Peter Vs Randi

[Peter Morris]

I would respectfully claim that you clarify the facts that you feel are in error, you yourself have contradicted yourself in this thread..
"Thoughts can cause arthritis"


"State of mind can influence arthritis."


And then you hold Randi to a higher level of semantic exactness that you don't meet yourself.

No I did not.

I have no objection to semantic errors.

When, for instance, Randi said that we should have the same Y-chromosome, that is a FACTUAL error. Its not a case of mistakenly using the wrong word.

An obsessive Randi fan tries to justify Randis statement by claiming that "same" means "almost the same" I reject that interpretation. If Randi had merely used the wrong word, I would ignore that.

What was the context, something about Noah and the flood was it not? And supposedly according to those who beleive that Noah's flood occured, when did it occur?
About four thousand years ago?

And if that was the case then the genetic drift in the y-chromosone would show convergence at 4,000 years ago not 150,00 years ago, now wouldn't it?

Go read my original post. I made it quite clear that the common ancestor lived much longer ago than Noah.

I was mistaken in my statement of quite how long ago. I stated that he lived several million years ago, which I see now was a bit of an overestimate.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

If Randi had merely used the wrong word, I would ignore that.

...snip...

So what? What is your point?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I guess Peter is trying to assert that before a person can say that they don't believe a claim, they should be an expert in the subject of that claim. So, unless you are an expert in nuclear power, my claim that it's powered by chi energy that comes from the night should be believed.

 

[kittynh]

well, he does seem like he has some hidden agenda. Problem is, it's so well hidden!

 

[Peter Morris]

I guess Peter is trying to assert that before a person can say that they don't believe a claim, they should be an expert in the subject of that claim. So, unless you are an expert in nuclear power, my claim that it's powered by chi energy that comes from the night should be believed.

No, I'm saying that someone with no education to speak of should not be the head of an 'educational' foundation.

Randi is entitled to disbelieve if he wants.

He shouldn't publish this ill-informed gibberish, while claiming that it's accurate scientific information.

 

[Darat]

No, I'm saying that someone with no education to speak of should not be the head of an 'educational' foundation.

...snip...

What subject(s) and level of qualification do you think is required to head up an educational foundation?

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, I'm saying that someone with no education to speak of should not be the head of an 'educational' foundation.

The goal of the JREF is to investigate the paranormal, it's very educational. Just because James Randi doesn't hold a degree doesn't mean that he cannot educate people.


He shouldn't publish this ill-informed gibberish, while claiming that it's accurate scientific information.

He shouldn't publish that he doesn't believe in the paranormal?!

 

[Peter Morris]

well, he does seem like he has some hidden agenda. Problem is, it's so well hidden!

I just get upset by pseudoscientific drivel .

I am upset by pseudoscience from astrologers and creationists trying to claim their belief has some scientific proof behind it.

But when pseudoscience comes from skeptics, its even more annoying.

If people see a claim by dowsers that water flowing underground creates a magnetic field which a dowser can sense, well the average person is likely to scoff at that.

If people see a claim on Randis page saying that water does not flow underground, well the average person is likely to believe him without question. Skeptics, on the whole, tend to be a rather credulous bunch, in a specialised sense.

And the bad arguments tend to crowd out the good ones. You Randi fans meet a dowser who claims that he can find water flowing underground. You wish to refute his claims, so you tell him - water does not flow underground except in caves. It's a dud argument that fails to change anyones mind, and if you read Randi you have no others.

Essentially, speaking as a sceptic, I think Randi is damaging to the cause of scepticism. He gives the rest of us a bad name. People tend to think that we are all as ill-informed and obnoxious as he is.

 

[Darat]

I just get upset by pseudoscientific drivel .

I am upset by pseudoscience from astrologers and creationists trying to claim their belief has some scientific proof behind it.

But when pseudoscience comes from skeptics, its even more annoying.

If people see a claim by dowsers that water flowing underground creates a magnetic field which a dowser can sense, well the average person is likely to scoff at that.

If people see a claim on Randis page saying that water does not flow underground, well the average person is likely to believe him without question. Skeptics, on the whole, tend to be a rather credulous bunch, in a specialised sense.

And the bad arguments tend to crowd out the good ones. You Randi fans meet a dowser who claims that he can find water flowing underground. You wish to refute his claims, so you tell him - water does not flow underground except in caves. It's a dud argument that fails to change anyones mind, and if you read Randi you have no others.

Essentially, speaking as a sceptic, I think Randi is damaging to the cause of scepticism. He gives the rest of us a bad name. People tend to think that we are all as ill-informed and obnoxious as he is.

This is not what you said in a previous post, in that post you said:

No, I'm saying that someone with no education to speak of should not be the head of an 'educational' foundation.

Randi is entitled to disbelieve if he wants.

He shouldn't publish this ill-informed gibberish, while claiming that it's accurate scientific information.

Which of your two different reasons is the one we should accept?

 

[thaiboxerken]

If people see a claim on Randis page saying that water does not flow underground, well the average person is likely to believe him without question. Skeptics, on the whole, tend to be a rather credulous bunch, in a specialised sense.

Why do you make this blantantly insulting statement about skeptics? I know, because you just hate Randi and anyone that supports the JREF.


And the bad arguments tend to crowd out the good ones. You Randi fans meet a dowser who claims that he can find water flowing underground. You wish to refute his claims, so you tell him - water does not flow underground except in caves. It's a dud argument that fails to change anyones mind, and if you read Randi you have no others.

That is just pure fantasy.


Essentially, speaking as a sceptic, I think Randi is damaging to the cause of scepticism. He gives the rest of us a bad name. People tend to think that we are all as ill-informed and obnoxious as he is.

I find Randi neither obnoxious or ill-informed. It seems to be you that is obnoxious and you are the one that likes to nit-pick and try as hard as you can to make Randi seem obnoxious.

Your pants are on fire again.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Let me put this in perspective with a ficional depiction of what Peter is doing:

Believer: Spontaneous human combustion happens.

Randi: That's nonsense, people don't explode.

Peter Morris: Randi said that people don't explode, and it's scientifically clear that if you pump a person full of C4 and detonate it, that the person would explode. Randi is a liar and is trying to spread pseudoscience.

 

[BillHoyt]

Skeptics, on the whole, tend to be a rather credulous bunch, in a specialised sense...

Essentially, speaking as a sceptic,

You are speaking as a skeptic, but believe "skeptics, on the whole, tend to be a rather credulous bunch?" Don't you think your ruse is showing? Maybe you should pull down your skirt a bit.

 

[Dancing David]

No I did not.
Sure seems you do, all your quibbling about 'paleo channels' vs. 'undergroud rivers' would indicate that you are using a semantic based argument. So far , in dowsing you have not pointed out a specific 'scientifc error', that randi stated as being scientificaly correct.

I have no objection to semantic errors.
I refer you to your general dediscussion of water clustering and the extremes you seem to go to in the 'paleostrem' argument.

And you have engaged in semantics over Randi's claim "Thoughts do not cause arthritis.", you have yet to demonstrate that satement to be false. We all agree that thoughts effect state of mind which can influence the onset of arthritis. But it would seem that the most accurate statement would be "Arthritis seems to have an onset that is related to stress and that thoughts can moderate stress level".

So at which point is randi a liar about arthritis? Have you shown him to be a liar, you have not cited a source which says 'Thoughts cause arthritis." I would like to see that citation please, then i concede the point that Randi was wrong.

You haven't shown thought as a causal agent of arthritis, just as an aggravating agent.


When, for instance, Randi said that we should have the same Y-chromosome, that is a FACTUAL error. Its not a case of mistakenly using the wrong word.

An obsessive Randi fan tries to justify Randis statement by claiming that "same" means "almost the same" I reject that interpretation. If Randi had merely used the wrong word, I would ignore that.



Go read my original post. I made it quite clear that the common ancestor lived much longer ago than Noah.

I was mistaken in my statement of quite how long ago. I stated that he lived several million years ago, which I see now was a bit of an overestimate.

Yeah Mr. Morris you should read your own post, youseem to forget what you post.

From your OP:

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

This is randi's full sattement, you seem to be leaving out the fact that his statement is predicated upon the truth of Noah's flood.

He is not saying that all human males should have the same y-chromosone: he is saying that if Noah's flood was a truth then the y-chromosone would be the same.

So your continued harping on randi's misinformation seems to be based solely upon taking the one phrase "this means that all men throughout the world should share the same Y chromosome, and we don't" and bending it extremely to meet criteria that you can't even state clearly.

So which parts are the lies Mr. Morris: in either of his staements about arthritis or the Noah's flood and the y-chromosone you have not proved him a liar.

So where is the lie Mr. Morris?

Please forgive me for needing things spelled out (I am am no towering intellect) but
1. What statement in context did Randi make that was a lie?
2. What citation do you offer to directly counter that statement?

I haven't really seen it in any of your posts, so please be brief and clear and then I will see it as bright as day.

 

[Peter Morris]

Yeah Mr. Morris you should read your own post, youseem to forget what you post.

From your OP:


This is randi's full sattement, you seem to be leaving out the fact that his statement is predicated upon the truth of Noah's flood.

He is not saying that all human males should have the same y-chromosone: he is saying that if Noah's flood was a truth then the y-chromosone would be the same.

So your continued harping on randi's misinformation seems to be based solely upon taking the one phrase "this means that all men throughout the world should share the same Y chromosome, and we don't" and bending it extremely to meet criteria that you can't even state clearly.

So which parts are the lies Mr. Morris: in either of his staements about arthritis or the Noah's flood and the y-chromosone you have not proved him a liar.

So where is the lie Mr. Morris?

Please forgive me for needing things spelled out (I am am no towering intellect) but
1. What statement in context did Randi make that was a lie?
2. What citation do you offer to directly counter that statement?

I haven't really seen it in any of your posts, so please be brief and clear and then I will see it as bright as day.

Randi says that if Noah existed we should have the same Y-chromosome.

Randi's statement is based on the assumption that the Y-chromosome passes down the generations unchanged.

Science says that the Y-chromosome mutates and changes over thousands of years.

Therefore, if Noah really existed, we would NOT have the same Y-chromosome.

Understand yet?

 

[thaiboxerken]

So you're upset because Randi says that we would have the same Y's.. but you don't think we would, but then Randi says that we don't, but you insist that we do? WTF is that?!

 

[Dancing David]

Randi says :B if Noah existed we should have the same Y-chromosome.

Science says that the Y-chromosome mutates and changes over thousands of years.

So, if Noah really existed, we would NOT have the same Y-chromosome.

True nuff, but I read it differenet than you, I read it to say that the Noak myth is not true. He doesn't state that there has been no change in the y-chromosone.

So now you are again focusing on a statement out of context. I will read the commentary and see if randi says that there is no change in the y-chomosone.


Also Randi's statement "... and we don't" is misleading. We don't have the same Y-chromosome, but there are similarities indicating that we do in fact have a common ancestor (Genetic Adam). Randi's denial of a common ancestor is wrong.... albeit the common ancestor lived 150,000 years ago, rather longer than the Bible allows.

Understand yet?

I understand that Randi was referencing the Noah myth and that you are trying to extend that to a general discussion of genetic drift on the y-chromosone, and in fact the statement "we don't' would be one in support possibly of genetic drift.

methinks you oversharpen your blade and you ruin it.

This statement in particular is hyperbole"Randi's denial of a common ancestor is wrong.... ", he didn't deny a common ancestor at all. You are just playing strawman and saying that he says that so you can knock it down.

 

[kittynh]

Essentially, speaking as a sceptic, I think Randi is damaging to the cause of scepticism. He gives the rest of us a bad name. People tend to think that we are all as ill-informed and obnoxious as he is.

well, I don't think he's hurt my name as a skeptic, and yes I'm pretty well known where I live here, and on another internet site as a skeptic. I think that being associated with JREF and Mr.Randi has done nothing but make my name look better. If Mr.Randi were perfect, well he'd be in the religion business then!

 

[rppa]

Yeah Mr. Morris you should read your own post, youseem to forget what you post.

From your OP:

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

This is randi's full sattement, you seem to be leaving out the fact that his statement is predicated upon the truth of Noah's flood.

Actually, it's not Randi's full statement If you go back to the column in question, you'll see that the statement was sent in by reader Tony Kehoe.

The point is pedantic; though Randi didn't make the statement he does agree with it: "Good point, Tony!" he remarks. Still, I know that Mr. Morris wouldn't want anyone to think he was being intellectually dishonest, attributing a statement to somebody which they didn't make, right?

 

[jj]

From referenced site:


Karst formations are, in essence, flooded caves.

Thank you, I was about to point that out. Karst doesn't have to be flooded, though, it can be dry, but it is, in fact, speliogenic area, and if water is flowing at any reasonable rate underground, there's a cave involved.

Yes, there are various buried riverbeds that offer less flow resistance than rock, but the flow rates, although faster than pure rock, are much less than the typical cave stream.

 

[jj]

This argument amounts to little more than, "Randi makes mistakes, therefore he cannot be trusted in challenging paranormal claims".

This is one of the weakest criticisms of Randi I have ever heard. Rediculous.

And the "mistakes" consist mostly of extraction from context, begging the question, and the like.

Not JUST ridiculous, I think.