PK parties

[Interesting Ian]

I told you so. You will find that Ian has no knowledge of neuropsychology so any discussion of this area tends to the characteristic wastelands of philosophy.

Ask him if objects of different weight fall at the same rate, I wager that he is ignorant of the experiment too.

Sigh...

What on earth has "neuropsychology" got to do with anything??

 

[Interesting Ian]

Oh, dear. Couldn't you have just left it at "what a complete tithead?" Now this is going to launch into another several-page fruitless discussion, completely obscuring my original point.

Anyway, I like the post by Mr. Bonde. Anders Bonde. Ideas along those lines are appreciated.

Quit whining, I agree with absolutely everything you've said in this thread. Indeed one would have to be breathtakingly stupid not to.

I look forward to hearing about your friends experiences. I would gravitate towards supposing that it's trickery of some sort or other, but am willing to change my mind.

 

[CFLarsen]

Try bending a 3/8" rod of 7075-T6 aluminum alloy.

Then try bending a 3/8" rod of 5056-0 aluminum alloy of the same length.

Until the 5056 yields, they'll feel identical. After that point, the 5056 will work harden, especially after several "flexes", whereas you need to be pretty strong to get the 7075-T6 rod to yield at all (although I would've suggested something slightly thicker than 3/8" and/or shorter than 12").

"No, metal is metal....it will bend the same way!"

BTW: If Targ is an experienced conjurer, then he is also quite capable of actually applying trickery in his experiments, even though he claims to be safeguarding against it.

Lucianarchy,

Can you guarantee that Targ does not use magical tricks, yes or no?

 

[Lucianarchy]

What on earth has "neuropsychology" got to do with anything??

He means some 'lumps of meat' are pickled with all sorts of substances, Ian. By the way you are writing at the moment, yours seems to be preserved by alcohol alone.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Can you guarantee that Targ does not use magical tricks, yes or no?

Interesting dichotomy there, Claus. So, if Targ is good enough to detect trickery due to his experience as a performing stage magician, he is good enough to actually be the one doing the tricking. Considering Targ's main field is physics, and that he has an unblemished history of integrity and honesty, then the liklihood falls into the same realm as supposing Randi uses trickery to debunk the challenge applicants.

Can you guarantee that Randi does not use trickery to null the applicant tests?

 

[Ceinwyn]

[snipped] Considering Targ's main field is physics, and that he has an unblemished history of integrity and honesty...

HAHAHAHAHAhahahah....oh gosh wait a second...

...AAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Damn, good one Luci. Pull the other leg, why don't you?

 

[Lucianarchy]

HAHAHAHAHAhahahah....oh gosh wait a second...

...AAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Damn, good one Luci. Pull the other leg, why don't you?

No problem. Show where you get your belief that Targ does not have an unblemished history of integrity and honesty.

 

[Ceinwyn]

No problem. Show where you get your belief that Targ does not have an unblemished history of integrity and honesty.

Okay.

here:

"The SRI remote-viewing experiments: In the 1970's, physicists Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ conducted experiments at SRI International that they claimed showed subjects could essentially "see" a remote place through the eyes of another person. The target team would randomly visit sites such as a shopping center or airport, while the experimenter asked the subject to describe his impressions. Obviously, deciding whether the subject's impressions matched the target scene involved some subjective decisions. Methodological flaws also plagued the research, and other experimenters were unable to replicate the results. As the National Research Council report puts it: "By both scientific and parapsychological standards, then, the case for remote viewing is not just very weak, but virtually nonexistent." (Druckman and Swets, p. 184)."

and here:

"Examine, for instance, the somewhat dubious investigation of a high-profile performer, Uri Geller. After recently becoming famous in the early 1970’s, Geller submitted to scientific study at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) (Hansel, 1980). (Geller would often cite this research as proof of his ability.) Two physicists with strong interests in parapsychology, Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, performed an investigation of Geller’s ability to bend spoons, draw concealed target pictures, and guess the uppermost face on a die. The results were reported in Nature (Targ and Puthoff, 1974) and The New Scientist (Hanlon). Geller’s claims of psychokinetic spoon bending apparently could not be proven–Targ and Puthoff did not document their findings or whether Geller submitted to any tests at all. In the interest of investigating Geller’s abilities, details of the failed experiments should have been just as clearly reported whether or not the experiments had succeeded."

and here.

'Geller has avoided scientific testing of his claims under controlled laboratory conditions, and has not taken the Randi challenge. For these reasons his claims of paranormal powers receive little support within the scientific community today, although during his early career he allowed some scientists to investigate his claims. An early study [1] by Stanford researchers Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ of Geller's claims regarding remote viewing was published in the British scientific journal Nature in 1974, along with reservations in an editorial. The paper is now widely considered to be methodologically flawed."


Do you really want me to go on?

 

[CFLarsen]

Interesting dichotomy there, Claus. So, if Targ is good enough to detect trickery due to his experience as a performing stage magician, he is good enough to actually be the one doing the tricking. Considering Targ's main field is physics, and that he has an unblemished history of integrity and honesty, then the liklihood falls into the same realm as supposing Randi uses trickery to debunk the challenge applicants.

Trust has nothing to do with it, protocols have.

Can you guarantee that Randi does not use trickery to null the applicant tests?

Yes. Not only does Randi and the applicant agree on the protocol, Randi is not part of the actual testing. If you think he can use trickery, you need to prove it with a specific example.

Now, please answer my question: Can you guarantee that Targ does not use magical tricks, yes or no?

 

[flyboy217]

"No, metal is metal....it will bend the same way!"

Can you prove your assertion?

Or just trying to poke more fun where it's really not needed? Did you even read my response to his post?

 

[Ceinwyn]

I'm still waiting for Luci to refute my opinion that Russell Targ is a deluded woo-woo who couldn't devise a decent experiment if it would save his life.

Targ: I'm not dead, I can't be!

Death: Yeah. You are.

Targ: Impossible! I fudged the data!

 

[Interesting Ian]

He means some 'lumps of meat' are pickled with all sorts of substances, Ian. By the way you are writing at the moment, yours seems to be preserved by alcohol alone.

Inform me of what "neuropsychology" has to do with anything, or desist with your asinine posts.

 

[Ceinwyn]

Inform me of what "neuropsychology" has to do with anything, or desist with your asinine posts.

It means the same as "Shut up you ignorant drunkard who has yet to pick up an actual textbook" or "I'm Interesting".

 

[Lucianarchy]

Do you really want me to go on?

Very much so. Please remember you are talking about an area of controversy, not least that all the data which was commissioned by the CIA has yet to be released. Not one of your opinions show anything which actually qualify Targ as being either without integrity or dishonest. In fact your three sources appear to rely heavily on what had previously been reported by Randi. Yet as we any honest sceptic can see, there is plenty of evidence to show that that information was, at the least, misleading.

"[...]Before I began this modest online research project for a rainy afternoon, I had mixed feelings about Randi. I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest. Now, having explored his contribution to the Targ-Puthoff controversy in some detail, I am thoroughly unimpressed. Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence – in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul. [...]" - http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

 

[Lucianarchy]

Yes. .

Now, please answer my question: Can you guarantee that Targ does not use magical tricks, yes or no?

In scientific testing, observations, participation at Houck's events? Yes. In his scientific work, he is subject to peer review, which is more than can be said for Randi (also a magician). Observations are not magic tricks. Re: Houck, Targ does not mention that he is using magic tricks, so you would need to provide an example when he dishonestly employed magic tricks. Targ has no history of using deception for gain, whereas, Randi used to bilk the rubes at Carnivals and shows, when he went under the name of Prince Ibis.

 

[Ed]

He means some 'lumps of meat' are pickled with all sorts of substances, Ian. By the way you are writing at the moment, yours seems to be preserved by alcohol alone.

Good 'un.

You know that that is not what it is about though, right? The "pickled" discipline is Histology, perhaps Ianology too

 

[CFLarsen]

Can you prove your assertion?

It was a joke. Sorry if I find the claim to bend spoons with your mind a bit silly.

Or just trying to poke more fun where it's really not needed? Did you even read my response to his post?

Yes, I read it. Why can't one spoon be of a soft metal and another of a hard metal? Were analyses made of the spoons?

Very much so. Please remember you are talking about an area of controversy, not least that all the data which was commissioned by the CIA has yet to be released. Not one of your opinions show anything which actually qualify Targ as being either without integrity or dishonest. In fact your three sources appear to rely heavily on what had previously been reported by Randi. Yet as we any honest sceptic can see, there is plenty of evidence to show that that information was, at the least, misleading.

Ceinwyn has provided a heck of a lot more than you.

"[...]Before I began this modest online research project for a rainy afternoon, I had mixed feelings about Randi. I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest. Now, having explored his contribution to the Targ-Puthoff controversy in some detail, I am thoroughly unimpressed. Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence – in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul. [...]" - http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

This says nothing about Targ. We were discussing Targ, remember?

In scientific testing, observations, participation at Houck's events? Yes. In his scientific work, he is subject to peer review, which is more than can be said for Randi (also a magician). Observations are not magic tricks.

But Targ did more than merely observe, did he not? Did he not bend metal himself?

Re: Houck, Targ does not mention that he is using magic tricks, so you would need to provide an example when he dishonestly employed magic tricks. Targ has no history of using deception for gain

Targ doesn't cheat because he says he doesn't cheat? Targ has no history of deceit for gain? Targ has not gained by claiming that paranormal phenomena are real?

Fool.

whereas, Randi used to bilk the rubes at Carnivals and shows, when he went under the name of Prince Ibis.

The difference is that Randi tells his audience that he is cheating them - that's what a magician does.

 

[Ceinwyn]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lucianarchy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very much so. Please remember you are talking about an area of controversy, not least that all the data which was commissioned by the CIA has yet to be released. Not one of your opinions show anything which actually qualify Targ as being either without integrity or dishonest. In fact your three sources appear to rely heavily on what had previously been reported by Randi. Yet as we any honest sceptic can see, there is plenty of evidence to show that that information was, at the least, misleading.

"[...]Before I began this modest online research project for a rainy afternoon, I had mixed feelings about Randi. I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest. Now, having explored his contribution to the Targ-Puthoff controversy in some detail, I am thoroughly unimpressed. Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence – in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul. [...]" - http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

Oh, that's odd. I thought my research had to do with facts, such as Russell Targ has not had a successful experiment in parapsychology ever. I didn't factor in the "CIA" or the "MIB" or any other foolish nonsense you care to promote. I just looked at the components of his experiments, and they are all failures.

You can blame Randi all you like. Russell Targ's failures are his own.

 

[flyboy217]

It was a joke. Sorry if I find the claim to bend spoons with your mind a bit silly.

Who wouldn't find it silly (assuming they'd never done it before, that is)? But come on, at least try to be helpful here.

Yes, I read it. Why can't one spoon be of a soft metal and another of a hard metal? Were analyses made of the spoons?

You read it? I'm asking those exact questions. I pointed out the very spoons he suggested buying... with a link no less. Precisely to find out as much as I can about them beforehand.

I'm trying to keep this as surgical as possible. Silly comments do not help.

 

[Ed]

It means the same as "Shut up you ignorant drunkard who has yet to pick up an actual textbook" or "I'm Interesting".

First, that is a very nice helmet, the BM reconstruction of the example from Sutton Hoo, yes? Did you read Heaney's new translation of Beowulf yet?

To the topic of the moment: It is immensely frustrating dealing with people who have no understanding of the foundations of the current understanding of brain processes. It is as though one is dealing with a 14th century monk. And to substitute "philosophical" maunderings is simply pathetic and intellectually bankrupt.