No, i´m not playing any rhetorical game here. If I was I would be easily beaten. So there is any evidence hiding? What are ya trying to say?
Do you understand the difference between "data" and "evidence"? You keep moving back and forth, alternately referring to PEAR's "data" and "evidence". They are not the same.
Do you have
data or
evidence?
You said that they did not produced this "something" . What would that be?
Oh, no.
You referred to this "something".
You tell me what it would be.
I told you: Claims are debunked when we have natural explanations. Until you can come up with something better, it stays debunked.
Would you say that the idea of fairies is debunked?
This is a way more complex topic. Nobody could win this game because it is prepared for people to fail on and on. The "statistics department" of JREF knows how to raise the values of what would they call acceptable proof.
A lie.
If a claimant said he could flip a coin and get "heads" 50% of the time, it would certainly not qualify. But what if the claimant said he could get 50.1% out of 20 tries? Would that be statistically valid? Hard to tell, without a statistics department.
It is interesting - revealing - that you, on one hand, criticize JREF for not being scientific, but you also criticize them for seeking scientific support.
If you have examples of JREF rigging a test so it is impossible to win,
let's see your evidence. Put up or shut up.
That´s more than a little convenient eh? No replication required, and still with one shot , something is debunked?
More dishonesty. Who said that one failed test would debunk something? All a failed test means is that the money isn't won.
But one passed test means you win a million bucks!
That's pretty good odds,
provided you can do what you claim to do.
The claimants who agree to take the tests have problems. The problem of being too naive.
Most of them are, yes. But not for the reasons you give. They are naive, because they honestly believe they can do it. When they take the test, they fail. Not because the test is rigged, but because they can't do what they say they can.
Those who refuse to take the test, make up all kinds of excuses and - as you - lie about it.
Of course not, they do not leave any room for "error". The statistics for example are always way higher than the reasonable level would be.
Prove it. Name one test where the statistics were set way than the reasonable level would be.
Put up or shut up.
Remember that they are trying to save their million from being paid off.
On the contrary, Randi has several times expressed his wish to see the million bucks be paid, simply because it would be worth it.
A not known fact? Hmm let´s say, that rubbing a pea on the tip of your nose on full-moon nights is effective against heart-attacks. This is pretty much an unknown fact.
I meant "a known fact". What is a "known fact"?
Ah but there´s more to it than this. I think it is about skepticism afterall. I doubt the Randi Million show is something more than just one more trick of a smart trickster, so I´m being skeptical about this. How could one convince me on the contrary? I would love to read it. In fact Randi has that "I can fool anyone but none can fool me" thing going on. He´s a genius magician pal, how can we possibly know that he´s not trying to debunk the claims using his high IQ, creativity and rhetorical skills, more than attributing a fair way of testing something?
I think that this is the strongest point not to take this little show seriously, other than for entertainment purposes.
Again, if you have evidence that Randi cheats,
let's see it. Put up or shut up.
Anecdotal evidence is evidence -
it's anecdotal evidence. The clue is in the name.
It's not
proof. It may not be
admissible in court, or in science. It is clearly however
evidence.
You want evidence of the paranormal? OK, PEAR,
The Scole Report, Radin's various psi meta-analysis, the Rosenheim Poltergist film,
Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation by Prof Ian Stevenson,
...
There is plenty of
evidence on the paranormal. Much of it is perfectly
valid scientific evidence. Some is pro, some con, but its all evidence.
There is no proof.
No. Evidence has to be valid. There has to be not only a lack of natural explanations, but also viable explanations for the paranormal. It isn't enough to say "Hey, we can't explain this, so it has to be paranormal.
Ray Hyman's critiques, James Randi's tests (where the experiment has occurred) -- all evidence. No proof.
Hyman's critiques and Randi's tests do not apply here.
