PK parties

[Lucianarchy]

Here is an extract from 'Flim-Flam Flummery: A Skeptical Look at James Randi by Michael Prescott. Please resist the urge to have it censored, because it needs reading in context to some of the issue raised here against Dr Targ, and demonstratesand debunks some of the dysfunctional skeptical arguments being employed by pseudo-skeptics. I recommend reading the full article as it provides a unique insight into the development of true, honest skepticism.

"Years ago, when I was a full-fledged skeptic, atheist, and rationalist, I read James Randi's 1980 book Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and other Delusions. Randi is an accomplished magician and a professional skeptic, dedicating to disproving any and all claims of what he considers pseudoscience. In line with this agenda, and as its title suggests, Flim-Flam is a concerted attack on miscellaneous purported irrationalities – everything from the pop-culture writings of Erich von Daniken to the more serious investigations of professional parapsychologists. I enjoyed the book, which reinforced my belief system at the time.
Recently I picked up Flim-Flam again. Having changed my mind about many things over the past twenty years, I responded to it much differently this time. I was particularly struck by the book's hectoring, sarcastic tone. Randi pictures psychic researchers as medieval fools clad in "caps and bells" and likens the delivery of an announcement at a parapsychology conference to the birth of "Rosemary's Baby."

...snip..."

http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

[modd]This post has been reported for a breach of the copyright rule. The post has been edited to comply with the copyright rule. Anyone wishing to read the full article can follow the link.[/modd]

 

[Ed]

from Uri's site:

The material on these pages is copyright Uri Geller 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,2003, 2004. Prior written permission is needed for any duplication of any of the material on any of these pages.

Luci, you got some 'splainin' to do.

Or...are you Uri Geller????????????????????????

The mind wobbles.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: PK parties

So the question is, did you lie or plagerize or is that web site yours??

Neither. I have already explained that I did some research for a client which was commisioned for a well known periodical. Although (most of) the research was published elsewhere, and again, later on Mr Geller's site, the original copyright actually belongs to me and I have the original manuscript to prove it. Despite a disagreement over rights with the original client I have allowed the current publishing situation to remain in stasis. It was a hard learned lesson.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PK parties

Neither. I have already explained that I did some research for a client. Although the research was published, and again, later on Mr Geller's site, the original copywrite actually belongs to me and I have the original manuscript to prove it. Despite a disagreement over rights with the original client I have allowed the current publishing situation to remain in stasis. It was a hard learned lesson.

Uri says it's his. Having the manuscript means nothing at all, it depends on whether it was contract work.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PK parties

Uri says it's his.

He is welcome to publish it. But the original copyright is mine.

 

[Ed]

Care to prove it?

 

[flyboy217]

I realise that I'm as guilty as anyone at derailing this thread into a "is Targ a credible witness" thread where instead we should be considering the PK parties and whether they are credible.

I've already mentioned a number of times the issues with the experiments as described. I shall reiterate them here.

- The evidence offered is anecdotal
- Houck sets his own "success" levels and then doesn't back them up with evidence
- The account you offer by way of proof is clearly flawed because
- eyes were closed when bending occured
- the participants were asked to examine a completely different bar to that bent
- Houck appears to be in control of the items being bent, where this is not the case he complains:


So yeah, I think there is room for healthy skepticism about this one.

This seems like a fair argument. On the strength of Jack Houck's claims alone, one would not be able to accept such a phenomenon. Agreed.

But based on anecdotal evidence from several other sources (Universities, Crichton, Radin, etc.), and the apparent simplicity of hosting one of these, I think the best one can do is try it oneself. Nobody's going to convince anyone beyond reasonable doubt either way here (except, of course, for the people who have already made up their minds. But they're not here to discuss anyway).

I'll give it a go. Either way it turns out, I'll let you know.

 

[Ed]

Here is an extract from 'Flim-Flam Flummery: A Skeptical Look at James Randi by Michael Prescott. Please resist the urge to have it censored, because it needs reading in context to some of the issue raised here against Dr Targ, and demonstratesand debunks some of the dysfunctional skeptical arguments being employed by pseudo-skeptics. I recommend reading the full article as it provides a unique insight into the development of true, honest skepticism.

http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

And this is relevent because ........

 

[Lucianarchy]

LOL! I have just noticed that the following quote (highlighted) is one taken from the original I rough-wrote and researched....

"A posting I found on a message board sums up the situation nicely: "Claims of poor scientific method leveled at the experimenters have been shown to be mainly unsubstantiated personal opinion and second-hand 'Chinese Whispers.'" (Chinese Whispers is the British equivalent of the American game, Telephone.) It might be worth adding that critics of paranormal phenomena, like Randi, are forever decrying any reliance on "anecdotal evidence," which is precisely what the bulk of Randi's argument consists of.



http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

 

[Lucianarchy]

I'll give it a go. Either way it turns out, I'll let you know.

I think you'll find the more participants involved, the better the effect. May I suggest doing this online, at a future given date and time allowing plenty of people to particiapate at the same time?

Perhaps we could host it live on one of the new forums. Tami, are you reading this?

 

[flyboy217]

I think you'll find the more participants involved, the better the effect. May I suggest doing this online, at a future given date and time allowing plenty of people to particiapate at the same time?

Perhaps we could host it live on one of the new forums. Tami, are you reading this?

I'm not sure how this will be useful. It would offer no evidence, people wouldn't actually SEE each other bending (the apparent purpose of getting that many people), and so on. Is this any better than doing it alone (which I must admit has failed for me)?

 

[Lucianarchy]

...snip..."

http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

[modd]This post has been reported for a breach of the copyright rule. The post has been edited to comply with the copyright rule. Anyone wishing to read the full article can follow the link.[/modd] [/B][/QUOTE]

What is it with you, Ed? I mean, really. What harm was being done? It was only an extract and used as fair use to illustrate the dysfunctional nature of some of the arguments, suppositions and 'Chinese whispers' being employed in this thread.

 

[Lucianarchy]

I'm not sure how this will be useful. It would offer no evidence, people wouldn't actually SEE each other bending (the apparent purpose of getting that many people), and so on. Is this any better than doing it alone (which I must admit has failed for me)?

I think you'll find that numbers of participants are important, Flyboy217. Yes, better results are achieved in groups. Doing an online experiment would at least be fun and interesting, if not proof. BTW, my eight year-old can do this better, more reliably than I can. Personally, putting mundane explanations aside for a moment, I'm inclined to follow the idea that personal / positive belief is an aspect of the effect.

 

[The Don]

[BWhat is it with you, Ed? I mean, really. What harm was being done? It was only an extract and used as fair use to illustrate the dysfunctional nature of some of the arguments, suppositions and 'Chinese whispers' being employed in this thread. [/B]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!

[fatbastard] Baby, the other, other white meat [/fatbastard]

 

[The Don]

Personally, putting mundane explanations aside for a moment, I'm inclined to follow the idea that personal / positive belief is an aspect of the effect.

I agree with you 100%, someone going in expecting there to be an effect is far more likely to come out believing that they've experienced the effect.

Still doesn't mean that there was an effect.

 

[Ed]

...snip..."

http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

[modd]This post has been reported for a breach of the copyright rule. The post has been edited to comply with the copyright rule. Anyone wishing to read the full article can follow the link.[/modd]

What is it with you, Ed? I mean, really. What harm was being done? It was only an extract and used as fair use to illustrate the dysfunctional nature of some of the arguments, suppositions and 'Chinese whispers' being employed in this thread. [/B][/QUOTE]

Luci, if I report something I say so. I feel that it is whiney and girly and rude and ballsless to not own up to it.

That said, I reported nothing on this thread.

Further, Uri clearly states that you need permission. I really don't think that citing the bulk of an article is "fair use".

Again, some ballsless wonder reported it, not I.

 

[Lucianarchy]

I agree with you 100%, someone going in expecting there to be an effect is far more likely to come out believing that they've experienced the effect.

Still doesn't mean that there was an effect.

Of course, and likewise, it doesn't mean that there wasn't an effect either.

 

[Ed]

Whoa... I thought you were referring to the Uri rip-off, not the Prescott rip-off. Anyway, I reported neither.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Luci, if I report something I say so. I feel that it is whiney and girly and rude and ballsless to not own up to it.

That said, I reported nothing on this thread.

Further, Uri clearly states that you need permission. I really don't think that citing the bulk of an article is "fair use".

Again, some ballsless wonder reported it, not I.

OK. I apologise. Sorry for that.

BTW, the article in question came from Mr Prescott's site, not Mr Geller's.

 

[Ed]

OK. I apologise. Sorry for that.

Good form, old bean.