Skepticism and The Normal

[JonnyFive]

Dangit, I have got to learn LaTeX.

I just figured it out a couple days ago, so I've been trying to find excuses to slap it in my posts. Hence my sudden affinity for retarded math jokes.

I found this helpful:

http://www.andy-roberts.net/misc/latex/index.html

On the board, you need to put "$$" in front and in back of the equation as a shorthand for the LaTeX "\begin{math}" and "\end{math}".

So this: [latex]$$1 + 1 = MYSTERY$$[/latex]

Displays as [latex]$$1 + 1 = MYSTERY$$[/latex]

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I just figured it out a couple days ago, so I've been trying to find excuses to slap it in my posts. Hence my sudden affinity for retarded math jokes.

I found this helpful:

http://www.andy-roberts.net/misc/latex/index.html

On the board, you need to put "$$" in front and in back of the equation as a shorthand for the LaTeX "\begin{math}" and "\end{math}".

So this: [latex]$$1 + 1 = MYSTERY$$[/latex]

Displays as

Schweeet! Bookmarked, as "LaTeX primer". *bu-dump dish*

 

[Z]

Something just occured to me, which I think is quite relevant to this discussion.

Philosophically speaking, the use of terms such as 'true', 'false', 'known', and 'unknown' are always on unsure footing. But there is one instance in which we can actually use Rome's Unoriginal Trinary System: the roots of knowledge.

Of course, there's only one true statement, one untrue statement (and variations thereof), and an infinite number of unknown statements:

True: "Experiences happen."
Untrue: "Experiences do not happen."
Unknown: everything else.

Given that there are a tremendous number of possible - even plausible - scenarios in which experiences can happen - within the mind of man, within the mind of God, simulated by computer, etc. - the only sure thing is that experiences are happening. This is the ultimate truth of subjective experience, and unless one embraces pure solipsism, is the only truth we can ever truly know.

 

[WWHP]

Of course, there's only one true statement, one untrue statement (and variations thereof), and an infinite number of unknown statements:

True: "Experiences happen."
Untrue: "Experiences do not happen."
Unknown: everything else.

Given that there are a tremendous number of possible - even plausible - scenarios in which experiences can happen - within the mind of man, within the mind of God, simulated by computer, etc. - the only sure thing is that experiences are happening. This is the ultimate truth of subjective experience, and unless one embraces pure solipsism, is the only truth we can ever truly know.

and thus, Zaaydragon and Bubblefish find perfect agreement into the heart of the mystery of OS 012's 2 value.

 

[WWHP]

The third definition states "3 : of, relating to, or being the depiction of a scene suggesting a story <an anecdotal painting> <anecdotal details>" This does not describe your misuse of terminology to try to support your claim.

Dude, check out 'of or relating, being a depiction of a scene'. This discussion is a 'story' that is distinguishable by 'what happens' and our intepretation of the event (story), and refrences to set theory and ancient greece are 'part of the scene' of this story.

You can school me on set theory, please do, but please dont school me on use of descriptive language, I'm a creative writer, I am quite familiar with the usage of the word 'ancedotal', and am using it appropiatly.


No, I dont wish to open up another ancedotal argument on my usage of ancedotal, please, drain my blood.

1) You have not clearly defined "mystery"

Mystery is defined as unknown

2) You are trying to change your use of "mystery" from that of saying that it is an element of James Randi, to saying that James Randi is observing it.

yes, steorn is an unknown to Randi or anyone who does not have factual knowledge on steorn

Randi didnt keep the mystery a mystery

Correct.

yes, correct.

He evaluated the probability of the claims being true and; given the laws of thermodynamics, Steorn's actions in this matter, his past experience, etc; he determined that the probability of the claims being true to be so small as to give provisional agreement to the conclusion that the claims are false.

he based his claim on personal opinion, not on knowledge regarding steorn. James Randi is not qualified scientifically to assess the probability of the likelihood that our laws of thermodynamics may not be complete.

If he researched steorn instead of looking *within* for mystical insight, then he would'nt have concluded they were a hoax/fraud.

He stated that Steorn's claims were false, not that the unknown is false.

huh? Steorn's claim is an UNKNOWN to us, we dont know yet for any objective certainty. Steorn's claim is KNOWN to Steorn only. Therefore, James Randi took an unknown statement, and made it false based on his mystical interpretations of reality

Once again, as you have done so many times in this thread, you are either intentionally or unintentionally committing equivocation. You can not just mutate the uses and definitions of words just to suit your argument.

I am simplyfying his argument into three values. Steorn has a claim. They are not asking anyone buy, believe, or invest until 12 scientists confirm their claim. That result takes place in the future. The future is an unknown by default. There claim is thus a 0 to all of us. Randi says it's not a 0, it's a 2. Therefore, Randi is saying that unknown=false metalogically. That's his metalogic operating. Period.

No. Evidence is evidence. Evidence is used to evaluate claims and determine if the claims are true or not.

exactly, evidence supports truth, that's what I said

He presented his claim and the evidence he used in coming to the conclusion that Steorn is a fraud.

he deluded himself into thinking that was evidence of fraud, that's intentionally misleading and deceptive. I find it odd that a man who claims to insist of evidence of perinormal claims has such a low standard for evidence when it comes to his own verbage.

What you have consistently failed to do in this thread is to show that either Randi's evidence, or logical reasoning, are flawed.

watch again.

Steorn's claim, it's truth value, true or false, is an unknown currently. There is no certain logical value of t, f we can place on thier claim at the moment. To place any logical value on thier claim other than unknown is not logical or mathematical, nor critical thinking.

James Randi simply could have done a simple amount of research, like any of us, and investigated his claim of fraud/hoax. He didnt do that.

What he did do was find information that in his mind assosciated Steorn with hoax/fraud, and claimed thier discovery is false, not true.

His argument can be summarized very simply.

1.) It is true that the laws of thermodynamics are very reliable in terms of predicting experiments, and currently, we have no reason to doubt they are faulted based on academic study.

2.)Therefore- Breaking the laws of thermodynamics is not concievably possible.

3.)Therefore, any suggestion that makes such claim is fraudulent/hoax.

Steorn's copyrights and trademarks on any such processes would not be imperiled by their following of standard scientific methodology and allowing open, unbiased peer-review.

to assume that they havent attempted that is uneducated. to assume they MUST to that for their claim to be true is arrogant.

Additionally, that the claim is in violation with well established laws of physics is sound enough ground to state that Steorn's claims is de facto false until they prove otherwise.

it is not 'false' objectivly, only subjectivly, til they prove otherwise. Until they prove otherwise, all it is objectivly is unknown.

The onus is on the claimant that would change the status quo.

status quo is not a truth value, it's a group mind.

Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.

False choice fallacy. He could be:
1) fooling himself

Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.

2) intentionally fooling us

Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.

3) misapplying his understanding of physics

Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.

4) committing a logical fallacy

Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.

5) he's right

if he's right, it's a lucky guess, and highly unlikely

6) other

other? such as? are you suggesting there is an UNKNOWN here?

That his target audience is filled with critical thinkers and skeptics puts #2 into strong doubt. #1, #3, and #4 are all put at serious risk, again because of the target audience, but this time because of the knowledge set of said audience. #5 has strong backing by all but a small, vocal minority (yourself included).

appealing to the group mind as higher authority on truth values in not rational.

You still haven't put forth a convincing argument of this assertion within this thread.

steorn's claim is a verifiable unknown.
Randi's claim is a verifiable KNOWN.

do the math

BF

 

[aggle-rithm]

We're still doing this, huh?

 

[WWHP]

Hey Guys!
I've got a great Idea. Let introduce BubbleFish to DJJ (DavidJayJordan).
I'd pay money for that. Really.

basilio

PM me, I'll give you details on where you can send the check. I warn you, I'm expensive!


BF

 

[drkitten]

and thus, Zaaydragon and Bubblefish find perfect agreement into the heart of the mystery of OS 012's 2 value.

So you're in "perfect agreement" with the statement that "there's only one true statement, one untrue statement (and variations thereof), and an infinite number of unknown statements"?

 

[drkitten]

Dude, check out 'of or relating, being a depiction of a scene'. This discussion is a 'story'

No, it isn't. Stories have narrative -- this discussion does not;

do the math

We've done the math. Several times. You don't understand the math that's already been done.

But I can summarize the math in a single equation.

Value of OS012 = Originality of OS012 = Bubblefish's philosophical understanding = nil

 

[WWHP]

No, Statement #2 "the Earth "circles" around the sun is not true, because that implies that the orbital path is a circle, whereas naked-eye observations can show this is not the case.

Fine, Jimbob is saying that it is true that statement 2 is relative to the truth, but not scientifically accurate.

Find your metalogic, that is all I am refrencing, and all OS 012 refrences.

"The only problem with 'the World Game' was that world leaders didnt use it!"

Isn't that rather a fatal problem?

yes indeed! A very big problem, for the problem is 'if we have a rational plan for global wealth and peace that can work within reason, how do we get world leaders to adopt it?' is a very big problem for humanity, absolutly.

Bucky's World Game is a logically sound game, it works within it's sphere of relevance. Yet it's virtualy meaningless if we dont use it. So how do we use it or adapt it?

Then we must develop a strategy that can outcompete governing bodies. we can outcompete governing bodies by producing more effective solutions than they offer, making thier suggestions irrelevant.

This follows, of course, Bucky's thinking. To overthrow a paradigm, you dont need a violent revolution, simply build a more effecient model that makes the old one irrelevant.

How will this outrcompete? by being more attractive?

yes, by being more attractive, more honest, more open, more wealth producing. It's pure win win ethic produces no rational enemy. It would not seek to make politicians lose, but rather win by solving problems they are unable to (like healthcare, etc etc). In princaple, it would level the politician to something no more attractive than a button pusher, and remove the 'rock star' attraction that political offices afford those who hold them.

No, it is irrational to harm your own position.

agreed. dont confuse win win with the flip side of the win lose paradigm, self sacrafice.

It is perfectly *rational* to be selfish, and to maximise your own wealth and power, even to the extent of harming other people.

no, it's not, because when we harm other people for our benifit, we are creating future problems and resistance to our existence at a later time. by harming others, we are not creating a rational solution, rather, we are rationalizing a problem by creating another problem somewhere else.

It might not be "nice", but it is rational.

rational thinking, as defined in economics, is the ability to negotiate in your own self interest. Since John Nash, economics has developed to create 'win win' negotiation strategies. Thus, 'rational' thinking has now evolved to include 'the ability to negotiate in the interests of self and others'. Negotiating in the interests of others IS a selfish act, when others are happy, MY buisness does well.

Note how in the dawning of the 21st century, the western consumer is *king*, and many new media corparations are competing to make us happy for thier own financial gain.

When there is a finite resource, and not enough to go round, (e.g. the balloon debate) it is not rational to be "nice" and die, nor is it rational for everyone to die because of the lack of scacrifices (willing or otherwise) of *other* people.

the idea of thier being 'finite' resource is an illusion. Bucky Fuller stated over and over that properly managed, 'Spaceship Earth' has enough resources to give every man, woman, and child access to billioniare wealth

Or do you mean something different by the word "rational".

Inside of OS 012, rational thinking is defined as 'honest thinking' and the ability to negotiate in one's own self interest as well as the interests of others'.

But the point is that there are different nuances in assssing this, which are lost in a trivalent logic system, due to the fact that you are all assigning them the same value, when they are qualitatively different.

Jimbob, ternary logic is the metalogic operating the perception of reality. I dont understand why you think that it all 'ends' in ternary. It doesnt 'end' in ternary, it BEGINS in ternary. Once we identify the third value, we can use whatever we need to distinguish variables inside of it.

I *am* theoretically idealistic. Despite the loss to science, the greater harm would be the killing of the greater number. Anyway if the question was 99 murders as opposed to one innocent persion being falsly convicetd of murder, I still say that the 99 going free is the lesser of the two evils.

that is a false problem that does not exist. it's not rational to model society and ethics based on irrational and non working systems that produce irrational environments where we get such tragedy.

We cannot avoid tragedy, there is no law that can prevent tragedy from happening.

How? If you accept that there is not actually an objective (i.e. externally verifiable) "correct" answer, how does a trivalent system further the cause at all?

I dont understand your query here, can you rephrase it more specifically?

All you can do is look at how the implications of the various views are consistent with the stated framework of values, how they are internally consistent, and how consistent they are with your own values.

the ethic of 'win win' is consistant with all philosophical and religious values in princaple.


BF

 

[WWHP]

No, it isn't. Stories have narrative -- this discussion does not;

all events have stories to them, dr kitten. I'm a story teller, that's my job. I understand story arc and structure.

Please dont bore us with these irrelevant rebuttals. i will continue to use the word ancedotal as it is appropiate how I use it.

Learn to love it.

We've done the math. Several times. You don't understand the math that's already been done.

hardly, you have produced contradictions with reality.

But I can summarize the math in a single equation.

Value of OS012 = Originality of OS012 = Bubblefish's philosophical understanding = nil

again, more contradictions with reality. Please re-check your math in ternary~!


BF

 

[WWHP]

So you're in "perfect agreement" with the statement that "there's only one true statement, one untrue statement (and variations thereof), and an infinite number of unknown statements"?

relative to zaay's post, yes. I would not myself summarize it like that, but I get zaay's meaning, or rather, the meaning I get from Zaay's text is mutually meaningful to OS 012 and zaay.

If I were to say 'There is only one truth, an infinite number of false truths surrounding it, and one unknown', that would be more accurate in text.

 

[aggle-rithm]

he based his claim on personal opinion, not on knowledge regarding steorn. James Randi is not qualified scientifically to assess the probability of the likelihood that our laws of thermodynamics may not be complete.

They're pretty complete. Thousands of years of observation has taught us that.

James Randi simply could have done a simple amount of research, like any of us, and investigated his claim of fraud/hoax. He didnt do that.

What he did do was find information that in his mind assosciated Steorn with hoax/fraud, and claimed thier discovery is false, not true.

His argument can be summarized very simply.

1.) It is true that the laws of thermodynamics are very reliable in terms of predicting experiments, and currently, we have no reason to doubt they are faulted based on academic study.

2.)Therefore- Breaking the laws of thermodynamics is not concievably possible.

3.)Therefore, any suggestion that makes such claim is fraudulent/hoax.

I'll say this one more time: The laws of thermodynamics are so basic to so many different understandings of our universe, that it would make more sense to say that the sun doesn't really exist than to say that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong.

Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.



Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.


Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.


Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.


Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.

You're making a pretty big assumption here, that Randi thinks unknown=false. If you've read his book "Flim-Flam" you would know that is not his position. He believes that paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims (such as perpetual motion machines) are EXTREMELY unlikely to be true, but he does not claim to know that they are not.

They are SO unlikely to be true that it is very, very safe to regard them as untrue for all intents and purposes.

 

[WWHP]

How is "tit for tat" used in evolutionary theory?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-evolutionary/

I'm not a scholar on game theory, so you need to do a little research yourself if you want to get clear on the matter. You can also try reading 'The Selfish Gene', as Dawkins does a really enlightening job on the matter.

 

[WWHP]

Aah, an elementary mistake Mojo. Of course there is no 'tit-for-tat' employed in Evolutionary Theory. However when it comes to Evolutionairy Theory we are opening up a whole different kettle of worms (or can of fish, bubblefish perhaps?).

Sorry, I should have emphasized, evolutionairy 'game' theory. I think in biology it's called 'reciprocal altruism'

 

[WWHP]

Just out of curiosity, Rome, what would have to happen in your online discussions, for you to consider tit for tat was *not* an effective strategy?

small or insignificant discussion, one or two pages in length, insignificant number of participants.

 

[WWHP]

This thread is absolutely hilarious.

Thanks! I work in comedy, so I sure appreciate the value of a laugh!

What should I do next?

Carry on.

Right-O!

 

[drkitten]

If I were to say 'There is only one truth, an infinite number of false truths surrounding it, and one unknown', that would be more accurate in text.

So you're in "perfect agreement" with a statement that you wish to correct.

Par for the course, I'm afraid.

Are you aware of the idea that words have meanings?

 

[drkitten]

hardly, you have produced contradictions with reality.

Then demonstrate one. I've invited you to support this statement several times.

So far, the only contradictions I've seen in this thread are you with yourself.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Dude, check out 'of or relating, being a depiction of a scene'. This discussion is a 'story' that is distinguishable by 'what happens' and our intepretation of the event (story), and refrences to set theory and ancient greece are 'part of the scene' of this story.

You can school me on set theory, please do, but please dont school me on use of descriptive language, I'm a creative writer, I am quite familiar with the usage of the word 'ancedotal', and am using it appropiatly.

No, I dont wish to open up another ancedotal argument on my usage of ancedotal, please, drain my blood.

The word you're looking for is tangential^dict.

Mystery is defined as unknown

My comment was in direct response to your statement, "Here is where we can say mystery is apart of James randi's perception". Placing "unknown" in that statement is not defining "mystery" as used in that statement.

yes, steorn is an unknown to Randi or anyone who does not have factual knowledge on steorn

This is an irrelevant and unintelligeble response to my comment.

Randi didnt keep the mystery a mystery

1) This is irrelevant to my criticism of your further use of equivocation.
2) That Randi evaluated the plausibility of Steorn's claim, based on available information, is good. Not evaluating it is no better than IDers not trying to understand the evolution of the eye.

yes, correct.
he based his claim on personal opinion, not on knowledge regarding steorn. James Randi is not qualified scientifically to assess the probability of the likelihood that our laws of thermodynamics may not be complete.

And you're qualified to judge Randi's knowledge of thermodynamics? You have got to be kidding me.

If he researched steorn instead of looking *within* for mystical insight, then he would'nt have concluded they were a hoax/fraud.

He didn't look "*within*", he assesed Steorn's claims using a number of sources, not the least of which being the laws of thermodynamics.

huh? Steorn's claim is an UNKNOWN to us, we dont know yet for any objective certainty. Steorn's claim is KNOWN to Steorn only.

No, that Steorn has not released the "how" behind their claim does not mean they have not made a claim. They have made a claim that is direct violation of the laws of thermodynamics, and that claim can be evaluated using those laws.

Therefore, James Randi took an unknown statement, and made it false based on his mystical interpretations of reality

The only interpretations of reality going on around here appear to be your posts.

I am simplyfying his argument into three values.

That's debatable.

Steorn has a claim.

Agreed. It is "
Orbo produces free, clean and constant energy - that is our claim. By free we mean that the energy produced is done so without recourse to external source. By clean we mean that during operation the technology produces no emissions. By constant we mean that with the exception of mechanical failure the technology will continue to operate indefinitely.
The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy, perhaps the most fundamental of scientific principles. The principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change form.
"

They are not asking anyone buy, believe, or invest until 12 scientists confirm their claim.

Twelve scientists that Steorn chooses and who are compensated. http://www.steorn.com/orbo/validation/jury_contract.aspx

That result takes place in the future. The future is an unknown by default. There claim is thus a 0 to all of us. Randi says it's not a 0, it's a 2. Therefore, Randi is saying that unknown=false metalogically. That's his metalogic operating. Period.

Based upon available knowledge, and laws of thermodynamics. Just as we assume that the sun will "rise" every morning, until the morning that it does not; so to can we assume that the laws of thermodynamics are valid until it is proven they are not. That is why they are scientific laws, not hypothesis, or theories.

exactly, evidence supports truth, that's what I said

I have an invisible, flying, dragon in my garage. Produce evidence that I do not. See the problem with "supporting" the "truth" with evidence. It's starting from the conclusion are working backwards. Steorn is making a claim that goes against ~100 years of evidence that the laws of thermodynamics are correct, and they are not providing evidence to support their claim.

he deluded himself into thinking that was evidence of fraud, that's intentionally misleading and deceptive.

Steorn is a business. Though it is possible they are just mistaken, the probabilty is low. Therefore, we are left with a claim that is either (1) true, and violates the laws of thermodynamics or (2) intentionally false (fraud).

I find it odd that a man who claims to insist of evidence of perinormal claims has such a low standard for evidence when it comes to his own verbage.

That you don't accept his evidence and logical argument does not mean that he is being inconsistent with his previous actions. You have not demonstrated it to be such.

watch again.

Steorn's claim, it's truth value, true or false, is an unknown currently. There is no certain logical value of t, f we can place on thier claim at the moment. To place any logical value on thier claim other than unknown is not logical or mathematical, nor critical thinking.

ONLY if their claim is occurring in a knowledge and evidence vacuum, which it is not.

James Randi simply could have done a simple amount of research, like any of us, and investigated his claim of fraud/hoax. He didnt do that.
What he did do was find information that in his mind assosciated Steorn with hoax/fraud, and claimed thier discovery is false, not true.

No, you assume he didn't do that because it was not written in the SWIFT newsletter. You're violating your own principles here.

His argument can be summarized very simply.

1.) It is true that the laws of thermodynamics are very reliable in terms of predicting experiments, and currently, we have no reason to doubt they are faulted based on academic study.

Strawman. They are not "very reliable", they have never been shown to have been broken. Additionally, all evidence shows them to be "undoubtable", not just "academic study".

2.)Therefore- Breaking the laws of thermodynamics is not concievably possible.

3.)Therefore, any suggestion that makes such claim is fraudulent/hoax.

to assume that they havent attempted that is uneducated. to assume they MUST to that for their claim to be true is arrogant.

Arrogant, maybe; but given that they are a business, and business are supposed to make money, and that they've been in the hole for years; it is not an unreasonable conclusion.

it is not 'false' objectivly, only subjectivly, til they prove otherwise. Until they prove otherwise, all it is objectivly is unknown.

No, his conclusion is not subjective in nature. His reasoning has been made clear and anyone can evaluate the logic and evidence he used to come to his conclusions.

status quo is not a truth value, it's a group mind.

Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.

No, the status quo, in this case, is not Randi's position (or whatever you view his position to be), but rather the laws of thermodynamics. They are the status quo, because they have been repeated proven to be accurate. If we did not give such things provisional agreement as to their position as status quo truth, we would not have such things as nuclear reactors, planes, and MRI machines because we could never assume that we would get the same result every time.

Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.


Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.


Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.


Therefore, James Randi was either deluding himself with his unknown=false metalogic, or he is decieving all of you for the sake of maintaining his position as leader of the critical thinking and skeptical movement.

Stop trying to justify your False Choice Fallacy.

if he's right, it's a lucky guess, and highly unlikely

On what ground do you have the knowledge/authority to assign a probability value to this?

other? such as? are you suggesting there is an UNKNOWN here?

No, I am stating that I do not claim my list is necessarily complete. It is functionally the same as the use of elipses in set notation.

appealing to the group mind as higher authority on truth values in not rational.

I am not making an argumentum ad populum claim. I am saying that, just as in a peer reviewed journal, the members of this forum have sufficient knowledge, and skills to independently evaluate any claim made by Randi and, as demonstrated in the past, are perfectly willing to call him on errors/mistatements/etc.

Also, I have, what I feel is, a very important question for you BF; are you in any manner affiliated with, compenstated by, or employeed by Steorn?