In Randi's commentary of 4/30 (I resist the word "latest" because it will not always be), he discusses Targ and Puthoff's response to his book on Uri Geller. Most of Randi's responses to their responses seem understandable, but a few seem to ignore or misconstrue what T&P said. Now, I haven't read Randi's book and am only going by what is in the commentary, so I could be off-base. However, I was wondering if anyone else was confused by some of Randi's responses? I am purposely not pointing out any particular response in order to not bias other readings of the commentary (I could just be tired at the moment). What do you think of his commentary?
Boring, boring, boring?
- Thread starter dsm
- Start date
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
Well, I'm afraid I'm not a huge Randi defender, but these seem like petty complaints to air after 30 years. Easily corrected by repeated experiments right?
Oh yeah, I guess that was our one chance. These guys have proven ESP and have now moved on to new things like Zero Point Energy.
I did not really find the account to be 3x boring. Sometimes it really helps to just slog through the details to get a better grasp on the bigger picture. I enjoyed having detail on this one.
Randi's criticisms seem less damning than the original Nature editorial. Are the opinions of an entertainer so much more important than the scientific community? After 30 years, where are the additional tests and more rigid protocols?
If I were to single out "something", it might be the assertion that no invitation was sent to view the film at the symposium. The film was an 'open' invitation, but by Randi's account he did not know that but thought he should have received an invite.
Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling
to depend greatly on our own point of view." - Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi
Oh yeah, I guess that was our one chance. These guys have proven ESP and have now moved on to new things like Zero Point Energy.
I did not really find the account to be 3x boring. Sometimes it really helps to just slog through the details to get a better grasp on the bigger picture. I enjoyed having detail on this one.
Randi's criticisms seem less damning than the original Nature editorial. Are the opinions of an entertainer so much more important than the scientific community? After 30 years, where are the additional tests and more rigid protocols?
If I were to single out "something", it might be the assertion that no invitation was sent to view the film at the symposium. The film was an 'open' invitation, but by Randi's account he did not know that but thought he should have received an invite.
Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling
to depend greatly on our own point of view." - Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,901
I was disappointed that there weren't a few more 'updates' in the list. For example, the one regarding the film that was allegedly done by Pressmen was the subject of much contraversy until Puthoff revealed to Gardener that there was no such film.
The responses were adequete to me, for the most part. They were hardly shattering the foundation of Randi's book even if they all stood.
The responses were adequete to me, for the most part. They were hardly shattering the foundation of Randi's book even if they all stood.
I can understand J R being annoyed at all this nonsense . The real problem with ESP, with our present understanding of the human brain , is simple .Where does the energy come from ? If it were really posssible to read other minds would not evolution have by now evolved mice that could sense our cat .Shes been removing non-physic mice from the gene pool for years .
homer said:I can understand J R being annoyed at all this nonsense . The real problem with ESP, with our present understanding of the human brain , is simple .Where does the energy come from ? If it were really posssible to read other minds would not evolution have by now evolved mice that could sense our cat .Shes been removing non-physic mice from the gene pool for years .
That presumes that the cat has developed an anti-psi gene in the process. After all, maybe it's just another type of "arms race".
Thank you for your post it amused me at the end of a lousy day . I don't think our cat has any such Anti-Psi gene . But she does seem to know when I should be awake , maybe she can read our clock !
Famous quotes ' I stink therefore I am ' I A M A Skunk .
Famous quotes ' I stink therefore I am ' I A M A Skunk .
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
Really, I thought it was not boring at all! Sometimes those point-by-point articles can be very interesting, even if dealing with something from a long time ago.
Point by point
Since I started this thread, perhaps I should be a little more explicit about my questions with respect to what Randi said.
A couple of points:
18. Randi makes a point about Ron Duetsch quitting SRI. T&P says that he was still there. Randi admits that he was still there at the time of T&P's statement, but left later. Did Randi make a prediction that came true??
21. T&P state that the recorder was remote from Geller and monitored by videotape. Therefore, T&P didn't need to be constantly watching it. What was Randi trying to say?
Since I started this thread, perhaps I should be a little more explicit about my questions with respect to what Randi said.
A couple of points:
18. Randi makes a point about Ron Duetsch quitting SRI. T&P says that he was still there. Randi admits that he was still there at the time of T&P's statement, but left later. Did Randi make a prediction that came true??
21. T&P state that the recorder was remote from Geller and monitored by videotape. Therefore, T&P didn't need to be constantly watching it. What was Randi trying to say?