• 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.

Randi nonsense

davidsmith73 said:
Interpretation of results goes on all the time in science, particularly biological science. I thinks its entirely reasonable for a subject at the fringes of our understanding to be subject to more of this interpretation process than other areas we have greater knowledge of.
Click to expand...
This "subject" has been at the "fringe" now for centuries. There have been countless tests. And yet the entire field is still on the fringe -- not the leading edge, mind you, because it has gone nowhere. This is not the case for biology. Or for any other legitimate science.

davidsmith73 said:
Quote from Randi made a few years back:

"I don't expect that the million will ever be won, simply because there is no confirming evidence for any paranormal claims to date."
Click to expand...

Let's have just a touch of context, shall we?

Stuzza: which paranormal or psuedoscience do you think will win the million?

James Randi: I don't expect that the million will ever be won, simply because there is no confirming evidence for any paranormal claims to date. Tomorrow, who knows?
Click to expand...

When asked a direct question about his expectation, Randi answered honestly, and said why. But he added that it was not impossible.

And even if this is Randi's opinion, Randi is not the JREF, and Randi is not the arbiter of the testing process.
 
Piggy said:
Let's have just a touch of context, shall we?

When asked a direct question about his expectation, Randi answered honestly, and said why. But he added that it was not impossible.
Click to expand...


Quite. He answered honestly and said why. It was a clear statement about his opnion on the state of the evidence for paranormal phenomena in general, a statement which flatly contradicts what you said on your previous post. I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think the JREF is neutral as to the current scientific evidence regarding psi phenomena.

And even if this is Randi's opinion, Randi is not the JREF, and Randi is not the arbiter of the testing process.
Click to expand...

I would say Randi has a major role to play in JREF decisions regarding the challenge, and enough of a role to greatly influence decisions. Again, it would be very naive to think otherwise.
 
davidsmith73 said:
Quite. He answered honestly and said why. It was a clear statement about his opnion on the state of the evidence for paranormal phenomena in general, a statement which flatly contradicts what you said on your previous post. I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think the JREF is neutral as to the current scientific evidence regarding psi phenomena.
Click to expand...
You're right. I did not read your post carefully. I think it's clear that JREF is not in the camp of people who think that anything "interesting" is currently going on. That's because nothing of interest has been brought to their attention.

But yes, they are neutral regarding the current scientific evidence of psi, as this does not yet exist. But even Randi admits "Tomorrow, who knows?"
 
davidsmith73 said:
Thanks Roger. I agree with you. A parapsychologist who applied for the challenge would most likely insist on a large number of trials, perhaps not 10000 but significantly more than the JREF would accept for the challenge IMO. The fact is that the findings of parapsychology are not clear cut. There are those who think there are interesting effects going on, there are those that don't. Clearly the JREF are in the latter camp. I don't understand why people around here are so suspicious of the parapsychologists motives for not taking the challenge when there is the problem as you have described above.
Click to expand...

But this is the very point of this discussion. No parapsychologist will ever apply for the challanege because they all know that Randi will insist upon experimental controls that they are not prepared to accept. For example, in the Sheldrake telephone ESP experiment, Randi will insist that those receiving the calls record their guess of who is calling before answering the phone.
 
davidsmith73 said:
Quite. He answered honestly and said why. It was a clear statement about his opnion on the state of the evidence for paranormal phenomena in general, a statement which flatly contradicts what you said on your previous post. I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think the JREF is neutral as to the current scientific evidence regarding psi phenomena.



I would say Randi has a major role to play in JREF decisions regarding the challenge, and enough of a role to greatly influence decisions. Again, it would be very naive to think otherwise.
Click to expand...
Is Randi wrong, yes or no?
 
CFLarsen said:
Is Randi wrong, yes or no?
Click to expand...

To be a smartass about it, he was answering a question about hsi expectations, so there's really no way to determine if he was telling the truth, but there would be little motive to lie. What exactly are you asking? Is it whether Randi really holds this view, whether the view is correct or that the fact part of view about current evidence is correct?
 
Ace_of_Sevens said:
To be a smartass about it, he was answering a question about hsi expectations, so there's really no way to determine if he was telling the truth, but there would be little motive to lie. What exactly are you asking? Is it whether Randi really holds this view, whether the view is correct or that the fact part of view about current evidence is correct?
Click to expand...

Is there evidence or not?
 
Davidsmith73 has had a great run here. I think that all can agree that he understands the problems, but is unwilling to admit them because of all the attention he is getting. His questions have been answered more than adequately, again and again. Either he is incapable of understanding simple logic, or he is taking everyone on a ride. Occam's Razor anyone? Time to end this thread and move on.....
 
Y'know, there should be a thread on posters like Davidsmith73, UndercoverElephant (aka JustGeoff), mslxl, saizai, et al, re whether they're dishonest, or there's some parameter in their brain that allows them to actually believe they're making sense. I actually think the latter.
 
True dat.

But agreement isn't really very interesting, otherwise you sit around preaching to the choir, not that any of that goes around here.
 
T'ai Chi said:
But agreement isn't really very interesting, otherwise you sit around preaching to the choir, not that any of that goes around here.
Click to expand...

True. If only we had someone who would actually disagree, instead of suggesting that some hypothetical others might disagree.
 
T'ai Chi said:
But agreement isn't really very interesting
Click to expand...
If "interesting" is your criterion, you'll always find yourself in the carnival, where there is plenty of noise and hooplah.

My criterion is truth.

In some cases, there is agreement about the truth -- the earth is round, there are other galaxies, The Ben Stiller Show was cancelled after one season despite winning an Emmy -- and perhaps this isn't so interesting, but we ignore it at our peril (yes, even the bit about being cancelled despite winning the Emmy).

In other cases, there is not agreement -- did we evolve or were we created from clay by YHVH?, are psychics real or a fraud? -- but only one side has a coherent argument to make, while the others are clearly deluding themselves. To shrug our shoulders because doing so keeps things "interesting" is sheer foolishness.

And then there are those cases where there is no agreement, where we truly don't know -- has life evolved on other planets?, what will we find in the deepest regions of the sea? -- and here is where the real interest lies. There's no need seeking debate where none is warranted, even if doing so is very much easier than doing the work of learning about what is new and fascinating. But in any case, verification, not shouting and gestures, is the only reliable guide.

So you can keep your petty "interesting" which blinds you to the difference between legitimate consensus and mere herd mentality, and which makes you favor the cluck and crow of ignorant naysayers to the steady work of dedicated researchers. I'll take the boring old truth, and the more difficult "interest" of those ideas which truly spark the minds of those of us who are willing to sift apart the seeds from the dung.
 
Not sure if this is the right place for this - but there semms to have been a reasonable amount of discussion of Rupert Sheldrake on this site:

I've just been banned from Ben Goldacre's otherwise excellent 'Bad Science' site for calling Sheldrake a pseudoscientist??

I haven't posted enough yet to insert the link - but it's on the main forum site as:

'Professor Sheldrake & S F ....."

Apparently Sheldrake was encouraged to complain to Ben by another poster (also banned). Ben seems to have banned me as he considers declaring Sheldrake a 'pseudoscientist' to be an 'ad-hominem' attack, and it's spoilt his relationship with the man.

I'm rather disappointed with Ben, and think he's guilty of double standards - he refused to do anything about an anonymous poster repeatedly calling me a 'liar'. On the other hand he may be more concerned that wealthy 'celebrities' find it easier to mount lawsuits in the UK than nobodies like myself.

I assume there isn't that kind of timidity on this site??

I'm interested in other opinions - was I 'out of order' to say what I did??
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom