Rosemary Altea

[Expression_man]

I understand where Randi is coming from. It would be foolish to consider him as being anything other than a pseudo skeptic though, even despite what he says on TV. His position is well-known and it's simply this...

Everything which isn't a part of science (of which he knows precious little) is BS.

So we already have an agenda present, even before we've started.
Regarding psychic phenomena, negativity has a huge impact on them. Even if Randi isn't present it's still his challenge and the negative connotations carry over. That's why his challenge will prove nothing as long as he keeps "hunting in the shallows".

The problem with Randi is simple. He thinks rationally while operating within a limited understanding. He cannot suspend disbelief.

Were the times different he'd be yet another person proclaiming that the Earth is flat or that the Sun orbits the Earth. He'd have no evidence to think otherwise. Then you have people who, for some very strange reason, believe that the current model of physics (particle physics) is complete. It doesn't take gravity into account, therefore not being a complete theory of fundamental interactions, and competing theories undermine it completely.

It's that simple, it's not complicated. Sure he can disprove frauds but who are they when you have things like the Pope and other religious leaders to contend with.

Randi doesn't really care about peoples emotions to the degree that he claims to, he's just an angry man who is cynical at heart. He may be an attention seeker too, who knows?

If he was serious in his endeavor then he would take it much further than he has. It seems that he has enough trouble "disproving" the people he's already up against.

 

[BillyJoe]

I understand where Randi is coming from. It would be foolish to consider him as being anything other than a pseudo skeptic though, even despite what he says on TV.

No, he believes only those things for which there is evidence. This makes him a true sceptic.
He is a bit impatient with scam artists though.

His position is well-known and it's simply this...Everything which isn't a part of science (of which he knows precious little) is BS.

No, everything for which there is no evidence is discarded until such evidence becomes available.
It's BS, when someone scams it though.

Regarding psychic phenomena, negativity has a huge impact on them. Even if Randi isn't present it's still his challenge and the negative connotations carry over.

Some psychics even claim that Randi is actually psychic himself and that he uses his psychic powers to counteract theirs.

That's why his challenge will prove nothing as long as he keeps "hunting in the shallows".

Hence the recent changes to the challenge.

The problem with Randi is simple. He thinks rationally while operating within a limited understanding.

Yeah well, all understanding is limited.

He cannot suspend disbelief.

Oh, I'm sure he enjoys the odd sci-fi book.
Suspending disbelief and then returning to the real world is fine. Trouble is, some people never come back.

Were the times different he'd be yet another person proclaiming that the Earth is flat or that the Sun orbits the Earth. He'd have no evidence to think otherwise.

Yes, and when that evidence became available, he would have changed his mind.
You would have done otherwise?

Then you have people who, for some very strange reason, believe that the current model of physics (particle physics) is complete. It doesn't take gravity into account, therefore not being a complete theory of fundamental interactions, and competing theories undermine it completely.

Well, some people cannot construct a coherent sentence , but what has this to do with Randi?

It's that simple, it's not complicated. Sure he can disprove frauds but who are they when you have things like the Pope and other religious leaders to contend with.

So we should all drop whatever we are doing and pursue the pope. We should forget about the local poverty because elsewhere people are dying. We should forget about Australian Rules, because soccer is a much bigger game.

Randi doesn't really care about peoples emotions to the degree that he claims to, he's just an angry man who is cynical at heart. He may be an attention seeker too, who knows?

People who have met him have a very different opinion of his warmth towards people. He hates seeing people defrauded by scam artists and it makes him angry. It doesn't help on TV because the general population are not aware of the deceit that goes on and cannot identify with his anger. Cynical, no. But he has seen it all so often, it must get a little tiring at times seeing the same old scams and scam artists cropping time and again.

If he was serious in his endeavor then he would take it much further than he has. It seems that he has enough trouble "disproving" the people he's already up against.

Oh, he is serious. It's just that the problem is so overwhelming for one man or a small group to handle. The media believe or pretend to believe in them (for the sake of ratings). When they don't believe in them, most people believe they are just harmless fun. It's a uphill battle on skates.

 

[CFLarsen]

I understand where Randi is coming from. It would be foolish to consider him as being anything other than a pseudo skeptic though, even despite what he says on TV. His position is well-known and it's simply this...

Everything which isn't a part of science (of which he knows precious little) is BS.

So we already have an agenda present, even before we've started.
Regarding psychic phenomena, negativity has a huge impact on them. Even if Randi isn't present it's still his challenge and the negative connotations carry over. That's why his challenge will prove nothing as long as he keeps "hunting in the shallows".

The problem with Randi is simple. He thinks rationally while operating within a limited understanding. He cannot suspend disbelief.

Were the times different he'd be yet another person proclaiming that the Earth is flat or that the Sun orbits the Earth. He'd have no evidence to think otherwise. Then you have people who, for some very strange reason, believe that the current model of physics (particle physics) is complete. It doesn't take gravity into account, therefore not being a complete theory of fundamental interactions, and competing theories undermine it completely.

It's that simple, it's not complicated. Sure he can disprove frauds but who are they when you have things like the Pope and other religious leaders to contend with.

Randi doesn't really care about peoples emotions to the degree that he claims to, he's just an angry man who is cynical at heart. He may be an attention seeker too, who knows?

If he was serious in his endeavor then he would take it much further than he has. It seems that he has enough trouble "disproving" the people he's already up against.

Do you think it is important to separate the charlatans from those with real paranormal powers?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
If he was serious in his endeavor then he would take it much further than he has. It seems that he has enough trouble "disproving" the people he's already up against.

Expression_man, judging by this statement, you still seem to have trouble understanding the JREF Challenge.

Mr. Randi does not "disprove", he asks for proof from those who claim "any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability".

He challenges them to provide evidence "under satisfactory observing conditions". He sweetens the deal with USD 1,000,000.

It's that simple.

 

[Expression_man]

Do you think it is important to separate the charlatans from those with real paranormal powers?

Of course I do.

But Randi is not the authority he claims to be. Much of what he does is for the sake of publicity. He may confront someone on television and accuse them of being fraudulent, insisting that they take the test, but when someone challenges him outright he doesn't give them the same priority. He will insist that they go through the "proper channels of application", something which might seem slightly awakward after having confronted these people out in the open.

It's arrogance on Randi's part. Yes he does some good, but people are easily impressed (much like the point he often tries to make). He is not a scientist, he should stick to devising anti-cheating protocols and be content with just that.

This man and his JREF have not come any closer to bringing about world peace. If anything, he just creates further conflict because of how vocally he proclaims his beliefs to be true.

The real disaster is that he draws people to himself who think in the same way. Suddenly you have a concept, righteous in nature, being represented by the worst possible people. Those who are not impartial.

This is all theatre and drama, not to be taken any more seriously than that which he speaks out against. If he were serious, there are much bigger fish to fry.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Of course I do.

But Randi is not the authority he claims to be. Much of what he does is for the sake of publicity.

Evidence, please.

He may confront someone on television and accuse them of being fraudulent, insisting that they take the test, but when someone challenges him outright he doesn't give them the same priority. He will insist that they go through the "proper channels of application", something which might seem slightly awakward after having confronted these people out in the open.

Evidence, please.

...
This man and his JREF have not come any closer to bringing about world peace. If anything, he just creates further conflict because of how vocally he proclaims his beliefs to be true.

Evidence, please.

The real disaster is that he draws people to himself who think in the same way. Suddenly you have a concept, righteous in nature, being represented by the worst possible people. Those who are not impartial.

Evidence, please.

This is all theatre and drama, not to be taken any more seriously than that which he speaks out against. If he were serious, there are much bigger fish to fry.

Please define your understanding of "bigger fish to fry", Expression_man.

 

[CFLarsen]

Of course I do.

How, exactly, will you go about separating the charlatans from those with real paranormal powers?

But Randi is not the authority he claims to be.

Can you name other people who are more of an authority wrt revealing how people are being scammed by people claiming paranormal powers?

Much of what he does is for the sake of publicity.

He wants to get people's attention. Why is that bad?

He may confront someone on television and accuse them of being fraudulent, insisting that they take the test, but when someone challenges him outright he doesn't give them the same priority.

Can you name those he has not given the same priority?

He will insist that they go through the "proper channels of application", something which might seem slightly awakward after having confronted these people out in the open.

Why would it be awkward?

It's arrogance on Randi's part. Yes he does some good, but people are easily impressed (much like the point he often tries to make). He is not a scientist, he should stick to devising anti-cheating protocols and be content with just that.

Where does Randi claim to be a scientist?

Is it necessary to be a scientist to separate the charlatans from those with real paranormal powers?

Are scientists capable of detecting trickery, better than magicians are?

This man and his JREF have not come any closer to bringing about world peace. If anything, he just creates further conflict because of how vocally he proclaims his beliefs to be true.

Wrong. It isn't a question of Randi's beliefs vs. the beliefs of the Superstitious. It's solely a question of whether or not these people can show evidence of their claims.

The real disaster is that he draws people to himself who think in the same way. Suddenly you have a concept, righteous in nature, being represented by the worst possible people. Those who are not impartial.

Wrong. Randi doesn't draw people to himself, he shows the evidence that e.g. people like Sylvia Browne are not talking to the dead, but instead explains how it is done. The "concept", as you call it, is not "righteous in nature", but scientific in nature. That's what people are "drawn to", not Randi.

This is all theatre and drama, not to be taken any more seriously than that which he speaks out against. If he were serious, there are much bigger fish to fry.

What should Randi go after, if not Sylvia Browne? Why?

 

[T'ai Chi]

No, he believes only those things for which there is evidence. This makes him a true sceptic.

"true skeptic"

You do know that that is a fallacy. right?

 

[CFLarsen]

"true skeptic"

You do know that that is a fallacy. right?

Once again, you fail to comprehend the most simple concepts. The No True Scotsman fallacy goes like this:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

In this case, it's different:

Argument: "No skeptic accepts the existence of something without evidence."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus accepts the existence of something without evidence."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true accepts the existence of something without evidence."

What you are saying is that skeptics accepts the existence of something without evidence. Which, of course, is false.

 

[Expression_man]

Bigger fish to fry would be some members of the community I am a part of, not myself though. The last time it was mentioned on these forums we had an influx of people trying to start trouble though so no, no names allowed.

That and every single person alive in the world who has undergone a near death experience and reported objective information outside their sensory range while clinically dead.

I don't give a damn about showmen who flaunt their egos, to the extent Randi has, in an attempt to come over as being important to mankinds mental evolution.

With regards to evidence of my other claims, plenty of people have accepted Randi's challenge during a confrontation only to be told they need to go through the proper channels.

As much as I doubt her abilities, Sylvia Browne (sp) is one of them. Randi had a chance to organize everything for her as a result of his direct confrontation but chose not to. He insisted that she apply like everyone else.

Then we have Derek Ogilvie who has stated he wants to be tested (in public no less) but no efforts have been made to accomodate him as a priority subject after a member of this forum confronted him on television.

The JREF doesn't really prove anything to anyone but it's own members who, incidentally, have their minds made up already (for the most part).

I'm still trying to find out why this place is so special. So far it seems that way because of the controversy it has caused by accusing anyone who claims to be able to induce paranormal phenomena as being a liar.

This place is so insignificant in reality, it's not very well known in the western world and in the eastern it's just laughed at (for the most part) whenever the concept is explained.

But to each his/her own. I just think it's amazing how much influence culture (popular culture too) has when it comes to educating people.

Are scientists capable of detecting trickery, better than magicians are?

No, but they're better at avoiding bias (even if they can't get rid of it completely). If scientists are still subject to creating forgeries then I wouldn't put "true skeptics" above them.

 

[CFLarsen]

Bigger fish to fry would be some members of the community I am a part of, not myself though. The last time it was mentioned on these forums we had an influx of people trying to start trouble though so no, no names allowed.

Bull. You want Randi to go after "bigger fish", but refuse to name them? Bull.

That and every single person alive in the world who has undergone a near death experience and reported objective information outside their sensory range while clinically dead.

Feel free to open a thread and list those examples. Let's see if your evidence is as good as you claim.

I don't give a damn about showmen who flaunt their egos, to the extent Randi has, in an attempt to come over as being important to mankinds mental evolution.

You don't think what Randi does is important to mankind's mental evolution? He wants science to progress, to stop charlatans from cheating people, to end superstition. How is superstition important to mankind's mental evolution?

With regards to evidence of my other claims, plenty of people have accepted Randi's challenge during a confrontation only to be told they need to go through the proper channels.

Why is that a problem? You need to explain this.

As much as I doubt her abilities, Sylvia Browne (sp) is one of them. Randi had a chance to organize everything for her as a result of his direct confrontation but chose not to. He insisted that she apply like everyone else. Then we have Derek Ogilvie who has stated he wants to be tested (in public no less) but no efforts have been made to accomodate him as a priority subject after a member of this forum confronted him on television.

Why should he be treated preferentially?

The JREF doesn't really prove anything to anyone but it's own members who, incidentally, have their minds made up already (for the most part).

Rubbish. If a claimant can do what he claims, it is up to him to prove it.

I'm still trying to find out why this place is so special. So far it seems that way because of the controversy it has caused by accusing anyone who claims to be able to induce paranormal phenomena as being a liar.

Not at all. It is when claimants start lying that people around here begin calling them liars.

This place is so insignificant in reality, it's not very well known in the western world and in the eastern it's just laughed at (for the most part) whenever the concept is explained.

You may think that, but right now, I think Sylvia Browne is sweating cold.

But to each his/her own. I just think it's amazing how much influence culture (popular culture too) has when it comes to educating people.

You got that right! But it is even more amazing how much influence superstition has when it comes to fooling people.

No, but they're better at avoiding bias (even if they can't get rid of it completely). If scientists are still subject to creating forgeries then I wouldn't put "true skeptics" above them.

I got two words for you: Project Alpha. Scientists refused Randi's advice and were fooled, good and proper.

 

[Drudgewire]

Regarding psychic phenomena, negativity has a huge impact on them.

So psychic phenomena has self-esteem issues? It only shows itself if it knows nobody is going to make fun of it?

Psychic phenomena needs to grow a pair.

 

[Moochie]

Just out of interest, Expression_man, did you fail the challenge, or have your application rejected, at some time?

You seem very pro-woo, yet offer nothing to substantiate woo in general, or your apparent faith in woo in particular.

M.

 

[Drudgewire]

Ok, so you're brainwashed.

What Randi says is things like

"I simply do not find any evidence whatsoever that they do, so I don't believe there are any."

He certainly doesn't believe many things exist.

But if proof would be provided something does he's willing to admit he was wrong. Having made that assertion for as long as he has (and backing it up with cash) and not having anyone step forward with said proof does give him some right to be cynical towards paranormal activity.

 

[Expression_man]

Just out of interest, Expression_man, did you fail the challenge, or have your application rejected, at some time?

You seem very pro-woo, yet offer nothing to substantiate woo in general, or your apparent faith in woo in particular.

M.

Don't be ignorant. If people like Olaf Blanke would stop holding their findings back for fear of being ridiculed you'd see so many more people like me coming forward. The only reason I'm here is because I'm more confrontational than the rest of them. That is the failure of science and and the fear mongering this place is guilty of.

 

[sackett]

Somewhere up above, TC used the phrase "the skeptical movement."

Christ, I wish there was a skeptical movement, and not just a thin scattering of people who are willing to confront hype artists when they get the chance. I wish there was half as much money in defying conwomen like SB and this piteous Altea as they rake in themselves.

 

[sackett]

I too wish Olaf Blanke would publish ALL his findings.

Or if he won't, why don't you publish them, Medicine_Man? Are they rilly, rilly so earth-shaking? If so, how did you come to know that? Come on, level with everybody.

You have nothing to lose but your illusions.

 

[Expression_man]

I too wish Olaf Blanke would publish ALL his findings.

Or if he won't, why don't you publish them, Medicine_Man? Are they rilly, rilly so earth-shaking? If so, how did you come to know that? Come on, level with everybody.

You have nothing to lose but your illusions.

We know what Olaf Blanke is talking about when he uses the words "shadowy man", it's what, for years, we've called the "projected double". He's trying to understand things from a medical bias. He wouldn't even publish how people could see beyond their sensory range but only briefly mentioned it on a radio show, that comment never to be taken seriously by anyone ever again.

Even people in the field of psychiatry are doubting his conclusions. He's trying to apply his findings to a limited understanding of the world. Olaf Blanke is doing his best to avoid confronting people with evidence which will make him seem crazy. It makes me angry that because of places like these we are now contending with something that is being considered as taboo.

 

[sackett]

We know what Olaf Blanke is talking about when he uses the words "shadowy man", it's what, for years, we've called the "projected double"....

Hold on. Who's this "we?" Where does this "we" publish?

 

[Expression_man]

It's a community made up of people who have out of body experiences.

Robert Monroe (who started the Monroe Institute) got the ball rolling. Unfortunately he is no longer with us.

Now the only people who publish such work are those who get laughed at by everyone else. I'm not going to give their names because there's too much unfounded criticism surrounding them.

With all the evidence that Olaf Blanke must have collected by now I am extremely worried why he hasn't published the controversial findings.