euphgeek Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Trashy, To be fair, Randi has repeatedly refused to test people that he thinks are making "out there" claims. Isn't the point that the claims are out there and he's debunking them? Why is it any skin off his nose to show another charlatan? Many people have applied for Randi's challenge only to be replied to with snobbery and rejection. So it's not that there are no people applying to be tested. (this of course doesn't say they are legitimate...it only says that there HAVE been plenty of applicants.) Randi, instead, seems to be only concerned with people like Sylvia Browne and Uri Gellar, famous people who will further his own fame. I've read many of Randi's arguments about things. And while he may very well be right about certain phenomena not being real. I have very little respect for his "apologetic" argument methods and I'm shocked that the scientific community at large has not called him on his antics. IMO he makes the whole lot of skeptics look bad...not because of his skepticism, but because he's a hypocrite and an asshole. just my opinion. You know, I have a (none too popular with the atheists) position that James Randi is to the metaphysical what Kent Hovind is to the Theory of Evolution. Think about it. They both have put out large rewards for people to prove them wrong, yet somehow nobody ever collects the reward! If Randi is right because no one has collected his million dollars, then Hovind is also right because no one has collected his quarter million. And just to throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing, Victor Zammit is also right because James Randi has never collected his million dollars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Trashy, To be fair, Randi has repeatedly refused to test people that he thinks are making "out there" claims. Isn't the point that the claims are out there and he's debunking them? Why is it any skin off his nose to show another charlatan? He gets lots of applicants, and it involves lots of money. Why should he waste time on things that everyone (except perhaps the applicant) knows to be untrue? Here's an excerpt from his FAQ on his web page: "There are some claims that are far too implausible to warrant any serious examination, such as the "Breatharian" claims in which the applicant states that he can survive without food or water. Science conclusively tells us all we need to know about such matters, and the JREF feels no obligation to engage applicants in such delusions. Many of the NOT PARANORMAL claims are listed as such solely because they cannot be properly tested for. For example, in order to prove that Exorcism is real, one must first establish the existence of demons. The JREF is unaware of a manner in which it might be proven that demons exist (or god, or angels or "elementals", for that matter), while remaining open to any suggestions that might change their opinion in this regard. So, if someone can suggest a test protocol that would conclusively verify such things, the JREF would be willing to hear about it. Other claims, such as "Crop Circles" and UFO's are rejected because they have been definitively proven to be the result of hoaxes or mass hysteria. Claims involving "Cloud-Busting", for example, are rejected because Science (along with keen observation) tells us conclusively that clouds will move and disperse despite the efforts of humankind to move them according to their wishes. The phenomenon behind Oujia boards, for example, is attributed to ideomotor reflexes, and not to anything paranormal." Many people have applied for Randi's challenge only to be replied to with snobbery and rejection. So it's not that there are no people applying to be tested. (this of course doesn't say they are legitimate...it only says that there HAVE been plenty of applicants.) Oh yes, lots of people apply. Here's a link to a list of them and the correspondence back and forth w/ Randi's representative who handles them. Log of Applicants Randi, instead, seems to be only concerned with people like Sylvia Browne and Uri Gellar, famous people who will further his own fame. Just because that is when *you* hear from him doesn't mean he's obsessed with just famous people. I've received his newsletters and commentaries off and on for many years. He has an archive going back to 1992. Most of it isn't about famous people, and he's hardly famous himself. Archive I've read many of Randi's arguments about things. And while he may very well be right about certain phenomena not being real. I have very little respect for his "apologetic" argument methods and I'm shocked that the scientific community at large has not called him on his antics. IMO he makes the whole lot of skeptics look bad...not because of his skepticism, but because he's a hypocrite and an asshole. just my opinion. I really have no idea where your loathing of him comes from. He is actually quite well-respected in both scientific AND skeptic circles. The Skeptics Society European agent said this about his appearance at their 2005 International Conference: "Randi received standing ovations at both the beginning and the end of his interview for what he is: our hero." They obviously don't think he makes them look bad at all..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I'm sure Randi would have a reason for every application... if someone claims to have seen a ghost or be able to conjure one up to speak with a small group, he's just say that it has been proven that ghosts don't exist. That's as much of a cop-out as Hovind's deal. So likewise, I don't think it means anything that no one has been successful at his challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I really have no idea where your loathing of him comes from. He is actually quite well-respected in both scientific AND skeptic circles. The Skeptics Society European agent said this about his appearance at their 2005 International Conference: "Randi received standing ovations at both the beginning and the end of his interview for what he is: our hero." They obviously don't think he makes them look bad at all..... The same could be said about Kent Hovind. He has audiences cheering and applauding him, too. It amazes me that people who see Hovind as a fraud willingly accept Randi as some sort of genius, when they both use the same basic techniques. "There are some claims that are far too implausible to warrant any serious examination, such as the "Breatharian" claims in which the applicant states that he can survive without food or water. Science conclusively tells us all we need to know about such matters, and the JREF feels no obligation to engage applicants in such delusions. Isn't the point of this to defy what "science conclusively tells us"? All he has to do is monitor the guy for thirty days, making sure he doesn't eat any food or drink any water. Other claims, such as "Crop Circles" and UFO's are rejected because they have been definitively proven to be the result of hoaxes or mass hysteria. Claims involving "Cloud-Busting", for example, are rejected because Science (along with keen observation) tells us conclusively that clouds will move and disperse despite the efforts of humankind to move them according to their wishes. The phenomenon behind Oujia boards, for example, is attributed to ideomotor reflexes, and not to anything paranormal." Crop circles and UFOs have certainly not been "definitively proven to be the result of hoaxes or mass hysteria." Certain instances of them have, yes, but not all cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I'm sure Randi would have a reason for every application... if someone claims to have seen a ghost or be able to conjure one up to speak with a small group, he's just say that it has been proven that ghosts don't exist. That's as much of a cop-out as Hovind's deal. So likewise, I don't think it means anything that no one has been successful at his challenge. wow - are you serious? Crop circles and UFOs have certainly not been "definitively proven to be the result of hoaxes or mass hysteria." Certain instances of them have, yes, but not all cases. Wow. Are you serious too? Does the fact that it's a stupid gimmick with no real meaning make any of these people's paranormal claims true? Of course not. Does the fact that no one has won Randi's challenge mean that there cannot possibly be anything out there not pre-approved to exist by Randi? Of course not. OK, I give up. Zoe, euphgeek, pandora, anyone else who thinks Randi is just a gimmick. I'm opening up a homeopathic distribution center right now. All sicknesses and diseases can be cured, and I will personally guarantee the dilutions to be infintesimal, C5000 or close to it. But don't wait for me to get the web site up, just email me your credit card information and I'll send you one of everything just as soon as I get them bottled. $500, that's cheap for this stuff! Don't wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadouKen24 Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Trashy... you're embarassing yourself. You're making yourself look like an ass. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a gullible fool. Don't confuse an open mind with a lack of critical thought. The problem with Randi is not his ideas. It is his attitude. Ten minutes of watching one of his videos, and you know exactly which side he's on. And it's obvious he's not going to change; it would destroy his career to admit that he'd found something legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Super strings and M-Theory is completely unproven, but yet considered serious ideas in the scientific arena (not by everyone though). So far there's nothing to support any of the ideas. Science actually starts with assumptions, ideas (sometimes extremely wild) and pure fantasy. That's how Relativity Theory came about, not by the scientific proof that it was true, and there the theory was, no, but the reversed, the wild extreme idea first that no one really could believe, some math was done, and then later tested and confirmed. Gravity maybe is explained by Loop Quantum Gravity. There's no proof for it, but one has to keep an open mind. Other theories that came through the same channels died out, Ether for instance or N-Rays, they eventually got proven wrong, but it tooks some efforts, now we might be looking at "ether" in new perspectives... (with a new name: "dark matter") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Crop circles and UFOs have certainly not been "definitively proven to be the result of hoaxes or mass hysteria." Certain instances of them have, yes, but not all cases. Wow. Are you serious too? Absolutely. There are crop circles that cannot be explained by two guys with a plank of wood and a rope. Not every UFO is a weather balloon or swamp gas or a hallucination. Does the fact that it's a stupid gimmick with no real meaning make any of these people's paranormal claims true? Of course not. Does the fact that no one has won Randi's challenge mean that there cannot possibly be anything out there not pre-approved to exist by Randi? Of course not. OK, I give up. Zoe, euphgeek, pandora, anyone else who thinks Randi is just a gimmick. I'm opening up a homeopathic distribution center right now. All sicknesses and diseases can be cured, and I will personally guarantee the dilutions to be infintesimal, C5000 or close to it. But don't wait for me to get the web site up, just email me your credit card information and I'll send you one of everything just as soon as I get them bottled. $500, that's cheap for this stuff! Don't wait! Ah, so because we don't believe the same way you do, you feel you have to mock us? Just because some of us like to keep an open mind about certain things doesn't mean we're gullible simps. And let me tell you something else -- you are not superior to any of us just because of your beliefs. That's how fundie Christians think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 The question is the character of the person making the claim. I've read the contract, there are loopholes all in it. Plus he isn't obligated to accept anyone's response to his challenge. There are so many "outs" for him, you'd have to believe the man to be mother teresa not to take any of them...and I'm skeptical of that. Randi knows it, too. He's actually been quoted as saying, "I always have an out." And exactly where is he qualified as a scientist? I didn't remember him getting a masters in anything remotely science related. You're right, he's not trained in any scientific field. He's a stage magician, and that's it, as far as I know. I wonder why all the skeptics aren't skeptical about James Randi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyFeline Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Ah, so because we don't believe the same way you do, you feel you have to mock us? Just because some of us like to keep an open mind about certain things doesn't mean we're gullible simps. And let me tell you something else -- you are not superior to any of us just because of your beliefs. That's how fundie Christians think. Now, now, Euphgeek, you shouldn't be so violent and hateful towards Trashy. He's just telling you the truth, after all, to counteract your silly, childish flights of fantasy and outright lies. There just isn't any polite way to call someone a liar, after all - you shouldn't take it personally Just accept that he has all of the facts, and start believing the way he does, and you'll become a better person and we'll all be fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Ah, so because we don't believe the same way you do, you feel you have to mock us? Just because some of us like to keep an open mind about certain things doesn't mean we're gullible simps. And let me tell you something else -- you are not superior to any of us just because of your beliefs. That's how fundie Christians think. Now, now, Euphgeek, you shouldn't be so violent and hateful towards Trashy. He's just telling you the truth, after all, to counteract your silly, childish flights of fantasy and outright lies. There just isn't any polite way to call someone a liar, after all - you shouldn't take it personally Hehe...maybe I did come off a little strong, but I wasn't trying to be violent or hateful. I just don't like to be treated rudely, and I tend to speak plainly and frankly when I am. Just accept that he has all of the facts, and start believing the way he does, and you'll become a better person and we'll all be fine Sure, if we all believed the same thing, there would be no more fighting. But on the other hand, the world would be a much duller place, n'est-ce pas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I think I have a ghost in my hot water cupboard. I'll go and check it out. He might be dribbling with delight at the thought of sniffing our clothes which makes him a pervert. Wish I didn't have to wash off ghostly spit so much. Then I'll vacuum him in! That might be the end of him... Seriously, I don't think ghosts have a huge chance of existing. It might be all in our minds (and in neat horror novels) I have a open mind towards that, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyFeline Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Euph, if you seriously couldn't tell, I was being facetious and making fun of Trashy's mentality (and that of a few other, unnamed users *cough*)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 It's good to know that if I'm ever interested in trying it out, all I'll have to do is ask you people to sell me some. You're all a bunch of cracksmokers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyFeline Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 You're all a bunch of cracksmokers. Hey? Hey? You smoke-ee? Oly five dollah, get you hiiiiigh as kite... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I knew it. LF's a frikkin' dealer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Euph, if you seriously couldn't tell, I was being facetious and making fun of Trashy's mentality (and that of a few other, unnamed users *cough*)... Yeah, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 It's good to know that if I'm ever interested in trying it out, all I'll have to do is ask you people to sell me some. You're all a bunch of cracksmokers. No, man, we're smokin' a doob. Now these guys are cracksmokers: Rats on cocaine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Zoe, euphgeek, pandora, anyone else who thinks Randi is just a gimmick. I'm opening up a homeopathic distribution center right now. All sicknesses and diseases can be cured, and I will personally guarantee the dilutions to be infintesimal, C5000 or close to it. But don't wait for me to get the web site up, just email me your credit card information and I'll send you one of everything just as soon as I get them bottled. $500, that's cheap for this stuff! Don't wait! Yes, attack the intelligence and assume rank stupidity and gullibility among anyone who doesn't bow before the mighty james randi. Yeah, you're making yourself look REAL logical and superior. I was using homeopathy as an example because it was actually tested in the U.K. with Randi present. You and others insist he's just a gimmicky, egotistical fundie no better than Kent Hovind, so fine, buy the stuff he supposedly debunked! He obviously doesn't know shit. That was my point. I shouldn't have to, but I'll state it any way - I am not attacking any one's intelligence. But the point of this thread shouldn't be James Randi. What is frustrating the HELL out of me is that I am on a web site full of people who have managed to shed thousands of years of mythology and superstition about a make-believe Jesus and yet frantically hold on to superstitious beliefs (yes, like a fundy) regarding ghosts and goblins and things that go bump in the night! Maybe there IS something under the bed! *sigh* OK, I'm going to go off to some other thread and try to calm down. Seriously, I apologize for my attitude, but not my position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Zoe, euphgeek, pandora, anyone else who thinks Randi is just a gimmick. I'm opening up a homeopathic distribution center right now. All sicknesses and diseases can be cured, and I will personally guarantee the dilutions to be infintesimal, C5000 or close to it. But don't wait for me to get the web site up, just email me your credit card information and I'll send you one of everything just as soon as I get them bottled. $500, that's cheap for this stuff! Don't wait! Yes, attack the intelligence and assume rank stupidity and gullibility among anyone who doesn't bow before the mighty james randi. Yeah, you're making yourself look REAL logical and superior. I was using homeopathy as an example because it was actually tested in the U.K. with Randi present. You and others insist he's just a gimmicky, egotistical fundie no better than Kent Hovind, so fine, buy the stuff he supposedly debunked! He obviously doesn't know shit. That was my point. I shouldn't have to, but I'll state it any way - I am not attacking any one's intelligence. But the point of this thread shouldn't be James Randi. What is frustrating the HELL out of me is that I am on a web site full of people who have managed to shed thousands of years of mythology and superstition about a make-believe Jesus and yet frantically hold on to superstitious beliefs (yes, like a fundy) regarding ghosts and goblins and things that go bump in the night! Maybe there IS something under the bed! *sigh* OK, I'm going to go off to some other thread and try to calm down. Seriously, I apologize for my attitude, but not my position. Just because I question Randi's methods doesn't make me gullible.. in fact, it probably makes me less gullible than you. You can't see the forest for the trees because you are so caught up in your need to find ghosts and everything else "disproven." I think ghosts are unlikely to exist, but the fact that Randi has written in an out make him not on my list of reasons to not believe in ghosts. The fact that no one has been successful at his offer does not have any meaning. It's a stupid proof for the non-existence of anything. I like some of Randi's writings, but it is obvious to me he is not a scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Just because I question Randi's methods doesn't make me gullible.. in fact, it probably makes me less gullible than you. I agree, questioning his methods does not make you gullible. But you presume that I have never questioned his methods, or looked into his Award process, as if I am some sort of dupe. That would be an incorrect presumption. As an aside, I first read some of his articles when I was a Christian, and his attitude towards religion truly put me off, but I didn't let that get in the way of seeing the truth in his debunking of the paranormal and such. I'm not as concerned with his Award offer as I am with the many things he has demonstrated to be false, from Popoff to Geller to Russian health spas to homeopathy. You can't see the forest for the trees because you are so caught up in your need to find ghosts and everything else "disproven." Now that is an odd thing to say! I don't need to have them disproven. I put them in the same category as Noah's Flood - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think ghosts are unlikely to exist, but the fact that Randi has written in an out make him not on my list of reasons to not believe in ghosts. I gotta ask.....could you point me to this "out" you are referring to? I've read the guidelines for his challenge in detail and haven't seen this yet..... I like some of Randi's writings, but it is obvious to me he is not a scientist. No, he's not and has never claimed to be, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Good points. Hey, I'm open-minded to some possibilities too. I don't blindly believe in anything, but I also don't think they can't exist no matter what. I'm highly skeptical when it comes to things like ghosts in photographs or videos because I know that such things can be easily altered, or that accidents with film or even a digital camera can happen and produce weird-looking things. I can see both sides of the issue here. On one hand, you've got some guy offering reward money to prove something, but he won't even hear some people's claims. From a scientific standpoint, how can anyone prove or disprove a hypothesis if you don't even do an experiment? OTOH, I can see where it's frustrating from those on the logical side. I went to a writer's critique group for over a year where everyone believed in *something* -- god, ghosts, ufos, tarot readings, etc., the whole nine yards, and expected me to believe it also, just from hearsay. I got very tired of people expecting me to believe in things without proof, and I'm looking for another critique group now. But just because someone isn't a complete atheist doesn't mean they are somehow stupid or equivalent to a Christian fundy. I'm agnostic for a reason, I don't call myself an atheist because I'm not. Yes, I like science very much. I read science news on a regular basis and blog about it. I'm no genius, but I like to keep up with new discoveries. I don't believe in the "supernatural" per say because anything that exists is logically natural, there is no "super" about it. I've read about explanations for ghosts that include low frequency sound waves. People who are interested in them might want to google it. Those sound waves can produce anything from hazy blogs to things levitating, and yet human beings can't hear them. But it doesn't mean that "ghosts" don't exist, it just means that there is a rational explanation for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I don't recall anyone presuming you haven't questioned his methods. Please show us an example of this. James Randi is an individual human being. Different people are gonna come to different conclusions about him. He's a person, not the theory of gravity. "Just because I question Randi's methods doesn't make me gullible.. in fact, it probably makes me less gullible than you. " P.S. I'm taking my own advice from the other ghost thread and ending my participation in this particular discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 P.S. I'm taking my own advice from the other ghost thread and ending my participation in this particular discussion. Sorry if we chased you off, trashy, but you should realize that just because we're not atheists doesn't mean we're not rational thinking people. Different people see the same evidence and come to different conclusions. That doesn't make anyone right or wrong, simply different. We respect your differences, all we're asking is that you respect ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I can see both sides of the issue here. On one hand, you've got some guy offering reward money to prove something, but he won't even hear some people's claims. From a scientific standpoint, how can anyone prove or disprove a hypothesis if you don't even do an experiment? OK, you will have to trust me when I tell you that I am chanting "remain calm, remain calm" under my breath while I type this (LOL). Some in this thread have thrown out accusations that Randi is somehow repressing applicants unfairly. This is patently false. Hundreds have applied. However it is true that very few actually get to the testing stage. This is primarily because they won't agree to double-blind and verifiable criteria. JREF requires that they sign off on the testing procedures, but they don't actually do any testing themselves. If you just go look at their web site you'll see dozens of actual correspondence with applicants. Is it really surprising that dowsers and spoon-benders complain when they can't rig the testing? Ok, sorry, had to get that off my chest..... But just because someone isn't a complete atheist doesn't mean they are somehow stupid or equivalent to a Christian fundy. I'm agnostic for a reason, I don't call myself an atheist because I'm not. Yes, I like science very much. I read science news on a regular basis and blog about it. I'm no genius, but I like to keep up with new discoveries. I do sometimes forget that not all ex-c's are atheists. Which brings up an interesting question: If I am a 'strong' atheist and believe that there are no deities, does that mean I'm close-minded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts