Montague Keen

[SteveGrenard]

You are right, not defensive, derisive. Your derisive tone is duly noted as well and repaid in kind. Sorry, not defensively derisive, just derisive for derision's sake.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

You are right, not defensive, derisive.

Ah. Then since your original question asked where the "derisive" tone came from on some replies, and I merely responded to it, perhaps you can point out where -- in that reply from me -- I painted your message as "derisive" (rather than "defensive").

N/A

Edited to add: To assist you, here is the message you originally said labelled your message as "defensive," and now "derisive":

The derisive tone of any replies may simply be in response to the tone set by the original comments originating from Mr. Keen. And the comments about how or why the list was supposed to test the genuineness of the JREF challenge have nothing to do with whether the list was provided in this particular thread, but why it was created in the first place.

As the list was mentioned as part of Keen's discussion over the challenge, I simply tried to discover what the connection was. That has been partially answered, though I don't know what specific comment from Randi supposedly sparked it.

But Mr. Keen's comments -- specifically,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If the offer were a genuine attempt to discover the truth, then it ought to apply to anyone who can provide evidence with adequate records, oral and written, from several or more witnesses or participants, backed up by photographic records. . . "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . led me to believe that he feels the challenge should be extended so that anyone who can present stories -- like this list -- should be allowed to participate in the challenge. I see that as impossible, on several grounds.

It also seems to be an attempt to place the burden of proof on Randi regarding stories that are years/decades old and have Randi describe possible solutions, which can then be argued about ad infinitum. I cannot imagine someone can take a case from 100 years ago, for example, and seriously think that a thorough investigation can be done on it. Even if it were possible, Keen (from the other thread in which his comments have appeared) seems to require a skeptic to come up with a "smoking gun" type of absolute proof, rather than merely evidence.

These types of arguments are precisely why the challenge -is- limited. Test conditions and the standard for a "pass" must be agreed on before-hand. There can be no ambiguity about what is to be done and how it may be achieved, or else all you have is one more inconclusive argument.

 

[SteveGrenard]

You still don't get it. Randi claims, yes claims, he can debunk any paranormal claim; to wit, he can furnish a normal and natural explanation for anything anyone offers up. To that end, Keen supplied him with a list of 20 such paranormal claims for him to debunk. He doesn't even want Randi to debunk all of them, just a few of his own choosing would do.

Insofar as the assertion that they are too old to assess properly, I point to the debunking of the Oracle of Delphi. Keen's list is young by comparison. How old is the Oracle claim? This debunking, BTW, was recently presented and updated in Scientific American.

 

[arcticpenguin]

You still don't get it. Randi claims, yes claims, he can debunk any paranormal claim; to wit, he can furnish a normal and natural explanation for anything anyone offers up. To that end, Keen supplied him with a list of 20 such paranormal claims for him to debunk. He doesn't even want Randi to debunk all of them, just a few of his own choosing would do.

Insofar as the assertion that they are too old to assess properly, I point to the debunking of the Oracle of Delphi. Keen's list is young by comparison. How old is the Oracle claim? This debunking, BTW, was recently presented and updated in Scientific American.

I guess I don't "get it" either, I thought this had something to do with the JREF $1M prize, and whether it is a genuine offer. You are saying this is not the case now? Why then does Keen mention the $1M prize?

 

[Barkhorn1x]

SteveGrenard...

Why don't you get Keen to post on this board and quite wasting everyone’s time?

Barkhorn.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

You still don't get it.

Just as you still don't seem to be able to point out where in that quoted post I either labelled your message as "defensive" or "derisive."

I also still don't know precisely what statement from Randi that Keen is jumping all over -- since he omits quoting that (what this is supposedly all about), but does, for some strange reason, mention the 'genuiness' of the JREF prize that now has nothing to do with his message. I will attempt to find out what statement prompted this, but I must say that I suspect that it has been taken out of context so that this parade of 100 year old claims can be used -- Zammit-like -- to blow smoke about the challenge.

N/A

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I just did a search to find the claim from Randi that you (SG) refer to as causing Keen to issue his challenge. I found the text of the original challenge from Keen on Zammit's website.

When I made my Zammit comment earlier, I did not realise that Keen was accepting the support of Zammit and was in fact publishing his comments on Zammit's site. (Perhaps -I- should apply for the $1 million.) I was not familiar with Keen prior to the thread on the Holohan matter discussed here, but I was familiar with Mr. Zammit from reading his site quite some time ago. I know my opinion won't count, but I have to say that Keen allying himself with Zammit is not a move designed to enhance his credibility.

After my search, however, I still don't know what claim on Randi's part is being alleged as the basis for this challenge. It seems odd that, if rAndi's claim to be able to debunk "anything paranormal" is what triggered the challenge, that Keen first ran it past Kurtz, Hyman and Blackmore.

At this point, I'd like to see the language and context of Randi's claim that triggered this challenge.

 

[Ed]

Steve,

It does not reflect well on you to be Keen's errand boy, regardless of how it enhances your ego. If he has something to say to us, let him say it. Using you is elitist and patronising.

You had a similar relationship with Schwartz where you acted as conduit and errend boy and apologist. What ever happened with that?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Steve,

It does not reflect well on you to be Keen's errand boy, regardless of how it enhances your ego. If he has something to say to us, let him say it. Using you is elitist and patronising.

You had a similar relationship with Schwartz where you acted as conduit and errend boy and apologist. What ever happened with that?

I am not sending messages back and forth between Keen and the members here. Keen is not interested in debating with individuals who have nothing whatsoever to do with this matter. It is between what Randi has said about him, and he about Randi. The peanut gallery's opinions have little interest or concern for him and I am sure Randi feels the same way or he would be responding to much more than the sum total of 23 posts he is credited with here in the life of the current forum.

In re the Poole case, all of Keen's responses were initiated in response to comments by Youens and Adrian Shaw
initially published elsewhere: The Skeptic (UK) and Youens' website.
I was happy to convey that information here so that both sides of those arguments could be discussed amongst yourselves. I have the permission of the editor of The Skeptic UK (Chris French) as well as Youens and Keen to do that.


Anything I said in reference to comments about Schwartz on THIS forum have also been previously published in other sources including Randi's own commentary and on sites used by Schwartz. I added nothing to those discussions here which could not be found elsewhere. Some of this information's existence is not known to all so why is it so terrible to make it known? (Rhetorical question - I know the answer- see below)

Surely you can see that this is no different than other discussions, involving other personalities and subject matter, as goes on here every day. This is and was no different.

On the other hand your pithy and derogatory ad hominem remarks are clearly designed to discourage revelation of opposing information. If preaching to the choir is your thing, go ahead but the choir has a right to hear both sides. By attempting this tactic (Yahtzo just tried it again in a completely off topic discussion ...what a troll) you are making yourself and your motives transparent. Does it do your ego good to disabuse others of theirs?
Is this an ego thing with you? I gave my reasons why not give yours? eh? Your real motivations.

My single Keen-sourced informative post here, if that is okay with you, your majesty, was to repost (with Keen's permission), his response to Randi's diatribe on Keen and the UPC on British TV. I did not start this thread, arcticpenguin did. It was all one sided. Keen prepared and published a response to Randi which is on other sites and listservs. With Keen's permission, I posted it here end of story.

 

[Pyrrho]

In response to a request above regarding 20 items Montague Keen asked Randi to explain, I am forwarding that list of items herewith along with the preface to that challenge:

The challenge to Mr. Randi and friends

(snip)

They are based on (although not identical to) a list of twenty cases suggestive of survival prepared by Professor Archie Roy and published some years ago in the SPR's magazine, The Paranormal Review as an invitation or challenge to skeptics to demonstrate how any of these cases could be explained by "normal" i.e. non-paranormal, means. Thus far there have been no takers. It is now Mr. Randi's chance to vindicate his claims.

(snip)

Sigh...the old "explain this!" demand. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, not any more. We skeptics have been down that path before, and we're not going to be led down it again. We don't explain anecdotes, we don't explain anomalous case histories, we don't explain stories for which we do not have access to all the information, and don't make the mistake of thinking that all the information is available in any of Keen's examples. This is an old, old, old attempt at dragging a red herring across the path. Challenged to prove their claims, paranormalists demand that we explain things, instead of proving their claims. When we do waste our time explaining these things, paranormalists routinely scoff at our explanations.

Well, don't waste our time asking for explanations, because we're done with that. We won't waste our time disabusing any of you of your cherished beliefs. Pointing at lists such as provided by Keen and saying, "There have been no takers," is just the stupid old argument from ignorance fallacy. I see no reason to discuss anything with anyone so ignorant that they must routinely resort to fundamental logical fallacies to support their positions. To engage in discussions with such intellectually limited people is a futile exercise. The sad thing is, they don't even know how stupid they are.

There is only one legitimate skeptical response:

Show us proof, or shut up.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Sigh...the old "explain this!" demand. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, not any more.

Is that why magicians are chicken on being tested with mediums in the same controlled experiments? Just wonderin'.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Well you can think it "works" anyway you want to. This was the explanation for the 20 items as requested by "you skeptics" ...

Randi makes an implicit claim (and he is not alone in that) that he could explain anything paranormal by natural means or so Keen was led to believe. Keen indeed reversed the shoes and asked Randi to explain any one, several or if he wanted to, all of the 20 cases to a scientific certainty with a natural explanation. Keen was claiming nothing. He has read these documented cases and wants a normal explanation for them.

Keen did not invent these cases, he did not investigate them and he did not write them up. They are in the published literature in the field and have been for some time.

Randi is an expert, a magician, a maven on the art of deception. Someone has even put up a million dollars that this is the case. That's no small faith in Randi's abilities. Keen wanted some answers from him. Who better then Randi to ask? If Randi chooses to ignore this request now it is his privilege but it was elicited under circumstances surrounding Randi's outlook and belief he could debunk and prove anything paranormal or supernatural with a normal and scientifically valid explanation that rules out paranormality and the supernatural.

Frankly I think the point of the exercise, if you want to call it that, was to demonstrate that a true skeptic can never be certain so they shouldn't say they are certain unless they truly are.

And when a skeptic says they are certain they are making a claim and need to prove it. Turnabout always was and always will be fair play.

(PS: Pyrrho ..for the record nobody is asking you all for an explanation and wouldn't think of wasting your time. Keen is asking Randi. Are you Randi Pyrrho? If not, your statement was
irrelevant).

 

[Pyrrho]

Well you can think it "works" anyway you want to. This was the explanation for the 20 items as requested by "you skeptics" ...

Randi makes an implicit claim (and he is not alone in that) that he could explain anything paranormal by natural means

Where can we find proof that Randi made this claim?

or so Keen was led to believe. Keen indeed reversed the shoes and asked Randi to explain any one, several or if he wanted to, all of the 20 cases to a scientific certainty with a natural explanation. Keen was claiming nothing. He has read these documented cases and wants a normal explanation for them.

Keen did not invent these cases, he did not investigate them and he did not write them up. They are in the published literature in the field and have been for some time.

Randi is an expert, a magician, a maven on the art of deception. Someone has even put up a million dollars that this is the case. That's no small faith in Randi's abilities. Keen wanted some answers from him. Who better then Randi to ask? If Randi chooses to ignore this request now it is his privilege but it was elicited under circumstances surrounding Randi's outlook and belief he could debunk and prove anything paranormal or supernatural with a normal and scientifically valid explanation that rules out paranormality and the supernatural.

Frankly I think the point of the exercise, if you want to call it that, was to demonstrate that a true skeptic can never be certain so they shouldn't say they are certain unless they truly are.

And when a skeptic says they are certain they are making a claim and need to prove it. Turnabout always was and always will be fair play.

Where is the proof that Randi has made the claim?

 

[Pyrrho]

Is that why magicians are chicken on being tested with mediums in the same controlled experiments? Just wonderin'. [/B]

To prove what, exactly? That certain magicians aren't as good as certain mediums at the art of fraud?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Pyrrho: Where is the proof that Randi has made the claim?

You are joking, right?

 

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho: Where is the proof that Randi has made the claim?

You are joking, right?

No, I am not joking. Do you think I read every word Randi writes? I'm asking a simple question and I would like a simple answer. If you cannot answer it, say so.

Where is proof that Randi has made a claim such as described by Montague Keen?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Sorry Pyrrho, since you were answering for Randi, I thought perchance you might be him. In any case, I was very careful to write the follwoing which I now quote from myself:

"Randi makes an implicit claim (and he is not alone in that) that he could explain anything paranormal by natural means or so Keen was led to believe."

In virtually every rebuke he casts against anything paranormal, Randi makes this implicit claim. It is in his books, in his lectures and in his commentary archives.

It is almost his middle name. Hence the reason for my rhetorical response.

 

[Pyrrho]

Sorry Pyrrho, since you were answering for Randi, I thought perchance you might be him. In any case, I was very careful to write the follwoing which I now quote from myself:

"Randi makes an implicit claim (and he is not alone in that) that he could explain anything paranormal by natural means or so Keen was led to believe."

In virtually every rebuke he casts against anything paranormal, Randi makes this implicit claim. It is in his books, in his lectures and in his commentary archives.

It is almost his middle name. Hence the reason for my rhetorical response.

Wrong, I was not answering for Randi. I do not speak for Randi, as he is quite capable of speaking for himself, nor do I carry messages for him.

As a skeptic, I was asking for proof of a claim made by Montague Keen, as reported by yourself.

"Randi makes an implicit claim (and he is not alone in that) that he could explain anything paranormal by natural means or so Keen was led to believe."

So, Randi has not made any explicit claim that he can explain anything paranormal by natural means. Thank you.

 

[apoger]

Sorry Pyrrho, since you were answering for Randi, I thought perchance you might be him. In any case, I was very careful to write the follwoing which I now quote from myself:

"Randi makes an implicit claim (and he is not alone in that) that he could explain anything paranormal by natural means or so Keen was led to believe."

Really? Very careful?
Doesn't seem so as a quick look through this very thread shows you saying:

"It stems from a statement averred by Randi that he could explain anything by natural means including things purportedly paranormal. "

and

"You still don't get it. Randi claims, yes claims, he can debunk any paranormal claim; to wit, he can furnish a normal and natural explanation for anything anyone offers up. "



Sorry Steve, you out and out made the claim that Randi said those things. Then you changed you tune to "Randi makes an implicit claim ...".

Coming down on Pyrrho for asking for a reference after you changed gears in midstream is disingenuous.

As to the claim of "implicit" meaning... that is putting words in Randi's mouth. A strawman argument at best.

 

[SteveGrenard]

The reference for the specific claims by Randi are both implicit and explicit depending on your viewpoint. He has gone on TV in the UK and and has made this claim. He makes it regularly in his weekly column, in his print (Skeptic) columns and whenever and wherever he can. He has made it on LKL during a panel discussion several years ago. He makes this claim in his lectures. He makes these statements ALL the time. Do you and Pyrrho really believe Randi does not claim he can dismantle, disprove, debunk or otherwise shred any paranormal or supernatural claim? This is funny. Its his stock in trade. It is his bet, his gambit, his whole existence and public relations. Its how the man makes his living. Its what he does. Wake up. Get real.

Or are you guys saying Randi can't do this and has never claimed to be able to do this so therefore he is backing out of Keen's request for him to evaluate any one or more of 20 documented cases?
In short, is this a ploy to explain why Randi is chickening out? Okay, I'll buy that.

Just wondering.

BUT ...I am not going to waste my time yet again for a couple of nit picky trolls whose egos are trying to gain them some sort of friggin imaginary points in their mindless games and go through thousands of Randi pages and excerpt all the times he has both implied and averred that there is nothing paranormal or supernatural and if anyone claims there is he can debunk it.
I am just not that big a fan. He was offered the list. Keen is waiting and so are a lot of others for his explanations.