I´m not accusing Randi of being a fraud
Yes, you are. When you say this:
This is a way more complex topic. Nobody could win this game because it is prepared for people to fail on and on. The "statistics department" of JREF knows how to raise the values of what would they call acceptable proof.
...
Of course not, they do not leave any room for "error". The statistics for example are always way higher than the reasonable level would be. Remember that they are trying to save their million from being paid off.
you are accusing Randi of being a fraud. Let's see your evidence.
, others do, many people. I´m just stating that Randi is a trickster and i´m always skeptical about people like this. May I? Or I am not in the right of being sceptical of someone´s claims?
Sure. But when it has been explained to you, many times, that your accusations are baseless, yet still continue, we are in the right to call you a liar.
And I guess anyway, I have my rights to think that someone is a fraud, if I will. I have the rights to have this suspicion. Proving that is not what I´m claiming that I can do. Ok, if I have stated Randi is a fraud, then it would be fair of me trying to prove this.
Then, prove it. Prove that Randi is a fraud.
I did not come here to prove this. So I think putting it this way is a boring rhetorical artifice. You remind me of CFLarsen right now.
Oh, no. When you make such claims, you back them up with evidence.
But the contrary is what is being "sold out" as fact. When you discuss anything about paranormal, there is always the one with come up with "so apply for the million challenge." In general, be honest, this is a great pillar to materialistic convictions and beliefs, it helps a lot to hold the conviction among the believers in Randi´s million show that no thing such as paranormal exist because everyone runs away from Randi´s show.
So , it´s not science at all... it´s just a show, entertainment. The battle between Randi and people who he´s sure that are less competent cheaters than him. Not worth of being taken seriously for someone interested in the scientific truth of paranormal.
PEAR wasn't in need of money? It would take a day or so to win it. Yet, they didn't.
This is your opinion...come on! You think they are faint compared to which standards?
No, this is not opinion. It's a fact. A fact that even PEAR themselves had to admit.
You choose to accept that there´s no evidence for paranormal and keeps moaning about it. I have nothing to say to you anymore regarding this issue. You are a complete bias mf. So there is no evidence? Fine by me, keep going nowhere...
I asked you a question: Do you have
data or
evidence?
This something would be the results then, implying that there was a spotted unknown effect. Let´s see what you will nit-pick after this.
Show me this "spotted unknown effect". Or, is that "nit-picking"?
My complaint is that skeptics in general (perhaps you included) do not face it as you put it. If something is debunked than it is, and period. And they force that thing to be forgotten by ridiculing it and labeling as ultimately debunked.
More lies from you. I specifically said:
I didn't say anything about it being "ultimately" debunked.
The idea is not plausible, other than the mental explanations of lucid dreams or hallucinations. Fairies are way less plausible than telepahy and ESP in general. But not debunked.
What is "debunked", then?
But probably Randi would not be satisfied if the person said 60% would him? He would prolly argue for 80% or over this. This is the problem regarding the statistical issue of the show. How it can be fair if they are the judges. They, the people who would have to pay the million will judge!! Oh my... this is trash.
More lies from you. It says specifically in the terms of the challenge that both parties must accept the design of the test, and that there is no judging.
You love calling people liars, dishonest... You a true figure mf! The failing IS being debunked. Randi knows how and loves to ridicule people in the media. He could disguise it with lovely words like: "well, he believes he possess these powers, and etc etc, but he could not pass the test, so..." in fact he want to say the person is full of ****. I´m not stating this as truth, but that´s my suspicion.
No, you are just throwing out yet a baseless accusation.
More laughs. Again, everyone who takes the tests are just being naive to believing to possess powers only?? How can you be sure about that, how can you be so sure about the honesty of this trick show? And yes, based on your words you are sure, and not only thinks that there´s no evidence for that "accusation".
Yes, I'm sure.
Randi also makes excuses not to accept some tests, like Rico Kolodzey´s one. The reasons he gave me for not doing so were to say the very least, laughable.
I am a bit surprised that you bring up a test that would involve very serious health risks. If someone said he could fly from the Eiffel Tower, would you also criticize JREF for not doing such a test?
You think that it is possible for people to live without food?
I have reasons to suspect you are playing that rhetorical trick of simulating the false understanding on what is being told.
No tricks.
You claimed that:
The statistics for example are always way higher than the reasonable level would be.
Name one test where the statistics were set way than the reasonable level would be.
Put up or shut up.
Do you believe this pal? Oh no... Anyway you welcome to believe whatever you want, but you are not doing a good job to defend Randi´s position. In fact you do not need defending him because he´s not being charged nor sued. I´m just making observations and declaring my skepticism on him and about his show.
I don't have to
believe it. It's on the TAM DVD where Randi talks with Dawkins. If Randi later refused to pay, his credibility would be shot to pieces.
Any known fact you mean? A known fact is for example , we live on a planet we call Earth. Is this a rhetorical trap or what?
No, I mean wrt Randi. Read back to post #27. Try to keep up.
Are you deliberately simulating a false understanding on what I said about this or you are just being __________ ?? (insert one of thaiboxerken´s adjectives).
And I have shown you that you do, in fact, accuse Randi of being a fraud. Let's see your evidence.
So many many researches produce highly positives that cannot be plausibly explainable by any other factor (and even Hyman admitted it in some cases),
Show exact quotes. Let's see what you leave out.
but still afterwards it continues to be bombed with possible natural explanations and therefore labelled as debunked.
Awww....those darned natural explanations, ruining
everything!
Why are you so quick to dismiss natural explanations?
Well, possible does not mean sensate or plausible necessarily.
Why not? Give an example of a possible natural explanation Hyman gave that is implausible. Explain why it is implausible.
This is precisely what I think that cannot be done to psi in order to investigate it further. You do not need to rule out every possible normal explanation of what is being obtained to be sure that the effect is being obtained. When a theory about it is made, yes we have to extensively rule out everything we can that would invalidate the theory.
That reveals just how deeply mired you are in woo-thinking. Yes, you do need to rule out every possible normal explanation. How else will you know if it doesn't have a natural explanation?
In fact no other area of research had to pass through such a harsh criticism and way higher standards and requirements for being considered valid. I might suspect that it occurs way more to psi because it goes against any accepted theory.
Not true. When Einstein came out with his relativity theories, they were also subjected to harsh criticisms, as would any other. Yet, we can see, not just by experiment, but also observation in nature, that Einstein was right.
We can't see psi either by experiment or by observation in nature.
I don´t know but I personally think that there is na exaggeration about the statistical standards to which a psi test should produce to convince skeptics.
It isn't enough to just throw such an accusation out. You have to prove it.
All the positive results in all the experiments all over the world for more than a century, thought about thousands of scientific minds, cannot be all possibly flawed or sloppy, this idea just seems not to be possible.
Appeal to ignorance.
The numbers are too great and the chance it is all incorrect or fraudulent seems to be hugely small to say the least. I suspect many of them in fact are flawed, incompetently made, frauded, data-selected and stuff, let alone some spotted problems with M.A. but still there´s a huge body of them that seems not (remember the ones Hyman agreed on being flawless and still produced way higher results than chance?).
Show exact quotes. Let's see what you leave out.
Totally agreed. But my suspicion is that it is basically on the wrong track, I mean the scientific acceptance of the results, they are far more prone to reject psi´s sole existence by suggesting that there might be natural explanations rather than really wondering the plausible “why” behind the results. Again there are cases in which no further moaning about flaws are tenable, and still the rejection goes on and on.
What cases? Be specific.
I remember the declaration from the PEAR staff: “if they do not believe in us after the results we´ve made then they will never do.” This is quite the feeling, sadly.
Then, show us those results.
Hmm, I cannot see it this way. Have they already done that? Did the skeptics proved that the pre-established framework is sufficient to explain the psi results? I can see they cogitating it. And as skeptics in general are not involved in psi researches, they assume a more than a little comforting position.
That is due to psi researchers refusing to let skeptics participate.
They are not proving their point throuhg experiments, they simply state that and that seems to suffice for them. This is what I cannot agree, up till now. One skeptic I can recall that was involved in psi researches is Hyman, who did agree with a protocol with Honorton and then after the results were still way higher changed his mind and made more objections.
Show exact quotes. Let's see what you leave out.
Paranormal has not been proved nor positive nor negative because the scientific elite tend to mock it and in fact it is not useful for their progress, nor financial interests and intellectual prestiges. In other words, they do not fund it because the short-term interest is dubious to say the least. And besides that, gives the people who do research it a really hard time, PEAR is na example.
Paranormal research have had plenty of time to come up with just a teenyweeny little bit of evidence. Nothing.
Locality/materialism/reductionism has recently failed greatly to explain nature Linda! At least like they expected it to do. The quantum measurement problem is a natural phenomena that implies that our current framework is wrong and or hugely incomplete. While the mechanical/materialistic framework was successful for some time after the Glorious Newton and Kepler, for example, you cannot save it for being ultimately labelled as incomplete and unconsistent with the current boundaries of nature experienced by human , be the spotted frontiers of space or the quantum world and the “cosmical tissue” of random fluctuations. Let me tell you something, everything is nature, everything is natural, every phenomenon is part of nature, even the delusions of mind. So I think materialism borrowing the word naturalism in order to make it stronger and therefore being the natural truth of the universe and nature seems more like highjacking than borrowing.
So not everything has led to “natural” (mean materialistic) explanations. And the current scientific framework has not to be disproved in order to embrace new phenomena and perhaps new kind of forces in nature. The scientific tool ought to be always one. How a new discovery could invalidate the power of predicting the orbit of planets of newtonian and keplerian mechanics? It is not plausible. The scientific framework has to adapt itself in order to embrace what is being observed, not the other way around. You know science is a human tool. It is known to be imperfect and incomplete therefore (like humans are, as we judge ourselves) , so why assume that is right trying to fit any new possible phenomena to it as it is right now? Science is about making useful constructs about the natural phenomena and not bending nature to fit to what we expect and do know up till now.
Please explain why Quantum Mechanics invalidates Newtonian Mechanics.
You are attributing the adjective meaningful to na experiment if it has success on being fit to any currently accepted belief (i.e. theoretical framework and epistemology) , and again I insist that this might not be the tenable way of discovering something that is not necessarily physically causal. In other words, the causes are not physical ( at least from what we currently accept as physical). I agree that is not simple accepting psi, as we know and accept nature. It has to be done by defying all the objections and its probably false the idea that everything as it is established right now would have to be buried. Again , science is about man constructing useful ways of understanding, emulating and channeling the spotted forces and behaviours of nature in favour of his kind. If man has not yet accepted psi (which means, the scientific elite), it does not mean necessarily that one can say with certainty that it has not been shown to exist. It has failed to be fit to any current theory, but it´s not reasonable to say it has not been demonstrated, nor that they have proved that the possible natural causes are in fact generating the results. I think what can hinder one´s good will to accept psi, is the possible uses for it. If it´s so dim, what is the uses? Crimes cannot be solved by psychics because the effects are dim. I would not risk my money on a casino advised by a psychic because the probability of him being right is small and i´m risking my money. We cannot try to influence the physical world in order to solve our problems because the effects are dim, so what?
But still if it is dim and has no apparent uses nor short-term financial returns, it still exists. And the sole existence of something cannot be denied just because it is dim compared to what we are acostumed to accept within a materiallistic framework , and or it is not a potential money making machine for the industry.
If the effects are so dim that they defy detection, do the effects exist at all?
Well, I think we are approaching intuition from two different places. The intuition I talk about here is that feeling that you have when you finally understand something. Like a switch that is turned on. Like , yeeeeeeees now I got it all! A classical example of my life was when I was having a hard time to understand the logical constructs for programming and the structure of na algorythm. The teacher on the first classes explained and explained and ...hmmmmmmm still nothing made sense. Nothing at all, and then one day I was struggling with the exercises and then...CLICK, hell everything made sense, finally a piece of the puzzle was put in place in a manner that I understood the whole thing. Then I could tell you that I did understand intuitively how na algorythm works. I think this is one of the limits of communication and language. He could go on for his life explaining it to me, I could repeat and memorize the exercises and even make a good score on the test and I still do not understand it with that intuitive feeling, that is the essence of the communication he was trying to make. I think things are pretty much unexplainable and annatainable through communication only, it has to be achieved via insight. Words and communication are like dead symbols, they do nothing allone. Something is learned properly only when this intuitive switch is finally turned. It is so strange that it reminds me of a quantum leap. It is not at all, and then it IS completely with no possible intermediate states.
Another example is you trying to explain someone what is the taste of apple without offering it for the person to eat it. You could go on and on and on. That person could answer if asked how is the taste of apple with : “its like this and this and that” and still possess no intuitive knowledge of what exactly is the thing.
You approached intuition more like a guessing. Like...hhhmmmm something tells me that THIS is right. And right after the person realizes that it was not true. This can be dangerous , and mind is known to play many tricks, indeed. The level of awareness that I say people have when for example while OBE of on NDE is the current awareness i´m enjoying right now, being capable of making criticism, questioning things, and stuff like this, and all of this while they are there experiencing the mysterious “worlds”! In other words, people often says about being more aware than normal while there, and that the material world is less real than the world the person did experience there. Even the level of awareness of the waking state is weaker than the one they experience when they are “there”. So , this is why I mean people is convinced intuitively like they captive the essence of the claim: “hmmm so THIS is what they claimed about the “other side” , now I really know about it and it makes sense! Hell how could I not believe this, I was blind and hindered by the conditioning nature of my waking state of mind.” This, Linda is the general claim of the states of mind which involves trance and full awareness. And therefore the person intuitively is convinced that if that´s not real, the pysical world hardly is then. Psi claims are endorsed by this people intuitively also while on these experiences, and that´s from where the claims of clairvoyance, telepathy, ability to see what is in the other room while clinically dead come from. Many of them are verifiable and in fact was verified. Even Susan Blackmore seems to agree with this based on what I read from her works on OBE and her NDE while stoned on marijuana. She wrote very clearly about the amazing level of awareness of the experience and her successful ability to count the number of fingers her friend was holding up while she was out of body, although she states it was not documented unfortunately. I honestly cannot up till now refute all of this, it would not be sincere of my part. I´m yet to face arguments that could crumble everything man made to try explaining the phenomena for the people who cannot accept it. Sorry , this discussion is becoming overly-philosophical I think but sometimes I cannot resist.
This is just one long rant explaining away your failure to show the paranormal.
Hmm that one on Larry King´s show that she made a hit about the exact description of the dead person, and said even that in fact the person was planting two rosebushes the day he died and not one, like the caller said to Altea. Holy cow, I have to admit that the only natural explanation for this would be fraud! Altea may have set up with this person that if she manage to get her call on live, Altea would in fact produce this amazing hit, as arranged. I cannot believe that Altea is so skilled in fishing and cold reading. I cannot understand how cold-reading should be responsible for this specific hit. A pertinent question here is, whether Randi consider it a hit to his standards oir not. He stated that this was fishing for information, and that´s all he said. So we can pretty much conclude that if Altea was being on the million dollar show, and did produce this hit, he would have not face it as a hit, and so what could be a hit? Her guessing the exact name, middle name, blood-type, zenner card that the person had in his pocket, number of birthmarks in the left leg? Precise size of the foot? He could raise the stakes as he wish to disprove Altea´s hits, but would it be tenable and unbiased? Hardly.
Okie doke. Let's see what happened:
KING: All right, let's take a call. Steubenville, Ohio, for Rosemary Altea and James Randi, hello.
CALLER: Hello, thank you for taking my call. I am familiar with both of your guests via television, and both have valid points, but Rosemary, my father believed in you totally and all things psychic, and he has passed away, and I wondered if you could tell me anything.
ALTEA: I don't know if this your father that I'm connecting with, that is the first thing I have to say. I never know who it's going to be. OK?
Classic cold reading: Altea doesn't know if what she will say fits the caller. She lets the caller decide.
KING: Well, what are you hearing now?
ALTEA: What I'm -- first of all, I'm seeing, I'm looking, that is the process, I'm looking. And I'm looking at a man, very slim built. I have no idea of his height, I'm sorry, don't do heights well. But he is a very, very -- he is a slim built man, rather slender face, gaunt face, and I know that he had some problems with his chest and with his breathing.
CALLER: Yes.
Stop. What is the caller saying "yes" to? "Problems with chest", "breathing"? Gee, that's what kills a lot of older men. Classic cold reading.
ALTEA: He tells me that his passing was very sudden and very quick, you notice I haven't asked this lady one question yet, and I don't intend to.
KING: I know. We haven't heard her comment yet, so go ahead.
ALTEA: OK. Whether she understands me or not is not my issue here. I'm just trying to do my best for the man who is standing in front of me.
KING: And you are seeing this man?
ALTEA: And I am seeing this man standing in front of me.
Altea uses the information the caller has verified: Chest problems, breathing. That indicates a quick death. Classic cold reading.
KING: Now, how do you know he had chest problems?
ALTEA: Because he is talking to me, as I'm doing this. We're actually using some hand signals, and he sort of, you know, pointing to his chest, he is describing his breathing. He tells me that the end, his passing was very sudden and very quick. And it is surprising, because I know that he had problems, and he was sick before he passed. He is nodding as I'm saying that, I see him nodding as I say that.
But even though the family knew that he was sick, and he tells me -- he is laughing and he is telling me he knew he was sick, it was still somewhat of a shock when he passed.
Altea "knows" he had "chest problems", because the caller said yes. Note that before, Altea wasn't sure that it was the right guy, yet now the guy can communicate the cause of his death? Classic cold reading.
KING: Now, stay right there. Ma'am?
CALLER: Yes.
KING: How correct is that.
CALLER: She is exactly correct.
KING: He was slim?
CALLER: On his looks and on his health. He had open heart surgery, and he had a pacemaker, but he was -- just matter of time, but we didn't know when.
Here, the caller gives Altea a bunch of information she can later build on. But "open heart surgery" is not having trouble "breathing". Altea banks on lung problems, which is a common ailment with older men - especially if they, as many, have been smoking. Classic cold reading.
As for the looks? If she uses cold reading everywhere else, why is this not a lucky guess?
KING: All right. Wait a minute, was it a surprise or not a surprise?
CALLER: It was a total shock. He had just planted a rosebush for my mother, and they had a nice day at the park, and he just was going to feed the dog and passed over.
KING: And he was drawn and thin, and...
ALTEA: May I just say there -- you mentioned a rosebush, and he holds up his hand and tells me that there were two special rosebushes. You only mentioned one, and he tells me that there were two.
CALLER: He planted two that day, you are right. One in my sister's yard and one in my mothers's.
Source
Caller: "He planted a rosebush for mom".
Altea: "There were two rosebushes".
Caller: "Yes, he planted another rosebush for sis".
That's classic cold reading: Altea doesn't say if the extra rosebush was planted, where it was planted or by whom. She lets the caller say all that. Classic cold reading.
Do you still think this was such an awesome hit? That there is no natural explanation?
Something still bothers me about the why none would review and publish their findings. If the flaws are so obvious why not bother to debunk it once and for all in a prestiged journal? I cannot see why not.
Do you think there is a conspiracy of silence?
For anyone capable of processing English and logic, I was clear:
any challenge that applies to paranormal things would fail to apply by definition if one admits that once paranormal things happen they become normal, since normal is not paranormal.
If the money is paid out, which I believe would be
You didn't before.
, it wouldn't change that fact. The money is irrelvant to the logic. $X paid out, where X is any amount, wouldn't change the logic that normal is not paranormal. So do you still fail to understand why money as a carrot is irrelevant?
PEAR definitely thought that money as a carrot was very relevant...
As far as 'discredit', I doubt people think like many in the skeptical movement do and therefore don't have 'discredit'-ing others as their goal. They'd rather practice responsible skepticism and actually examine claims, not personalities.
Probably the best way to tell someone off, if that is your goal, is to simply ignore them; to fail to treat their ideas as serious, as worthty of a serious reply.
It has worked with many here to be sure.
Yes, yes, your usual nameless accusations of skeptics....
