have some issue or issues with Randi and you mentioned his offer of money and his attitude. You tried bringing up some issue of tests but when I asked further would not comment on these things. You provided no information on these things. Just that some have tried and failed for various reasons. This statement offers nothing to go on. Are you saying Randi has rigged the testing? I know that in this country that contests and sweepstakes are covered under law. I would imagine that there is a law that covers this as well. If fraud on Randi's part is the accusation then it would likely be actionable. Is this the claim being made? He is intentionally rigging the test? That once engaged the participant is being removed from the "contest" unfairly? I know nothing of this whole thing other than Randi offers one million dollars to anyone who can pass the tests. Nothing more. I could Google but it won't get me to the specifics that you apparently want me to know if you actually want me to know it that is. I find you hold information very tightly. You seem to want others to come to "wrong" conclusions.

You can, but it's still just a belief. Unless, of course, you're claiming that scientists have already discovered everything there is to know about all possible natural laws. Or that all the knowledge in the entire universe is crammed into that space between your ears. By claiming that you "know" and that I'm "wrong," you're saying that you're smarter than every single other scientist that has ever lived on the face of this planet. Are you really making that claim?

If you'd really like to prove me wrong, prove that the existence of psychic abilities defies any known scientific law.

I have explained how I arrived at my conclusion that psychics are frauds. It is the reasonable and probable position from which to do any inquiry. This is why I have asked you for information to the contrary. It has been exceptionally difficult to say the least. If all "psychics" are as cooperative as you I would imagine this is why any attempt at study has been rather slow-going.

mwc

November 6, 2011

I'm just going to skip this first bit since we're obviously not going to agree on whether the sources are credible and I couldn't care less whether you do or not.

<snip>

When all the studies indicate that this is what is going on then it seems to be the reasonable thing to conclude. If this ever changes then the reasonable thing to say would change as well.

"All the studies indicate" this? Or is it just your interpretation?

No man can break the sound barrier and live. That was the reasonable thing to say. People didn't simply stop and say "You're right. I think I will go pick my nose in the corner." They did eventually find a way to break the sound barrier and live. To do it repeatedly. They didn't force people to say "People can break the sound barrier and live! You don't know! You should rephrase the way you talk. You should say that we might be able to break the sound barrier and maybe live possibly some day in the future maybe." That's nonsense. They proved it. Then the speech changed to adapt to the new reality.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Ever since the concept of breaking the sound barrier was introduced during World War II, people were looking for ways to do it. There were even people who claimed to have done it before it was "officially" done by Chuck Yeager. If it were up to people like you, those people would have likely been called "delusional" or "liars."

The reality won't change because people open up to the possibility. So getting everyone to think "Yeah, I think psychics are possible" won't suddenly see psychics popping up on every street corner and really being legitimate psychics. They won't be reading minds and bending spoons without any trickery. That's not reality. Prove it. Break the barrier and the change of mind will follow. Run the mile in under four minutes. Break the sound barrier. Do these things and people will follow like they always have. Fail under actual scrutiny like you have for the past 130 years and you should be prepared to have the albatross of failure hung about your neck.

Just because you don't accept the results of some experiments doesn't mean that they have failed.

Do your cited studies pass this test? Are they done in an "objective", scientific manner?" They don't seem to from the information I've seen so far.

So you're saying that scientists are faking the results for...what purpose? Money? There's very little money in parapsychology. Fame? Most people think of psychics as entertainers or those people who write horoscopes in newspapers. The best fame they could probably get would be "crackpot scientist." I tend to think that experiments were done in an objective, scientific manner unless there's strong evidence that they weren't.

I'm not sure what the negative you're referring to here.

Randi seems like he's out to prove that psychic abilities don't exist and that they're all done by trickery. That's trying to prove a negative.

You use wiggle words to avoid your own argument? That should tell you something about yourself.

It should tell you something about Randi, too, who used those exact same words concerning his million dollar challenge. It tells me that I knew you were dishonestly trying to trap me with my own words (and by your response I saw that I was right). So I avoided it and you sprung your trap on thin air.

You have some issue or issues with Randi and you mentioned his offer of money and his attitude. You tried bringing up some issue of tests but when I asked further would not comment on these things. You provided no information on these things. Just that some have tried and failed for various reasons. This statement offers nothing to go on. Are you saying Randi has rigged the testing? I know that in this country that contests and sweepstakes are covered under law. I would imagine that there is a law that covers this as well. If fraud on Randi's part is the accusation then it would likely be actionable. Is this the claim being made? He is intentionally rigging the test? That once engaged the participant is being removed from the "contest" unfairly? I know nothing of this whole thing other than Randi offers one million dollars to anyone who can pass the tests. Nothing more. I could Google but it won't get me to the specifics that you apparently want me to know if you actually want me to know it that is. I find you hold information very tightly. You seem to want others to come to "wrong" conclusions.

I just find it very suspicious that nobody has even passed the preliminaries to be allowed to take the test. He's even made up new rules in order to reject people, as in the case of Rico Kolodzey, rather than just hire a doctor to monitor his vital functions. As far as it being actionable, with a million dollars at stake it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that Randi has some of the best legal advice on how to do this without breaking the law.

I have explained how I arrived at my conclusion that psychics are frauds. It is the reasonable and probable position from which to do any inquiry. This is why I have asked you for information to the contrary. It has been exceptionally difficult to say the least. If all "psychics" are as cooperative as you I would imagine this is why any attempt at study has been rather slow-going.

mwc

It's reasonable to you, but not to me. That's why it's called a belief. I've given you some of the evidence, but I'm afraid it's impossible for me to give you the evidence of my personal experiences. I've never once said that I wanted you to believe anything or that I could prove anything to you. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly stated that you "know" all psychics are frauds and that there's no evidence of psychic abilities of any kind. Both of those are extraordinary claims, and as you say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

November 6, 2011

Did you read any of my links?

mwc, on 06 November 2011 - 05:13 AM, said:

When all the studies indicate that this is what is going on then it seems to be the reasonable thing to conclude. If this ever changes then the reasonable thing to say would change as well.

"All the studies indicate" this? Or is it just your interpretation?

What? "All studies indicate" is not an absolute statement. There's no interpretation there. None. What possible reason could you possibly have for possibly questioning this statement?

In any case, you're the one that has a problem opening up to new ideas. I think I already asked what is so hard about accepting that it might be literally any of a billion more likely possibilities. You keep saying that you think it might be a naturalistic explanation. Well, the fact that people can be fooled easily, even when they should know better, and that all professed psychics are frauds is a naturalistic explanation. And it explains EVERYTHING. Except of course, your 80% hit rate, which from what I have read is not the case anyway

http://www.skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html So why are you so vehemently ignoring that?

Just because you don't accept the results of some experiments doesn't mean that they have failed.

This is true. The failure of the experiments means they failed. http://www.skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html

Quote

Do your cited studies pass this test? Are they done in an "objective", scientific manner?" They don't seem to from the information I've seen so far.

So you're saying that scientists are faking the results for...what purpose? Money? There's very little money in parapsychology. Fame? Most people think of psychics as entertainers or those people who write horoscopes in newspapers. The best fame they could probably get would be "crackpot scientist." I tend to think that experiments were done in an objective, scientific manner unless there's strong evidence that they weren't.

Come on now, you know better. Parapsychology is only science because one or two real scientists have for whatever reason decided to suspend their disbelief long enough to toy with it. Anyone that could provide ANY proof would have their face lasered on to the surface of the moon, because psychic phenomena is one of the most hotly debated notions in history. That parapsych only barely qualifies as science is reason enough to assert that all the necessary controls and such that are frequently neglected in real science, tend to be absent. There's just not enough oversight to prevent it, and this could also lead to fraud much more easily than with the accepted sciences. Also: http://www.skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html

And see: http://www.skepdic.c...ojectalpha.html Remember when I questioned your point about James Randi conducting tests to prove experiments wrong? It wasn't because I thought he hadn't. I simply didn't know, and at the time it was beside the point-- "whether he couldn't or didn't" (my quote if I remember correctly) was irrelevant, because your side had failed to provide proof in the first place. These Ganzfeld experiments you keep quoting are looking less and less impressive the more I look into them, and even some of those involved have stated that they are in no way conclusive. Furthermore, the nature of what they're trying to demonstrate, and they ways they are going about it indicate that there's no way to suitably marginalize the potential for fraud or flaw.

November 7, 2011

Did you read any of my links?

Yes I did. I already discussed them in previous posts.

What? "All studies indicate" is not an absolute statement. There's no interpretation there. None. What possible reason could you possibly have for possibly questioning this statement?

"Not an absolute statement" would be something like "Studies seem to indicate the possibility..." The statement mwc made was an absolute statement, saying that there was no other possible interpretation of the experiments.

In any case, you're the one that has a problem opening up to new ideas. I think I already asked what is so hard about accepting that it might be literally any of a billion more likely possibilities. You keep saying that you think it might be a naturalistic explanation. Well, the fact that people can be fooled easily, even when they should know better, and that all professed psychics are frauds is a naturalistic explanation. And it explains EVERYTHING. Except of course, your 80% hit rate, which from what I have read is not the case anyway
http://www.skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html So why are you so vehemently ignoring that?

Just because I don't accept your naturalistic explanation doesn't mean that I won't accept any naturalistic explanation. And I see massive projection on your part when I see you say, "the fact...that all professed psychics are frauds" while accusing me of being unable to open up to new ideas. Why do you think that scientists know all there is to know about all natural laws?

And the 80% hit rate was from the experiments by Dr. Schwartz

This is true. The failure of the experiments means they failed. http://www.skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html

Some concerns and criticisms do not mean that the experiments failed. At best it means the experiments were inconclusive.

Come on now, you know better. Parapsychology is only science because one or two real scientists have for whatever reason decided to suspend their disbelief long enough to toy with it. Anyone that could provide ANY proof would have their face lasered on to the surface of the moon, because psychic phenomena is one of the most hotly debated notions in history.

Source? A debate in the scientific community doesn't change how the general public sees psychics.

That parapsych only barely qualifies as science is reason enough to assert that all the necessary controls and such that are frequently neglected in real science, tend to be absent. There's just not enough oversight to prevent it, and this could also lead to fraud much more easily than with the accepted sciences.

I see "special pleading" glowing like a red neon sign here. You think that parapsychology should be ignored because there aren't enough controls to prevent fraud that no other area of science needs? If you really think that and are not just using that as an excuse to reject something that doesn't line up with your world view, then make suggestions to the scientific community on how they can improve their controls. And if they still come back the same way, don't move the goalposts.

Remember when I questioned your point about James Randi conducting tests to prove experiments wrong? It wasn't because I thought he hadn't. I simply didn't know, and at the time it was beside the point-- "whether he couldn't or didn't" (my quote if I remember correctly) was irrelevant, because your side had failed to provide proof in the first place. These Ganzfeld experiments you keep quoting are looking less and less impressive the more I look into them, and even some of those involved have stated that they are in no way conclusive. Furthermore, the nature of what they're trying to demonstrate, and they ways they are going about it indicate that there's no way to suitably marginalize the potential for fraud or flaw.

I agree that in any scientific experiment we should be on the lookout for fraud and flaws. But we also should not dismiss an entire field just because of some flaws. We should correct those flaws and redo the experiment. If the flaws are corrected and the tests come back no better than chance, then we can throw out the results of the original tests.

November 7, 2011

"Not an absolute statement" would be something like "Studies seem to indicate the possibility..." The statement mwc made was an absolute statement, saying that there was no other possible interpretation of the experiments.

Indication not absolute. That's my qualm here.

Just because I don't accept your naturalistic explanation doesn't mean...

I'm not saying you don't accept my explanation, I'm saying that that explanation is one of the probable natural explanations. You can't reject something if you don't acknowledge it.

What do we know for a fact about psychics? We know that nothing they do, in all the anecdotes, documents, studies thus far etc. is discernible from chance or trickery. These are the factors we have to rule out. The problem is that even if you test a million people and find one whose abilities appear to defy either explanation, you still have 999,999 people who may or may not be lucky and/or fraudulent. And the reason that's such a big problem is because even if you prove that 1 in a million people are so gifted, there's no real way to separate them from the others. Because people are so easily fooled, this means that even the experiments done for that purpose can then yield skewed or otherwise incorrect results.

Source? A debate in the scientific community doesn't change how the general public sees psychics.

I didn't say anything about the scientific community. I meant that the existence and powers of psychics is one of the most hotly debated notions in history. Period.

I see "special pleading" glowing like a red neon sign here. You think that parapsychology should be ignored because there aren't enough controls to prevent fraud that no other area of science needs?

No. Forgive my lack of clarity. Plenty of fields of evidence based science can be corroborated by other relevant fields. Evolution, says some scientists, is not itself a science, because of the sheer volume of sciences that must corroborate it. The reason for this is because with the process, and with the theories that result, testable predictions are made that have an impact on other areas of the world/science/what-have-you.

Nothing we know about the world through science indicates that there is any real merit to anything proposed by parapsychology. This could be because although there might be something to it, all proposals thus far fail all empirical tests put to them. That all being said, parapsych is marginalized because the lack of evidence keeps actual scientists from studying any facet of it. For this reason, those that are actually dedicated to it have nothing of the real world to go on, in order to formulate hypotheses, much less the tests needed to confirm it. I don't think it should be ignored because of a lack of controls, I think it is BEING ignored by science at large because of that lack, and the inability of science to corroborate any "facts" put out by parapsych.

It could be that every single parapsychologist out there has a confirmation bias, and science actually exists by and large to eliminate that, and therefore, any merit that the idea has is undermined by the very people trying to further it. OR, as the facts indicate, there are no psychics, and any success found is based in chance or trickery.

I agree that in any scientific experiment we should be on the lookout for fraud and flaws. But we also should not dismiss an entire field just because of some flaws.

Incidentally, despite my previous statement, my last post was plenty irreverent. Just so you don't suspect any dishonesty.

Plenty of sciences in their infancy met with error, failure, and the like. Of course, plenty of junk sciences met with success as well. I think the reason Parapsychology is on the backburner, is because unlike those other disciplines that have since gained favor, there have as yet been no positive returns that warrant further investigation, save in the minds of the believers. Not that there are none to be had, just that none exist to be shown to anyone that doesn't already believe. THAT is an absolute statement.

November 7, 2011

Indication not absolute. That's my qualm here.

I still don't see it that way. Indication still shows a high level of certainty, even if not absolute.

I'm not saying you don't accept my explanation, I'm saying that that explanation is one of the probable natural explanations. You can't reject something if you don't acknowledge it.

But as I've said, I have considered your explanation. I rejected it because I was unsatisfied. It didn't explain enough in my view.

What do we know for a fact about psychics? We know that nothing they do, in all the anecdotes, documents, studies thus far etc. is discernible from chance or trickery. These are the factors we have to rule out. The problem is that even if you test a million people and find one whose abilities appear to defy either explanation, you still have 999,999 people who may or may not be lucky and/or fraudulent. And the reason that's such a big problem is because even if you prove that 1 in a million people are so gifted, there's no real way to separate them from the others. Because people are so easily fooled, this means that even the experiments done for that purpose can then yield skewed or otherwise incorrect results.

Highly unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen, though. It's highly unlikely anyone will win the lottery, yet some people do. It's scientists' jobs to study the results, try to repeat the experiments and eliminate any mistakes. Not to dismiss it because of flaws or because it doesn't line up with their world view.

I didn't say anything about the scientific community. I meant that the existence and powers of psychics is one of the most hotly debated notions in history. Period.

Again, I'd like to see a source for that. And if it's so hotly debated, why do you, mwc and most atheists seem to think that the issue is resolved?

No. Forgive my lack of clarity. Plenty of fields of evidence based science can be corroborated by other relevant fields. Evolution, says some scientists, is not itself a science, because of the sheer volume of sciences that must corroborate it. The reason for this is because with the process, and with the theories that result, testable predictions are made that have an impact on other areas of the world/science/what-have-you.

Nothing we know about the world through science indicates that there is any real merit to anything proposed by parapsychology. This could be because although there might be something to it, all proposals thus far fail all empirical tests put to them. That all being said, parapsych is marginalized because the lack of evidence keeps actual scientists from studying any facet of it. For this reason, those that are actually dedicated to it have nothing of the real world to go on, in order to formulate hypotheses, much less the tests needed to confirm it. I don't think it should be ignored because of a lack of controls, I think it is BEING ignored by science at large because of that lack, and the inability of science to corroborate any "facts" put out by parapsych.

I have said before in this thread that there might need to be a new paradigm in science to study this.

It could be that every single parapsychologist out there has a confirmation bias, and science actually exists by and large to eliminate that, and therefore, any merit that the idea has is undermined by the very people trying to further it. OR, as the facts indicate, there are no psychics, and any success found is based in chance or trickery.

But you must admit that those are not the only two possibilities, right? And that's why I'm saying that it deserves more study, rather than ridicule by Randi.

Incidentally, despite my previous statement, my last post was plenty irreverent. Just so you don't suspect any dishonesty.

Plenty of sciences in their infancy met with error, failure, and the like. Of course, plenty of junk sciences met with success as well. I think the reason Parapsychology is on the backburner, is because unlike those other disciplines that have since gained favor, there have as yet been no positive returns that warrant further investigation, save in the minds of the believers. Not that there are none to be had, just that none exist to be shown to anyone that doesn't already believe. THAT is an absolute statement.

So you're saying that all scientific experiments in parapsychology that have been successful were done by scientists who were already believers? Even if that's true, and all of them were predisposed to finding a certain outcome, you could equally accuse the non-believing scientists of finding in favor of their own beliefs, too. That's why I'm saying that we need to eliminate any legitimate flaws and try to repeat the experiments as much as possible.

November 7, 2011

I still don't see it that way. Indication still shows a high level of certainty, even if not absolute.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indication+?r=75 No...No, it doesn't.

But as I've said, I have considered your explanation. I rejected it because I was unsatisfied. It didn't explain enough in my view.

You "rejected" it because it opposed your worldview, which to be clear is: "There ARE psychics. We just have to prove it"

Highly unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen, though. It's highly unlikely anyone will win the lottery, yet some people do. It's scientists' jobs to study the results, try to repeat the experiments and eliminate any mistakes. Not to dismiss it because of flaws or because it doesn't line up with their world view.

Apples and Psychics. I can buy a lottery ticket: There's an abundance of physical evidence that there is such a thing. When I hit the lottery, I know because I start bathing in 1's. How will I know that I've had a genuine psychic experience? If I visit a million psychics and have a million psychic readings, the only thread connecting any of them is that I have been told that that's what happened, and I believed that that's what happened.

A better analogy would be if I bought a lottery ticket that turned out to be fake. Of course even then, the odds are hundreds of thousands of times better that that DIDN'T happen than the odds that I actually dealt with a real live psychic.

Again, I'd like to see a source for that. And if it's so hotly debated, why do you, mwc and most atheists seem to think that the issue is resolved?

You ask for proof at the weirdest times. Plenty of people believe in psychics-- a roughly equal number do not. Religion or a lack thereof has no bearing on this. Also, since no one KNOWS (they, like you, instead believe) it actually only stands to reason that this is a very contentious subject. That statement makes it sound like you want us to make an a priori admission in support of your side.

I have said before in this thread that there might need to be a new paradigm in science to study this.

Fuh. Do we need a new paradigm to study Bigfoot? Invisible Pink Unicorn? Flying Spagetti Monster? If not, why not?

New paradigms arise as a result of valid observations that can't be furthered with current ones. Wonder why no such thing has happened? I have an answer, but...

But you must admit that those are not the only two possibilities, right? And that's why I'm saying that it deserves more study, rather than ridicule by Randi.

Funny you should say that, because I recall earlier in this thread, you called on James Randi to do the very thing that he did, in those links I provided you. And he did it so well, that the hoaxes only started failing AFTER the testers began following HIS direction.

I know you pretty well on these forums. We've been over these types of issues in the past. I would ask you if it were alright to offer ridicule to something as ridiculous as FSM, but I'm pretty sure you would never do such a thing. Not because it's hurtful or anything, but because if you can draw a line, so can anyone else. It just happens that for us, and for a lot of rational thinkers, that line comes just before your beliefs on the list of probabilities.

So you're saying that all scientific experiments in parapsychology that have been successful were done by scientists who were already believers?

I'm saying there's no evidence for psychics. When certain parameters are adjusted in these experiments, "success" rapidly becomes "eh". That's the best explanation for why there isn't a greater interest in these studies. Like I was saying in my last post, science, and pretty much our ability to sense reality in general, relies upon the impact of a phenomena across different fields. I'd like to believe-- very much so in fact. That might be something you have misunderstood about me, and I wager, about MWC and a lot of us here. I can't simply ignore the misses to log the hits however, which is why I find myself where I stand. Science doesn't have to do anything here-- it's up to you believers to show us that there's something there, which thus far has not happened. The advice I'd give you is exactly the same as what I'd tell a christian, trying to convince me that there's something wonderful in those rice paper pages of theirs: Forget everything you think you know about it, and start from scratch. You want to be scientific, start by observing a phenomenon. Don't give it a name, don't even give it any concrete values, just note what you see. If there's more to it than that, these observations will bear that out. THEN you'll be able to create a real hypothesis, which, true to actual science, will yield testable predictions, then test those predictions. If they fail, then reformulate your hypothesis and retest. And repeat. Or, let it go.

November 7, 2011

"All the studies indicate" this? Or is it just your interpretation?

No. It seems the studies indicate this with or without my help.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Ever since the concept of breaking the sound barrier was introduced during World War II, people were looking for ways to do it. There were even people who claimed to have done it before it was "officially" done by Chuck Yeager. If it were up to people like you, those people would have likely been called "delusional" or "liars."

Being called "delusional" or "liars" didn't stop it from actually happening. Yet psychics appear to get stopped cold when faced with such critics. A properly designed and studied aircraft breaks the sound barrier safely. A psychic? They have a bit of an off day. Maybe next time. If psychics were airplanes no one would fly them.

Just because you don't accept the results of some experiments doesn't mean that they have failed.

The thing is...I *DO* accept the results of the experiments you have offered. That *IS* the crux of our little problem. They were poorly implemented failures. I accept this. You do not. You can't have something that is done incorrectly reported as a success. That is a cheat. A classroom of children that all copy from the smart kid and all get "A's" didn't all get "A's" even though the test results say they did. This is a poorly implemented failure. It's even worse if no one actually got an "A" and the teacher handed them all their high grade. Then the whole class comes into question. None of the kids can be considered an "A" student. They must *ALL* be retested under proper conditions to make that assessment. You have to disregard the flawed tests as failures even if they report high marks. You have only showed to me failed tests. No matter how you try to do the math on the final scores the test itself is fundamentally broken.

So you're saying that scientists are faking the results for...what purpose? Money? There's very little money in parapsychology. Fame? Most people think of psychics as entertainers or those people who write horoscopes in newspapers. The best fame they could probably get would be "crackpot scientist." I tend to think that experiments were done in an objective, scientific manner unless there's strong evidence that they weren't.

There can be any number of reasons the tests are flawed. These were pointed out by skeptics and you allowed them as valid. You either know some of the reasons or were lying. I'll leave it to you to decide.

Randi seems like he's out to prove that psychic abilities don't exist and that they're all done by trickery. That's trying to prove a negative.

He's proving the positive that there are other reasons, natural reasons, for these "abilities." Proving that someone is tricking another person is a positive.

It should tell you something about Randi, too, who used those exact same words concerning his million dollar challenge. It tells me that I knew you were dishonestly trying to trap me with my own words (and by your response I saw that I was right). So I avoided it and you sprung your trap on thin air.

I have no idea who you think you're talking with but you're not talking with Randi so using such deception in order to make a point with me is lost. I don't know what his context was but the context here is you are intentionally trying to choose words to avoid being held to your own statements. If you want to play games with Randi I suggest you contact him directly.

I just find it very suspicious that nobody has even passed the preliminaries to be allowed to take the test. He's even made up new rules in order to reject people, as in the case of Rico Kolodzey, rather than just hire a doctor to monitor his vital functions. As far as it being actionable, with a million dollars at stake it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that Randi has some of the best legal advice on how to do this without breaking the law.

Since I couldn't get any real information from you I went and looked up this challenge and found the following FAQ on the challenge's website:

1.4 Has anyone ever gotten past the preliminary test?

No. Some people use this fact as a reason not to apply – and yet the protocol is never altered once the applicant agrees to it. In fact, we ask the applicant to design the test.

1.5 Has anyone taken the formal test?

No. Applicants must pass the preliminary test in order to move on to a formal test. So far, no one has ever performed the paranormal ability they claimed to have.

_____

2. Protocols

2.1 Protocols must be “mutually agreed upon,” what does that mean?

Neither the Foundation nor the claimant can force a testing procedure without the approval of the other side. The testing procedure is a negotiation, and no one can put their foot down. If at any time it a deadlock is reached, the application process will be terminated, and neither side will be blamed or considered at fault.

2.2 What is the definition of “paranormal” in regards to the Challenge?

Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “paranormal” as “not scientifically explainable; supernatural.”

Within the Challenge, this means that at the time your application is submitted and approved, your claim will be considered paranormal for the duration. If, after testing, it is decided that your ability is either scientifically explainable or will be someday, you needn’t worry. If the JREF has agreed to test you, then your claim is paranormal.

2.3 Does my claim count as paranormal?

Possibly. Read through the JREF forum for a list of previous applicants if you’d like to see whether or not your claim has been tested before. The list can be found at:
http://forums.randi....isplay.php?f=43

Past claims have included: psychic or mediumistic powers, ESP, dowsing, magnetic humans, astrology, faith healing, etc.

If you are submitting a claim that works off a previous assumption, you have to present evidence proving the assumption correct first. For example, a claim of exorcism must have prior proof of the existence of demons, unless the existence of demons would be self-evident during the exorcism. If someone’s head spins ‘round the wrong direction during an exorcism, it is safe to say that demons (or some other entities) are responsible. Projectile vomiting, however, is nasty and probably explainable.

Some claims are, unfortunately, untestable. For example, claiming that you are able to make someone feel happy by talking to them is untestable, because it is impossible to objectively gauge someone’s level of happiness, especially if they have been told that after talking to you they should feel happy.

If your claim is untestable, there is nothing that can be done to alter that status unless you find a new claim or negotiate a protocol in which the results are self-evident and objectively testable.

2.4 Why do you reject claims that might cause injury?

Because the JREF doesn’t want anyone to get hurt or die, for both legal and humanitarian reasons. The JREF will not condone or support any claim where injury may occur. We don’t even want you to try it at home first.

For example, if you claim you can jump off a ten story building and survive, the JREF is not going to test you at it because people jumping off buildings doesn’t normally end well.

...

5.3 Who pays for all this?

You do. The JREF is a non-profit organization, and simply does not have the resources to pay travel and testing expenses for every single claimant. We will work with you as much as possible, and try to test near you, but in the end, if you’re convinced you’re going to win a million dollars, travel shouldn’t be that much of an issue.

This is not the whole FAQ of course. It does explain how no one has ever managed to get past the preliminaries (public knowledge) and how if you want to take the challenge that you must meet the prerequisites of demonstrating that your form of paranormal whatever is something that can be done and so on. The example of demonstrating that demons are real must be met before you can come along and cast them out is offered. Then there must be a meeting of the minds on any tests that follow.

There is, also, section 5.3 which says that the applicant will pay for everything.

So onto Rico. It's true he was treated poorly by Randi. The letter Randi sent him is all over the net. Rico was going to not eat his way to riches. If his claim was true he could survive on water and "prana" (which is just magical god food...not food at all). It's easy to see why the rules might apply to turn him down. But in 2006 things got going again and they were agreeing on terms when Rico didn't want to play anymore.

If this person, who claims direct involvement, is telling the truth then it would seem that the bottom line may ultimately have been to blame:

Several years ago, I ran into an Internet story about a man in Germany that was a "breatharian" -- some one who stated and believed that he could live indefinitely without any sustenance but water.

His name was Rico Kolodzey and he lived in a obscure little hamlet in Germany - really difficult to locate. .

He had applied to test for the James Randi one million dollar award for demonstrating (to Randi) that one could, in fact, do something "supernatural" -- specifically here, go for ninety days or more without any food of any sort and remain hale and hearty through to the end of the period. Pretty supernatural, alright!

Randi had refused to even consider a test of the man's "breatharian" abilities, saying that the man was "insane". I took issue with Randi's position that the claim should not even be tested, stating in a letter to him that it was inconsistent with his "standing invitation" to anyone to test for supernatural abilities and award $1M to anyone who could demonstrate such abilities in a controlled, double-blind environment. After several exchanges, Randi conceded and told me to produce Kolodzey and he (Randi) would test him.

After considerable effort, I located Kolodzey, told him of Randi's reversal of position, and he agreed to come to the US (Florida) to be tested. We (Randi and I) worked out a rather detailed protocol involving a locked and guarded motel room, medical examinations, weight monitoring, etc. to be used in the test.

Randi, naturally, required Kolodzey to bear all expenses of the testing. After many weeks of e-mail exchange made rather difficult by the fact that I am not very fluent in German and Kolodzey did not speak English, I finally made it clear to Rico that he would need to pay his own transportation costs plus the costs of the testing (which Randi thought would only run about 10 days before Kolodzey relented and required some food.)

Finally understanding that he would be responsible for at least several thousand dollars of expenses, Kolodzey became very indignant and refused to go any further, stating that Randi was a fake and a hypocrite. It was the end of the possibility of scientifically testing the Breatharian concept. Randi simply said, "They always run away before it gets to an actual test. I have never run away!"

I continued a sporadic communication with Randi for some time following the Kolodzey incident. At one point, I asked him if he considered conjurer's illusions to be "reality" in the normal sense of the word. He answered with a question to me, "Do you consider a rainbow to be real?" I responded simply, "yes". His response was, "So do I!" Make what you will of it. As I have argued above, I feel that illusions are real. Real illusions.

I, of course, to remain consistent would have to say that a magician's illusion is fully as real as a rainbow!

It can cost a lot to starve yourself and have people watch you doing it. Especially if you want proper medical care and people debunking you while you do so.

It's reasonable to you, but not to me. That's why it's called a belief. I've given you some of the evidence, but I'm afraid it's impossible for me to give you the evidence of my personal experiences. I've never once said that I wanted you to believe anything or that I could prove anything to you. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly stated that you "know" all psychics are frauds and that there's no evidence of psychic abilities of any kind. Both of those are extraordinary claims, and as you say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Flawed experiments and personal experiences? That's not good evidence now is it? I would imagine this is why Randi is so miserly with his rules.

It's rather easy to state that psychics are frauds given everything that has been said and done. If the evidence was in favor of the psychics it would be difficult, even impossible, to make such a claim but it is not.

mwc

November 8, 2011

http://dictionary.re...ndication+?r=75 No...No, it doesn't.

http://www.wordrefer...nition/indicate

Yes, it certainly can.

You "rejected" it because it opposed your worldview, which to be clear is: "There ARE psychics. We just have to prove it"

Once again, I'm seeing massive projection here. Your own worldview of "there are no psychics, science has proven it" causes you to reject any positive results no matter how strong. And how do you know what my reasons are for rejecting your explanation? Are you psychic?

Apples and Psychics. I can buy a lottery ticket: There's an abundance of physical evidence that there is such a thing. When I hit the lottery, I know because I start bathing in 1's. How will I know that I've had a genuine psychic experience? If I visit a million psychics and have a million psychic readings, the only thread connecting any of them is that I have been told that that's what happened, and I believed that that's what happened.

A better analogy would be if I bought a lottery ticket that turned out to be fake. Of course even then, the odds are hundreds of thousands of times better that that DIDN'T happen than the odds that I actually dealt with a real live psychic.

The comparison was perfectly logical. You can get evidence that a psychic experience was genuine if the psychic tells you things that can't be explained away by mere cold reading or lucky guesses. Of course, with the lottery ticket you have physical evidence you can hold in your hand, but do you really want to claim that physical evidence of something is the only way you can tell it exists?

You ask for proof at the weirdest times. Plenty of people believe in psychics-- a roughly equal number do not.

Again, what is your source for this? A survey? A scientific study? Guessing? Do you have psychic powers? What?

Religion or a lack thereof has no bearing on this. Also, since no one KNOWS (they, like you, instead believe) it actually only stands to reason that this is a very contentious subject. That statement makes it sound like you want us to make an a priori admission in support of your side.

No, all I'm doing is saying that the logical way to approach it is from an agnostic viewpoint. Again, you're treating me like I'm trying to convert you to my beliefs.

Fuh. Do we need a new paradigm to study Bigfoot? Invisible Pink Unicorn? Flying Spagetti Monster? If not, why not?

How many people have claimed real experiences with IPU or FSM and not just as an atheistic strawman argument? As for Bigfoot, some sightings have left behind physical evidence that couldn't be explained away as hair from any other creature, so I withhold judgment on that until stronger evidence comes to light, neither believing nor disbelieving.

New paradigms arise as a result of valid observations that can't be furthered with current ones. Wonder why no such thing has happened? I have an answer, but...

I'm sure you do.

Funny you should say that, because I recall earlier in this thread, you called on James Randi to do the very thing that he did, in those links I provided you. And he did it so well, that the hoaxes only started failing AFTER the testers began following HIS direction.

And like I said before, that's a good thing. Hoaxes don't do anyone any favors.

I know you pretty well on these forums. We've been over these types of issues in the past. I would ask you if it were alright to offer ridicule to something as ridiculous as FSM, but I'm pretty sure you would never do such a thing. Not because it's hurtful or anything, but because if you can draw a line, so can anyone else. It just happens that for us, and for a lot of rational thinkers, that line comes just before your beliefs on the list of probabilities.

And again, I never said you couldn't draw a line. Just recognize that since nothing has been conclusively proven one way or the other, that line is your beliefs. If you know me so well, you should at least remember that.

I'm saying there's no evidence for psychics. When certain parameters are adjusted in these experiments, "success" rapidly becomes "eh". That's the best explanation for why there isn't a greater interest in these studies. Like I was saying in my last post, science, and pretty much our ability to sense reality in general, relies upon the impact of a phenomena across different fields. I'd like to believe-- very much so in fact. That might be something you have misunderstood about me, and I wager, about MWC and a lot of us here. I can't simply ignore the misses to log the hits however, which is why I find myself where I stand. Science doesn't have to do anything here-- it's up to you believers to show us that there's something there, which thus far has not happened. The advice I'd give you is exactly the same as what I'd tell a christian, trying to convince me that there's something wonderful in those rice paper pages of theirs: Forget everything you think you know about it, and start from scratch. You want to be scientific, start by observing a phenomenon. Don't give it a name, don't even give it any concrete values, just note what you see. If there's more to it than that, these observations will bear that out. THEN you'll be able to create a real hypothesis, which, true to actual science, will yield testable predictions, then test those predictions. If they fail, then reformulate your hypothesis and retest. And repeat. Or, let it go.

And all I'm saying is for you to not dismiss scientific experiments or a field of science just because they disagree with your worldview. If you think the experiments were flawed, make suggestions to the scientists conducting them. If they reject your suggestions, ask them questions about their methods and find out what their reasons are for conducting an experiment with what you see as flaws in place.

November 8, 2011

No. It seems the studies indicate this with or without my help.

And yet there are experiments that have produced positive results.

Being called "delusional" or "liars" didn't stop it from actually happening. Yet psychics appear to get stopped cold when faced with such critics. A properly designed and studied aircraft breaks the sound barrier safely. A psychic? They have a bit of an off day. Maybe next time. If psychics were airplanes no one would fly them.

And again, psychics have never claimed to be 100% accurate. Even airplanes fall apart or crash at times.

The thing is...I *DO* accept the results of the experiments you have offered. That *IS* the crux of our little problem. They were poorly implemented failures. I accept this. You do not. You can't have something that is done incorrectly reported as a success. That is a cheat. A classroom of children that all copy from the smart kid and all get "A's" didn't all get "A's" even though the test results say they did. This is a poorly implemented failure. It's even worse if no one actually got an "A" and the teacher handed them all their high grade. Then the whole class comes into question. None of the kids can be considered an "A" student. They must *ALL* be retested under proper conditions to make that assessment. You have to disregard the flawed tests as failures even if they report high marks. You have only showed to me failed tests. No matter how you try to do the math on the final scores the test itself is fundamentally broken.

So show me objective proof that these experiments were fatally flawed as you say they were. Not a link to Skepdic.

There can be any number of reasons the tests are flawed. These were pointed out by skeptics and you allowed them as valid. You either know some of the reasons or were lying. I'll leave it to you to decide.

I said that the criticisms may be valid but that doesn't mean that the tests have automatically been invalidated.

He's proving the positive that there are other reasons, natural reasons, for these "abilities." Proving that someone is tricking another person is a positive.

Then he would have to prove that in every single scientific experiment that there was trickery involved. And just because a phenomena can be reproduced through trickery or other currently known means doesn't mean that the phenomena didn't occur through other means.

I have no idea who you think you're talking with but you're not talking with Randi so using such deception in order to make a point with me is lost. I don't know what his context was but the context here is you are intentionally trying to choose words to avoid being held to your own statements. If you want to play games with Randi I suggest you contact him directly.

No, I intentionally chose words that would allow me to avoid the trap I saw you trying to set up for me.

Since I couldn't get any real information from you I went and looked up this challenge and found the following FAQ on the challenge's website:
<snip>

It can cost a lot to starve yourself and have people watch you doing it. Especially if you want proper medical care and people debunking you while you do so.

But Randi has people (fans) who are willing to do things for him all the time. I'm sure at least a few of them would be willing to donate some time to testing this claim.

Flawed experiments and personal experiences? That's not good evidence now is it? I would imagine this is why Randi is so miserly with his rules.

It's rather easy to state that psychics are frauds given everything that has been said and done. If the evidence was in favor of the psychics it would be difficult, even impossible, to make such a claim but it is not.

mwc

You can make the claim all you want. Just recognize that it's a belief based on evidence and your interpretation of it, just like mine is.

November 8, 2011

http://www.wordrefer...nition/indicate

Yes, it certainly can.

Wow, your own link indicates otherwise.

Once again, I'm seeing massive projection here. Your own worldview of "there are no psychics, science has proven it" causes you to reject any positive results no matter how strong. And how do you know what my reasons are for rejecting your explanation? Are you psychic?

But there is no strong evidence. You admit as much yourself every time you apologize for the lack of conclusiveness in experimentation. And for the record, MY worldview is more along the lines of "if there are psychics, there's nothing to show for their existence" I say that because I'm not the one who has to demonstrate or prove anything. It is exactly the same as my outlook on Jesus.

Again, what is your source for this? A survey? A scientific study? Guessing? Do you have psychic powers? What?

Again, what is your point for asking this? This is a common knowledge statement.

How many people have claimed real experiences with IPU or FSM and not just as an atheistic strawman argument? As for Bigfoot, some sightings have left behind physical evidence that couldn't be explained away as hair from any other creature, so I withhold judgment on that until stronger evidence comes to light, neither believing nor disbelieving.

Except for psychics. And what does the number of believers have to do with anything? As if Einsteinian relativity was a commonplace idea at the time that Einstein was formulating it. With Bigfoot, the level of actual evidence is possibly even less than that for valid psychic phenomena. From what I read, damn near everything ever found in connection with Bigfoot has been dismissed as unrelated or fraudulent.

What I'm saying relates to my point about corroborating evidence. Why should science attempt to create a new approach to a phenomenon that they can't even see evidence for as it stands? Again, before any new paradigms are developed, YOU need to show proof that there's anything to see, no matter how it must be seen. Thus far that has not happened.

And again, I never said you couldn't draw a line. Just recognize that since nothing has been conclusively proven one way or the other, that line is your beliefs. If you know me so well, you should at least remember that.

But what is your reason for your beliefs? You came here with an issue you knew we would dismiss, not offhand, as you might suspect, but out of a consideration for the evidence we've already seen. Again, I'd like to believe, but I can't. You came here thinking you had evidence, but all you've presented is questionable tests. You'd like to think otherwise, and so all we're left with is opinions, and that simply is not good enough. As it happens though, our opinions are on the side of the evidence, which says "No".

And all I'm saying is for you to not dismiss scientific experiments or a field of science just because they disagree with your worldview.

I'm not. I'm dismissing them because in addition to being barely scientific, they're inconclusive at best.

If you think the experiments were flawed, make suggestions to the scientists conducting them. If they reject your suggestions, ask them questions about their methods and find out what their reasons are for conducting an experiment with what you see as flaws in place.

No, YOU do that. You're the one with something to prove, not me. I actually just thought up a new parameter earlier today while working, but again, it's not my place. Jesus, just typing that last sentence, I thought up another one. Still, not my place. Why not? Because I'm not making a positive assertion here. I'm simply saying that what you call evidence can be explained else-wise, therefore, it doesn't work. Also, nothing I thought up is guaranteed foolproof-- you know, just like every parameter that currently exists in those experiments

I will assert here, in shorthand for my last piece of advice, that the hypothesis is bad. Reformulate your hypothesis, and maybe it could be more conclusively tested.

November 8, 2011

Food for thought:

It has also been argued that if psychic power existed, to use it would be "a gross and unethical violation of privacy" and "professions that involve deception would be worthless" (Radford). There wouldn't be any need for undercover work or spies. Every child molester would be identified immediately. No double agent could ever get away with it. Psychics would be in demand for high paying jobs in banks, businesses and government. "Most psychics would be very, very rich...." (Radford) and since psychics are such altruistic persons, giving up their time to help others talk to the deceased or figure out what to do with their lives, they would be winning lotteries right and left and giving part of their winnings to help the needy. We wouldn't need trials of accused persons: psychics could tell us who is guilty and who is not. The polygraph would be a thing of the past. Of course, the operative word here is if. If psychic power existed the world would be very different.

November 8, 2011

And yet there are experiments that have produced positive results.

We've been down this path earlier and we know where it leads. You mention a bunch of supposedly successful studies but provide no actual usable information. Such as a link to some website that provides books for sale but nothing more specific is not a link to a study nor is it a review of that study. You may as well link to Amazon. Maybe I can stumble upon something useful there? Maybe here? Who knows what's useful?

And again, psychics have never claimed to be 100% accurate. Even airplanes fall apart or crash at times.

If aircraft were as reliable as psychics they would be the most unreliable mode of transportation ever devised.

So show me objective proof that these experiments were fatally flawed as you say they were. Not a link to Skepdic.

And where might this "objective proof" come from? Skepdic is apparently out. Any others I should know about before I begin your wild goose chase? I need to know the parameters so that I do not waste my time. It would appear that only skeptics have addressed some of these so no one, at all, from anywhere has bothered to look at these items or at least publish on them so I do have my work cut out for myself. It would be easier if the unbiased studies and reviews, from your "authorized" sources were placed here but that doesn't happen. Mentions of this information abounds but the actual objective and unbiased information is about as rare as the phenomenon it claims to report upon.

I said that the criticisms may be valid but that doesn't mean that the tests have automatically been invalidated.

Perhaps you can enlighten me to which of the criticisms were valid then so I can understand?

Then he would have to prove that in every single scientific experiment that there was trickery involved. And just because a phenomena can be reproduced through trickery or other currently known means doesn't mean that the phenomena didn't occur through other means.

What?

No, I intentionally chose words that would allow me to avoid the trap I saw you trying to set up for me.

You were intentionally deceptive. If you saw a "trap" you could have simply answered the questions fully instead of being so careful with your words. Go reflect on said "trap." You were asked to list what your issues were with Randi. You could have listed them. You settled on putting them out one-by-one until there was nothing left. I asked to clarify if that was all. It wasn't. You had opportunity. Plenty of it. You are the one that squandered it. And you have done as much for nearly ever single thing I have asked of you. Don't move your poor behavior onto me. If you have a list of issues then list them when asked. When asked if that is the entire list then don't say "yes" when you mean "no" and go onto to mention other items elsewhere. You "trap" yourself in your own set of games.

But Randi has people (fans) who are willing to do things for him all the time. I'm sure at least a few of them would be willing to donate some time to testing this claim.

If you've got the skills then you can put up a little money, in a test you take part in designing, in order to demonstrate your ability. The rules are stringent, and certainly not to the applicants favor, but the FAQ makes it pretty clear in a general overview and the application (here) makes this clear as well. The whole of everything rests on the applicant.

So why should Randi foot the bill? If you *know* you have the abilities then put your own money where your mouth is. Doesn't Rico have friends (fans)? Where were all those people who rattled their internet cages in favor of Rico? They *knew*/*know* he's real. No outpouring of funds for Rico? Just claims that he's got the skills but he can't pay the bills apparently.

You can make the claim all you want. Just recognize that it's a belief based on evidence and your interpretation of it, just like mine is.

Define "belief." I think you are using that differently that I do. I am pretty certain I mentioned your use of equivocation before but this time I'll give an longer explanation (from here):

Equivocation Fallacy

Explanation

The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.

For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter.

Example

(1) The church would like to encourage theism.

(2) Theism is a medical condition resulting from the excessive consumption of tea.

Therefore:

(3) The church ought to distribute tea more freely.

This argument is obviously fallacious because it equivocates on the word theism. The first premise of the argument is only true if theism is understood as belief in a particular kind of god; the second premise of the argument is only true if theism is understood in a medical sense.

Real-World Examples

(1) Christianity teaches that faith is necessary for salvation.

(2) Faith is irrational, it is belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence.

Therefore:

(3) Christianity teaches that irrationality is rewarded.

This argument, which is a reasonably familiar one, switches between two different meanings of “faith”. The kind of faith that Christianity holds is necessary for salvation is belief in God, and an appropriate response to that belief. It does not matter where the belief and the response come from; someone who accepts the gospel based on evidence (e.g. Doubting Thomas) still gets to heaven, according to Christianity.

For the kind of faith for which (1) is true, (2) is therefore false. Similarly, for the kind of faith for which (2) is true, (1) is false. There is no one understanding of faith according to which both of the argument’s premises are true, and the argument therefore fails to establish its conclusion.

Another argument relating to Christianity that crops up from time to time goes like this:

(1) Jesus is the Word of God.

(2) The Bible is the Word of God.

Therefore:

(3) Jesus is the Bible.

This is usually used to to support some further conclusion about the authority of the Bible or something similar, but there’s no need to go any further to see that there’s a problem here: the phrase “Word of God” means very different things in the two premises, so this argument rests on an equivocation.

Now, since I don't want to bother typing up a long reply myself I found the following (and it's probably from an icky source but it gets the idea across nonetheless):

The logical fallacy of equivocation is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time. For example, someone asserts that I have “faith” in science, and then implies this is the same as religious faith. This argument (that I have to refute with the same friend, periodically), seems to be saying that since I have not personally performed every single scientific experiment ever performed, by every scientist, in the history of the world – since I haven’t personally performed them all - I can’t know for sure that they have been performed at all. Therefore if I believe what I read about science, I must have “faith” in science. This is the same as religious faith, and therefore science is my religion.

Of course, the correct word to describe my view of science is “trust”, not “faith”. I have trust in science because (1) I have evidence that science works (look at all the products of science around you), and (2) there is evidence that science is self-correcting, and that if some scientist just made something up to con the rest of the world, another scientist would eventually expose the fraud. Of course, I can’t prove that all scientific experiments actually took place as described, and perhaps that’s where my friend’s confusion lies. But I do have evidence; therefore accepting science is not faith. The fallacy is to say that trust, based on evidence, is the same as blind faith based on no evidence at all. The ploy is to use the word “faith” for both of these definitions, but then to imply they both mean religious blind faith.

mwc

November 8, 2011

Food for thought:
It has also been argued that if psychic power existed, to use it would be "a gross and unethical violation of privacy" and "professions that involve deception would be worthless" (Radford). There wouldn't be any need for undercover work or spies. Every child molester would be identified immediately. No double agent could ever get away with it. Psychics would be in demand for high paying jobs in banks, businesses and government. "Most psychics would be very, very rich...." (Radford) and since psychics are such altruistic persons, giving up their time to help others talk to the deceased or figure out what to do with their lives, they would be winning lotteries right and left and giving part of their winnings to help the needy. We wouldn't need trials of accused persons: psychics could tell us who is guilty and who is not. The polygraph would be a thing of the past. Of course, the operative word here is if. If psychic power existed the world would be very different.

Psychics don't get things 100% right. So only 80% (give or take) of "bad guys" would be caught. And they can't get their ego in the way so they can't win the lotto. Or apparently win it for altruistic reasons or give the winning numbers to anyone else or anything.

Anyway, from what I'm learning, even though they can apparently do most anything...the key thing to know about them is they CAN'T do much of anything when it comes right down to it. They can do anything until they have to do something and then they can't do anything at all. This last is their most special power of all. And it's really amazing.

mwc

November 11, 2011

Wow, your own link indicates otherwise.

Nope.

"be a sign or symptom of; strongly imply."

But there is no strong evidence. You admit as much yourself every time you apologize for the lack of conclusiveness in experimentation. And for the record, MY worldview is more along the lines of "if there are psychics, there's nothing to show for their existence" I say that because I'm not the one who has to demonstrate or prove anything. It is exactly the same as my outlook on Jesus.

I'm not asking you to prove, demonstrate or believe anything. But "no strong evidence" for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Again, what is your point for asking this? This is a common knowledge statement.

I just want to know what your basis for stating this is. And you should know that argumentum ad populum isn't Latin for "good argument."

Except for psychics.

I have had personal experiences with psychics. I have had none with Bigfoot.

And what does the number of believers have to do with anything? As if Einsteinian relativity was a commonplace idea at the time that Einstein was formulating it.

The key word is "believers." There are no believers in IPU or FSM. They are both atheist strawmen invented solely to mock religious people.

With Bigfoot, the level of actual evidence is possibly even less than that for valid psychic phenomena. From what I read, damn near everything ever found in connection with Bigfoot has been dismissed as unrelated or fraudulent.

I haven't paid much attention to Bigfoot due to a lack of interest, but I once saw a TV show where an expert analyzed a supposed hair sample left behind and couldn't match it to any known species. The "skeptics" on the show declared it must be some sort of known primate but couldn't specify which one. They pretty much glossed over that point.

November 11, 2011

What I'm saying relates to my point about corroborating evidence. Why should science attempt to create a new approach to a phenomenon that they can't even see evidence for as it stands? Again, before any new paradigms are developed, YOU need to show proof that there's anything to see, no matter how it must be seen. Thus far that has not happened.

Again, just because you don't accept the evidence, it doesn't mean there's none to be had. And just because the evidence isn't "strong" (a relative term) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But what is your reason for your beliefs? You came here with an issue you knew we would dismiss, not offhand, as you might suspect, but out of a consideration for the evidence we've already seen.

No, I came in here with a rant against Randi (this forum is called "Rants and Replies," after all). Other people turned it into my personal beliefs and tried to make it sound like I was trying to convince them to believe a certain way. You and mwc are still doing that.

Again, I'd like to believe, but I can't. You came here thinking you had evidence, but all you've presented is questionable tests. You'd like to think otherwise, and so all we're left with is opinions, and that simply is not good enough. As it happens though, our opinions are on the side of the evidence, which says "No".

Your opinions are on the side of the way you interpret the evidence, you mean. And there's nothing wrong with that as long as you recognize it.

I'm not. I'm dismissing them because in addition to being barely scientific, they're inconclusive at best.

Fine, just recognize that dismissing something that you admit is inconclusive is not scientific. The logical thing to do would be to take an agnostic position, as I do on things like Bigfoot and UFOs.

No, YOU do that. You're the one with something to prove, not me. I actually just thought up a new parameter earlier today while working, but again, it's not my place. Jesus, just typing that last sentence, I thought up another one. Still, not my place. Why not? Because I'm not making a positive assertion here. I'm simply saying that what you call evidence can be explained else-wise, therefore, it doesn't work. Also, nothing I thought up is guaranteed foolproof-- you know, just like every parameter that currently exists in those experiments

Great, so nothing you can think of is foolproof. Are you sure you're willing to be convinced, or would you just look for more reasons to not believe no matter how good the results were?

I will assert here, in shorthand for my last piece of advice, that the hypothesis is bad. Reformulate your hypothesis, and maybe it could be more conclusively tested.

What exactly do you think the hypothesis is here? That psychic abilities exist? That people can communicate with the dead? Those are conclusions. How it happens is what should be studied. We know that this phenomena happens (you believe it's done through trickery, and I don't believe that's a good enough explanation). We can't prove conclusively exactly how it happens.

James Randi Is A Pompous Twit

Recommended Posts

euphgeek

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

freeasabird

florduh

par4dcourse

YellowJacket

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Godless Dave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

euphgeek

Link to comment

Share on other sites

euphgeek

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dhampir

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dhampir

Link to comment

Share on other sites

euphgeek

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

euphgeek

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dhampir

Link to comment

Share on other sites

euphgeek

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dhampir

Link to comment

Share on other sites

euphgeek

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dhampir

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

euphgeek

Link to comment

Share on other sites

euphgeek

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dhampir

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dhampir

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

euphgeek