• 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

Thank you - I thought it might have been me for a moment.

I was probably a bit more derogatory in my remarks than merely pointing out that he was a pseudoscientist - I said something along the lines that he'd 'cornered the market' in a particular type of new age 'woo' which represents itself as science.

Oh heck - I don't know if this is bad form but I'll quote myself:

Sheldrake is about as 'woo' as you can get. He's a nice guy and everything, and perhaps the big bad scientists are mean and nasty to him - but do you really think that scientific advances should be made on the 'sympathy vote'.

He explains his abandonment of conventional science on the basis of his discovery of 'postmodernism'.

As for the 'Untoldmysteries' programme {Rupert Sheldrake Morphic Fields BBC 1994 Paranormal Experiments done by Science - BBC 1994 - available on Google video UK} - surely even someone who has not had a scientific education can see he's talking entirely in 'spiritual' terms and he is driven by the nice things he wants to believe rather than by any evidence. The tweety birds, classical music and Sheldrakes dulcet tones when he talks about the little ducks are soothing and persuasive to some perhaps, but have the same scientific content as an advert for harmony hairspray.

The burning books and whispering demon voices that introduce Maddox sit in stark contrast. Don't even humanities have a critical filter to see through the manipulation of the TV production to the substance underneath?

Sheldrake is a rare example of a scientist who has abandoned the field for the world of woo. He has a identified certain market sector of books and TV which is appealing to those who think that science is a bad thing and should be abandoned in favour of a gentle 'spiritual' approach to understanding of the world around us. He has the cheek to call his mish-mash of new-agey woo ideas 'science' which gets right up the noses of real scientists. He's even a Lamarkian creationist who talks about himself in the plural for chrisakes.


He either completely misunderstands evolutionary biology, or is deliberately building strawmen to make himself seem clever and charming.

He is a 100% new-age woo and deserves to be derided as such on the 'Bad Science' board.

There seems to be a trend towards indulging pseudoscientists on the board of late - Neil Adams 'expanding Earth' being a good example.
Do we really need to indulge another one?

If so why on Earth give {'Dr' Gillian} McKeith a hard time? - a lot of people seem to benefit from her advice about eating fruit and veg, even if her explanation of the underpinning science is nonsense??
Click to expand...
 
Seriously, this comes up every week, how hard is it to just make it clear: "Listen, the $1,000,000 is simply a challenge to perform meaningful work or extract meaningful information in a way that is consistently higher than chance, by previously unknown means. We want to see Dragon Ball Z, or failing that, Care Bear s-it - we'll even settle for Rainbow Brite septor anti-gravitating bulls-it. If you can't, please do not apply. If you think your claim qualifies, please evaluate your claim using this basic, simplistic criteria before bugging us, otherwise we cannot award you the prize because what you are doing isn't real in any meaningful sense. Also, please be considerate and not attempt to defraud others in a vain attempt to attract attention to the inevitable holistic significance you assign to it and then to yourself.."

:jrefwelcome
 
davidsmith73 said:
I've never performed such an experiment before so I'm not confident it will work. I didn't start this discussion on the basis I was prepared to apply for the challenge.
Click to expand...
There's no grey area here. It's probability or obvious work being performed. If it's experimental research that's different, because it's labeled as such, whether it has a known basis or not. If someone claims to have discovered an effect or process however, means of measuring that is easily set up.
 
I'm really not sure what all the controversy is here. Of course the JREF decides if an experiment is acceptable. As Randi has pointed out, it is their million dollars, after all. From what I have seen, most rejected applicants are rejected because they won't actually make a claim. The JREF accepts most actual claims, with some caveats.

The claim has to be paranormal in nature. Basically, it has to be something that shouldn't be possible based on our understanding of the universe. Even if it's completely useless, like telekinetic spoon-bending, it should still force a complete re-evaluation of our understanding of the universe.

The claim has to be reasonably testable. If I claim to be able to rearrange stars on the opposite side of the galaxy from us using only mysterious faster-than-light W-rays that are conveniently produced by my brain, it would take some 300,000 years to confirm it. Or wait, no, the W-rays only cause stupid things to happen in the Middle East... ;)

The claim shouldn't endanger the safety of any person, including the claimant, and shouldn't result in large-scale damage.

From what I've seen, Randi and the JREF are quite fair to those applicants that make claims that can be tested. He need not be involved at any step, and generally is not unless requested by the applicant. The rules are clearly stated in the application, and they are legally binding on all parties involved. The JREF doesn't have to move the goal-posts for the claims made, the claimants generally set the bar pretty high.

Despite the accusations of all sorts of shennanigans on the part of the JREF and James Randi, nobody seems to be able to come up with an actual example. When pressed to do so, they ignore the question, or go completely silent. The "if true" part of the allegations is extremely critical, because it always turns out to either be a bald-faced lie or a complete misrepresentation of a real event. Randi is man enough to admit when he's wrong, and he's eaten so world-class crow in his time. And he's posted it on the Internet for all to see. His detractors, though, seem to have an uncanny ability to be unerring in all that they do. Being wrong would shatter their whole world-view, after all.
 
Dean Morrison said:
Thank you - I thought it might have been me for a moment.

I was probably a bit more derogatory in my remarks than merely pointing out that he was a pseudoscientist - I said something along the lines that he'd 'cornered the market' in a particular type of new age 'woo' which represents itself as science.

Oh heck - I don't know if this is bad form but I'll quote myself:
Click to expand...

You call that derogatory! Wow, I'd call it mild compared to some of the stuff I've read here (Plus it was spot on). You'll fit in perfectly here. Welcome to the Forum! :D
 
Well thanks Supercorgi...

It's occurred to me that whereas Ben Goldacre thinks Sheldrake is sound because he can put forward his arguments in eloquent 'sciencey' sounding terms (actually Ben goes further than that) - I'm annoyed with him for precisely that reason. He trades on his credentials to undermine science itself. I think that is a lot more pernicious than merely peddling some wacky diet on the back of some bible college 'PhD'. Humanities graduates who don't know any better, consistently give the man a platform to parade hippie ideology as science.

There are worse sins in the world perhaps - but it seems odd t me to run a site subtitled "fun with pseudoscience" - and then treat Sheldrake as if he should be immune from criticism.

Anyway - thanks for the support - I think I'll enjoy a little banter here.

Any global warming denialists kicking around???? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom