Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

Bubblefish is a puppy trying to mix it with the big dogs.

True, I missed you very much Zep, but did'nt know any other way to reach out.

Wow, your thread count, almost 20,000! truly you ability to validate your time is commendable!

 

[WWHP]

If you didn't intend to say that the text is "embedded in FORTRAN" in the first statement, wouldn't it have been better not to mention it?

well of course, old friend, but I am giving an example

If, as you claim, you don't necessarily mean what you say in any given statement,

My claim is not that I dont mean what I write, it means that often my meaning is not neccesarily determined by an interpretation of what I write, or perhaps I choose the words inappropiatly, and thus my meaning was confused in the text. Regardless, there is a distinction between meaning and text and interpretation.

how are we to know what you mean by your second statement, that the text is "not embedded in FORTRAN"? Perhaps you mean that it actually is.

to know what I 'mean', you simply can ask a question, as in 'Bubblefish, did you mean this when you wrote x?"

For example, on this thread, I used the word 'self congradulatory' in the standard objective sense of the definition, yet my meaning was discerned to be snide, hence...

0=meaning (mine, hidden)
1=Text (mutually viewable)
2=Interpretation (yours, false, a subjective idea about the text)

Why not try to express yourself clearly in your first statement?

I believe in actual detail of this thread, I did, i stated 'self congradulatory' in the objective sense, and it was interpretted as something else.

It would be better if you expressed yourself clearly and said what you meant without the need for "clarification" in later statements.

Words at first glance do not always communicate 100 percent of our meaning, regardless of our intentions. If what you were saying were true, then there would be no need for discussion or questions, rather, we all would simply need to read each other's blogs and assume our interpretation is the meaning of the author. Tony Snow wouldnt do press conferences, Charlie Rose would lose his gig...There would only be the Holy Church of Rome....

words are not descriptions of things, they are prescriptions for things. You can misappropiate your prescription whilst describing or meaning something different.

It would save a lot of time, and reduce the likelyhood of your being misunderstood.

Thank you so much for your assistance Mojo, I again find your insight extraordinary and uncanny, know what I mean?



BF

 

[Curnir]

The three values for truth, as I define and understand and use them in this discussion are as follows.

1.)Objective truth. Verifiable and mutually observable in potentiality to all points of view
2.)Subjective truth. False relative to the first value, and incorrect when inappropiatly determined to be an objective truth. Individually experienced.
3.)Mysterious Truth. A truth that we cannot determine it's true or false nature for any objective certainty as defined in value 1. It is 'true' that it is 'mystery', it is true that it is currently niether true, and niether false.

I usually signify these three values as 0 (mystery), 1 (true), and 2 (false)

By that logic the mysterious truth about me is that I am James Bond.
No one can prove that me being James Bond is false.
And it would be foolish of me to provide evidence that I am a secret agent...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha

not according to james randi! He doesn't appear to trust the people who define the laws of the universe as being able to verify them!

Yeah about that... If we are to re-define the "laws" of the universe.
Wouldn't it be a swell idea to see if the persons who claim that they are able to break the laws, actually can do what they claim they can do? Or if it's just some sort of trick?

Now... who would be best at figuring out how a magic trick works? A rocket scientist or a Magician?

Hmmmmmmmm.

Now if I wanted to build a ICBM, I'd go for the rocket scientist.

if you call me a woo I'm gonna cry foul;-)

...
...
...
Woo!

 

[WWHP]

By that logic the mysterious truth about me is that I am James Bond.
No one can prove that me being James Bond is false.
And it would be foolish of me to provide evidence that I am a secret agent...

My friend, I know you must be excited because you have a 'woo' to hunker down on, but I request critical thinking, and you didnt seem to apply much to your 'critique' about third values.

So, to correct your misconception, no matter who you are or claim to be, James Bond, James Randi, or James Dean, your identity is STILL a mystery, regardless of what you claim it is or isnt, on a discussion forum where we cant see, hear, or even verify your sex.

I dont know who you are, but i also personally dont care very much either.

Yeah about that... If we are to re-define the "laws" of the universe.
Wouldn't it be a swell idea to see if the persons who claim that they are able to break the laws, actually can do it? Or if it's just some sort of trick.

well I hope you get to work out your issues here on your own time. I dont think you have applied critical thinking to my posts, however

Now... who would be best at figuring out how a magic trick works? A rocket scientist or a Magician?

Hmmmmmmmm.

well while you are figuring that one out, ask yourself who would be best at figuring out how a rocket works, a rocket scientist or a magician?

Woo!

Oh, you're saying your James Woo now? good for you! Post a picture.


BF

 

[Mashuna]

0=meaning (mine, hidden)
1=Text (mutually viewable)
2=Interpretation (yours, false, a subjective idea about the text)

I'm still confused by your concept of a third value of truth. From the example you gave above, all I got was that language can be ambiguous. I suspect that this is just me missing the point though.

For one, I dont trust magicians, especially one's who have an air of 'I can fool you but you can't fool me' about them. Secondly, james randi seems to suggest that we can't trust scientists to verify claims, that only a magician can properly determine these things.

My impression is that Randi suggests that a magician is an appropriate person to involve in the testing of claims where the possibility for deliberate deception is involved. I don't see him getting involved in general lab tests, and the link you provide to Project Alpha is Randi providing an example of how it is possible to get scientists to accept invalid results as they are not necessarily equipped to deal with people deliberately trying to fool them.

James Randi made his career honestly tricking people, who is to say he is not still doing so?

I'm not sure of your meaning here, was this a throwaway comment, or do you think that Randi is still tricking people? If so, in what way?

 

[WWHP]

I'm still confused by your concept of a third value of truth. From the example you gave above, all I got was that language can be ambiguous. I suspect that this is just me missing the point though.

I was showing how the third value is relevant in this particular instance related to my meaning, but the third value is more expansive than just applying it to language.

Language can be amibiguous, but it's all we got to work with, so in communication, the third value is our 'opponents' meaning, it's something going on internally with them that we dont have access to or cant determine for our own certainty, we can only take each other's words (we have access to the words, not the internal apparatus of each other) for it and through questioning can come to see what 'each other means' using text and of course dialectic.

It's natural using the third value, many critical thinkers do it quite often, and have in this thread with me a number of times. Not using the third value, well, read my friend Mojo's responses. He doenst use the third value, at least he hasn't with me. He assumes his interpretation is my meaning, and will follow me around the internet haunting me because his interpretation of what I said is haunting him.

My impression is that Randi suggests that a magician is an appropriate person to involve in the testing of claims where the possibility for deliberate deception is involved.

That's my impression too, yet this means now we have to always trust the magicians to show us when deception is involved, rats..those scoundrels.

I don't see him getting involved in general lab tests, and the link you provide to Project Alpha is Randi providing an example of how it is possible to get scientists to accept invalid results as they are not necessarily equipped to deal with people deliberately trying to fool them.

well, that was his intention he claims, sure, but it was a hoax none the less, and shows that he can and does trick people, even scientists. We simply have to take Randi at his word that he is in perfect integrity. How many hoaxes has he done that we dont know about?

Dont get me wrong, i admire him on many accounts, I really do. I think his stance on segregation in the 50's was very admirable, although he did manage to get paid for gigs that he walked out on,rats, was that an excuse for him not to work and get paid? Was the segregation issue a ruse? See, I am too skeptical, I just dont trust magicians or show biz folks...

I'm not sure of your meaning here, was this a throwaway comment, or do you think that Randi is still tricking people? If so, in what way?

well he admits that he tricks people at least some of the time, he is a magician. The question is, can we trust him that he is not tricking us any other time? Magicians are master psychologists, they really are, and they come in all varieties, from Chris Angel to David Blaine to Alister Crowley to james Randi. The one trait they all have in common is a pleasure for casting illusions and fooling people, and of course getting attention.

I do find his logic misleading, in particular on the Steorn issue, and in that regard, I find he misleads many many people who look up to him. I cant tell you how many times people have said "oh yeah, well if it's real, how come they dont take the randi challenge? One has to wonder that if no one has ever won the challenge, then all of these things must be bullsh*t!", and of course the fact that no one has claimed the prize simply means no one has claimed the prize, and nothing more. I dont think the prize serves as a critical test at all, it's merely anecdotal.

 

[Curnir]

My friend, I know you must be excited because you have a 'woo' to hunker down on, but I request critical thinking, and you didnt seem to apply much to your 'critique' about third values.

You request critical thinking?
Yeah....

So, to correct your misconception, no matter who you are or claim to be, James Bond, James Randi, or James Dean, your identity is STILL a mystery, regardless of what you claim it is or isnt, on a discussion forum where we cant see, hear, or even verify your sex.

Ah so you are saying that there a possibility that I am indeed James Bond.

I dont know who you are, but i also personally dont care very much either.

Aww thanks.

well I hope you get to work out your issues here on your own time.

Oh please do elaborate.
Oh and since you so "deftly" sneaked past my question... here it is again:
Is it a good idea to check if the person claiming to be able to break the rule8ing laws actualy can do what he/she claims he/she can do?

I dont think you have applied critical thinking to my posts,

Ok...
You claim Qi (Chi, Ki) is a real force, and that it can be used for a boat load of good things.
Have I got it right so far?

Now if someone (like that coooool dude who can heat up his hands) can demonstrate this magical, mystical and simply spiffy force in controlled and reproducable test...
I'd be all for examining the mechanics of Qi.

And for the record, I would be thrilled to hear that healing by Qi works, becuase then some nice Qi master could heal me.

But until then.

Meh.

well while you are figuring that one out, ask yourself who would be best at figuring out how a rocket works, a rocket scientist or a magician?

Ahh. look at my post again.

But to help you along.

Figuring out HOW a rocket works... requires that there is an actual rocket, or proper documentation of a rocket launch/blueprints of a rocket based on concepts that has been proven to work.

And to stop you from going onto the track of "aha but how did the first rocket makers build the first rocket?"

Science, trial and error, looking for what worked and what did not.
If someone had a great idea, that looked great on paper but didn't work in reality. They moved on. Ya know SCIENCE!

Oh, you're saying your James Woo now? good for you! Post a picture.

Wait... I am not sure I understand.
Are you saying that I own a John Woo?

 

[WWHP]

You request critical thinking?
Yeah....

Ah so you are saying that there a possibility that I am indeed James Bond.

no, it appears you are. I'm saying who you are is a mystery.

Aww thanks.

your welcome, little flower.

Oh please do elaborate.

nah, I dont like to waste my time with fake-o's

Oh and since you so "deftly" sneaked past my question... here it is again:
Is it a good idea to check if the person claiming to be able to break the rule8ing laws actualy can do what he/she claims he/she can do?

To New York or by bus?

Ok...
You claim Qi (Chi, Ki) is a real force, and that it can be used for a boat load of good things.
Have I got it right so far?

no

Now if someone (like that coooool dude who can heat up his hands) can demonstrate this magical, mystical and simply spiffy force in controlled and reproducable test...
I'd be all for examining the mechanics of Qi.

then contact his youtube account

And for the record, I would be thrilled to hear that healing by Qi works, becuase then some nice Qi master could heal me.

I thought James Bond was invincable?

But until then.

Meh.

Ahh. look at my post again.

nah-

But to help you along.

Figuring out HOW a rocket works... requires that there is an actual rocket, or proper documentation of a rocket launch/blueprints of a rocket based on concepts that has been proven to work.

yes, to figure how something works, there must be a something.

And to stop you from going onto the track of "aha but how did the first rocket makers build the first rocket?"

I was actually about to go to bed, dont flatter yourself.

Science,

trial and

error, looking for what worked and

what did not.

If someone had a great idea,

that looked great on paper but

didn't work in reality.

They moved on.

Ya know

SCIENCE!

is that a haiku? If not, I made it look like one. Nice work!

Wait... I am not sure I understand.
Are you saying that I own a John Woo?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, you own a John Woo, now go play with it.


BF

 

[Mashuna]

well he admits that he tricks people at least some of the time, he is a magician. The question is, can we trust him that he is not tricking us any other time?

So it's a general suspicion of his profession, rather than a concrete example of trickery (outside of his act) that you have?

How do we know Randi isnt up to some tricks himself since no one has ever even taken the challenge nor even passed through the verification?

Because people take the preliminary tests, agree as to what the test will comprise and are tested (in many instances) without Randi being present?

Here is james Randi's two value argument as I see it.

"The laws of thermodynamics are true in all environments, therefore, any claim which refutes them must be false. Steorn made a claim about a over unity device, therefore, Steorn is performing a hoax or fraud. Steorn is therefore fraudulent"

This two value system he used to judge the system led him to some pretty awful conclusions, in my honest opinion. For example, he says; "What possible reason could there be for any scientist or organization to shy away from a public endorsement?"

And a simple reason would be shame or fear of redicule if the scientist was mistaken in his verification, yet randi assumes that "For those unfamiliar with the terminology and the phrasing used by these flakes, such questions would naturally arise, but investors adore"

I would be willing to use this as an example of an inability to include the third value into an argument, so if your willing, let's explore this argument a bit. What I mean is i think Randi's argument about Steorn being a hoax or fraud would crumble inside of a third value discussion. Care to argue for Randi for the sake of our mutual understanding?

I'm happy to have a go at the Steorn case, if only for enlarging my own understanding of your third value concept. Here is how I see the situation.

The first premise you identified, I agree with; that the laws of thermodynamics are true, therefore a device which claims overunity is flawed. This is in accordance with our understanding of physics. The second premise, that this means Steorn are promoting such a device, and are therefore fraudulent hoaxers, is his interpretation. Off the top of my head, I would say the options for this case would be:
1) They've uncovered a hitherto unknown energy source, and everything they say is true.
2) They think they've done 1), but are in fact mistaken, albeit an honest mistake.
3) They know they haven't done 1), but want to drum up some PR for whatever purpose, and will come clean at the end (hoax)
4) They know they haven't done 1), but hope to convince enough people that they might have that they can make some money out of it (fraud).

Obviously, there have not been examples of 1) before. There have been plenty of examples of 3) and 4).

Your assertion that their unorthodox methods (advertisement for scientists in the Economist) was because they wouldn't be taken seriously any other way, seems unsupported. What other ways did they try? They claim to have a working machine, but don't demonstrate it, surely that would be the easiest way to be taken seriously?

As to shying away from a public endorsement, well, surely that's how science generally works? If a scientist were afraid to put his or her name to any advance for fear of ridicule if they were wrong, then surely the entire peer review system would fail? Or is it only in special cases that they'd be afraid to put their name to a scientific breakthrough? Perhaps it's only cases such as this, where there's a track record of fraudulent claims in the past? They may feel more confident if there was someone they could involve to help eliminate the possiblity of fraud before they checked the hard science

So, those are my initial thoughts. As I say, I'm interested to see how this goes within the third value framework.

 

[Curnir]

no, it appears you are. I'm saying who you are is a mystery.

And since it is a mystery! I might be James Bond, Superman, ALF or even Charles Xavier.
True or False? No one can tell!

your welcome, little flower.

That is a false statement. I did not welcome anyone with the words 'little flower'.

nah, I dont like to waste my time with fake-o's

And what, pray tell, is fake about me?

To New York or by bus?

The ninja-like grace in your evasion is noted.

no

Ok. Is Qi an actual force?

I thought James Bond was invincable?

Oh I am sorry. Did I confuse you? I never claimed that I was invinceble. But if you think Mr. Bond is invulnreable... you obviously need to read a couple of books and watch the movies.

nah-
yes, to figure how something works, there must be a something.

Ahh now we're getting somewhere. A couple of demonstrations of Qi under controled conditions would be a good start.

I was actually about to go to bed, dont flatter yourself.

Good night. Sleep tight. Don't let the cobras bite.

is that a haiku? If not, I made it look like one. Nice work!

Well... either you have no clues as to what a Haiku is... or...

Anyway, Science is beautiful.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, you own a John Woo, now go play with it.

Hah! You are wrong.

 

[Zep]

True, I missed you very much Zep, but did'nt know any other way to reach out.

Wow, your thread count, almost 20,000! truly you ability to validate your time is commendable!

And I see your spelling hasn't improved meanwhile.

So...

Have you got around to proposing Chi is real yet? Again? You do recall you got your arse handed to you here last time you tried that. Then you ran away or something. So have you got any new arguments yet?


[looks...]



Seems you have, and it seems you haven't. And Curnir, one of our newbies, is cleaning you up quite handily. You still make good a practice target, BF! Keep up the good work!

 

[Gr8wight]

i recently had a very long, funny, and interesting discussion over at badscience.com's forums regarding truth values, skepticism, Randi, qi, and a plethora of side topics that extended over a few threads.

The main point of my arguments was the 'third' value of truth, which could be defined as 'niether true and niether false', mystery, possibility, or what have you. I was amazed that so many 'critical' thinkers are not nearly as skeptical to the claims of reductionists or thier own claims as they are of the paranormal, and many of their arguments crumble into nothingness when confronted with this third value.

Many were offended when I mentioned we should be equally skeptical of James Randi as we are of any paranormal claim. For one, I dont trust magicians, especially one's who have an air of 'I can fool you but you can't fool me' about them. Secondly, james randi seems to suggest that we can't trust scientists to verify claims, that only a magician can properly determine these things.

So, should we trust a magician to guide our philosophy? James Randi made his career honestly tricking people, who is to say he is not still doing so? Why should james randi be held in the highest of standards for determining what is true, false or mystery?

For the record, I whole heartedly support james randi when he exposes frauds, and appreciate his work for doing so. I think he is perfect for exposing frauds, but I just dont think he is relevant for discovery the mystery.

Thoughts?

Bubblefish,

You have begun your argument with a couple of erroneous assumptions.

First, skepticism never claims to have any access to "truth." Truth is an entrirely abstract concept, and skeptics prefer to limit themselves to dealing in fact.

Second, the JREF is not about science. Its mandate is not to explore and investigate the paranormal. Its purpose is to educate the public against people making claims that cannot be shown to be reliable.

 

[kmortis]

Bubblefish,

You have begun your argument with a couple of erroneous assumptions.

First, skepticism never claims to have any access to "truth." Truth is an entrirely abstract concept, and skeptics prefer to limit themselves to dealing in fact.

Second, the JREF is not about science. Its mandate is not to explore and investigate the paranormal. Its purpose is to educate the public against people making claims that cannot be shown to be reliable.

Ya mean claims like what bubblefish is making?

 

[JonnyFive]

It makes perfect sense, forgive my model, let me explain it more intuitivly.

This sentence is composed of text. It exists in objective reality, it's existence is therefore true, it has a value we all can observe (t). This text is embedded into FORTRAN so we all can view it on our computers.


Now look at my last sentence. We agree that sentence exists. Yet that sentence is a false value, this text is not embedded into FORTRAN, but what I 'meant' was this text was imbedded into a programming language so it can be viewed on your desktop, perhaps in HTML, I dont know, I'm not a programmer so what i wrote clouded what I meant. My meaning would have been hidden to you (third value) unless I revealed my meaning through Q and A or something similar. Until my meaning is revealed, you interpreted that I was misleading others into thinking something about FORTRAN that wasnt true, or perhaps that I wished you all to believe I am a computer programmer. You interpretation in this example would be false.

My problem with your definition here is that you seem to be fussing around with the values of the nature of the sentence when it really isn't needed.

I would say that the existence of the sentence is true, that it is "embedded into FORTRAN" (which is, by the way, meaningless in this context) is false, but only because I know enough to know that, even if this board were coded in FORTRAN, that what you said cannot be true because the text couldn't be embedded in the programming language itself, unless it did a spontaneous recompile of the whole language every time we made a post.

Anyway, my point is that you've really made two distinct true/false queries:

1) There is a sentence.
2) It is "embedded into FORTRAN"

The first is true, barring weird philosophical "is anything real?" kinds of arguments. The second is false due to the fact that it's essentially nonsense.

The other other "value" is that we don't know if the statement is true or false. That isn't a unique value, it's simply the absence of a known value.

Now, if you wrote, at the top of your post, "There is a sentence above this one in my current post", it would be a false statement. That would automatically render any succeeding statements about the non-existent sentence false by default, as something that does not exist cannot have qualities.

Hence

third value= my meaning
First value = text
second value =your interpretation of my meaning of the text.

then, after discussion and exchange, we come to agree on OUR meaning of the actual text.

Make sense now? I'm a little tired, and if this is god awful and too complex, please forgive.

No, I still don't agree. I think you're splitting hairs with "meaning" when what either of us means has nothing to do with the truth of a given statement.

If you change the wording of the statement, or introduce additional qualifiers, then you're actually changing the original statement, and possibly its truthfulness. If you mean to imply that your intent or my interpretation influences the truth of any given statement, I would again have to disagree. A statement's truth or falsity depends on what is actually written in the statement. If there are issues of clarity, that will not impact that individual statement. It's the problem of the person making a statement to convey their original meaning. If they fail, then that meaning will not be imparted in the statement and they will need to revise it, introducing a new statement of truth or falsehood to be evaluated.

I'm not saying we can't be unsure of the truth of a given statement, that happens all the time. If you claim you have physic powers, I can't evaluate the truth of that statement without further clarification and evidence to examine. If you claim to be able to binbgjs the fhashdje, then I would have to ask you for clarification, because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the terms to even begin to evaluate your statement.

I really don't see how this "third value for truth" has ever destroyed any arguments. Could you at least provide a generic example? It might help to understand what the heck you mean by it.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

What actually happened at the Bad Science forum is that bubblebrain posted a ***** video of a really badly designed experiment into "qi" with his famous Dr Lo. Everyone laughed at how bad it was, and at him for not seeing why it was such a bad experiment. It then became clear that he had no idea what double blind meant. When challenged about this, he first refused to answer about whether or not he knew what it meant, then he claimed he knew exactly what it meant and had done for years. Then when it was shown he hadn't a clue, he said that he was using a "layman's definition" of double blind (!!!) and continued to get it wrong even though plenty of people had given him links where he could remove his ignorance. And then he claimed that nobody had adequately explained what was wrong with the experiment. In amongst all this he seemed to think that there is no need for adequate controls in an experiment if the researchers are experienced, because they know enough to rule out alternative explanations without these controls.

Oh and he had to pay $100 to someone which was donated to charity!

Anyway, he is not welcome there anymore, so he has come back to bug people over here again.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Bubblefish,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. I have read your response and hope to comment upon it, and subsequent posts you have made, but I will have to do so later today.

 

[Basilio]

It is times (and posters) like this that make me want to bang my heard aginst a wall!
State clearly, no samantics. No cutesy, witty insults to divert from an answer. Argue the proposition, not the person. And above all, no high falutt'n philosophical bull**** can mask a threadbare premise.

end of soap box

 

[Buckaroo]

After reading this through, I'm actually a little glad my last couple of posts were overlooked...

Bubblefish, have you recently taken a few courses in PoMo literary theory? I kinda get that sense. You seem to use a number of the debating tactics of capital-T Theorists -- including obfuscating trivial truisms by wrapping them in ornate, overwrought language, and when pinned down on points, attempting to wriggle out by stating that you're simply being playful with language, thus avoiding any responsibility for the wrongness of the ideas, highlighting your superior rolleyes intellect, and implying that the rest of us are too dense to get the joke.

An idea that can't be expressed clearly usually isn't very good. And if it has to be dressed in emperor's clothes... well... you get my drift.

You should read a little Sokal.

 

[Moochie]

I'm sure most self proclaimed critical thinkers would like to think they represent the highest exaltation of rationality, I just don't encounter many of them actually being so when in the crux of the actual argument, I find they resort to intutition, magickal thinking, ad hom and delusion just as much as any 'woo' out there.

Buckaroo said nothing of the sort.

M.

 

[WWHP]

So it's a general suspicion of his profession, rather than a concrete example of trickery (outside of his act) that you have?

Yes. Also, his alpha project was a hoax that was outside of his stage act.

Because people take the preliminary tests, agree as to what the test will comprise and are tested (in many instances) without Randi being present?

I'm saying that because he is a magician, he may be using a trick that doesn't appear to us like a trick, as in, who is to say he is not fooling us with the test? Who is to say that he doesnt know some psychological trick that filters out valid contestants? (actually, one could argue that the new policy is perhaps such a trick). Because I cant figure out how a magician does his trick doesnt mean he is not doing one!

Also, please keep in mind that my argument here is simply -james randi is a magician, magician are known for tricks and hoaxes, and therefore, one should be highly skeptical about any claims, stunts, or intentions made by magicians.

I'm not saying that there is a specific instance that triggers this argument in me, like you said, it is more general than not.

The first premise you identified, I agree with; that the laws of thermodynamics are true, therefore a device which claims overunity is flawed. This is in accordance with our understanding of physics. The second premise, that this means Steorn are promoting such a device, and are therefore fraudulent hoaxers, is his interpretation. Off the top of my head, I would say the options for this case would be:
1) They've uncovered a hitherto unknown energy source, and everything they say is true.
2) They think they've done 1), but are in fact mistaken, albeit an honest mistake.
3) They know they haven't done 1), but want to drum up some PR for whatever purpose, and will come clean at the end (hoax)
4) They know they haven't done 1), but hope to convince enough people that they might have that they can make some money out of it (fraud).

Yes, I too agree with those possibilities, but those arn't James Randi's arguments. Also, one could apply critical thinking to each possibility with either a third value or a bivalent argument. Randi is using two value logic here to assume they are frauds, as in Steorn being a fraud is the only conclusion one can make from Randi's argument.

Obviously, there have not been examples of 1) before. There have been plenty of examples of 3) and 4).

I dont see what conclusion this leads to out of neccesity. Same could be said about the airplane, therefore the wright brothers are fraudulent hoaxters.

Your assertion that their unorthodox methods (advertisement for scientists in the Economist) was because they wouldn't be taken seriously any other way, seems unsupported. What other ways did they try?

I am going to try to repeat thier argument from memory, so I hope I have it close to what actually happened as they claim, but also, you could go to thier site and forum and read their responses to this.


Here is how I understand it. Steorn is a legit commercial company, they are not researchers or theoretical physicists,magicians or hoaxters they are engineers and entrepuners, oddly enough, that deal in anti-fraud technology. they were researching batteries with a greater energy output than was currently available on the market, I think they were looking for a battery with something like 60% efficiency, or somewhere around there. They stumble across what they claim they have now (2002 I believe). They are perplexed by it. They conduct a number of tests, both in the country and outside of the country to test this discovery to find where they made a critical error in testing. All tests confirm their results, over unity.
Keep in mind that they are a commercial company with commercial interests to protect first and foremost. So they next try to get independent verification from scientists, and according to thier claim, which other than the violation of the second law, there is no reason to doubt, the scientists, under an NDA (which is completly reasonable and quite standard) could not contest. None of the scientists were willing to publically verify their claim outside of the NDA, and according to them, when calls were placed to various universities to either publish or further test their claim, they were even hung up on. That is consistant with standard academic attitudes regarding such a claim, it is reasonable to me that no scientist or institution would take their claim seriously, as we all know they are not the only one's claiming over unity. To whit; their decision is consistant with a buisness decision, not an academic one, and to hold them to an academic standard as proof of their deception is simply not fair.

Steorn has said they will not seek or accept any money from investors until all 12 scientists verify thier claim.

Steorn will allow anyone to view both the previous verification of the other scientists and the device if you sign an NDA.

They claim to have a working machine, but don't demonstrate it, surely that would be the easiest way to be taken seriously?

They do demonstrate it if you sign an NDA, them not demonstrating it publically at this time is consistant with a business decision, not neccesarily fraud.

http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=38631&page=1#Item_0

As to shying away from a public endorsement, well, surely that's how science generally works? If a scientist were afraid to put his or her name to any advance for fear of ridicule if they were wrong, then surely the entire peer review system would fail?

That may be how we like to think science works, but that is not how human psychology works. Also, Steorn is not asking that anyone believe them yet, they are saying just wait for the 12 scientists to test their claim. However, they do address concerns about fraud and hoaxes quite often.

http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=29073&page=1#Item_1

For example, look at how Randi himself responded to thier claim! He was libelous against them! Do you think that if someone published a paper, that it would be automatically accepted as true? No, every scientist would still laugh at it and poke and find holes and not take it seriously.

Or is it only in special cases that they'd be afraid to put their name to a scientific breakthrough? Perhaps it's only cases such as this, where there's a track record of fraudulent claims in the past? They may feel more confident if there was someone they could involve to help eliminate the possiblity of fraud before they checked the hard science

I think any scientist in the academic hierarchy is very much aware that outlandish claims get rediculed. Fear of redicule is a very common factor in proposing any new idea, in science or not.

This whole argument that if you cant publish, it's ******** is faulty, it doenst take human nature into account. The argument that if you publish, then it's true is also faulty. My friend who is a physicist published a paper in Physics Letters B, and his experiment is rediculed all the time, yet no one has tried to duplicate his experiment regardless.

So, those are my initial thoughts. As I say, I'm interested to see how this goes within the third value framework.

Well, your argument isnt far from it. you simply laid out the possibilities. They either have developed a technology that violates the second law in this instance, they are hoaxes or frauds, or they are honestly mistaken. that's not Randi' argument.

randi's two value argument is this.

I am a magician, and even so, I know that the physical laws of the universe as currently understood by scientists is true in all environments, therefore, Steorn is a fraudulent company.

a third value argument is this.

The laws of thermodynamics make claims regarding energy that have been verified for over 100 years in experimental physics. Claims that violate this law are not likely, but perhaps possible, and should be tested when reasonable claimants have taken reasonable steps to assure us against fraud or human error. Therefore, we do not yet know what Steorn has, but the likely hood of them being fraudulent seems highly unlikely at this stage. Steorn claims that they do not take thier claim lightly, and have tested in rigoursly for years. They also claim that they already know what the 12 scientists will conclude, and request that we suspend our belief until their tests are finished.

Notice how Randi's argument needs to have Steorn is a fraud or hoax for it to be correct, steorn 'must' be fraudulent. That's also a claim that can be verified, and that is where the argument crumbles.They must be fraudulent because his truth values are either true or false, there is no third value for possibility.

So why should Randi be able to make a claim that we must accept as most likely true? I find it more reasonable to be skeptical of Randi here than Steorn.

Randi is NOT qualified to judge experimental physics any more than most of us. Yet he assumes a trick or hoax, and I say he assumes that because he himself is a trickster and hoaxter, and will see tricks and hoaxes everywhere when anyone makes a claim outside of the dominant paradigm of academia, of which Randi himself is not even a member.

Randi did not appear to apply critical thinking to investigate where he could regarding Steorn, he made a knee jerk reaction to their claim, I imagine similar to many in academia who were asked to verify it.