• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Questions for Lucianarchy

CFLarsen

Penultimate Amazing
C
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
42,371
Questions for Lucianarchy


This is the old list of of questions previously avoided by Lucianarchy in the threads she has participated in. It got lost during a clean-up, so I am reposting it for reference.

I have concentrated mostly on my own questions. There were more than I expected...

So, Lucianarchy - are you up for it?

Looking for psi.
  • WHAT are you actually looking for?
    How do you define it, how do you discover it, measure it, discern it from other phenomena?
  • HOW would you construct a set of coherent experiments that would show the existance/nonexistance of this?
  • WHO would you accept to perform these tests? What lab, group or organization?
    It wouldn't be difficult at all to find a lab that could do these tests unbiased: That's how double-blind tests work. The ones who actually performs the experiment doesn't know what we are looking for.
  • WHY would a negative result not convince you?
    Even PEAR and SRI come up with negative results sometimes, yet you don't weigh these as important as the positive ones.
  • Are the few experiments you constantly point to as proof of psi done from a positive theory or a negative theory?
  • Can you actually form a positive theory and construct an experiment that would prove the existence of psi, instead of relying on negative theories ("We found something, we don't know what it is, it can't be anything we know of today, so it must be psi!")?

Psi, general
  • Why is it so important to you to prove to this board that psi has been found?
  • Why can't you explain - in layman's terms - the abstract from Helmut Schmidt's "PK Tests in a Pre-Sleep State" you posted? Is that too complicated for you or do you simply refuse?
    Answer: Refused.
  • What does the hypothesis for "psi" state?
  • Which parapsychologists use this hypothesis in their work?
  • Is it the accepted all-round hypothesis for "psi", or are there others?
  • Could you, in your own words, describe what "psi" is? How to test for it, what protocols to use?
  • Do you consider paranormal research a victim of the suppression of mainstream science?
    If yes, how do you reconcile this with the prominent exposure of paranormal issues in media, like spiritual shows, communicating-with-the-dead programs, paranormal stories, shows, etc.?

    If no, why don't we see more mainstream science take paranormal issues seriously?
  • Why is it not a problem for you that we still don't see evidence of paranormal phenomena, if you claim the evidence exist, yet cannot show it?

Unlucky 13
  • How can you determine that Brits are more fearful of 13 than Danes, if you cannot quantify this?
  • Why does the Danish lotto numbers (with more data points) show 13 placed smack in the middle? Danes are "afraid" of 13 as well.
  • Why is 38 more lucky than 13 is unlucky?
    Answer:"38, is the most frequently drawn ball in the UKNLMD. Its frequency goes way over what you can rationaly expect from chance after so many runs. Using my hypothesis, based on socio/cultural group consciousness, it would represent the projection of the most desired outcome based on the holistic S/C value."
  • Is it not true that you came up with "pre-Christian/pagan" fear of 13 in the UK after I pointed out that similar Danish data showed other results than yours?
  • Is it not true, that you have not been able to show this British pagan fear of 13, but that all your references point to a Christian one?
  • Isn't it true that in many cases, 13 was considered a lucky number?
  • Have you looked at other lotteries than the UK one? If yes, which? If no, why not?
  • If 13 is so unlucky in UK lotteries, why is it played so much?
  • Why do you rule out the most obvious reason for 13 coming in last: Faulty equipment? Isn't that the first we should check, if we get weird results?
  • Do you believe that the lottery are never tested for just this?
  • Will you accept that your theory is wrong, when 13 doesn't end up last at any point in the future?
  • Why can you only predict 3 numbers in the UK lottery? Why not 4 or 5?
  • Why don't you consider PGP a strong encryption method?
  • What are your qualifications for arguing this?
  • Why can't you make the numbers known (and encrypted!) beforehand? Will an encrypted posting be influenced? How so?
  • What do you base your critique of PGP on in the Czech document? You said you couldn't read the language?
  • Why did you refuse to use PGP after finding a Czech reference to PGP, when you were later shown a document in English about the same subject?
  • Why isn't a FedEx delivery by monday good enough? Is the FedEx involved in the Great Conspiracy too?
  • How does your predictions in the UK lottery go? Are you more successful or less successful?
    Answer:Four wins in a row. Refused to provide evidence.

SAIC, Hyman, Utts, Sheldrake
  • What is more probable? Hyman being wrong or you?
  • Does Hyman agree with Utts on her conclusions of the experiments?
  • Do you agree that "blips" in scientific experiments happen all the time?
  • If yes, why isn't the SAIC experiment a "blip"?
  • Is an experiment more valid because it has been funded by a government agency, e.g. the CIA?
  • Are you a spokesman for SAIC?
  • Are the SAIC experiments proof of "psi"?
  • Is any "blip" proof of psi? If yes, why? If no, when is it proof, and when is it not?
  • Has all possible error-sources been eliminated in the SAIC experiments?
  • Does Hyman claim this?
  • Does Utts claim this?
  • If the SAIC experiments show proof of psi, what other experiments repeat these?
  • Is there a free, open access to the experiments made by SRI, SAIC and PEAR?
  • Does Hyman speak exclusively about the SAIC experiments in his conclusion or does he include other experiments?
  • Does Utts speak exclusively about the SAIC experiments in her conclusion or does she include other experiments?
  • Does Hyman include earlier SRI experiments in his conclusion?
  • Does Utts include earlier SRI experiments in her conclusion?
  • If Hyman and Utts include different experiments in their conclusions, wouldn't you agree that they do not agree on the conclusions of the SAIC experiments?
  • Do you find that Hyman is a well-respected scientist that should be taken seriously?
  • Do you agree with Hyman that effect size in itself is in no way an indication of a paranormal phenomenon?
  • Have you tried to replicated the SAIC experiments? If no, why do you insist we do it? If yes, can we see the results, methodology, full data set, etc.?
  • Do you agree that in half the observations published by Sheldrake on his site, the dog goes to the window even though the owner isn't on her way home?

Targ and Geller
  • Why didn't Targ ask Hebard, builder of the magnetometer Swann "manipulated", if there could be any explanation?
  • Why would Randi mention that Geller is a magician, and not mention if Targ is?
  • Can you find an independent reference to Targ being anything else but an amateur magician?
  • Why is it incomprehensible that Geller can fool Targ?
  • Did Targ believe in Geller's abilities before they met?
  • If Geller has been caught cheating, why do you still consider him "real"?
  • Why would Geller resort to cheating, if his powers are real?
  • Why won't Geller perform in front of conjurers?
  • Why can't Geller bend a spoon without touching it?
  • Why is David Blaine's opinion much more important than Randi's, Copperfield etc.?

Natalia Lulova
  • Are there any indications in the article that the girl doesn't speak English sufficiently to perform the test?
    Status: The girl "excelled" in English. She was given the choice of answering in either language. There was a Russian interpreter present.
  • Who is actually referred to as speaking Russian?
    Status: Void.
  • Why does the coach speak only occasionally to the girl in Russian?
    Status: Void.
  • Doesn't this indicate that the girl indeed understands English?
    Status: Void.
  • Is it possible to give the girl secret instructions in Russian?
    Status: Void.
  • Is it possible at all that the girl produced openings in the first blindfold?
  • Why did the girl fail, when she couldn't rub or pull on her face?
  • Where in the Challenge does it say that the results would have to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, in order for the test to be passed?
    Status: Nowhere.
  • Where in the Challenge does it say that the test must be based on scientific principles?
    Status: Nowhere.
  • If it is shown that the girl understands English well enough to give her answers in English, will you admit defeat?
  • How would you have designed and carried out the test?

Science
  • Do you understand the basics of science?
  • Do you consider it a scientifically sound method to have the presenter of a hypothesis perform the test and judge the results?
  • Would you consider yourself unbiased towards the mainstream scientific establishment?
  • Why do you need to have the basics of science explained to you, if you claim scientific proof of psi?
  • Do you understand that witness testimony is utterly irrelevant in science?

Skepticism, etc.
  • Why do you refer to yourself as a skeptic, when you don't follow the rules of skepticism (following the scientific method, etc.)?
  • Don't you find that the replicated personal connections between the sources you present are problematic?
  • Are character flaws an indication of the validity of a person's findings?
  • Can we see any psi experiment replicated with similar results published in a peer-reviewed journal, not devoted to parapsychology?
  • Can we even see the same experiment replicated with similar results performed at any of your own listed organizations?
  • What is the difference between an amateur and a professional?
  • Have you considered any other theory other than your own? If so, which did you consider, and why did you abandon them?
  • Do you want to see a list of the references I use?
  • Do you consider Occam's Razor a good tool to investigate paranormal claims?
    If yes, isn't the probability of Geller cheating and/or using simply trickey much more probable than Geller having paranormal powers?

    If no, why isn't it applicable in this case? What other cases do you find Occam's Razor a wrong tool to use?
  • What scientists are we talking about, when you talk about "Considering the evidence from so many credible people, scientists..."?
  • Have these scientists published their findings in peer-reviewed journals, not devoted to parapsychology?
  • Why have you switched tactics? You don't argue or show that your data is evidence, now we are all a bunch of morons in denial.

Randi/Magic
  • Why hasn't Dr. Gary Schwartz applied for the Randi Challenge?
  • Why haven't SAIC applied for the Randi Challenge?
  • Why hasn't Uri Geller applied for the Randi Challenge?
  • Why haven't you (and your team) applied for the Randi Challenge?
  • Have you read the terms for the Randi Challenge?
    Answer:"I have read the terms of the Challenge."
  • Do you understand the terms for the Randi Challenge?
    If yes, why do you continue to refer to the test as a "grant" and not a "challenge/test"?
  • Do you realize that the posters here are not JREF staff, except Randi, Andrew and Linda?
  • Is this your statement, Lucianarchy?
    'I take great exception to James "The Amusing" Randi dismissing my faith. He is a right bastard and I urge you to help me shut his hate site down.'
    Click to expand...
    Answer:"Of course not. But perhaps that illustrates the desperation and tactics psuedo-skeptics will stoop to in order to smear, denigrate and censor."
    Status: Highly likely that it is L's statement. Very similar ISPs.
  • Why do you want to oppress and silence those who criticise your beliefs, e.g. James Randi's website?
  • Do you think it is possible that you could be fooled by a masterful magician?
  • Do you think it is possible that someone who has been in a spaceship or who worked for a huge, bureaucratic government agency could be fooled by a masterful magician?
  • Do you think it is possible that David Blaine could be fooled by a masterful magician?
  • Do you think it is possible that parapsychologists could be fooled by a masterful magician?
  • Do you think it is possible that Jane Katra was doing a trick, when the bowl in her hand rolled up 180 degrees? If not, why not?
  • Do you think it would be in Jane Katra's interest (financially and emotionally) to act scared, in order to heighten the believability of a trick? If not, why not?
  • How does the "sawed-through lady" trick work? What about the "disappearing dove in a cage" trick?

Misc
  • Why do you consider a public plea for clarifying your point worthy of only a private email? Why can't the rest of us know what you think? Is there anything secret about that information?
  • Would you consider "read the book!" a fair answer to a question put to you to clarify your own personal views on a subject?
  • What are your thoughts on the random number generator using static sound?
  • Why do you keep on posting the same links to the same reports made by the same small group of people, if you claim there are many, many reports that confirm the existence of psi?
  • Why do you describe me as a "spoiled child", when I ask you for those reports, experiments and proof you speak of, instead of at least showing where I can find them?
  • Why do you - after I have clarified that Hyman does not agree with Utts on the conclusions of the SAIC evaluations, and you have acknowledged this clarification - continue to claim that I said otherwise?
  • Why do you claim that you "corrected" me on this, when I myself clarified it? When did you "correct" me on this?
  • Who are you and your research team?
  • Are you a professional journalist?
  • What awards have you won and what pieces were they for and what publications were they in?
  • Do you have data to back up your claim that you are one of the few men involved in Wicca?

And the final one:

What kind of evidence will you accept that show you are wrong?

Note: This post will be updated as Lucianarchy sloooooowly answers each question. We're in for the long haul here, it seems...
 
I'll take shots at some of these questions (considering this is a public board):

"What is more probable? Hyman being wrong or you?"

Irrelevant. If someone is wrong, they are wrong. Probability doesn't really play a role here, since we are not guessing if someone is wrong or not, we are investigating it critically.

"Do you find that Hyman is a well-respected scientist that should be taken seriously?"

Do you find that Utts is?

"Do you agree with Hyman that effect size in itself is in no way an indication of a paranormal phenomenon?"

It is an indication that there is something that needs to be explored further, so it *could* be. It is *a* possibility.

"Where in the Challenge does it say that the test must be based on scientific principles?"

Good point. ;)

"Do you understand that witness testimony is utterly irrelevant in science?"

I wouldn't say "utterly irrelevant". It certainly is not any deciding factor, but it quite frequently does lead to more exploration, which is certainly part of science. Don't confuse the topics of science with the process of science.

"Why do you refer to yourself as a skeptic, when you don't follow the rules of skepticism (following the scientific method, etc.)?"

Many here do. I'd like to take you to task for confusing science with skepticism, and trying to relate the two. A skeptic is not one who 'follows the scientific method'. Above you hint (at least my reading of it) that the Challenge is not based on scientific principles. So apparently Randi is not a skeptic, or his test is not skeptical. My interpretation is that a skeptic simply desires evidence to examine before tentatively accepting something.

"What is the difference between an amateur and a professional?"

Several thousand dollars and a better office usually.

"Have these scientists published their findings in peer-reviewed journals,"

Has Randi? Has anyone as CSICOP? At Skeptic?

"Why hasn't Dr. Gary Schwartz applied for the Randi Challenge?"

Why hasn't Randi or any cold reader applied for Schwartz's challenge? Are skeptics immune from similar challenges?

-Who
 
Whodini said:
Did you do something wrong?
Click to expand...

I accidentally collided with this thread.

Paging Doctor Cowardice, Doctor Cowardice…
 
Lucianarchy has declined to answer these questions for the following reason:

Lucianarchy said:
I am merely, quite reasonably, pointing out that 'lists' in the context of a whole thread title which contain reams and reams of questions are both irrational and unreasonable and as such become tantamount to the sort of "taunting" and "un-civil" behaviour which Mr Randi wants rid of here.
Click to expand...

Questions that arise from Lucianarchy's own claims can hardly be called "irrational" or "unreasonable". It must be up to the reader to decide who is "irrational" and/or "unreasonable".

Lucianarchy said:
If I make a claim, feel free to ask a question on that specific claim under the thread it was raised and I will do my best to give you a reasonable and rational answer.
Click to expand...

This is, of course, a bald-faced lie. However, let's see what happens.
 
And...errr.. Karl Marx was not Russian. As far as I know he did not speak Russian either. Surely Lucy was kidding...
 
renata said:
And...errr.. Karl Marx was not Russian. As far as I know he did not speak Russian either. Surely Lucy was kidding...
Click to expand...

Luci's not very good at making jokes.
 
CFLarsen said:


Answer:"Of course not. But perhaps that illustrates the desperation and tactics psuedo-skeptics will stoop to in order to smear, denigrate and censor."
Status: Highly likely that it is L's statement. Very similar ISPs.
Click to expand...

Provide your evidence, or validate my statement above by not doing so.
 
Re: Re: Questions for Lucianarchy

Lucianarchy said:


Provide your evidence, or validate my statement above by not doing so.
Click to expand...

Why not answer the questions?
 
After 2 more months of forum non-interest, remember to bump the thread again.
 
T'ai Chi said:
After 2 more months of forum non-interest, remember to bump the thread again.
Click to expand...

You don't think that silly contentions should be challenged? Particularly when those silly contentions represent the corpus of a posters activity?
 
Ed said:

You don't think that silly contentions should be challenged? Particularly when those silly contentions represent the corpus of a posters activity?
Click to expand...

Again, you shift things to me, but all I did was point out the obvious general forum non-interest.
 
There is interest, however how much can be said about a persons *lack* of reply.

I'd be glad to comment if there was an attempt to answer the questions. Then there would be something to discuss.
 
apoger said:
There is interest, however how much can be said about a persons *lack* of reply.

I'd be glad to comment if there was an attempt to answer the questions. Then there would be something to discuss.
Click to expand...

Ditto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom