Answering the Lou Gentile Issue

KevinM said:
What I did point out is that among the multiple complaints raised against you thats a common one. I doubt your ignorant of the fact the majority of the paranormal community seems to think this is some kind of scam.
Click to expand...
... and since when did the "paranormal community" have even the slightest ability at spotting scams?:confused:

If they believe ten things and nine of them are shown to be scams / hoaxes / frauds ... is their first thought "I wonder if that other thing I believe in could also be a scam?" .... or is it "At least I still have that other thing to believe in."?:rolleyes:

Well people on this forum are advocating that the "paranormal community" (whom you seem to be acting as a spokesperson for) should look at the evidence - they are saying that this "community" should investigate whether any of their beliefs about the challenge are well founded? Implicitly, this whole JREF community is saying that we should all look for evidence for the things we believe ... why is the "paranormal community" so scared of facing up to that? I wonder ....
 
Kieran,

Don't understimate people's ability to maintain a skewed worldview and still be rational in other ways. In my anecdotal experience, we all have nurtured misconceptions that we don't critically scrutinise or evaluate on a daily basis.

For example, I know plenty of people who exhibit heavy skepticism on supernatural matters whilst still maintaining a profound religious faith.
 
pmckean said:
For example, I know plenty of people who exhibit heavy skepticism on supernatural matters whilst still maintaining a profound religious faith.
Click to expand...
Sorry but religious beliefs are beliefs in the supernatural. The point you might be trying to make is that there are some people that differentiate between testable and non-testable claims.
To believe in something that it is not possible to test is irrational, but it is not as bad as to believe in something that has been tested and does not work.
At least in my opinion.
 
I agree. It's the testing, stoopid.

What is very interesting is how people exhibit skeptical thinking in some areas of the supernatural, while going completely overboard in others.
 
pmckean said:
Kieran,

Don't understimate people's ability to maintain a skewed worldview and still be rational in other ways. In my anecdotal experience, we all have nurtured misconceptions that we don't critically scrutinise or evaluate on a daily basis.

For example, I know plenty of people who exhibit heavy skepticism on supernatural matters whilst still maintaining a profound religious faith.
Click to expand...
Thanks - I am aware, and wary, of that.:)
 
Of course religious belief is supernatural. My point is simply that people are quite capable of simultaneously accepting some principles, however silly they may sound to others, on faith, whilst critically scrutinizing others.

I don't think this cognitive dissonance is just for what this site terms 'Woos' (don't like the word). It's all of us. I have a materialist worldview, and I'm only going to accept infomation which I think is properly tested. But the reality is that I haven't personally done all of the testing required to prove everything that I believe.

Do Antibiotics work?
Does the Moon influence tides?
Can I catch AIDS through contact with infected blood?
Was there a Big Bang?
Did human beings and Apes evolve from a common ancestor.

In each case, I can't say that I can find an intuitively correct answer myself. It isn't obvious, and I don't have the scientific faculties or education to prove these to my own satisfaction.

Ultimately, I have to decide whether I trust the empirical evidence presented by scientists. I have to take their results on faith. I have to assume they're not falsified. I have to assume they're not flawed. I have to take people at their word. We all do - there's just no alternative.

Don't tell me that skeptics require proof of everything; because unless you perform the verification personally, we're all, skeptics or not, taking a hell of a lot on faith.

The only difference between skeptics and believers is who we relax our critical muscles for, and who we accept. Some people will implicitly trust a priest. Some a scientist.
 
Doesn't this all boil down to the common misconception that the existance of irrational thinking and blind faith is a problem that JREF intends to fix?

Perhaps we can distract such people by pointing out that most dictionaries are defective to the point of uselessness, since they cannot perform their intended function at all for most people (since most are printed in a single language that is spoken by a minority of people in the world).
 
pmckean said:
The only difference between skeptics and believers is who we relax our critical muscles for, and who we accept. Some people will implicitly trust a priest. Some a scientist.
Click to expand...

Interesting take on the subject, I'll give you that...

However, we can decide on the governing body that we decide to trust, based on results and evidence. The Scientific community has plenty of both, the religious community has none....
 
pmckean said:
...snip..


The only difference between skeptics and believers is who we relax our critical muscles for, and who we accept. Some people will implicitly trust a priest. Some a scientist.
Click to expand...

I totally and utterly disagree with this summary.

I treat what scientists and priests tell me in exactly the same way, I consider what they say, what support they call on for their arguments and conclusions and so on.

However I will admit since only one of those two professions actually offers any evidence for what they tell me is the truth I do tend to be more willing to listen to a "new" scientist rather then a "new" priest.
 
pmckean said:
KevinM's mail communicated with absolute unequivocal clarity what he believes is the consensus opinion of the paranormal community. He was addressing a problem of perception, not stating his own views or making a direct accusation.
Click to expand...

A common rhetorical trick. By stating the opinions of other people, you get those opinions on the record without the appearance of having them attached to you. Of course, if one does not share those opinions, why state them?

I have stated those exact opinions in the past. In that case, my purpose was to express suggestions of how to improve the public's perception of the JREF. What were KevinM's reasons, do you think?
 
JREF Challenge Fixed?

Clearly the woos take a "conclusion first" approach to understanding things like pseudoscience and the Million Dollar Challenge. They start with the conclusion that the supernatural is real, and then they proceed to dismiss all evidence in conflict with their conclusion. To me, the failure of anyone to even come close to winning the million is virtual proof that there is no supernatural, but to the woos, it is proof that JREF and its challenge are invalid -- somehow fatally flawed (e.g. the contest is somehow "fixed" against the woos.)

As much as I love Randi and the JREF, I can see how the challenge seems to be spinning its wheels and not getting the traction it needs to proceed down the road to dismissing all the supernatural bunk.

PS: Anyone notice that there is a KevinM posting on the Lou Gentile forum? Here's what KevinM claims as his web site. It says "We are a professional research group headed by Lou Gentile" investigating "Ghosts, Poltergeists, Violent Hauntings, Paranormal, Demonic, Diabolical & Occult / Cult Activity."
 
Last edited:
Mr. Scott said:
As much as I love Randi and the JREF, I can see how the challenge seems to be spinning its wheels and not getting the traction it needs to proceed down the road to dismissing all the supernatural bunk.
Click to expand...

What are your suggestions?
 
CFLarsen said:
What are your suggestions?
Click to expand...

This is a dilemma that Randi must be aware of, and I'd be a damn fool to think I could suggest something Randi hasn't already considered. It's probably too broad a topic to hide in the Lou Gentile commentary thread. Give me 24 hours to think this one through.
 
Mr. Scott said:
This is a dilemma that Randi must be aware of, and I'd be a damn fool to think I could suggest something Randi hasn't already considered. It's probably too broad a topic to hide in the Lou Gentile commentary thread. Give me 24 hours to think this one through.
Click to expand...
Take all the time you need.
 
KevinM said:
Since Lou is obviously unable to respond(and I'm glad to see Mr. Randi acknowledges that and don't fault him on that count). Let me make a few observations. First in spite of the rules the wide feeling in the paranormal community is the following:
1) Randi doesn't really have the money
2) Randi will not pay up ever and will instead continue to offer rationalizations for any phenomenon insisting it didn't fit the criteria
3) Randi will demand sudden changes to protocol

Regardless of the accuracy of any of these statements the majority of people who believe in psychic phenomenon believe them. Several people have claimed to have passed the test, or to have been refused to be tested or some thing of the sort. By itself this is not proof of any thing. JREF's inconsistency in response and carelessness in communication does NOT lend any credence to the challenge. Sending a message via the contact form on the Radio Show web site as opposed to sending a direct email, sending via us mail, or simply calling is an obviously stupid way to communicate some thing of this importance. Any one can claim to be any one on it so when Lou got one claiming to be from James Randi he fairly reasonably disregarded it.

As to taking the time whats the problem? Do I really need to point out the ammount of jerking around thats gone on on JREFs side. Taking months to respond, not informing claiments of Krammer no longer handling claims or Randi's illness(sure its on the web site but in whats supposed to be an organization some one should be capable of this kind of basic communication don't expect people to rush to respond to you). Also as for changing things theres the slight detail of Randi rejecting the original protocol, deciding on a new one suggested by us and then sending the revision in an email who's subject line was apparently spam and we never received. Aside from which we've found a large problem with the new protocol after consulting a professional magician of our aquantance. Any one with a reasonable ammount of training as a magician should be able to see into, manipulate or change the contents of envelopes. While we are confident Randi will make sure we can not do this the very real question remains of what prevents some one from JREF from manipulating the envelopes. I"m sorry but promises of honesty aren't going to cut it any more then Randi would rely solely on a claiments word they won't manipulate the test. When Mr Gentile does recover we will be looking into the matter and trying to find a viable solution. JREF should in the mean time wait since they have no qualms about making others do so.
Click to expand...

OK, so the woos don't want to collect $1,000,000 by simply demonstrating their claims.
Please spare us all the usual limp excuses.
 
CFLarsen said:
What are your suggestions?
Click to expand...

The woos need proof the JREF and its agents won't reach a false negative conclusion.

Definitions:

Positive: Paranormal power is demonstrated under controlled conditions and the million dollars is awarded.

Negative: Paranormal power is not demonstrated and the prize remains unclaimed.

False Positive: An applicant without paranormal power fools the observers and wins the million.

False Negative: An applicant who actually has paranormal power fails to win the million.

The False Negative is the possibility that the woos are worried about.

Alarms to detect and report extremely unlikely events need to be tested periodically to make sure they work. Verbal assurances that real paranormal power would be revealed and the money would be awarded are not sufficient. What's needed is an actual demonstration that the prize could be won by someone with true supernatural powers. Oddly, this is like showing a mirror to Randi: "You say you'll award a million for a successful demonstration of paranormal ability? Prove it!"

The details are not easy to work out. Ideally it would need to be double blind, so that not Jeff Wagg, Randi, the organization executing the test, nor Goldman Sachs were aware they were being tested. The test would be considered successful for Randi if the funds actually end up in the false claimant's bank account.

A pie-in-the-sky plan perhaps, but my point is to show the concept, not to suggest we have something ready to roll with.

Granted the hardest part is finding someone with supernatural abilities or enough expert trickery to pretend to have them and not get caught. I haven't got all the answers -- just a starting point for the discussion.
 
Mr. Scott said:
The woos need proof the JREF and its agents won't reach a false negative conclusion.

Definitions:

Positive: Paranormal power is demonstrated under controlled conditions and the million dollars is awarded.

Negative: Paranormal power is not demonstrated and the prize remains unclaimed.

False Positive: An applicant without paranormal power fools the observers and wins the million.

False Negative: An applicant who actually has paranormal power fails to win the million.

The False Negative is the possibility that the woos are worried about.

Alarms to detect and report extremely unlikely events need to be tested periodically to make sure they work. Verbal assurances that real paranormal power would be revealed and the money would be awarded are not sufficient. What's needed is an actual demonstration that the prize could be won by someone with true supernatural powers. Oddly, this is like showing a mirror to Randi: "You say you'll award a million for a successful demonstration of paranormal ability? Prove it!"

The details are not easy to work out. Ideally it would need to be double blind, so that not Jeff Wagg, Randi, the organization executing the test, nor Goldman Sachs were aware they were being tested. The test would be considered successful for Randi if the funds actually end up in the false claimant's bank account.

A pie-in-the-sky plan perhaps, but my point is to show the concept, not to suggest we have something ready to roll with.

Granted the hardest part is finding someone with supernatural abilities or enough expert trickery to pretend to have them and not get caught. I haven't got all the answers -- just a starting point for the discussion.
Click to expand...

An excellent idea. Just handle the first step of identifying someone with supernatural abilities, and then I'm sure there'll be lots of folks here that can help with the rest (we won't let on that your claimant is the real thing--it'll be a more fun surprise for everyone that way). I look forward to news of your success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom