A bit on Live Journal about the latest Russian X-ray girl has turned into some vague allegations regarding Randi's credibility, and I don't have the information necessary to respond. Would anyone like to (civilly) jump in over there?
Keneke
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 980
I do have to say, it's not a vague attack. Unless someone can say that the paper itself (gotta believe everything on the internet, you know) was hyperbolizing, you'll just have to put up with attacks against his (admittedly overzealous) behavior.
For the time being, I'll just concentrate on the experiment. No need going down a rabbit trail.
For the time being, I'll just concentrate on the experiment. No need going down a rabbit trail.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 16,532
For the Robrt Anton Wilson comment I will point out that this is from his book "The New Inquisition", which the extremely level skeptic JIm Lippard ponts out many problems with his claims
"Unfortunately, Wilson's work is marred by incredibly shoddy research."
With many examples given.
THe quote from the 'CSICOP overview' is a favorite of Randi-bashers. But they fail to note just how absolutelt arrogant Benvieniste was, especially towards Randi. See Randi's commentaries for details.
AS for this bit
Yet a review of the security measures taken foudn nothing that a bias in either direction could avert, a precaution taken by Randi, not by Benvieniste. You won't find a "Randi effect" in those Benvieniste tests, but as the B-boy about the "Jamal effect", that was an obvious case of cheating.
Going back a bit:
This was just plain old whining (and subjective whining at that) after the fact by Benvieniste. Randi admits to pulling a few simple tricks to lighten the mood while the test was run and there was nothing for anyone to do. It hardly 'disrupted the lab' since the lab was being disrupted already.
Read the Horizon transcript for more details. This is whining at its best.
That "CSICOP-overview" article is not very well researched. At one poin they attack Randi by listing a few critics who they claim found massive errors in his work. The footnote reveals one of the sources as Targ & Puthoff and their '24 errors'.
"Unfortunately, Wilson's work is marred by incredibly shoddy research."
With many examples given.
THe quote from the 'CSICOP overview' is a favorite of Randi-bashers. But they fail to note just how absolutelt arrogant Benvieniste was, especially towards Randi. See Randi's commentaries for details.
AS for this bit
Yet a review of the security measures taken foudn nothing that a bias in either direction could avert, a precaution taken by Randi, not by Benvieniste. You won't find a "Randi effect" in those Benvieniste tests, but as the B-boy about the "Jamal effect", that was an obvious case of cheating.
Going back a bit:
This was just plain old whining (and subjective whining at that) after the fact by Benvieniste. Randi admits to pulling a few simple tricks to lighten the mood while the test was run and there was nothing for anyone to do. It hardly 'disrupted the lab' since the lab was being disrupted already.
Read the Horizon transcript for more details. This is whining at its best.
That "CSICOP-overview" article is not very well researched. At one poin they attack Randi by listing a few critics who they claim found massive errors in his work. The footnote reveals one of the sources as Targ & Puthoff and their '24 errors'.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Agent13, from the paranormalist's viewpoint, "personality I don't like" = "fraudulent skeptizoid."
~~ Paul
~~ Paul
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
No, it isn't.Agent13 said:
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
Yes, it is.
A couple of points here about some of the specious claims I see there:
1. Randi is no longer on CSICOP's board. Hasn't been for years.
2. What diminishing ranks of CSICOP? Have you verified membership numbers are on the decline?
Mostly, this is more of the same pap we're always treated to by woos. They make up facts, focus on vague allegations of fraud and bias. They divert and deflect. Once corrected, they simply try another tack with you and pop up elsewhere spouting the same nonsense as if they'd never heard the correction.
This isn't rational discourse we're engaged in with this ilk. It is simply a game of whack-a-woo. It goes better with large mallets in both hands.
1. Randi is no longer on CSICOP's board. Hasn't been for years.
2. What diminishing ranks of CSICOP? Have you verified membership numbers are on the decline?
Mostly, this is more of the same pap we're always treated to by woos. They make up facts, focus on vague allegations of fraud and bias. They divert and deflect. Once corrected, they simply try another tack with you and pop up elsewhere spouting the same nonsense as if they'd never heard the correction.
This isn't rational discourse we're engaged in with this ilk. It is simply a game of whack-a-woo. It goes better with large mallets in both hands.