For Randi and Friends

[arcticpenguin]

You can't prove that, it's a negative claim. Also circular reasoning minus the qualifiers:
[/B]

It is a claim about what has been demonstrated from the past until now. It is not a claim about what may be possible in the future. It is quite accurate to say that no one has repeatably, unambiguously, under controlled circumstances, demonstrated pyschokinesis, clairvoyance, precognition, or any othe form of 'ESP".

Where's the beef?

 

[Ed]

You can't prove that, it's a negative claim. Also circular reasoning minus the qualifiers:

You only have to show one case, one clear case. In the absence of such a case it is unproven. Given my experience, I personally adjudge the field to be bogus, though I would love to be proven wrong.

Are you saying negativity would have to be non-existant in the procedure in order for it to be truly controlled?

What I am saying is that there should be no way for a researcher in contact with the subject to actually know what is going on. Are you suggesting that seeds of doubt hidden in ones psyche can queer an experiment? That would require some evidence, I think, as well as demonstration that there is something there to be queered in the first place.


On what grounds is he a fraud? What evidence do you have? Have you reviewed the research first hand?


Anyone who purports to have his qualificatioons who purports to do research that makes the mistakes that he has made is either a fraud or a liar, take your pick.

 

[Segnosaur]

Agreed on reputation. Having a goal to 'debunk' has no bearing on the magician's ability to see where tricks could have been used.

No, but it does have a bearing on their willingness to view videotaped footage of experiments.

A lesser known magician, or one who isn't as involved in debunking, may be quite comfortable watching such footage and saying "I don't see anything wrong here", because he knows that his comments won't carry much weight.

Randi, who's much more involved in debunking, should be much less willing to watch such footage, because if he says "I didn't see anything wrong here", it would imply to others that he somehow things the results were valid. (Its unfortunate, but certain quotes tend to be taken out of context, and people like Randi do have to be careful.)

Ok. Point taken. But, what about sciences that utilize rare technology that is not available to a large group of people, and therefore the amount of people needed to fake it wouldn't be many? Perhaps cloning or nanotech, altough I am admittedly largely unfamiliar with these fields. Do you apply the sames rigorous standards here?

"Rare technology" is not the same as the paranormal, since rare technology is still based on the laws of physics.

As for how I would apply the standards, it depends on what is claimed, the supporting evidence, and the reputations of those involved. If a person claimed to have 'cloned' something or claimed to have invented a computer that fit on the head of pin, I would be skeptical; I would require independent verification by unbiased parties. I believe peer review, coupled with the ability to reproduce experiments, is an adequate method to screen out false discoveries.

Well, I'll let this one lie here, because I know less than you about cold reading, although I have seen it done fairly successfuly by others, too.

If you've seen cold reading done successfully, then you should know its abilities, and you should be able to recognize how indistinguishable cold reading is from what psychics do.

But, why I cared: If Randi thinks that the success of cold reading points towards the possibility of fraud in mediums, he should either be able to demonstrate it successfuly himself, or find someone who can, and not waste everyones time ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, especially on a broadcast show. But that's just me opining.

You seem to be basing your opinion on his 'success' as a cold reader based on an account written by someone who may very well be very biased by Randi. Until you actually see the tape yourself, you can't really say how good he was.

First - But there IS a full journal behind the site. Just like any other journal, they don't post the hard copy on the site.

Some journals do post on-line.

Second - Reputation does not effect the veracity of anything.

Unless someone I trust was involved in designing these experiments, then I would basically be taking them at their word.

When an article us submitted to a main stream journal, it gets peer reviewed by a wide variety of people. I could be wrong, but I doubt that articles submitted to that journal really get the same treatment. (How many 'skeptics' do they get shown to?)

Third - Randi having his million is not proof that the phenomena have not been proven to exist. Is this why you disagree with the journal about their claims?

I disagree with thier claims for several reasons.

The fact that Randi still has his million is one reason. (If psychic powers really do exist, then someone somewhere should have been able to launch a successful claim.) Another reason is the lack of articles in mainstream peer-reviewed literature. (If such powers existed, they would likely be covered in journals like Science.) The third reason is that every time someone seems to come up with some amazing power, it is later proven to be a trick somehow (at least when their claims are examined closely).

Is strongly disagreeing about the existence of a claim a reasonable reason not to look at any proposed evidence of that claim?

Depends on what you consider 'evidence'. If you consider anecdotes as 'evidence', or the experiments by Schwarts (where proper controls may not have been used), then I'd say there's no reason to bother.

If you consider double-blind studies, conducted with proper controls in place, then by all means, bring it on. (Randi is quite happy to perform tests under those conditions.)

But they HAVE published them, just not online.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't feel an overwhelming desire to go out and buy a copy of this journal.