Peter Vs Randi

[Dancing David]

And what of Randi's ad homs?

Or is he somehow above us all in a 'do as I say, not as I do' way.

Ah well, were the OP to be addressing the editorial nastiness of the Great and Powerful Randi then I would have to agree, I do not support the use of insults in critical thinking. However the OP was trying to say that randi was innacruate in his stements and then some posters were reasonable and other posters weren't.

Do as I do, or not.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Would you like me to switch that one around for you too?

Neither one of them like each other.

Randi is often sloppy with his research and comes off as an ass. Just as the other extreme of the subject does.

Your opinion is noted, and then properly placed into the trash where it belongs. I don't think Randi comes of as an ass at all. However, YOU do.

 

[tamiO]

Your opinion is noted, and then properly placed into the trash where it belongs. I don't think Randi comes of as an ass at all. However, YOU do.

Bully for you! You passed the test! You are a true skeptic that we can all be proud of.

 

[An Infinite Ocean]

What is this, the annual Semantic Pedants Convention?

Saying that you can affect arthritis with thoughts is very different from saying that state of mind can affect arthritis.

"State of mind" and "thoughts". Both are seperate. A state of mind is a general condition, a thought is (ostensibly, at least) a single mental process.

Can I sign up, now?

 

[tamiO]

What is this, the annual Semantic Pedants Convention?

Saying that you can affect arthritis with thoughts is very different from saying that state of mind can affect arthritis.

"State of mind" and "thoughts". Both are seperate. A state of mind is a general condition, a thought is (ostensibly, at least) a single mental process.

Can I sign up, now?

hmmm.... not so fast.

By controlling my thoughts, I can affect my state of mind.

Hell, I dunno.

 

[Mercutio]

hmmm.... not so fast.

By controlling my thoughts, I can affect my state of mind.

Hell, I dunno.

Actually, this is one of the more interesting aspects of the "state of mind can influence [say, arthritis]" argument (to me, at least).

tamiO, you say earlier in this thread

As someone with arthritis and a variety of other ailments I can attest that your state of mind does affect your level of pain.

Here, you say that "by controlling [your] thoughts, you can affect [your] state of mind." Does this mean that we can blame you (I use the term very loosely) for your pain? It is, somehow, your fault?

(confession: I had a friend who died in a tractor accident; his parents put him in bed and prayed over him. Now they have a dead son, and the guilt of feeling that they were not devout enough to save him. The down-side of the "you can think yourself well" optimistic message--that if you are not well, it is because your thoughts did not work--has always bothered me.)

So, tamiO...are you saying (and I do see the "Hell, I dunno", so this question is more of an exploration) that your thoughts have a great deal of influence? A little bit? Moderate?

Lastly...I don't want to derail this thread, so if you would like to explore this idea, I suggest a new thread. I'll join you there if you do; if you don't, no problem.

 

[tamiO]

Lastly...I don't want to derail this thread, so if you would like to explore this idea, I suggest a new thread. I'll join you there if you do; if you don't, no problem.

Tomorrow is another day.
Yes, let's get together.

 

[princhester]

Not at all. When Randi talks about dowsers hunting for 'underground rivers', really what the dowsers are looking for is paleochannels.

No, what they are looking for is underground rivers and streams.

See these dowsing sites here and here and here. See also the Missouri Department of Natural Resources comments here.

When you find evidence from dowsers that they are looking for paleochannels, or an example of Randi saying "there's no such thing as paleochannels" then you may have a point.

Until then, would it not be appropriate to refrain from criticizing Randi for saying there are no underground rivers, when there are no underground rivers?

For example, in the Australian test, Randi instructed the dowsers to check for 'underground rivers' Really, he should have told them to check for paleochannels.

Out and out tosh. What they were told was:

Claimants will be asked to dowse the area used, to determine if there are any anomalies present such as natural water which might inhibit or confuse the results. If this is felt to be the case, it may be necessary to use only part of the pipe layout, in which circumstance the rules will be adjusted.

In no way did Randi instruct them as to precisely what they should check for, let alone "instruct them to look for underground rivers".

Was your above error a lie or a mistake, Peter? Think carefully before you answer. Oh, that's right, you've gone so you won't be answering.

Randi is wrong to deny the existence of such things. 'Underground rivers' is Randi's term, and it's not correct.

It is not Randi's term. See above cites.

The dowsers he tested may, or may not, make the same error. Perhaps the dowsers also call them rivers, perhaps not.

They do. See above cites.

The point is, it is misleading to say that underground rivers don't exist. Structures exist that are river-like except for a bit of terminology.

It might be if one were giving a lecture on the nature of underground water. But when one is commenting on what dowsers believe in, it hardly seems inappropriate to say that what they believe exists, doesn't, when it doesn't.

Bill, I'm not going to play word games with you. It is an utter waste of time discussing what he meant by a particular word.

By "play word games" you simply mean "discuss what Randi means by what he says".

You are quite happy to expound upon what you think Randi meant by what he said, but you will not tolerate or listen to or participate in any debate upon whether what you think Randi meant is correct.

Is this the very definition of "close minded" or what?

 

[BillHoyt]

I don't follow sport,

You misspelled "genetics".

I take exception to the claim that I "started this as a discussion of what Randi or his correspondent meant by "share the same chromosome."

Apparently you also have a problem understanding your own words.

I have never argued about what the word means. In fact I directly refused to join in.

My point about Randi is that he is factually and scientifically wrong.

Randi offered an argument based on the supposition that chromosomes pass unchanged from generation to generation. This is wrong.

I am not accusing Randi of using the wrong word here, I am accusing him of basic ignorance.

Arguing about the meaning of the word "same" is entirely Bill's doing, and I want no part of it.

Nonsense. Here is what you said:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole human race is supposedly descended from Noah and his sons, after god drowned all of Adam and Eve's descendants (except for Noah and his brood) in the Great Flood. By rights, this means that all men throughout the world should share the same Y chromosome, and we don't. How do the credophiles answer that, I wonder? http://www.randi.org/jr/081503.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
Randi and his correspondent seem to think that the Y chromosome is passed unchanged from father to son. This is wrong. There are two mechanisms that alter the Y chromosome in each generation.
...

Also, the claim that we don’t have the same Y-chromosome needs examination. While all human males don’t have identical Y-chromosomes, there are strong similarities, which shows that all men on Earth are in fact descended from a common male ancestor. Of course, he lived millions of years ago, rather than the few thousand years claimed by creationists.

Now, where oh where could you have gotten the idea that Randi "seem to think that the Y chromosome is passed unchanged from father to son?"

Can't be the last line, the credophiles quip, right? Can't be the first line either, the one about the Bible's claims, right? That leaves the second line:

"By rights, this means that all men throughout the world should share the same Y chromosome, and we don't."

Let's boil this down further, to focus on the chromosome portion:

"men...should share the same Y chromosome."

To all but pinheads, then, you have drawn us a map:

"men...should share the same Y chromosome" = "the Y chromosome is passed unchanged from father to son"

I don't know, Peter, my English is pretty d****d good. My reading comprehension is also pretty d***d good. I'm having a devil of a time finding any explanation for your claim of scientific error here other than this map.

Clearly you claim "share the same Y chromosome" means "passed unchanged from father to son." Clearly also, I have shown you how this is shorthand for "share essentially the same Y chromosome." Clearly, the link I provided includes several passages making this meaning quite clear:

"male relatives who have an uninterrupted male-male link _between them will share the same, or very similar, Y-chromosome signatures."

See, in this first passage, they are explicit in spelling out "same, or very similar."

Now the legend under the genealogical tree includes this:
" Male sharing Y chromosome via an _uninterrupted male-male link _with a common ancestor "

But they just got through discussing mutation! And they just got through separating "same" from "very similar"! Scientific error? No, simply shorthand.

Peter, you are the one who leveled the accusation. You are the one who based on YOUR misunderstanding of what was meant. You are the one who must either withdraw the accusation or make an attempt to defend it. Do do, sir.

 

[Zep]

Here's a summary of what I learned.

o There is some water everywhere. Nowhere is completely devoid of water.

For someone who is engaged in a nit-picking exercise with others here about claiming that near enough is NOT good enough, you have just successfully overturned your own arguments yourself. This statement agrees COMPLETELY with Randi's assertion, doesn't it! All the rest of your points about underground water size of deposit and potability and ease of access and such does not negate this statement in the least, and so are actually completely irrelevant to this point, true or otherwise!

Thank you, Mr Morris. Next?

 

[Reginald]

Well put Zep.

 

[BillHoyt]

Peter Morris.
Peter Abhoris.
Peter Ignoris.
Peter Nomoris.

 

[tamiO]

Peter Morris.
Peter Abhoris.
Peter Ignoris.
Peter Nomoris.

Has it ever occured to you that your comments stifle instead of encourage dialog?

You seem to only focus on shutting people up. Talking to them instead of with them.

 

[BillHoyt]

Has it ever occured to you that your comments stifle instead of encourage dialog?

You seem to only focus on shutting people up. Talking to them instead of with them.

Tami,

1. I take it you missed what went down here? I attempted to engage him in dialogue. He shut it down very quickly. And he just stormed out of the thread. "I'm done here."

2. Would you like to take up his mantle? Or do you just prefer off-mission woo whiny posts? Have another glass on me. I have no interest in these meta-discussions about how evil and awful skeptics are. However, if you'd like to contribute to the thread, by all means, answer the questions that caused Peter to stomp his feet and flee.

 

[tamiO]

Tami,

1. I take it you missed what went down here? I attempted to engage him in dialogue. He shut it down very quickly. And he just stormed out of the thread. "I'm done here."

2. Would you like to take up his mantle? Or do you just prefer off-mission woo whiny posts? Have another glass on me. I have no interest in these meta-discussions about how evil and awful skeptics are. However, if you'd like to contribute to the thread, by all means, answer the questions that caused Peter to stomp his feet and flee.

It's just your tone that offputs discussion. Have you ever thought of friendlying up your choice of words?

 

[BillHoyt]

It's just your tone that offputs discussion. Have you ever thought of friendlying up your choice of words.

No.

Now, would you care to discuss the topic here?

 

[tamiO]

No.

Now, would you care to discuss the topic here?

I guess not. I have posted what I felt drawn to post. Not much else in this thread has moved me to comment.

I would just like to see the schism between believers and skeptics to be more of a bridge paved with respect.

Just as I was enbarrassed to be lumped into the new age label because I posted in those forums, I am embarrassed to be lumped into the group known as Randi-bots because I post here.

 

[UnTrickaBLe]

Peter Morris.
Peter Abhoris.
Peter Ignoris.
Peter Nomoris.

Hahaha.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You seem to only focus on shutting people up. Talking to them instead of with them.

I think that shutting Pete up would be a public service.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I would just like to see the schism between believers and skeptics to be more of a bridge paved with respect.

Peter is treated with as much respect as he deserves. It's not our fault that he doesn't deserve much respect at all. His constant attacking and fabrications bring him his just rewards.


Just as I was enbarrassed to be lumped into the new age label because I posted in those forums, I am embarrassed to be lumped into the group known as Randi-bots because I post here.

I'm embarrassed for you as well, for being such a hippie.