Michael Prescott: Ex-skeptic hates Randi

thaiboxerken

Penultimate Amazing
thaiboxerken
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
34,577
This guy is an "ex-skeptic". What's happened to lull him into woo woo land is something I don't know. What I do know is that he has lost touch with reality and simply attacks Randi on many, many points. Why? Well, he's a woo woo. Anyway, here are a couple of links with his rants about Randi. One of them is about the Yellow Bamboo nonsense and how he tells the story is quite different from what I remember.

A "Skeptical" look at James Randi:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

The Yellow Bamboo Incident:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2005/11/more_on_yellow_.html



Is this guy on crack?
 
Here are some further developments after that first article, including a half-hearted but important rebuttal from Randi (Hebard still agrees with Flim Flam, which says a lot in itself about Prescott's information).

It always fascinates me to hear people who take an 'ex-sceptic' platform - the implication being "I was once like you, but then I found out a load of stuff that you don't know, and also I'm cleverer" - they actually rarely demonstrate any knowledge of or aptitude for critical thinking, but consider themselves an authority simply because they claim to have held certain views previously. A fallacy in itself.
 
thaiboxerken said:
http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=7685893#post7685893

This thread at another forum started out as a psychic experience thread. However, after I presented a skeptical viewpoint, it has degenerated into a dirt-digging mining effort against Randi.
Click to expand...

That Angelina seems to be pulling things out of the standard bag of tricks.

I like how Mounties raiding the Alice Cooper, and Randi's subsequent disgust with his native country is somehow grounds to bash him. I hope someone is going to nail her to the wall for that bit of utter mucky dreck.
 
Yea, these people sure do like to try and dig up dirt on skeptics when they could simply shut us all up by giving scientific evidence of psychic phenomena instead.
 
thaiboxerken said:
...could simply shut us all up ...
Click to expand...

But why would they when responses like

...
Well, he's a woo woo.
...
Is this guy on crack?
Click to expand...


are ushering in a new era of enlightenment?
 
Last edited:
The last comment comes A LONG TIME after the first comment, usually. Long enough anyway for plenty of evidence to be produced.
 
I feel the need to correct something stated as fact on Michael's site that is not correct. It is disinformation:

The "psychic tests" were not done at Stanford University. They were done at a private entity called Stanford Research Institute. SRI has not been affiliated with Stanford University since 1970, and is not an academic facility.

SRI is associated with military research and the CIA.
Over a period of more than 20 years, the CIA and Pentagon spent approximately $20 million to study and employ numerous "psychics." They were supposed to help track down terrorists, find hostages, help anti-drug activities, etc. Experiments were conducted on precognition, clairvoyance, and remote viewing.

You are correct that the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) was involved. Apparently, this project began with help from Russell Targ and Harold Putthoff, who had previously "tested" Uri Geller--that should tell you something right off the bat. Anyway, our tax dollars supported this nonsense while they came up with stories much like ones we are used to hearing from proponents of "psychics"--tales which could not easily be verified or falsified, and which underwent changes in the telling over time.

The CIA asked two reviewers to evaluate the studies. One was Ray Hyman, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon and a well-known skeptic. The other was Jessica Utts, a statistics professor at the University of California at Davis and an advocate of parapsychology. Indeed, the Nature article noted that Utts had participated in some of the studies--which in my mind raises the question of why she was selected to review those same studies.

As we would expect, Hyman and Utts disagreed on how the studies rated. While both agreed that the first "era of research was problematic," Utts said there was "a statistically robust effect," while Hyman noted that "there's no evidence these people have done anything helpful for the government."

So where does this leave us? Let's look more closely at the studies. Utts said the "psychics" were accurate about 15% of the time when they were helping the CIA. Fifteeen percent? Is this supposed to convince us to pay them to help the United States government? Utts says she thinks "they would be effective if used in conjunction with other intelligence." My intelligence tells me that 15% accuracy isn't much help no matter what it's used in conjunction with--that's an 85% failure rate! So 85% of the time, spies would be wasting their time and resources on incorrect information. We're supposed to be happy with that? And that's presuming she's right about the 15%.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpsychicfed.html
Click to expand...
Two points:
1: Researchers whose entire careers are based on the presumption that psychic powers actually exist are biased. This bias does not eliminate them as investigators but means bias must be designed out of experiments. If bias is not designed out the experiments are fatally flawed, if for no other reason than simple conflict of interest.

2: Information and the control of it has military value. While the CIA might very well be stupid, I doubt it. If the US was spending on psychic research, the USSR was probably spending too, just to keep up. Psychic research (no matter the truth value) represents a form of economic warfare: it does not matter really if it turns up anything, as long as our enemies think we are serious about it that is one more 'weapon system' they need to oppose with spending. Psychic research has military value even if it does nothing. Military interest cannot be taken as evidence that they ever seriously thought it was viable or provided useful information.

Consider how much more convincing a false psychic program it might be if senators and even the president served as believing dupes. (That thought was for the conspiracy types).
 
CFLarsen said:
No, but he sure is crackin' up...
Click to expand...
Let's examine one of Prescott's points. If you look at this link -- http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm#B -- you will find scattered throught that link the following exchange between Prescott and Randi:

Prescott: "The question naturally arises: How does Randi know all this, since, as he admits, 'I've never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI [Stanford Research Institute, where the experiments were conducted]'? . . ."

Randi: "Prescott says I 'never set foot inside the SRI facility'? Look at Flim-Flam, pages 140-141 and see the drawings I made at SRI with Leon Otis. And I have a photograph of myself looking through the same 'peep-hole' that Geller used. It was taken by Leon. I spent an entire afternoon there . . ."

Prescott: "On the matter of the disputed quote from Flim-Flam, indicating that Randi 'never even set foot' inside the SRI facility ... The quote is accurate. Here it is in full context: 'Shortly thereafter, I received a communication from a member of a second special committee within SRI charged with looking into the Targ and Puthoff shenanigans (the first 'Psychic Research Review Committee' had found everything perfectly kosher, it seems), asking me for for details about my investigations of the situation there. They were asking me . . . and I've never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI.'"

"The quote is on p. 142 . . ."

Randi: "'Wasn't able to find that'! But the scale diagrams I ran in F-F were the direct results of my visit there. I believe it should have read, 'They were asking me, and at that time I'd not set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI.'"

So Randi "wasn't able to find that" [statement] in his own book? Why not? I found it by referring to p. 142 of "Flim-Flam" -- which was exactly where Prescott said it was. So, the bottom line is that: 1) Prescott criticized Randi, based on his own words. 2) Randi responded, implying that Prescott didn't know what he was talking about. 3) Prescott directed Randi to exactly where he made the disputed statement. 4) Randi said he couldn't find that statement, but seemed to imply that, if it appeared in his book, it was the result of a poor editing job.
 
T'ai Chi said:
But why would they when responses like

are ushering in a new era of enlightenment?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they? How would you respond? Do you find all of Prescott's criticisms valid?

You criticize others, but don't offer better solutions.

Rodney said:
4) Randi said he couldn't find that statement, but seemed to imply that, if it appeared in his book, it was the result of a poor editing job.
Click to expand...

Is that impossible? Books don't have errata?
 
Nucular said:
Here are some further developments after that first article, including a half-hearted but important rebuttal from Randi (Hebard still agrees with Flim Flam, which says a lot in itself about Prescott's information).

It always fascinates me to hear people who take an 'ex-sceptic' platform - the implication being "I was once like you, but then I found out a load of stuff that you don't know, and also I'm cleverer" - they actually rarely demonstrate any knowledge of or aptitude for critical thinking, but consider themselves an authority simply because they claim to have held certain views previously. A fallacy in itself.
Click to expand...

Reminds of the Christian's hero--C.S. Lewis (once an agnostic...who supposidly reasoned himself into christianity). I often find such folks were people who weren't skeptical due to intelligence or critical thinking...more to apathy...and then they use a confirmation biased approach to find the "truth"...and they think that, because they claimed to be skeptical, their belief in the supernatural has extra validity.

Even people who do rain dances...get rain sometimes. It doesn't mean that when it doesn't work...it's because you didn't do the steps in the right order.

Correlation is not causation.

Reaching a conclusion through thought and anecdote and inner feeling doesn't compare to evidence...but it can sure make one feel better (smarter) in on the secretes of the world, chosen, etc.
 
I once had a discussion with him here:

http://amethodnotaposition.blogspot.com/2005/10/skeptic-looks-at-ganzfeld-research.html

about the ganzfeld. At the end I'd demonstrated that Radin's writing on the ganzfeld in The Conscious Universe was factually wrong, and he said he'd take a closer look at the subject.

A several days later I looked at his blog and saw that he listed the ganzfeld experiments as a "scientific study that does validate psychic ability". Clearly, taking a closer look doesn't take as long as it used to.
 
Ersby said:
I once had a discussion with him here:

http://amethodnotaposition.blogspot.com/2005/10/skeptic-looks-at-ganzfeld-research.html

about the ganzfeld. At the end I'd demonstrated that Radin's writing on the ganzfeld in The Conscious Universe was factually wrong, and he said he'd take a closer look at the subject.

A several days later I looked at his blog and saw that he listed the ganzfeld experiments as a "scientific study that does validate psychic ability". Clearly, taking a closer look doesn't take as long as it used to.
Click to expand...
Why should it, if your mind's already made up?
 
On the subject of the CIA and psychic investigation, I noticed a book excerpt in March's Reader's Digest claiming that the CIA has been continuing to fund the remote viewing program at least at the time of the first Gulf War. The book is "Reading the Enemy's Mind" by Paul H. Smith.

The example shown in the excerpt was a 'precise' drawing of the ship that was struck by a missile. While the scratches do vaguely look like a ship's rigging, the most striking thing to me was the lack of a hull. Isn't that what everyone draws first, the part of the drawing that indicates a ship? The scratches could have easily been a cityline.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
On the subject of the CIA and psychic investigation, I noticed a book excerpt in March's Reader's Digest claiming that the CIA has been continuing to fund the remote viewing program at least at the time of the first Gulf War. The book is "Reading the Enemy's Mind" by Paul H. Smith.

The example shown in the excerpt was a 'precise' drawing of the ship that was struck by a missile. While the scratches do vaguely look like a ship's rigging, the most striking thing to me was the lack of a hull. Isn't that what everyone draws first, the part of the drawing that indicates a ship? The scratches could have easily been a cityline.
Click to expand...

It was ALSO Manhattan.

Sheesh, don't you get how these things work? ;)
 
Nucular said:
It always fascinates me to hear people who take an 'ex-sceptic' platform - the implication being "I was once like you, but then I found out a load of stuff that you don't know, and also I'm cleverer" - they actually rarely demonstrate any knowledge of or aptitude for critical thinking, but consider themselves an authority simply because they claim to have held certain views previously. A fallacy in itself.
Click to expand...


If only that approach was just limited to skepticism... As a longtime veteran of Usenet, let me tell you, idiots of every persuasion use the "I was once like you" approach.

Jesus freaks will always tell you they used to be atheists. Creationists, used to be evolutionists. Republicans, used to be Democrats. Democrats, used to be Republicans.

I think the mindset is that these people have not rationally arrived at their belief system -- and so, to coin a phrase from another thread, they have an "apathy towards truth". Convincing you is all that matters, and they will say anything or do anything in service to that end. The trouble is that these people aren't smart enough to carry it off. It is always abundantly clear that these people were not what they claimed to be, or at the very least, were superficially attached to this other viewpoint, and usually for all the wrong reasons.
 
Nucular said:
It always fascinates me to hear people who take an 'ex-sceptic' platform - the implication being "I was once like you, but then I found out a load of stuff that you don't know, and also I'm cleverer" - they actually rarely demonstrate any knowledge of or aptitude for critical thinking, but consider themselves an authority simply because they claim to have held certain views previously. A fallacy in itself.
Click to expand...

Taking a skeptical position does not necessarily signify critical thinking abilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom