James Randi Is A Pompous Twit

[Dhampir]

Of course, you know that things are rather different in a courtroom setting where guilt or innocence is the main goal of the proceedings, rather than the trial and error of the laboratory.

I knew you would say that, but of course, these things can and have been addressed in trial situations. In fact, the peer review process could be said to be a trial of sorts, wherein objective parties weigh the evidence, in order to find it convincing or wanting.

 

 

I never said anyone should believe anything. In fact, I've said several times that I'm not trying to get anyone to believe any certain way.

Your twisted logic demands it, however you may or may not have put it.

 

OK, now that you clarified it that way, I think I can say that we mostly agree on this. From the way you were saying it before, it sounded to me like you were denying any evidence existed at all. If you don't find the evidence strong enough to believe, then don't believe. It's the same way with me and UFOs or Bigfoot. There's not enough evidence to get me to believe in them, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any evidence that's not explainable through known methods.

NOW you agree on something I've said a dozen times in a dozen different ways. Makes me think you missed the point.

 

Let me try this: There may be evidence for psychics, and bigfoot, and IPU. What has been brought to light has all been insufficient to lead away from any other likely conclusion-- it therefore makes no sense to believe based thereon, nor does it do any good to do so. I believe, for example, in knocking on wood any time I say something adversely portentous. But I'll be the first to admit that there's NO good reason to do so. There's nothing to it. But there could be! The number of times something bad didn't happen when I knocked on wood far outweighs the number of times it did. That almost seems better than chance... Maybe there IS something to it. It could be due to quantum fluctuations and that the mere observance of that practice alters chance in favor of the more positive outcome and-- You see how easy that was? If I kept going, there's a good chance that I could convince myself that what I've observed amounts to evidence, which deserves just as much attention as say, stem cell research.

 

Much as I'd like to believe there are such things as psychics and such, Based on what evidence has been brought forward, and based on what we know about it, the proposition is so laughably unlikely as to be unworthy of further pursuit, at least at this time. Your initial gripe here, is that James Randi is somehow backward, or wrong in his pursuits. I've actually been listening to him lately. His goal, not only to maintain integrity in his field of entertainment (magic, mentalism), is to prevent people from wasting their precious resources on a pipe dream, when there are much more valid things to investigate, and to invest themselves in.

[euphgeek]

Your initial gripe here, is that James Randi is somehow backward, or wrong in his pursuits. I've actually been listening to him lately. His goal, not only to maintain integrity in his field of entertainment (magic, mentalism), is to prevent people from wasting their precious resources on a pipe dream, when there are much more valid things to investigate, and to invest themselves in.

From what I've seen of him (and his fans) is that the way he goes about it turns people off from him and is not scientific. He is very close-minded (I know, you may think that's for good reason) and the million dollar prize gimmick proves nothing and has no point. Even if I was an atheist and agreed with what he said, I would still be embarrassed to have him argue my side like that.

[Dhampir]

Your initial gripe here, is that James Randi is somehow backward, or wrong in his pursuits. I've actually been listening to him lately. His goal, not only to maintain integrity in his field of entertainment (magic, mentalism), is to prevent people from wasting their precious resources on a pipe dream, when there are much more valid things to investigate, and to invest themselves in.

From what I've seen of him (and his fans) is that the way he goes about it turns people off from him and is not scientific. He is very close-minded (I know, you may think that's for good reason) and the million dollar prize gimmick proves nothing and has no point. Even if I was an atheist and agreed with what he said, I would still be embarrassed to have him argue my side like that.

You would be wrong. Offering prize money is a standby for modern scientific pursuits-- it happens ALL THE TIME. Take the TV for instance. There came a point when people knew it was only a matter of time before it would be invented, and I believe a 2 million dollar prize was offered to the first group to create a reliable working model.

 

James Randi's million dollar challenge revolves around potential claimants developing their own tests and criteria and Randi and the claimants must both agree to the terms before anything takes place. The only way this would be problematic, would be if his terms could not be met-- which makes it very simple for you: Prove that his terms are completely unreasonable and impossible to achieve from a standpoint that Psychic ability is a falsifiable claim, then you might have an argument for him being an ass.

 

Again, from what I've seen, Mr. Randi is NOT closed minded (and from what you put in quotes, you suspect ME to be closed minded), for the simple reason that holding an open mind does NOT mean accepting every proposition that comes your way, or even accepting as possible every such proposition. It's clear as day that that's what you believe about it, but like a lot of words you don't seem to understand, you got this one wrong too.

Like Mr. Randi, I've seen enough to know that NOTHING any real psychic can do is demonstrably different from that which a charlatan, or deluded true believer in psychic ability can do. You think otherwise? Show me. Show me one skill, ability, or component of true psychic power that can't be faked or pretended, then we can go to another level. Though I suspect this argument could have been settled centuries ago if this were possible.

 

For that reason I, like Mr. Randi COMPLETELY dismiss psychics, albeit with reluctance on my part, and we both completely dismiss any supposed evidence, as too weak to make a point. The evidence you have now, is like finding my fingerprint on an item at a crime scene 8000 miles away, from a crime that happened earlier today, and supposing that I had to have been there, even though it's demonstrably impossible-- There are other better explanations.

 

I do however, like Mr. Randi, hold an open mind toward the possibility of having that conclusion changed by the presentation of new (or in this case actual) evidence.

 

Finally about Mr. Randi: I have found him to be a very gracious character, and not at all offputting-- unless you disagree with his conclusion on this one thing, and your worldview revolves around that one thing and/or similar things. Then it probably doesn't matter how gracious or hospitable he might be. Though I'll admit, he doesn't give much quarter to those he calls woo woos--, but you know, if this were IPU, and not your personal pet belief, you probably wouldn't see the problem.

[mwc]

I'm not getting back into this discussion other than to add this about various prizes. Look to the recent Ansari X-Prize:

The Ansari X Prize was a space competition in which the X Prize Foundation offered a US$10,000,000 prize for the first non-government organization to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks. It was modeled after early 20th-century aviation prizes, and aimed to spur development of low-cost spaceflight.

 

Created in May 1996 and initially called just the "X Prize", it was renamed the "Ansari X Prize" on May 6, 2004 following a multi-million dollar donation from entrepreneurs Anousheh Ansari and Amir Ansari.

 

The prize was won on October 4, 2004, the 47th anniversary of the Sputnik 1 launch, by the Tier One project designed by Burt Rutan and financed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, using the experimental spaceplane SpaceShipOne. $10 million was awarded to the winner, but more than $100 million was invested in new technologies in pursuit of the prize.

 

Several other X Prizes have since been announced by the X Prize Foundation, promoting further development in space exploration and other technological fields.

Highlighting is mine. More than $100 million was invested to win $10 million. The point is to win the prize. To come in first. Coming out ahead is always good too but if your purpose is to show that you can do the requirements to get the prize then none of that matters.

 

Prizes for psychics is fairly old:

In 1922, Scientific American made two US$2,500 offers: (1), for the first authentic spirit photograph made under test conditions, and (2), for the first psychic to produce a "visible psychic manifestation." Harry Houdini was a member of the investigating committee. The first medium to be tested was George Valiantine, who claimed that in his presence spirits would speak through a trumpet that floated around a darkened room. For the test, Valiantine was placed in a room, the lights were extinguished, but unbeknownst to him his chair had been rigged to light a signal in an adjoining room if he left his seat. Because the light signals were tripped during his performance, Valiantine did not collect the award.^[1]

This is from the Wikipedia page on prizes that are available for psychics (all currently unclaimed). Randi isn't the only game in town.

 

mwc

[Dhampir]

How to distinguish a pseudoscience from a protoscience.

1. Has the subject shown progress?
   
2. Does the discipline use technical words such as "vibration" or "energy" without clearly defining what they mean?
   
3. Would accepting the tenets of a claim require you to abandon any well established physical laws?
   
4. Are popular articles on the subject lacking in references?
   
5. Is the only evidence offered anecdotal in nature?
   
6. Does the proponent of the subject claim that "air-tight" experiments have been performed that prove the truth of the subject matter, and that cheating would have been impossible?
   
7. Are the results of the aforementioned experiments successfully repeated by other researchers?
   
8. Does the proponent of the subject claim to be overly or unfairly criticized?
   
9. Is the subject taught only in non-credit institutions?
   
10. Are the best texts on the subject decades old?
    
11. Does the proponent of the claim use what one writer has called "factuals" - statements that are a largely or wholly true but unrelated to the claim?
    
12. When criticized, do the defenders of the claim attack the critic rather than the criticism?
    
13. Does the proponent make appeals to history (i.e. it has been around a long time, so it must be true)?
    
14. Does the subject display the "shyness effect" (sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't)?
    
15. Does the proponent use the appeal to ignorance argument ("there are more things under heaven … than are dreamed of in your philosophy …")?
    
16. Does the proponent use alleged expertise in other areas to lend weight to the claim?
    

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/PSEUDO/moller.html

[euphgeek]

Your initial gripe here, is that James Randi is somehow backward, or wrong in his pursuits. I've actually been listening to him lately. His goal, not only to maintain integrity in his field of entertainment (magic, mentalism), is to prevent people from wasting their precious resources on a pipe dream, when there are much more valid things to investigate, and to invest themselves in.

From what I've seen of him (and his fans) is that the way he goes about it turns people off from him and is not scientific. He is very close-minded (I know, you may think that's for good reason) and the million dollar prize gimmick proves nothing and has no point. Even if I was an atheist and agreed with what he said, I would still be embarrassed to have him argue my side like that.

You would be wrong. Offering prize money is a standby for modern scientific pursuits-- it happens ALL THE TIME. Take the TV for instance. There came a point when people knew it was only a matter of time before it would be invented, and I believe a 2 million dollar prize was offered to the first group to create a reliable working model.

Apples and oranges. We're not talking about the invention of a machine here. And I'm not convinced that Randi is genuinely interested in finding out if psychic abilities are real, just in going around saying how right he is by the virtue of nobody winning his prize. By your argument, Kent Hovind is also doing science by offering his prize for proof of evolution.

James Randi's million dollar challenge revolves around potential claimants developing their own tests and criteria and Randi and the claimants must both agree to the terms before anything takes place. The only way this would be problematic, would be if his terms could not be met-- which makes it very simple for you: Prove that his terms are completely unreasonable and impossible to achieve from a standpoint that Psychic ability is a falsifiable claim, then you might have an argument for him being an ass.

 

Again, from what I've seen, Mr. Randi is NOT closed minded (and from what you put in quotes, you suspect ME to be closed minded), for the simple reason that holding an open mind does NOT mean accepting every proposition that comes your way, or even accepting as possible every such proposition. It's clear as day that that's what you believe about it, but like a lot of words you don't seem to understand, you got this one wrong too.

The only logical thing to do is to keep an open mind about it. If you don't want to believe in something, don't believe in it. But don't confuse your beliefs with what science or evidence has proven.

Like Mr. Randi, I've seen enough to know that NOTHING any real psychic can do is demonstrably different from that which a charlatan, or deluded true believer in psychic ability can do. You think otherwise? Show me. Show me one skill, ability, or component of true psychic power that can't be faked or pretended, then we can go to another level. Though I suspect this argument could have been settled centuries ago if this were possible.

 

For that reason I, like Mr. Randi COMPLETELY dismiss psychics, albeit with reluctance on my part, and we both completely dismiss any supposed evidence, as too weak to make a point. The evidence you have now, is like finding my fingerprint on an item at a crime scene 8000 miles away, from a crime that happened earlier today, and supposing that I had to have been there, even though it's demonstrably impossible-- There are other better explanations.

 

I do however, like Mr. Randi, hold an open mind toward the possibility of having that conclusion changed by the presentation of new (or in this case actual) evidence.

 

Finally about Mr. Randi: I have found him to be a very gracious character, and not at all offputting-- unless you disagree with his conclusion on this one thing, and your worldview revolves around that one thing and/or similar things. Then it probably doesn't matter how gracious or hospitable he might be. Though I'll admit, he doesn't give much quarter to those he calls woo woos--, but you know, if this were IPU, and not your personal pet belief, you probably wouldn't see the problem.

Geez, sorry for tickling your sacred cow. The fact that Randi calls people he disagrees with "woo woos" proves that he is not very gracious and can be very off-putting. And like I said before, it wouldn't matter what I believe. I would be embarrassed to have him argue my side of any issue like he does.

[Dhampir]

Apples and oranges. We're not talking about the invention of a machine here. And I'm not convinced that Randi is genuinely interested in finding out if psychic abilities are real, just in going around saying how right he is by the virtue of nobody winning his prize. By your argument, Kent Hovind is also doing science by offering his prize for proof of evolution.

Come on, you didn't even need to respond to this; MWC already jumped all over that. I didn't say anything about doing science by offering prize money, just that offering prizes is a standby in science. Do you lack even basic inferring ability? Cuz' every time you try to put me in other words, those other words end up having nothing to do with what I said.

 

 

 

The only logical thing to do is to keep an open mind about it. If you don't want to believe in something, don't believe in it. But don't confuse your beliefs with what science or evidence has proven.

You said you understood where I was coming from finally, but it looks like we're back to square one again. You didn't argue with what I said about what constitutes open-mindedness, yet you still seem to think that someone here (besides you) is being closed minded.

 

 

Geez, sorry for tickling your sacred cow. The fact that Randi calls people he disagrees with "woo woos" proves that he is not very gracious and can be very off-putting. And like I said before, it wouldn't matter what I believe. I would be embarrassed to have him argue my side of any issue like he does.

Ha! Sacred cow! Cuz' I listened to him a couple times, and read some of his writings, and found nothing of the pomposity you speak of, nor the twit-ness you claim makes him "embarassing". That makes him my sacred cow-- unlike this whole paranormal thing you come out of the woodwork to advocate every so often, with fervor, and with passion, but without evidence.

 

Anyway, if you were a real skeptic or even very interested in finding out whether your sacred cow is actually a donkey or not, you would have no reason to find him embarrassing. The man is a magician by trade, and has, like other magicians, spent his whole life combating charlatans, and demanding that proof be put before him, and in all his years, this has not happened. What really makes you think he has to cozy up to people who make claims they don't even try to back up, even if not with his challenge? Like I've said repeatedly throughout this thread, nothing that any real psychic does is distinguishable from anything any "not real" psychic does. Not yet, unless you have something to show the class...?

 

The conclusion you can draw from that is that there ARE no real psychics. This is not fallacious thinking-- Keeping an open mind means that you adapt to new evidence. As of the time of this writing, none has been presented.

 

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

 

Here's the million dollar challenge explained in it's entirety. It contains the rigorous scientific structuring you believe is needed to produce a more conclusive result. The terms and conditions of the actual tests are created and agreed upon by all involved parties, including the claimants. There are a couple of hills toward the end, but it seems like it's only necessary to weed out time-wasters, and people who can't back their claims. Plenty of psychics claim that the wording of this challenge makes it impossible, but that's only if you lack powers. In reality, it makes it less likely that anything that's not psychic will get through.Anyway, what part of this challenge is unfair, or not nice, or whatever it is that you think about it?

[euphgeek]

Come on, you didn't even need to respond to this; MWC already jumped all over that. I didn't say anything about doing science by offering prize money, just that offering prizes is a standby in science. Do you lack even basic inferring ability? Cuz' every time you try to put me in other words, those other words end up having nothing to do with what I said.

Okay, okay, fine. Randi's million dollar challenge is nothing like Hovind's quarter million dollar challenge. Happy now?

You said you understood where I was coming from finally, but it looks like we're back to square one again. You didn't argue with what I said about what constitutes open-mindedness, yet you still seem to think that someone here (besides you) is being closed minded.

I'll freely admit I can be close-minded. It's part of human nature. I try not to be, but I can't be perfect.

Ha! Sacred cow! Cuz' I listened to him a couple times, and read some of his writings, and found nothing of the pomposity you speak of, nor the twit-ness you claim makes him "embarassing". That makes him my sacred cow-- unlike this whole paranormal thing you come out of the woodwork to advocate every so often, with fervor, and with passion, but without evidence.

No, what made him your sacred cow was the fervor with which you were defending him. And if I'm writing about it on this forum a couple times over the span of a few years, that's pretty lackadaisical fervor and passion on my part if you ask me.

Anyway, if you were a real skeptic™ or even very interested in finding out whether your sacred cow is actually a donkey or not, you would have no reason to find him embarrassing. The man is a magician by trade, and has, like other magicians, spent his whole life combating charlatans, and demanding that proof be put before him, and in all his years, this has not happened. What really makes you think he has to cozy up to people who make claims they don't even try to back up, even if not with his challenge? Like I've said repeatedly throughout this thread, nothing that any real psychic does is distinguishable from anything any "not real" psychic does. Not yet, unless you have something to show the class...?

 

The conclusion you can draw from that is that there ARE no real psychics. This is not fallacious thinking-- Keeping an open mind means that you adapt to new evidence. As of the time of this writing, none has been presented.

 

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

 

Here's the million dollar challenge explained in it's entirety. It contains the rigorous scientific structuring you believe is needed to produce a more conclusive result. The terms and conditions of the actual tests are created and agreed upon by all involved parties, including the claimants. There are a couple of hills toward the end, but it seems like it's only necessary to weed out time-wasters, and people who can't back their claims. Plenty of psychics claim that the wording of this challenge makes it impossible, but that's only if you lack powers. In reality, it makes it less likely that anything that's not psychic will get through.Anyway, what part of this challenge is unfair, or not nice, or whatever it is that you think about it?

I've explained this before, so I don't see any point in explaining it again. I'm growing bored with this conversation and I've lost most of the interest in keeping it going. If you'd like, I'll admit that I'm completely wrong about Randi and you're completely right and you can have the last word. Would that make you happy?

[Dhampir]

What you lack in frequency, you more than make up for in ardor, considering I spoke at length about Randi in exactly 1 post. Anyways, I was under the impression that you hadn't actually read the challenge, or in reading it, failed to digest it. Do you admit that Randi's challenge is not given in a spirit of mockery, and that awards for scientific pursuits are par for the course, and not the exception? If so, I'll be more than happy to call it a day, as it will have set you on the course to realizing you had nothing to begin with, which was my point from post 1.

 

Who knows? Maybe you'll realize one of these days that science does not set out to prove that which it already believes, and maybe you'll help find some actual testable evidence that WILL prove psychic ability. Just don't come back here and say "I told you so" if that happens. Because you didn't.

[mwc]

Some problems with Hovind's challenge and on Wikipedia. I couldn't locate it on his own site (various links I tried didn't work and the site search turned up nothing useful) so I can't confirm the current rules or criticisms.

 

mwc

[bronxo]

Looks like someone got served. Does anyone have any recent news from randi?

[euphgeek]

What you lack in frequency, you more than make up for in ardor, considering I spoke at length about Randi in exactly 1 post. Anyways, I was under the impression that you hadn't actually read the challenge, or in reading it, failed to digest it. Do you admit that Randi's challenge is not given in a spirit of mockery, and that awards for scientific pursuits are par for the course, and not the exception? If so, I'll be more than happy to call it a day, as it will have set you on the course to realizing you had nothing to begin with, which was my point from post 1.

Yeah, whatever. The atheist is always right and anyone who believes differently is either a liar or delusional. Obviously neither one of us are going to convince the other, so I'll just leave it there.

Who knows? Maybe you'll realize one of these days that science does not set out to prove that which it already believes, and maybe you'll help find some actual testable evidence that WILL prove psychic ability. Just don't come back here and say "I told you so" if that happens. Because you didn't.

Go ahead and distort my arguments some more. I'll let you have the last word here. This whole conversation reminded me of why I hardly ever post here, because most atheists here are just as invested in their religion as fundamentalist Christians. But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and have the last word because you obviously know everything. I won't reply any more.

[Dhampir]

What you lack in frequency, you more than make up for in ardor, considering I spoke at length about Randi in exactly 1 post. Anyways, I was under the impression that you hadn't actually read the challenge, or in reading it, failed to digest it. Do you admit that Randi's challenge is not given in a spirit of mockery, and that awards for scientific pursuits are par for the course, and not the exception? If so, I'll be more than happy to call it a day, as it will have set you on the course to realizing you had nothing to begin with, which was my point from post 1.

Yeah, whatever. The atheist is always right and anyone who believes differently is either a liar or delusional. Obviously neither one of us are going to convince the other, so I'll just leave it there.

Who knows? Maybe you'll realize one of these days that science does not set out to prove that which it already believes, and maybe you'll help find some actual testable evidence that WILL prove psychic ability. Just don't come back here and say "I told you so" if that happens. Because you didn't.

Go ahead and distort my arguments some more. I'll let you have the last word here. This whole conversation reminded me of why I hardly ever post here, because most atheists here are just as invested in their religion as fundamentalist Christians. But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and have the last word because you obviously know everything. I won't reply any more.

I thought you weren't going to reply after your last post? Anyway, what does me being an atheist have to do with anything? I've been asking that question a lot in this thread...

 

As I recall, your arguments are that James Randi is a pompous twit, and that there is SOMETHING to psychic phenomena, and that we shouldn't dismiss the evidence for it, even if YOU yourself dismiss it, by way of calling it inconclusive, among other things. I merely stated that every argument you made was full of air, and proceeded, with assistance to back it up. I even tried my damnedest to convince you that I don't dismiss possibilities, but you just kept going back to me being an atheist, then misrepresenting my atheism, as well as certain definitions in order to bolster your lack of a point.

 

I was just listening to a podcast earlier today, where someone was quoting Carl Sagan, making a point that I couldn't have made better myself. I'll paraphrase: Someone in Sagan's audience asked Carl if he dismissed the possibility of Jesus turning water into wine. Sagan's Reply: "I don't dismiss any such possibility, but I wouldn't waste any time pursuing it either." Basically he's saying that in lieu of real evidence, REAL evidence, there's no point in following an assertion. THAT'S what it means to be agnostic. THAT'S what it means to be a skeptic.

[Dhampir]

I like how you call yourself a "logical spiritualist". I'll tell you something about that: You can be a logical anything. A logical thief, a logical terrorist, a logically suicidal person. Doesn't mean your opinions are any more well informed-- just that you can defend your standpoint logically. Religious apologists are masters of logic, considering that logical conundrums are the backbone of their defense of God. Still wrong, because being logical is not by itself useful in determining truth.