Dr. Colin Ross's challenge

BC Skeptic said:
It's not surprising Ross has dropped out. Subjecting his claim to scrutiny exposes its soft underbelly. On the one hand, his claim has to be paranormal to be eligible for the prize; but on the other hand, various posters won't let him get away with glossing over two things about his 'eminations':

First, in none of his writings, either here or anywhere else, has he claimed to be able to show that these eminations are involved in perception, which is what the original dispute was about. As explained in Lilienfelld [/I]et al[/I], the issue about perception is whether visual perception is like sonar, with the eye sending out something and measuring its echo on the way back (the ancient Greek view), or it is the capturing of light rays refracted off verious surfaces (the view which gained empirical support in the 17th Century)...
Click to expand...
Yes, this was pointed out back in post #210 and he still persisted in his view in post #212.
"A nod is as good as a wink to a blind bat."
 
I have just read "The men who stared at goats" and wonder if Ross was one of them?
 
blobru said:
grinning like a demon-possessed imbecile
Click to expand...

So you've met him then......

blobru you managed to scare and confuse the idiot so badly
that he pulled out his CIA conspiracy card,

the JREF forumites salute you :bigclap
 
Roma said:
...blobru you managed to scare and confuse the idiot so badly
that he pulled out his CIA conspiracy card...
Click to expand...


Gosh, hope cr doesn't wet himself. Those electric eyeballs of his, he's liable to short-circuit. :shocked:

(But it's definitely a group effort, you included. After all, that's why the CIA pays us the big bucks, right?) ;)
 
whoops! former response to BC Skeptic violated rule 12 -- take two

BC Skeptic said:
It's not surprising Ross has dropped out. Subjecting his claim to scrutiny exposes its soft underbelly. On the one hand, his claim has to be paranormal to be eligible for the prize; but on the other hand, various posters won't let him get away with glossing over two things about his 'eminations':

First, in none of his writings, either here or anywhere else, has he claimed to be able to show that these eminations are involved in perception, which is what the original dispute was about. As explained in Lilienfelld [/i]et al[/i], the issue about perception is whether visual perception is like sonar, with the eye sending out something and measuring its echo on the way back (the ancient Greek view), or it is the capturing of light rays refracted off verious surfaces (the view which gained empirical support in the 17th Century). Being able to cite evidence of eminations, even if he could actually show that they are coming from the eyes, does nothing to settle this dispute in favour of the earlier account. Nor would it help for Ross to show that subjects can pick up these eminations through special googles; since we don't use these goggles in normal seeing. Ross has been wilfully obtuse in reading authors such as Lilienfeld et al as denying the existence of eminations from the region of the eye -- it is their role in perception that is at issue.

The second point is whether Ross has identified any eminations not already recognised. Note how cagey he is about details that would allow us to decide this question.

But how do these points relate to the paranormal? here's my take on this: Although it's not part of the definition of "paranormal", most paranormal claims involve notions either thoroughly discredited or rendered jejune by modern science (e., dualism). Refuted scientific theories never die; they just become research programmes for parapsychologists. So if Ross is going to defend a paranormal claim for the test, he's got to be looking for something that even he can see is highly unlikely. His best hope of finding it is to rediscover something nobody doubts the existence of, and call it something else.
Click to expand...


Thanks very much for weighing in, BC Skeptic. :)

As you would know better than almost anyone, Dr Ross has indeed been wilfully obtuse in his reading of Lilienfeld et al. Real "extramission", vision from beams generated by the eye, might qualify as paranormal. Registering EM radiation passing through the skull and eyes with tinfoil goggles and an EEG, using the gadget (and not the EM radiation as promised in his application) to sound a tone, does not. How anyone who wants to be taken seriously could think it does is beyond me. (Might be an interesting case study in itself, for psychiatry at least; would certainly have a better chance of qualifying as a paranormal phenomenon than Dr Ross' bogus eye beam.)

The persistent fantasy of the applicant, his belief in an "eye beam" in the face of posters' plain logic, gave the whole discussion a surreal, fairytale-like feel. As if someone claiming to be the Big Bad Wolf, with the ability to blow little pigs' houses down, thought all he had to do to establish these extraordinary credentials was to huff and puff. Well, after this thread, no one should have any doubt about Colin Ross' ability to huff and puff. (And to give him his due, he did manage to blow down his own house [of cards], and his precarious credibility with it). But to finish the analogy for the OP: breath, even bad breath, is not paranormal. It doesn't make you the Big Bad Wolf, because any fool can blow out a birthday candle. And standing here in your birthday suit and demanding one million dollars for your 'empirical' new clothes, same as the old clothes, only proves that you're naked.

There. Maybe putting it in simple storybook terms will get through to Dr Ross. Though you can't help but wonder why, at his age and education, he couldn't have figured it out for himself.
 
Last edited:

Rule 12 ?

I didn't even think people were counting those on this thread.

So is Colin Ross still applying for the million dollars or what ?
 
blobru said:
As you would know better than almost anyone, Dr Ross has indeed been wilfully obtuse in his reading of Lilienfeld et al. Real "extramission", vision from beams generated by the eye, might qualify as paranormal. Registering EM radiation passing through the skull and eyes with tinfoil goggles and an EEG, using the gadget (and not the EM radiation as promised in his application) to sound a tone, does not. How anyone who wants to be taken seriously could think it does is beyond me. (Might be an interesting case study in itself, for psychiatry at least; would certainly have a better chance of qualifying as a paranormal phenomenon than Dr Ross' bogus eye beam.)

The persistent fantasy of the applicant, his belief in an "eye beam" in the face of posters' plain logic, gave the whole discussion a surreal, fairytale-like feel. As if someone claiming to be the Big Bad Wolf, with the ability to blow little pigs' houses down, thought all he had to do to establish these extraordinary credentials was to huff and puff. Well, after this thread, no one should have any doubt about Colin Ross' ability to huff and puff. (And to give him his due, he did manage to blow down his own house [of cards], and his precarious credibility with it). But to finish the analogy for the OP: breath, even bad breath, is not paranormal. It doesn't make you the Big Bad Wolf, because any fool can blow out a birthday candle. And standing here in your birthday suit and demanding one million dollars for your 'empirical' new clothes, same as the old clothes, only proves that you're naked.

There. Maybe putting it in simple storybook terms will get through to Dr Ross. Though you can't help but wonder why, at his age and education, he couldn't have figured it out for himself.
Click to expand...
:bigclap
 
From the Colin A. Ross Institute :

Darkness Radio Interview
On April 4, 2009, Dr. Ross did a two-hour interview about his Human Energy Fields book with David Schrader on Darkness Radio ( http://www.darknessradio.com/ ). In the second hour, a prepared audio statement by James Randi is played in which James Randi announces that Dr. Ross has received the James Randi Educational Foundation Pigasus Award ( http://www.randi.org/ ). This award is important because it establishes James Randi's attitude and tone concerning detection of the human eyebeam (called human ocular extramission in Dr. Ross' scientific papers). The JREF attitude towards extramission is an excellent example of paradigm shift resistance - whether it be in physics, physiology, or any other area of science, paradigm shift resistance takes many forms and has intellectual and sociological aspects. The sociology includes ridicule, belittling, sarcasm, black-balling and similar strategies that can destroy an academic career. Ridicule is not a scientific critique, however.

Dr. Ross' theory of human ocular extramission is a testable scientific hypothesis. Dr. Ross has data demonstrating the reality of extramission under review at scientific journals. As in any area of science, reasonable skepticism is a necessary part of how science moves forward. The data need to be replicated by other investigators, published in scientific journals, and subjected to peer review and criticism. This is a different process from ridicule and belittling.

Darkness Radio Hour 1

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18...PCAST_TITLE=Darkness_Radio_Podcast_on_KTLK-FM

Darkness Radio Hour 2

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18...PCAST_TITLE=Darkness_Radio_Podcast_on_KTLK-FM

The posting on the JREF web page can be found at:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/500-pigasus-awards-for-2008-announced.html
 
Last edited:
Roma writes:

The JREF attitude towards extramission is an excellent example of paradigm shift resistance ... [P]aradigm shift resistance ... includes ridicule, belittling, sarcasm, black-balling and similar strategies that can destroy an academic career. Ridicule is not a scientific critique, however.​

Paradigm Shift Resistance can be a good thing. E.g., I'm proud that I display it when people ask me to shift from my current speroid-earth paradigm to the 'new' flat-earth paradigm. While I await the data from them, I may as well ridicule them. What else can I do? Of course, if they provide convincing data, then I will have to eat crow. Sometimes it isn't very risky to live life on the edge.

Dr. Ross' theory of human ocular extramission is a testable scientific hypothesis.​

Yes, but it is not tested. Big difference; and this is Ross's job, not JREF's.

Dr. Ross has data demonstrating the reality of extramission under review at scientific journals.​

Any fool can submit a paper; and the poor, unsung journal editor has to review it -- at least as far as he detects blatant nonsense or incompetence. That's why having a papere under review doesn't get one promotions or tenure in academia. It's no substitute for having a paper accepted.
 
BC Skeptic said:
Roma writes:
Click to expand...

Oh goodness sake ! Those aren't my words.

All of that was copied right off the Dr.Colin A. Ross Institute page.
He's just throwing a pity party for himself.

I don't know anything about science especially not this kind,
but I know Ross.

And I'm very glad you joined us BC Skeptic.
 
Last edited:
No problem BC Skeptic,

I think I also broke rule 12 several times
and maybe a few others,
Colin Ross just brings it out in me

I'm glad you joined BC Skeptic,
I am very familiar with the way Colin Ross can manipulate words
so it was driving me crazy just thinking that he would actually
win that million dollars if someone like you hadn't come along to help bust him.
Thanks
 
Last edited:
Without having read every post of this thread .... was Ross essentially trying to exploit a clearly natural aspect of the human body by rewording things to make it "look" paranormal, and then get it into a "you told me it was legit, now give me the money!" kind of con vs. rube game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom