The Alternative Science Website
Richard Milton
http://www.alternativescience.com/
It's intended to be an alternative source for FAQs on scientific
questions that are often dismissed by conventional science and
provides many links to other serious alternative science sites.
Hopefully some writers will find it useful.
All the best
Richard Milton
Blair P. Houghton
And, when you're done laughing your ass off at a website filled
with Arguments From Authority[*] you can get the straight dope
(no, not Cecil's brand) from The Skeptic's Dictionary at
http://wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us:80/~btcarrol/skeptic/
--Blair
"What's a story without conflict?"
[*] you mean, he *didn't* have to mention MENSA all those times?
Richard Milton
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
What are you smoking, Blair? Whatever it is it's causing delusions.
1. The whole point of my site is that its *against* the
kind of arguments from authority that people like CSICOP employ.
I'm urging people to consider the evidence and make up their own
minds, not believe what they're told by intellectual
Stalinists masquerading as "skeptics".
2. I mentioned Mensa Magazine (not Mensa) a grand total of once,
because I quoted from it. Have you considered remedial reading
classes?
Richard
The Alternative Science Website
http://www.alternativescience.com/
J.W. Kingry
it is that idea-possessing them-that what has been said has still not
been said enough."
--The Journal of Eugčne Delacroix entry for 15 May 1824.
"Why, if I am so smart, can I not write an original screenplay?"
--The Journal of JW Kingry, July 5th, 1999 (The day after the
fireworks).
Skip Press
Current Hollywood-think is that of the Book of Ecclesiastes, that there is
nothing new under the sun. Someone will come along and change that by
being highly original. People aren't so smart yet they've thought of
everything; maybe you'll come up with something new if you just keep at
it. Delacroix wasn't on the money.
Joe Myers
J.W. Kingry wrote in message <3780A6B9...@pdq.net>...
>"Why, if I am so smart, can I not write an original screenplay?"
Perhaps you're distracted my the festering dead flesh from your brown spider
bite. J.W,. your racists disdain for your Asian doctor notwithstanding,
please have this attended to.
Joe Myers
"Or we'll just have to get used to
calling you 'Stumpy.'"
Mike Shields
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 3:26:04 -0700, Richard Milton wrote:
after
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
<which I apparently snipped>
> 2. I mentioned Mensa Magazine (not Mensa) a grand total of once, because I
> quoted from it. Have you considered remedial reading classes?
>
>
This is what I love about this ng. Watching the beginning of a flame war....
Mike
--
I'd like to note for the record that the other six lawyers did not object...
--John Cage
Mike Shields
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 5:36:09 -0700, J.W. Kingry wrote:
>
> "What makes men of genius, or rather, what they make, is not new ideas, it
> is that idea-possessing them-that what has been said has still not been said
> enough."
>
> "Why, if I am so smart, can I not write an original screenplay?"
>
>
Well, because I'm the guy that likes answering rhetorical questions, I'll tell you: There's only 36 plots. Now, if I could recall the month in Differntial Equations where we worked out this kinda stuff, I could tell you how many combinations that makes, and then you'd have to multiply by two, by switching Male and female protagonist. Or is that already accounted for?
Anyway, you're so called lack of originality, which you have yet to demonstrate, is not your fault.
Mike
--
Kirk: Scotty, do you always multiply your repair estimates by a factor of four?
Scotty: Of course, Admiral. How else would I maintain my reputation as a miracle worker?
J.W. Kingry
brew were other threads of a more salacious nature, a line from one of
the Bard's sonnets came to mind, which I hereby bastardize:
"O, let my screenplays be then the eloquence
And dumb presagers of my speaking breast."
Seems as though REAL STORIES such as I attempt to bring to the screen -
taken from authentic living drama have an uphill climb - while the
movies actually being made are "Austin Powers," "Wild, Wild West,"
"Notting Hill" derivatives of derivatives. Hollywood doesn't seek
original screenplays -- rather proven brand-name "products." Its
depressing. Write my stories, or write what a studio will buy? - its
the ancient artisan vs marketer conflict.
Celavie,
J Kingry
ice...@slip.net
wrote:
>Seems as though REAL STORIES such as I attempt to bring to the screen -
>taken from authentic living drama have an uphill climb - while the
>movies actually being made are "Austin Powers," "Wild, Wild West,"
>"Notting Hill" derivatives of derivatives. Hollywood doesn't seek
>original screenplays -- rather proven brand-name "products." Its
>depressing. Write my stories, or write what a studio will buy? - its
>the ancient artisan vs marketer conflict.
OTOH, what the studio will buy is sometimes influenced by the
breakthrough success of something they *wouldn't* buy previously -
except somebody took a chance on a dynamite script and bought it
anyway.
Bill
William Thomas Quick : Iceberg Productions
ice...@iw3p.com : http://www.iw3p.com
J.W. Kingry
not charater. Mt favorite advertisement is the beer commercial where
word comes to the South American bar that the beer shipment has fallen
in the river...
Ohhh, but Joe, my son! My "...racist disdain for (my) Asian doctor?"
No, no, no. Cultural disdain, yes... but not "racist." My Pakistani,
Iranian, and Chinese physicians, hired by the VA for Coolie wages are
wonderful people. I'd give godspeed to their marrying one of my own
children-- I'd stand up and give them my seat on a bus-- If I were in
the market I would father their children. What I disdain is their
MEDICAL competency.
I have this thing with airplane mechanics and physicians from third
world countries, and the horror sories to back them up. Did I ever tell
you about the time three North Vietnamese Army officers, on a
trans-Pacific CAAC flight had to be forcibly restrained from opening the
cabin door at 28,000 feet? They wanted to enjoy the view and the breeze,
and were feeling claustrophobic.
If you take confidence from a physician who hangs out a Harvard Medical
School degree, by the same token how should we feel about a Walmart
framed copy of the Kohlrabi Medical University and Bait Shop degree?
Culturally prejudiced, Joe, not racist.
JW (Stumpy) Kingry
Sounds like a good pirate name, don't you think?
Joe Myers wrote:
>
> J.W. Kingry wrote in message <3780A6B9...@pdq.net>...
>
> >"Why, if I am so smart, can I not write an original screenplay?"
>
Steve Holmes
(snip)
> I have this thing with airplane mechanics and physicians from third
> world countries, and the horror sories to back them up. Did I ever tell
> you about the time three North Vietnamese Army officers, on a
> trans-Pacific CAAC flight had to be forcibly restrained from opening the
> cabin door at 28,000 feet? They wanted to enjoy the view and the breeze,
> and were feeling claustrophobic.
(snip)
Or the Aeroflot pilot who let his 16-year-old son take the controls. He
took 'em straight into the ground.
I have the same fear of flying third-world airlines. Not out of a
feeling of cultural superiority, but a simple recognition that those
nations generally can't afford the technology and training to make their
airlines as sophisticated and safe as those of Western nations.
And if you ever fly from Khabarovsk to Irkutsk, Siberia on Aeroflot and
you have a dog, you *can* bring him on board in the passenger
compartment. Trust me on this one.
--
Steve Holmes
Executive Producer, "For Love and/or Money"
Producer, "The Whole Fam-Damily"
Iowa City, IA, USA
http://www.shpvideo.com
My address: sigerson "at" inav "dot" net (replace "" words with
symbols)
Blair P. Houghton
>Seems as though REAL STORIES such as I attempt to bring to the screen -
>taken from authentic living drama have an uphill climb - while the
>movies actually being made are "Austin Powers," "Wild, Wild West,"
>"Notting Hill" derivatives of derivatives. Hollywood doesn't seek
>original screenplays -- rather proven brand-name "products." Its
>depressing. Write my stories, or write what a studio will buy? - its
>the ancient artisan vs marketer conflict.
Then you ask the wrong question, grasshopper.
Ask not what you can do for Hollywood, ask what you can do without them.
--Blair
"Love? Or money..."
d c harris
Milton) wrote:
>
>
>What are you smoking, Blair? Whatever it is it's causing delusions.
D C -
When you are accused of arguing from authority
Richard, you know your opponents are retreating
with all credibility lost.
We are in fact talking here about people
with *delusional* states. People who cannot
distinguish between empty rhetoric and
honest argument. (This latter to me is an interesting
field in its own right.)
Blair P. Houghton
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>
>>[*] you mean, he *didn't* have to mention MENSA all those times?
>
>
>kind of arguments from authority that people like CSICOP employ.
>I'm urging people to consider the evidence and make up their own
>minds, not believe what they're told by intellectual
>Stalinists masquerading as "skeptics".
"Intellectual Stalinist." You wouldn't be trying to demonize
every scientist since Newton with that inflammatory generalization,
would you?
>2. I mentioned Mensa Magazine (not Mensa) a grand total of once,
>because I quoted from it. Have you considered remedial reading
>classes?
Okay, then. I stand corrected. Your arguments come from no
authority.
It merely occurred to me that anyone who touts any contact
with MENSA is touting himself short (and as a self-touter of
wide and far-reaching reputation, I think that's saying
something). To me, even one is many too many. BTW, you
mention it at least twice. And provide a link to them.
Here's a webpage that should help with categorizing the
other mistakes in your presentation:
http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/downes/fallacy/home.html
This seems perpetually to be un-implemented, so use the
mirror site at
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/welcome.htm
I've redirected followups to sci.skeptic, where this discussion
belongs.
--Blair
"You can call me a Rational Hitler,
if it makes you feel better."
P.S. Just to ramp up your paranoia, yes, I am a member of
the James Randi Educational Foundation. Member number 9, in
fact. And I encourage you to contact your Psychic Friends
<http://www.alternativescience.com/phonies.htm> to take the
JREF's challenge <http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html>, in
which they stand to receive over a million dollars in cold
cash simply for repeating experiments that they--and you--claim
they have already performed. Now that's science.
J.W. Kingry
And there was the time in 1993 when Vietnam Civil Airline flew me in a
converted Backfire bomber from Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City for the kiddies)
to DaNang. The pilot stayed beneath the weather so he could follow the
coastline because his radio beacon, radar and IFF was out. For this
privilege I paid $200 US.
I have a million stories like this. Did I ever tell you about the Martin
Marietta plant in Shanghai where they make the metal air foils for
commercial aircraft wings? Such precision -- milled to within a
thousandth of an inch -- then stacked on a concrete floor and trod on by
Chinese workers.
Ineedavacation
Stumpy Kingry
Blair P. Houghton
>When you are accused of arguing from authority
>Richard, you know your opponents are retreating
>with all credibility lost.
That's utter nonsense. "Argument from Authority" is a classic
fallacy.
>We are in fact talking here about people
>with *delusional* states.
You calling me delusional? You're not *even* my agent.
'Sides, I can't think of anything more delusional than
<*something I already said I would not argue about here, but
you know what I mean*>.
>People who cannot
>distinguish between empty rhetoric and
>honest argument.
I've read parts of his website. My offhand dismissal of his
whacked positions is nothing compared with his in-depth whacked
analyses.
--Blair
"Can't we all just get a thong?"
Adam Fulford
countries are excellent. Lumping them all together is unfair, just like
lumping all educational establishments in North America together would be
misleading.
You express the typical attitude of an ex-pat who, because he's physically
present in an area of the world, believes that that makes him an expert on
it.
Adam Fulford
J.W. Kingry wrote
>SNIP
>Cultural disdain, yes... but not "racist." My Pakistani,
>Iranian, and Chinese physicians, hired by the VA for Coolie wages are
>wonderful people>SNIP> I would father their children. What I disdain is
their
>MEDICAL competency.
>
SNIP
K. Janigan
>
> J.W. Kingry wrote:
>
> (snip)
> > I have this thing with airplane mechanics and physicians from third
> > world countries, and the horror sories to back them up. Did I ever tell
> > you about the time three North Vietnamese Army officers, on a
> > trans-Pacific CAAC flight had to be forcibly restrained from opening the
> > cabin door at 28,000 feet? They wanted to enjoy the view and the breeze,
> > and were feeling claustrophobic.
> (snip)
>
> Or the Aeroflot pilot who let his 16-year-old son take the controls. He
> took 'em straight into the ground.
>
> I have the same fear of flying third-world airlines. Not out of a
> feeling of cultural superiority, but a simple recognition that those
> nations generally can't afford the technology and training to make their
> airlines as sophisticated and safe as those of Western nations.
>
> And if you ever fly from Khabarovsk to Irkutsk, Siberia on Aeroflot and
> you have a dog, you *can* bring him on board in the passenger
> compartment. Trust me on this one.
Hard currency is generally the problem.
My husband flew Aeroflot from Yakhutsk (sp?) to Moscow on a converted
Tupelov (sp?) bomber. Needless to say the vodka he was bringing back
didn't make it. His seat had no safety belt and there was exactly 85 mm
from the seat back in front of him to his nose. (He measured it). That's
about three inches for the Imperial set. I dunno where you'd stick a
dog... but the Society of the Prevention for Cruelty would be wanting to
talk to you.
But it was on a Delta commuter flight out of Atlanta that had the engine
fire and forced him to change his pants when they returned safely.
So you never can tell, even the US has problems. And don't get me
started about Swissair -- THE most reliable airline and, living in Nova
Scotia, we heard the flight go down 35 minutes from our home on it's way
from New York to Geneva. I couldn't look at the beach for weeks in fear
of seeing something.
The West is best, but nothing is guaranteed.
Cheers Karen
J.W. Kingry
very bad experiences with MD's who don't know what they're doing who
didn't have the grace or humility to admit it. Some of my best friends
are physicians. My own sister screwed me up prescribing killer doses of
prozac, and she graduated from Johns Hopkins, bless her buttons.
JWK
Richard Milton
"d c harris" wrote:
>Richard Milton wrote:
>>
>>What are you smoking, Blair? Whatever it is it's causing delusions.
>
>D C -
>
>When you are accused of arguing from authority
>Richard, you know your opponents are retreating
>with all credibility lost.
Can't argue with you there, DC. :-)
>We are in fact talking here about people
>with *delusional* states. People who cannot
>distinguish between empty rhetoric and
>honest argument. (This latter to me is an interesting
>field in its own right.)
I agree, it is an interesting field and one which is hardly studied
at all. The question that interests me most is: What evidence
would people like Blair accept for -- say -- paranormal phenomena?
I suspect the honest answer is: there is *no* evidence that would
change their minds.
On my website I quote British theatre director and medical doctor
Jonathan Miller who recently said on television, "Even if you
showed me the evidence for homeopathy, I still wouldn't believe
it."
At least he's honest about his bigotry rather than making bullshit
offers of $1,000,000 which he has no intention of honouring.
Regards
Richard
The Alternative Science Web Site
http://www.alternativescience.com
Blair P. Houghton
>"d c harris" wrote:
>>Richard Milton wrote:
>>>What are you smoking, Blair? Whatever it is it's causing delusions.
>>
>>Richard, you know your opponents are retreating
>>with all credibility lost.
>
>Can't argue with you there, DC. :-)
Nor, since you're a kook, would you.
>I agree, it is an interesting field and one which is hardly studied
>at all. The question that interests me most is: What evidence
>would people like Blair accept for -- say -- paranormal phenomena?
>I suspect the honest answer is: there is *no* evidence that would
>change their minds.
You suspect about as poorly as you reason.
*Any* evidence of such phenomena that could be proved true
would be acceptable.
All of the "evidence" you cite is anecdotal, unrepeatable,
specious, or fallacious.
>On my website I quote British theatre director and medical doctor
>Jonathan Miller who recently said on television, "Even if you
>showed me the evidence for homeopathy, I still wouldn't believe
>it."
Remember that "argument from authority" thing? You're at
it again. And this time you're not even using an authority.
Do you also quote A. Conan Doyle, who thought the Cottingley
Faeries were real just because there were photos of them
dancing around a young girl? That's about your speed.
>At least he's honest about his bigotry rather than making bullshit
>offers of $1,000,000 which he has no intention of honouring.
Excuse me?
Are you saying that the Psychic Challenge, which is backed by
funds currently on-hand in an account managed by Goldman Sachs
and pledged to be replenished by money pledged by seekers of
truth from around the world, is non-existent?
Or are you just joining the legion of paranormal-nutfuck
charlatans who think that libeling Randi and expressing
skepticism of a legally binding promise is more convincing
than demonstrating paranormal activity in public would be?
--Blair
"Prove me wrong by proving me wrong."
P.S. Anyone who wants to make a fast million by bending spoons,
dowsing for water, infusing objects with Chi, reading minds,
remote viewing, or any other form of paranormal facility, is
invited to fill out and submit the form at this URL:
http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html
P.P.S. That includes you, Richard.
D C Harris
Houghton) wrote:
>I've read parts of his website. My offhand dismissal of his
>whacked positions is nothing compared with his in-depth whacked
>analyses.
I always thought taking a sober
look at facts in the face of childish
hectoring is what the scientific outlook
is all about. More power to RMs elbow.
Richard Milton
fact) wrote:
<Offensive personal remarks snipped to conserve bandwidth>
>All of the "evidence" you cite is anecdotal, unrepeatable,
>specious, or fallacious.
On the contrary. I have only included in my books (and on my web
site) empirical evidence that has been published in the scientific
literature, usually in peer-reviewed publications, and in the
majority of cases that has been replicated in reputable university
laboratories.
In the case that you are currently referring to (in complete
ignorance I might add), that of evidence for Psychokinesis, my source
is the peer-reviewed journal "Foundations of Physics".
Tell us now, Blair, are you or are you not saying that
experimental results published in "Foundations in Physics" are
"anecodotal, unrepeatable, specious or fallacious"?
And if not, what are you saying?
<More unjustified and offensive personal remarks snipped>
RM
>> At least [Jonathan Miller is] honest about his bigotry rather
>> than making bullshit offers of $1,000,000 which he has no
>> intention of honouring.
>
>Excuse me?
>
>Are you saying that the Psychic Challenge, which is backed by
>funds currently on-hand in an account managed by Goldman Sachs
>and pledged to be replenished by money pledged by seekers of
>truth from around the world, is non-existent?
No. I'm saying that it's bullshit. Neither James Randi nor anyone
else associated with this "challenge" has any intention of
allowing the money to be won. That's why Randi has carefully
drawn up the rules specifically to eliminate any possibility of
objective judging by an indepedent outside adjudicator. Randi has
phrased the rules so that he, and he alone, decides whether any
claimant has won. Guess what? No-one ever will.
>Or are you just joining the legion of paranormal-nutfuck
>charlatans who think that libeling Randi and expressing
>skepticism of a legally binding promise is more convincing
>than demonstrating paranormal activity in public would be?
There is nothing legally binding about Randi's alleged challenge
because Randi has carefully stacked the deck in advance. Anyone
reading this newsgroup can check this out for themselves by visiting
<http://www.randi.org> and reading the "terms" of his challenge.
When you've had a laugh at the hilariously transparent attempt by
the "Amazing Randi" to save himself from ever having to pay up, you
can find out the real facts about Randi and his "debunking"
activities on the Alternative Science Web Site at:-
http://www.alternativescience.com
> --Blair
> "Prove me wrong by proving me wrong."
If I might give you a word of advice, Blair, your problem is that
you are too easily swayed by the opinions of persuasive
show-business people like James Randi. When it comes to science,
you should learn to start evaluating primary sources of evidence for
yourself. If you ever do (and I don't for one moment think you
will) you are in for a big surprise.
--Richard
"Don't bother proving me wrong -- I'm
just the messenger. Consult primary
sources: make up your own mind."
The Alternative Science Web Site
http://www.alternativescience.com/
Blair P. Houghton
>Blair P. Houghton (who is unable to distinguish between rhetoric and
>fact) wrote:
>
><Offensive personal remarks snipped to conserve bandwidth>
What was offensive and personal about this exchange?
Richard: What evidence would people like Blair accept for --
say -- paranormal phenomena? I suspect the honest answer is:
there is *no* evidence that would change their minds.
Blair: You suspect about as poorly as you reason. *Any*
evidence of such phenomena that could be proved true would be
acceptable.
Or did it simply hurt you that you failed to make your
offensive and personal point that I am closed-minded?
I'm hardly closed-minded. I'm quite open-minded. It's simply
that you're not adept enough to hide any reality behind your
facades of magic.
>>All of the "evidence" you cite is anecdotal, unrepeatable,
>>specious, or fallacious.
>
>On the contrary. I have only included in my books (and on my web
>site) empirical evidence that has been published in the scientific
>literature, usually in peer-reviewed publications, and in the
>majority of cases that has been replicated in reputable university
>laboratories.
Do you subscribe to the Journal of the Society for Scientific
Exploration? It satisfies all of those authoritarian qualities
you listed. It also publishes "results" that are the funniest
things emitted on paper since the National Lampoon stopped
being funny when PJ O'Rourke took over in 1976.
>In the case that you are currently referring to (in complete
>ignorance I might add),
If I am in "complete ignorance", then your website and
postings are of no informational value. They should be
bannerred top and bottom with the phrase "Advertisement.
For Entertainment Only."
>that of evidence for Psychokinesis, my source
>is the peer-reviewed journal "Foundations of Physics".
I didn't mention "psychokinesis". Not once.
How many of me do you suppose there are, Richard, and what
peer-reviewed articles are my doppelgangers discussing with
you?
It helps, when setting up straw men, to start with at least
one straw.
>Tell us now, Blair, are you or are you not saying that
>experimental results published in "Foundations in Physics" are
>"anecodotal, unrepeatable, specious or fallacious"?
How could I have said such a thing when we weren't
discussing what was published there?
>And if not, what are you saying?
I'm saying you're developing a persecution complex to the
point of making a career at it. But I'm not an authority on
psychiatry (shut up, Jervis!) so you go check with your doctor.
><More unjustified and offensive personal remarks snipped>
Must have been some data on electronegativity of the
elements or the masses of the planets that slipped in.
What other than science could make Richard elide data?
>No. I'm saying that it's bullshit. Neither James Randi nor anyone
>else associated with this "challenge" has any intention of
>allowing the money to be won. That's why Randi has carefully
>drawn up the rules specifically to eliminate any possibility of
>objective judging by an indepedent outside adjudicator.
That's funny. The rules explicitly state that the results
will be obvious to independent outside adjudicators.
>Randi has
>phrased the rules so that he, and he alone, decides whether any
>claimant has won. Guess what? No-one ever will.
Guess what? That has much more to do with the speciousness of
the claims than it does with the proprietorship of the prize.
Because it has nothing to do with the proprietorship of the
prize.
>There is nothing legally binding about Randi's alleged challenge
>because Randi has carefully stacked the deck in advance. Anyone
>reading this newsgroup can check this out for themselves by visiting
><http://www.randi.org> and reading the "terms" of his challenge.
Please. Everyone go look. What you'll see is a valid offer
backed not just by Randi (whose personal stake is the first
$10,000 of the prise) but by hundreds of others who have
pledged their support, as well as the JREF, and an anonymous
benefactor who has double-protected the finances of the JREF
by setting up a second bond fund.
>When you've had a laugh at the hilariously transparent attempt by
>the "Amazing Randi" to save himself from ever having to pay up, you
>can find out the real facts about Randi and his "debunking"
>activities on the Alternative Science Web Site at:-
>
>http://www.alternativescience.com
I think we're done laughing at you, Richard. Now you're
just boring us.
>> "Prove me wrong by proving me wrong."
>
>If I might give you a word of advice, Blair, your problem is that
>you are too easily swayed by the opinions of persuasive
>show-business people like James Randi. When it comes to science,
>you should learn to start evaluating primary sources of evidence for
>yourself. If you ever do (and I don't for one moment think you
>will) you are in for a big surprise.
Richard, you know sweet fuck-all about me and my "primary
sources of evidence". You're nothing but a garden-variety
kook. You're no better than Uri Geller, who to this day
refuses to accept the evidence from the numerous times
he's been caught playing tricks when he claimed to be
performing paranormal acts of mental power.
> --Richard
> "Don't bother proving me wrong -- I'm
> just the messenger. Consult primary
> sources: make up your own mind."
For a messenger, you do a sad job of paying attention to the
facts. And your sad little impugnments of the "sources" is
just another invitation to the gullible.
--Blair
"Imitation is the sincerest form
of flattery, but then, even
Silly Putty can copy newsprint."
Blair P. Houghton
not realize it got shunted to sci.skeptic.
Jeri Jo Thomas<kata...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 8 Jul 1999 23:21:31 GMT, speaking in dulcet tones, "Blair P.
>Houghton" said ...
>
>-> P.S. Anyone who wants to make a fast million by bending spoons,
>-> dowsing for water, infusing objects with Chi, reading minds,
>-> remote viewing, or any other form of paranormal facility, is
>-> invited to fill out and submit the form at this URL:
>->
>What is "Chi"?
The third word in "Feng Shui Qi-Gong", slightly transliterated
to its more common single-word spelling.
It's a form of "energy" that appears to mediate all the effects
of Qi-Gong and Feng Shui. As such, it's the great be-all and
end-all of much mysticism of Asian origin.
Believers claim that adepts, by holding their hand over
a part of another person bodies, can feel the chi (scientists
call this "radiative and convective heating" along with a
healthy heaping of psychosomatic response).
They claim also that there are those who can improve the
beneficiel qualities of water and other substances by infusing
them with Chi, and that once infused, those objects can be
picked out of otherwise identical objects. This of course
has yet to prove true in careful experiments.
--Blair
"And I still didn't say 'psychokinesis'."
P.S. Feng Shui, while claiming to be based on mysticism,
actually usually works out to a really good sense of interior
design. And I'll never accuse Asia of lacking style.
d c harris
Houghton) wrote:
>
>Do you also quote A. Conan Doyle, who thought the Cottingley
>Faeries were real just because there were photos of them
>dancing around a young girl? That's about your speed.
>
Well, the above looked so phoney, I cannot
imagine them kidding a ten year old.
Back to Richard Milton.
Richard does not pretend to be
a scientist. He is a journalist and
writer, who writes about controversial
ideas - from scientists - which have been
buried by the scientific establishment.
What Richard writes about is in fact
a dangerous form of censorship. Richard
is far better qualified to comment
on the practical dangers of this type
of censorship than I am - but these dangers
are leviathan.
Richard refers to homoeopathy. An piece
on the subject was published in Nature
by a French scientist, which was subject to
more than the usual peer process. Not
able to accept the findings, the editor
published his own views denouncing
the article as an example of bad science.
Then - guess what - he took over the bearded
bore Randi to the Frenchman's lab,
in what seemed a perfectly disgraceful
pantomime.
Science is best informed by a real
curiousity. Too much credulity or
skepticism is a bad thing.
What annoys me especially re skeptics
is that they always claim the intellectual
high ground. The problem with skeptics
Blair is that they *are* boring, and
invariably, not seemingly over blessed
the grey stuff. Denial is always the
language of impotence.
Richard Milton
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>Richard Milton (who is a gadfly and pretentious moron) wrote:
>
>I'm hardly closed-minded. I'm quite open-minded.
I haven't any comment to make on this remark, I simply include it
because it's so hilarious it deserves another outing.
[Blair P Houghton]
>>>All of the "evidence" you cite is anecdotal, unrepeatable,
>>>specious, or fallacious.
>>
>>On the contrary. I have only included in my books (and on my web
>>site) empirical evidence that has been published in the scientific
>>literature, usually in peer-reviewed publications, and in the
>>majority of cases that has been replicated in reputable university
>>laboratories.
>
>Do you subscribe to the Journal of the Society for Scientific
>Exploration? It satisfies all of those authoritarian qualities
>you listed. It also publishes "results" that are the funniest
>things emitted on paper since the National Lampoon stopped
>being funny when PJ O'Rourke took over in 1976.
So let's see. On one hand we have the Society for Scientific
Exploration (whose officers include Dr Peter Sturrock, professor
of space science at Stanford University and Dr Laurence Frederick,
professor of astronomy at University of Virginia) whose chosen
method is empirical rsearch, rational discourse, and peer-review,
and on the other hand we have Blair P Houghton whose chosen method
is the unsubstantiated assertion and the use of offensive
language ("moron", "kook", "paranormal-nutfuck charlatans" etc.)
It's a tough one to call, Blair, but I think when it comes to
reporting science I'll stick with the scientists whose results are
published for everyone to see, rather than you and your stage
conjuror friends.
[Richard Milton]
>>No. I'm saying that it's bullshit. Neither James Randi nor anyone
>>else associated with this "challenge" has any intention of
>>allowing the money to be won. That's why Randi has carefully
>>drawn up the rules specifically to eliminate any possibility of
>>objective judging by an indepedent outside adjudicator.
>
>That's funny. The rules explicitly state that the results
>will be obvious to independent outside adjudicators.
What the rules *actually* say (and anyone can verify this for
themseves by visiting "The Amazing" Randi's web site) is:-
"Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules
must be formulated for each applicant"
Translation: We make up the rules to suit ourselves.
"Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is
required"
Translation: No "judging" is necessary because there is no way we
are ever going to part with any money whatever evidence is
presented to us.
>Please. Everyone go look. What you'll see is a valid offer
>backed not just by Randi (whose personal stake is the first
>$10,000 of the prise) but by hundreds of others who have
>pledged their support, as well as the JREF, and an anonymous
>benefactor who has double-protected the finances of the JREF
>by setting up a second bond fund.
I quite agree. Please, everyone go and look at "The Amazing"
Randi's offer. And then ask yourself this question. Under what
circumstances *exactly* would either Randi or Blair P Houghton be
prepared to give even $1 to any claimant? And the answer is
obvious. Blair is virtually saying it himself here. There *are* no
circumstances.
Just as Antoine Lavoisier told the Academie des Sciences,
"Gentlemen, stones cannot fall from the sky because there *are* no
stones in the sky." So Houghton and Randi are saying, in effect,
"We don't have to define what constitutes a demonstration
of paranormal phenomena, because there *are* no paranormal
phenomena."
This isn't a rational, scientific position, it's a medieval belief.
>Richard, you know sweet fuck-all about me and my "primary
>sources of evidence".
I know that you don't trouble yourself by consulting any, which is
what I was urging you to do. You could start your education by
following up the references at the Alternative Science Web Site at
<http://www.alternativescience.com/>
Richard Milton
Blair P. Houghton
please subscribe to sci.skeptic, which was created for exactly
this sort of material.
d c harris<d...@brookwood.in2home.co.uk> wrote:
>Richard refers to homoeopathy. An piece
>on the subject was published in Nature
>by a French scientist, which was subject to
>more than the usual peer process. Not
>able to accept the findings, the editor
>published his own views denouncing
>the article as an example of bad science.
>Then - guess what - he took over the bearded
>bore Randi to the Frenchman's lab,
>in what seemed a perfectly disgraceful
>pantomime.
Is this the Benveniste thing?
Their "pantomime" at Benveniste's lab consisted of showing
him exactly how his method, apparatus, and data analyses were
crocked. When he attempted the experiments under proper,
objective control, they failed.
Benveniste has since done a run at the Randi Challenge. An
independent scientist, a Nobel Laureate, was acting as
intermediary between Randi and Benveniste so as to eliminate
any claim of bias due to Randi's direct involvement.
In the end, it was the Nobel prizewinner who became frustrated
in attempting to bring Benveniste to perform his trials.
Benveniste seems simply to have quit asking for more time.
BTW, Benveniste wasn't demonstrating homeopathy, he had
something called "water with memory".
Makes it easier to fudge the results when you're inventing
the entire field of study.
In all of this you'll notice I haven't called Benveniste a
crackpot. He may be a sincere, if clumsy, scientist. Or he
may be a fraud, hoping that more of his mistakes will get past
the peer-review panels at big-name journals and allow him to
advertise his products with the imprimatur of the science that
you and Richard seem to hate.
>Science is best informed by a real
>curiousity. Too much credulity or
>skepticism is a bad thing.
Credulity and skepticism being synonyms or antonyms in
your eyes? I think your paragraph, as written, is true,
but since you seem to think of skeptics as bad people,
I think maybe you mean it in an untrue way.
The original Skeptics, the ancient Greek ones, denied that it
was possible for the human mind to "know" anything. In a
purely logical way, they may have been right (it's an argument
not unlike the "we could be a brain in a jar being fed our
entire notion of the world and existence"). The antidotes to
this paradox are Science and Epistemology: discovering the
truth with objective detachment from human opinion, and then
recording it in a medium away from the vulnerabilities of
human thought.
Since then, anyone with a doubt can be called a skeptic (or
sceptic, if you're suffering from Britishness), though the
usual usage these days is as someone who wants science to take
a look at an otherwise untested claim of physical or mental
powers that matter and minds have as yet not exhibeted.
>What annoys me especially re skeptics
>is that they always claim the intellectual
>high ground.
I don't know about "always", your Generalizationness, but in
general, those who doubt crackpots *do* have the intellectual
high ground. And we love it when someone smarter than us
comes along and takes the other side, because it's incredibly
*easy* to make smart people change their minds when you're
giving them the truth.
>The problem with skeptics
>Blair is that they *are* boring, and
>invariably, not seemingly over blessed
>the grey stuff.
What's boring is having to explain to people over and over
and over again why it is that pills won't make them thin, their
perpetual motion machines won't work, and they can't add a part
the size of a cigarette pack to their car to let them get 200 mpg.
But those are funny, commercialized versions of scientific
fallacies. Unfunny, dangerous ones include psychic surgery,
homeopathy, and faith-healing.
>Denial is always the
>language of impotence.
Aphorisms? Tautological, generalistic, specious aphorisms?
DC, you should be ashamed. Why not just throw marshmallows?
--Blair
"Back to our regular program."
Blair P. Houghton
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>Richard Milton (who is a gadfly and pretentious moron) wrote:
>
>>I'm hardly closed-minded. I'm quite open-minded.
>
>I haven't any comment to make on this remark, I simply include it
>because it's so hilarious it deserves another outing.
Now you think you're "outing" me?
Richard, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm
closed-minded. When you understand how that can be true,
you'll realize what a fool you're making of yourself.
>[Blair P Houghton]
>>>>All of the "evidence" you cite is anecdotal, unrepeatable,
>>>>specious, or fallacious.
>>>
>>>On the contrary. I have only included in my books (and on my web
>>>site) empirical evidence that has been published in the scientific
>>>literature, usually in peer-reviewed publications, and in the
I was hoping you'd keep that around. Then I could point out
what I should have earlier: that you're including sources like
the NBC television network in this cadre of "scientific
literature"; and, that you do not only include "emperical
evidence," but a great deal of purely subjective commentary.
>>>majority of cases that has been replicated in reputable university
>>>laboratories.
>>
>>Do you subscribe to the Journal of the Society for Scientific
>>Exploration? It satisfies all of those authoritarian qualities
>>you listed. It also publishes "results" that are the funniest
>>things emitted on paper since the National Lampoon stopped
>>being funny when PJ O'Rourke took over in 1976.
>
>So let's see. On one hand we have the Society for Scientific
>Exploration (whose officers include Dr Peter Sturrock, professor
>of space science at Stanford University and Dr Laurence Frederick,
>professor of astronomy at University of Virginia) whose chosen
>method is empirical rsearch, rational discourse, and peer-review,
>and on the other hand we have Blair P Houghton whose chosen method
>is the unsubstantiated assertion and the use of offensive
>language ("moron", "kook", "paranormal-nutfuck charlatans" etc.)
I joined the SSE upon first hearing of it and reading its
list of members. Then I read a few issues of its Journal.
The first article in the first issue I received wasn't science,
it was a long diatribe on why the writer thought the scientific
community was giving him a raw deal. You'd like him, Richard.
And it wasn't in the letters section. It was with the articles.
Another subject that received print in the JSSE was a study
of the incidence of scarring and birthmarks that paralleled
trauma occurring to other persons. E.g., the cranial birthmark
on the infant born at the same time that a person was being
shot in the head hundreds of miles away. This article came
complete with photos that look as though they were taken
through isinglas in the middle of a mudstorm. This article
wasn't merely a survey. The conclusion was that the markings
were a result of some form of transfer of the trauma. And
it didn't limit the incidents to contemporaneous events. It
admitted evidence involving past lives, as well.
So, when you say "Dr Peter Sturrock, professor of space science
at Stanford University", Richard, do you understand that the
authority of his academic position confers no validity of an
automatic nature to the statements made by authors in the
Journal over which his office presides?
>It's a tough one to call, Blair, but I think when it comes to
>reporting science I'll stick with the scientists whose results are
>published for everyone to see, rather than you and your stage
>conjuror friends.
I think in your past lives you were decapitated by an Argument
from Authority, and think that the only way to evaluate a
statement is to evaluate the associations of its maker.
>[Richard Milton]
>>>No. I'm saying that it's bullshit. Neither James Randi nor anyone
>>>else associated with this "challenge" has any intention of
>>>allowing the money to be won. That's why Randi has carefully
>>>drawn up the rules specifically to eliminate any possibility of
>>>objective judging by an indepedent outside adjudicator.
>>
>>That's funny. The rules explicitly state that the results
>>will be obvious to independent outside adjudicators.
>
>
>What the rules *actually* say (and anyone can verify this for
>themseves by visiting "The Amazing" Randi's web site) is:-
>
>"Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules
>must be formulated for each applicant"
I.e., a dowser won't be asked to show how to move nickels
with his mind.
>Translation: We make up the rules to suit ourselves.
No, the rules are made up to suit the applicant. And they
do. The applicant has as much power to refuse the trial
as anyone.
>"Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is
>required"
>
>Translation: No "judging" is necessary because there is no way we
>are ever going to part with any money whatever evidence is
>presented to us.
Now you're just libeling Randi and the JREF.
>>Please. Everyone go look. What you'll see is a valid offer
>>backed not just by Randi (whose personal stake is the first
>>$10,000 of the prise) but by hundreds of others who have
>>pledged their support, as well as the JREF, and an anonymous
>>benefactor who has double-protected the finances of the JREF
>>by setting up a second bond fund.
>
>I quite agree. Please, everyone go and look at "The Amazing"
>Randi's offer. And then ask yourself this question. Under what
>circumstances *exactly* would either Randi or Blair P Houghton be
>prepared to give even $1 to any claimant? And the answer is
>obvious. Blair is virtually saying it himself here. There *are* no
>circumstances.
I thought I'd pointed out to you earler that evidence that
constitutes *evidence* would be accepted. Whether it's evidence
that you can boil water with a hot plate or levitate yourself
is irrelevant.
>Just as Antoine Lavoisier told the Academie des Sciences,
>"Gentlemen, stones cannot fall from the sky because there *are* no
>stones in the sky."
I'm about ready to put a stone into the sky as long as
you're standing where the windage will put it.
>So Houghton and Randi are saying, in effect,
>"We don't have to define what constitutes a demonstration
>of paranormal phenomena, because there *are* no paranormal
>phenomena."
Son, that may be what you want your gullible readers to believe,
but, in the immortal words of Pogo, it just ain't so.
>This isn't a rational, scientific position, it's a medieval belief.
Well, since you made it up, it's your belief, so the medieval
quality sort of fits.
>>Richard, you know sweet fuck-all about me and my "primary
>>sources of evidence".
>
>I know that you don't trouble yourself by consulting any, which is
>what I was urging you to do. You could start your education by
>following up the references at the Alternative Science Web Site at
><http://www.alternativescience.com/>
See, now you're just spamming, and posting off-topic.
--Blair
"Or don't you believe in manners, either?"
Blair P. Houghton
>
>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:57:29 -0700, Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>
>> It helps, when setting up straw men, to start with at least one straw.
>
>attribution, of course?
Certainly.
--Blair
"Good luck and logicspeed."
Blair P. Houghton
>Milton's pretty much a crank. Check out his debate with Jim Foley
>at
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/milton.html
<*sound of one hand smacking forehead*>
I've read that before. I knew the name was familiar.
--Blair
"He hasn't improved with age."
Joe Myers
<378b...@eeyore.callnetuk.com>...
>I mean in your paragraph referring
>to perpetual motion you show your
>delight in abject ignorance. I
>understand such a machine is awaiting
>patent in the UK.
My, my.
It is amazing what some people will believe.
Joe Myers
"I believe I'll have another beer."
Alan Brooks
> D C Harris wrote:
>
> >I mean in your paragraph referring
> >to perpetual motion you show your
> >delight in abject ignorance. I
> >understand such a machine is awaiting
> >patent in the UK.
Only one such machine? My grandfather had 7 of them "waiting for
patent" in the US.
Inventors inventing perpetual motion machines and waiting for patents
*is* perpetual motion. For very small values of "motion".
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A schmuck with an Underwood
D C Harris
Houghton) wrote:
In article <7mbd57$b8k$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>, b...@primenet.com (Blair P.
Houghton) wrote:
>Is this the Benveniste thing?
>
>Their "pantomime" at Benveniste's lab consisted of showing
>him exactly how his method, apparatus, and data analyses were
>crocked. When he attempted the experiments under proper,
>objective control, they failed.
I am busy at the moment but the above -
you must be kidding.
>In all of this you'll notice I haven't called Benveniste a
>crackpot.
Magnanimous of you.
>
>>Science is best informed by a real
>>curiousity. Too much credulity or
>>skepticism is a bad thing.
>
>Credulity and skepticism being synonyms or antonyms in
>your eyes? I think your paragraph, as written, is true,
>but since you seem to think of skeptics as bad people,
>I think maybe you mean it in an untrue way.
Translate translate.
>
The antidotes to
>this paradox are Science and Epistemology: discovering the
>truth with objective detachment from human opinion, and then
>recording it in a medium away from the vulnerabilities of
>human thought.
And don't they so often get it wrong because
science is influenced culturally. The
influence exists in varying degrees - in
your type of case absolutely.
>
>>The problem with skeptics
>>Blair is that they *are* boring, and
>>invariably, not seemingly over blessed
>>the grey stuff.
>
>What's boring is having to explain to people over and over
>and over again why it is that pills won't make them thin, their
>perpetual motion machines won't work, and they can't add a part
>the size of a cigarette pack to their car to let them get 200 mpg.
>
What is boring is explaining to people
the elements of reason when you know
they will never ever swallow what you
say. It is essential to try though.
"Reason"? Believing something 'might'
exist, tolerating an opposing idea,
being free of dogma.
I mean in your paragraph referring
to perpetual motion you show your
delight in abject ignorance. I
understand such a machine is awaiting
patent in the UK.
That though is irrelevant. Your ideas
are fixed, set in stone. Frozen.
You show it time and time again.
There is room of course for 'doubting
Toms' but you give your own cause a bad name.
For obvious reasons.
Blair P. Houghton
>b...@primenet.com (Blair P. Houghton) wrote:
>In article <7mbd57$b8k$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>, b...@primenet.com (Blair P.
>Houghton) wrote:
>
>
>>Is this the Benveniste thing?
>>
>>Their "pantomime" at Benveniste's lab consisted of showing
>>him exactly how his method, apparatus, and data analyses were
>>crocked. When he attempted the experiments under proper,
>>objective control, they failed.
>
>I am busy at the moment but the above -
>you must be kidding.
No. To see how Randi himself described it in the first
issue of Skeptic Magazine, in 1992, go here:
http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.randi-paranormal.html
(The description is way near the bottom; search on Benveniste
and you'll find it; despite that failure, Randi encourages
Benveniste to try for the prize; as I described elsewhere,
Benveniste has recently wasted the time of a Nobel Laureate
in preparation, and then backed out).
I looked up John Maddox. He's a physicist and former editor
of Nature. Contrary to what Richard Milton is feeding you,
Maddox is indubitably a scientist and scientific journalist.
He almost certainly knows a real experiment when he sees one.
Here's the bio I found:
http://perucho.slctnet.com/spanish/maddox2.htm
I also looked up Walter W. Stewart. He publishes this
website:
http://www.nyx.net/~wstewart/main.ssi
You'd think Richard would have more respect for a man who is
doing what Richard pretends to be doing: protecting open
debate and intellectual integrity in the sciences.
>>In all of this you'll notice I haven't called Benveniste a
>>crackpot.
>
>Magnanimous of you.
You'll notice also that Randi goes out of his way not to make
subjective and disparaging remarks about the people who are
likely to make a sincere run at the prize.
>>>Science is best informed by a real
>>>curiousity. Too much credulity or
>>>skepticism is a bad thing.
>>
>>Credulity and skepticism being synonyms or antonyms in
>>your eyes? I think your paragraph, as written, is true,
>>but since you seem to think of skeptics as bad people,
>>I think maybe you mean it in an untrue way.
>
>Translate translate.
I was kind of hoping you'd make it clear here whether
you considered credulity and skepticism polar opposites
or symptoms of a bias towards a single extreme.
> The antidotes to
>>this paradox are Science and Epistemology: discovering the
>>truth with objective detachment from human opinion, and then
>>recording it in a medium away from the vulnerabilities of
>>human thought.
>
>And don't they so often get it wrong because
>science is influenced culturally. The
>influence exists in varying degrees - in
>your type of case absolutely.
Something that is influenced culturally is not science.
(Except maybe ethnology, but then culture is the whole
point, and the culture of the researcher should still
not influence the observations).
If you ask Sakar, I have no culture, so I must be perfectly
objective. So you're just plain wrong. You big poopy-head.
>>>The problem with skeptics
>>>Blair is that they *are* boring, and
>>>invariably, not seemingly over blessed
>>>the grey stuff.
>>
>>What's boring is having to explain to people over and over
>>and over again why it is that pills won't make them thin, their
>>perpetual motion machines won't work, and they can't add a part
>>the size of a cigarette pack to their car to let them get 200 mpg.
>
>What is boring is explaining to people
>the elements of reason when you know
>they will never ever swallow what you
>say. It is essential to try though.
>
>"Reason"? Believing something 'might'
>exist, tolerating an opposing idea,
>being free of dogma.
If you think that's the definition of "reason", you need a
new dictionary.
>I mean in your paragraph referring
>to perpetual motion you show your
>delight in abject ignorance. I
>understand such a machine is awaiting
>patent in the UK.
Others have already rode you out of town for this one. I'll
just sit here and chuckle at the thought.
>That though is irrelevant. Your ideas
>are fixed, set in stone. Frozen.
Not.
>You show it time and time again.
>There is room of course for 'doubting
>Toms' but you give your own cause a bad name.
>For obvious reasons.
Richard Milton gives scientific journalism a foul odor. That
you're attracted to it merely reflects your own well-known
predilection for believing in unproven or disproven paranormal
theories. Show me evidence, not claims, anecdotes, faulty
logic, or blind faith, and I'll believe.
--Blair
"How many cons must a man buncombe,
before you will say that's flim-flam..."
D C Harris
Houghton) wrote:
>
>I looked up John Maddox. He's a physicist and former editor
>of Nature. Contrary to what Richard Milton is feeding you,
>Maddox is indubitably a scientist and scientific journalist.
>He almost certainly knows a real experiment when he sees one.
I know who John Maddox is. Seems a fairly gifted
sort of guy - seemed to do a good job in the main
at Nature. For my money he made a comlete idiot
of himself of himself with Benveniste. Maddox said
homoeopathy did not ring any bells with him - therefore
the whole thing was false. Enter Randi.
I cannot take anyone like this - Maddox -
really seriously. He ridicules fellow scientists
simply because he does not share their beliefs.
I mean, what newsgroup cowboys like you say
about anything is pretty unimportant to me, but
I feel a leading figure in the scientific
establishment should have more dignity.
>
>I was kind of hoping you'd make it clear here whether
>you considered credulity and skepticism polar opposites
>or symptoms of a bias towards a single extreme.
Polar opposites of course.
>
>Something that is influenced culturally is not science.
>
I quote a physicist old son.
>>"Reason"? Believing something 'might'
>>exist, tolerating an opposing idea,
>>being free of dogma.
>
>If you think that's the definition of "reason", you need a
>new dictionary.
>
Well, what is your definition? Mercy me!
>Richard Milton gives scientific journalism a foul odor. That
>you're attracted to it merely reflects your own well-known
>predilection for believing in unproven or disproven paranormal
>theories. Show me evidence, not claims, anecdotes, faulty
>logic, or blind faith, and I'll believe.
Are you *sure* you possess a complete brain?
AS to perpetual motion, ask the British military
what they are testing now.
Blair P. Houghton
If he is keeping people from believing in the
memory of water, his dignity is only enhanced.
>>I was kind of hoping you'd make it clear here whether
>>you considered credulity and skepticism polar opposites
>>or symptoms of a bias towards a single extreme.
>
>Polar opposites of course.
'Kay. But now I've been through this thread so many
times I don't even remember that it was important...
Oh, yeah. Well, okay, yes, any extremism of opinion in a
scientific paradigm is counterproductive.
But I'm not forming any extreme or unfounded opinions.
Your opinion that I am, however, is one.
>>Something that is influenced culturally is not science.
>
>I quote a physicist old son.
That'd be argument from authority, fat broad.
>>>"Reason"? Believing something 'might'
>>>exist, tolerating an opposing idea,
>>>being free of dogma.
>>
>>If you think that's the definition of "reason", you need a
>>new dictionary.
>
>Well, what is your definition? Mercy me!
http://www.bibliomania.com/Reference/PhraseAndFable/data/1043.html#reason
http://people.delphi.com/gkemerling/dy/r.htm#reas
http://www.graylab.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?reason (use sense 2)
That last one is essentially identical to Webster's, down to
the quotations.
This one is way slow to load, but nails the crux of the matter:
http://www.alaska.net/~winter/bouvier1856_r_all.html
This one only helps if you're trying to impress the pope:
http://venus.ci.uw.edu.pl/~milek/cgi-bin/search_e.cgi?SLOWO=reason&match_type=2
What you are describing isn't reason. Acceptance, credulity,
gullibility, but not reason.
Reason does not provide us with the capacity to believe what
might be, it provides us with the ability to determine what
is.
>>Richard Milton gives scientific journalism a foul odor. That
>>you're attracted to it merely reflects your own well-known
>>predilection for believing in unproven or disproven paranormal
>>theories. Show me evidence, not claims, anecdotes, faulty
>>logic, or blind faith, and I'll believe.
>
>Are you *sure* you possess a complete brain?
It's large, it's juicy, and it's quite the talk of the ladies,
I assure you.
>AS to perpetual motion, ask the British military
>what they are testing now.
I just won't even comment. That whole thing is starting to
look like one of those Harvey Korman/Tim Conway bits on the
Carol Burnett show where they're both paralyzed with mirth.
--Blair
"That's not mirth! It's REASON!"
Alan Brooks
D C Harris wrote:
> AS to perpetual motion, ask the British military
> what they are testing now.
I was just in Cheltenham and had a look around. The closest thing I saw
to perpetual motion was the flow of Landlord's Ale.
Got a URL?
Vreejack
Alan Brooks <al...@sirius-software.com> wrote:
>
> D C Harris wrote:
>
> > AS to perpetual motion, ask the British military
> > what they are testing now.
>
> I was just in Cheltenham and had a look around. The closest thing I
saw
> to perpetual motion was the flow of Landlord's Ale.
>
LOL
My typical challenge is simply this:
"If you think you can violate the 2nd law so caually then you
are wasting your time here; you deserve a Nobel."
-Vreejack
--
Send no unsolicited appeals or sales promotions.
"It has been scientifically proven beyond
all doubt." -- L. "Oxymo-" Ron Hubbard
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
d c harris
Houghton) wrote:
.
>>
>>I quote a physicist old son.
>
>That'd be argument from authority, fat broad.
Look, I quote one of the most distinguished
scientist/writers on science. The view given
is one I fully agree with - but when you
from your standpoint of seemingly abject
ignorance mock 'my' words - I refer you
to the fact the view is an 'accepted'
view in the scientific world. (Obviously
there are different schools of thought even
in mainstream science.) I do not understand
when you dismiss this as 'argument from
authority'. Define this term
>
>>AS to perpetual motion, ask the British military
>>what they are testing now.
>
>I just won't even comment. That whole thing is starting to
>look like one of those Harvey Korman/Tim Conway bits on the
>Carol Burnett show where they're both paralyzed with mirth.
>
I referred to a feature in a major UK broadsheet -
The Times I think, in which a man's invention
was being tested at a Ministry of Defence
base.
Blair P. Houghton
>In article <7mjkjl$3el$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, b...@primenet.com (Blair P.
>Houghton) wrote:
>>>
>>>I quote a physicist old son.
>>
>>That'd be argument from authority, fat broad.
>
>Look, I quote one of the most distinguished
>scientist/writers on science. The view given
>is one I fully agree with - but when you
>from your standpoint of seemingly abject
>ignorance mock 'my' words - I refer you
>to the fact the view is an 'accepted'
>view in the scientific world. (Obviously
>there are different schools of thought even
>in mainstream science.) I do not understand
>when you dismiss this as 'argument from
>authority'. Define this term
You didn't quote anyone, you stated something as though
you were writing it yourself, i.e., that scientific
results are influenced by culture.
I disagreed, making the etymological distinction that
what is influenced culturally is not science.
Your response was to indicate, still without attribution,
that you'd cribbed the theory. Not only did you admit
this plagiarism, you stated in a condescending manner that
you had cribbed it from someone who ought to know what he
is talking about.
That technique, of using the reputation of the speaker to
support the validity of the statement, is argument from
authority.
And still you wonder why you deserve mockery...
>>>AS to perpetual motion, ask the British military
>>>what they are testing now.
>>
>>I just won't even comment. That whole thing is starting to
>>look like one of those Harvey Korman/Tim Conway bits on the
>>Carol Burnett show where they're both paralyzed with mirth.
>
>I referred to a feature in a major UK broadsheet -
>The Times I think, in which a man's invention
>was being tested at a Ministry of Defence
>base.
Describe the invention. I don't subscribe to any
major UK broadsheets, and haven't taken The Economist
or The Guardian for years.
--Blair
"And my Palm V is on the fritz; every
time I ask it for the phone number for
'The British Military', it gives me
a fresh game of Go..."
d c harris
Houghton) wrote:
>d c harris<dcands...@free4all.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <7mjkjl$3el$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, b...@primenet.com (Blair P.
>>Houghton) wrote:
>You didn't quote anyone, you stated something as though
>you were writing it yourself, i.e., that scientific
>results are influenced by culture.
>
>I disagreed, making the etymological distinction that
>what is influenced culturally is not science.
>
>Your response was to indicate, still without attribution,
>that you'd cribbed the theory. Not only did you admit
>this plagiarism, you stated in a condescending manner that
>you had cribbed it from someone who ought to know what he
>is talking about.
>
>That technique, of using the reputation of the speaker to
>support the validity of the statement, is argument from
>authority.
>
>And still you wonder why you deserve mockery...
>
D C -
Wrong in all ways as ever - but you never give
up. Just because someone does not attribute
the *origins* of all their thinking does not
mean they plagiarise. Incredibly, but characteristically
petty of you to raise such a point. I have
for a long time believed most thinking has
cultural origins, but was surprised to learn
how much cultural factors bear upon scientific
reasoning. I would refer you, e.g., to "Shrödinger's
Kittens" by John Gribben. In this book Gribben
refers to the standard model of particle
physics and mentions "none" of the theories
which led to the standard model were ever
perfect. The theories of the models accepted
influenced the consequent choice of experimentation,
and therefore the standard model was a reflection
of the "culture" which bore it.
It seems reasonable to refer to "authorities" in a
debate - I cannot for the life of me see what you talk
about.
Can I suggest that you read a little more? I have no
"especial" interest in science and if I am far more
informed than you then you are not even on starter's
orders.
Steven Weller
D.C wrote:
>It seems reasonable to refer to "authorities" in a
>debate - I cannot for the life of me see what you talk
>about.
Can you all see now that it is pointless to continue this? If the
combatants are so disparate as not to even understand what 'argument
from authority' is in the first place, or to recognize it as a logical
fallacy once it's explained to them, how do you expect to convince
them that they're mistaken in their beliefs?
Give it a rest...
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary,
Steven
d c harris
wrote:
>
>Can you all see now that it is pointless to continue this? If the
>combatants are so disparate as not to even understand what 'argument
>from authority' is in the first place, or to recognize it as a logical
>fallacy once it's explained to them, how do you expect to convince
>them that they're mistaken in their beliefs?
>
Can you amplify?
Blair P. Houghton
DC, I just spent ten minutes writing, revising, and deleting
one of the most unkind posts I've ever wanted to issue.
The scientific content of it was: you've merely proved the
reason that argument from authority is a fallacy.
Gribben's imprecise use of the word "culture" was apprehended
by you as the usual use of the word, and you used it that way.
Then you used Gribben as a lever to force your meaning on your
readers.
Argument from authority is a fallacy because even authorities
can be wrong.
The non-scientific content of my unposted post, without the
vituperation, boils down to this: You've proven that you do
not understand science. You've resorted to unfounded ad
hominem too many times. You've shown an unwillingness to
accept your errors. I have no reason to believe any more that
your postings are likely to influence the ideas of any other
newsgroup reader. Therefore I choose never to reply to your
postings again, no matter how wrong they are. My silence is
not to be taken as assent, or fear; simply that, at long last,
I've found someone on the net who isn't worth ten seconds of
my time.
I can't even say that about Jervis.
--Blair
"Asta eternity, baby."
Blair P. Houghton
>
>Give it a rest...
What a prescient post. I just did.
--Blair
"Milton, take the hint."
Steven Weller
>Can you amplify?
Sure. For a debate to have any meaning - for it to even qualify as a
debate, really - there has to be a certain level of agreement regarding
ground rules. Generally speaking, 'argument from authority' is considered
fallacious because learned people are still just people, and are capable
of being wrong. "Because Einstein says so" isn't enough to make something
true, though of course neither does it make something false.
If someone isn't familiar with the phrase 'argument from authority,' that
doesn't make them stupid or wrong, it just means they aren't familiar with
that particular phrase. If someone USES an argument from authority, and
perhaps doesn't realize that's what they're doing, that doesn't make them
stupid or (necessarily) wrong, either. We all make mistakes in logic and
we all sometimes fail to recognize them from others, especially when it's
something about which we feel passionately.
But when you call somebody on an argument from authority, and they don't
know what you mean by the phrase, and you explain it to them, and they
simply don't see how the argument is logically fallacious, then there's
little point in going on. You just don't agree on enough of the ground
rules to make the exercise worthwhile.
For the record, I personally believe that 'skepticism,' as it's usually prac-
ticed by Randi and his ilk,* is just as much of a belief system as the kind
of credulity the Alternative Science folks exhibit. I don't know that
there's such a thing as (say) psychic phenomenon. But just as importantly,
I don't know that there ISN'T. The fact that much of the evidence is annec-
dotal and impossible to substantiate doesn't make it wrong, it just makes
it unverifiable by the usual scientific methods. If a mother tells me some-
thing about her experiences with her chid that suggests they have some sort
of 'psychic bond,' I'm not prepared to dismiss her as a crackpot or a liar,
just because she can't pass Randi's test parameters. I'm not prepared to
believe her without reservation, either; all I can really say, with any
degree of certainty, is 'I don't know.'
Anything beyond that, to me at least, is a product of a belief system.
*Actually, Randi's usually pretty good about keeping to the pure science and
not dismissing sincere people who actually believe what they're claiming.
But some of his adherants, like Penn and Teller (as a couple of fairly visible
examples) are a lot less circumspect, and are very vocal about declaring that
this or that DOESN'T exist, rather than just not being convinced beyond any
doubt that it DOES exist, based on scientific evaluation of the available
evidence.
Eric Hocking
<932069798.2281....@news.in2home.co.uk>...
>I referred to a feature in a major UK broadsheet -
>The Times I think, in which a man's invention
>was being tested at a Ministry of Defence
>base.
Could you be a little more specific? A search of the MoD and The Times's
sites doesn't yield anything. When you say was being tested, how long ago
are you thinking?
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
=== London, England (nee Melbourne, Australia) ===
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking
D C Harris
Weller) wrote:
>
>>Can you amplify?
>
>Sure. For a debate to have any meaning - for it to even qualify as a
>debate, really - there has to be a certain level of agreement
regarding
>ground rules. Generally speaking, 'argument from authority' is
considered
>fallacious because learned people are still just people, and are
capable
>of being wrong. "Because Einstein says so" isn't enough to make
something
>true, though of course neither does it make something false.
>
D C -
Well, I appreciate your very well expressed
points.
This though is a new one on me. I am debating
something with 'skeptics" who wave the flag
of science - who for their own part refer often
to authorities. In supporting my own views I
make refererence to science and scientists
which seems quite fair in the circumstances.
Of course, to state something is 'right'
because a certain person says so, 'is' fallacious,
but that is not the issue at all. The whole
point about the Milton debate is that he
claims no scientific authority, but merely
quotes from scientists who have been suppressed by
the scientific establishment. He is accused
though, of being one who espouses foolish personal
views - which is, 'really', a deeply fallacious
judgement.
D C Harris
P. Houghton) wrote:
>
>Gribben's imprecise use of the word "culture" was apprehended
>by you as the usual use of the word, and you used it that way.
>Then you used Gribben as a lever to force your meaning on your
>readers.
Balls! Bullshit! Gribben was commenting on the general
philosophy of science, in that science can
be prone to error because of cultural (human)
influences. Do you want me to hold your and
and show you the passages?
>
>Argument from authority is a fallacy because even authorities
>can be wrong.
But not Maddox or Randi about Benveniste. Oh no!
But
>
>The non-scientific content of my unposted post, without the
>vituperation, boils down to this: You've proven that you do
>not understand science. You've resorted to unfounded ad
>hominem too many times. You've shown an unwillingness to
>accept your errors.
Blair, I share Milton's *honest* belief that on these
issues you do not even begin to approach a level
where you can be taken seriously. Your thinking
exhibits a rag-bag of prejudice of all those other
elements you purport to despise. I have suggested
you ought to improve your reading, because you clearly
spout about things of which you barely have any
knowledge at all.
Steven Weller
D.C. wrote:
> but merely
>quotes from scientists who have been suppressed by
>the scientific establishment. He is accused
>though, of being one who espouses foolish personal
>views - which is, 'really', a deeply fallacious
>judgement.
Well, this is where we get into hair-splitting. He quotes from authorities
who have been 'suppressed by the scientific establishment,' but in doing so
he's expressing his own personal views (one has to assume he agrees with these
authorities, or else why is he bothering to advance their arguments?).
And what one person sees as being 'suppressed by the scientific establish-
ment,' another might see as being 'discredited as a crackpot with no actual
scientific support for his theories.' Some folks still like to cite (as an
authoritative source) some 19th Century editions of the Encyclopedia Britanica,
stating that Black Africans are a genetically inferior quasi-human subspecies,
and will insist loud and long that the modern editions no longer mention this
because it's been 'suppressed.' Most folks would feel it's been discredited
more than it's been suppressed, but obviously there are differences of opinion
here.
d c harris
<ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>d c harris wrote in message
><932069798.2281....@news.in2home.co.uk>...
>>I referred to a feature in a major UK broadsheet -
>>The Times I think, in which a man's invention
>>was being tested at a Ministry of Defence
>>base.
>
>Could you be a little more specific? A search of the MoD and The Times's
>sites doesn't yield anything. When you say was being tested, how long ago
>are you thinking?
Oh boy - this was some little
while ago perhaps 6 months.
It *wasn't* a tabloid job -
they referred to a base where
experiments are done - Porton
Down? I cut it out and lost the damn
thing. Wire me if you find out!
It was a major item.
d c harris
wrote:
>
D C -
Well, with regard to evolution, some may
say Blair hangs on to 19th Century ideas
that have been outdated by the understanding
of genetics!
But -- What you say about Milton does not compute
with me at all. Milton merely cites examples
of lines of research which have been mocked
and suppressed because they involve *subjects
out of tune with the times*. The case of Benveniste
cited here recently is an example of this.
There are many many more such examples.
Milton is no crank - he is a very fair diligent reporter
and a good writer. I think what he has to say
in important. Do you believe in the censorship
of ideas?
People like Richard Milton arouse controversy
because they bring the current of imagination
to places where it does not exist.
His only *idea* is that science should be open -
he never claims to be a scientist.
To damn Richard Milton as "arguing from authority"
is to indulge in dismal nonsense. It is
like condemning a guy who is trying to fix your
car because he quotes an experience of someone
with a similar car.
The skeptics though argue *always* from authority,
in that they condemn things because the establishment
condemns these things. A skeptic who accuses
one of 'arguing from authority' when one quotes
scientific sources, is simply the perfect
definition of a bloody fool -- daft, and far far
too daft to realise the fact.
I hate intellectual fascism in whatever shape or size
it arises. I have not debated anything with Blair.
Like someone patiently waiting to hear intelligent
noise in the hiss of the Universe I have waited
for Blair and his pals to makes noises I can construe
as reasoned debate. They are utterly incapable of the
latter and disappear in a puff of smoke like the
intellectual wimps they are when you face them out.
If you provide a clear example for them to discuss,
they ignore this; if you quote authorities in your
own defence, they ridicule this; if you ask them to
explain their prejudices they vanish up their own
backsides.
People reading through their threads casually
could easily mistake their moonshine for doughty
reason -- but a few feathers of learning do not
make for ideas.
Cant, dressed up with a little (often irrelevant) learning,
and sauced with brazen rhetoric, is what they offer as a
substitute for reason -- and that cocktail, is one to
bitter for this writer at any price.
Best --
d c harris
>d c harris<dcands...@free4all.co.uk> wrote:
>>Wrong in all ways as ever
>[...]
>
>DC, I just spent ten minutes writing, revising, and deleting
>one of the most unkind posts I've ever wanted to issue.
snip
D C -
I answered all this on Misc.writing.screenplays
You find it very difficult to grasp
very simple concepts.
If you raise the banner of science to defend
prejudice - you are doing great - but if I
quote science to refute what you say -
I argue from authority.
You know fuck all about Gribben - fuck all.
Or what he says. I thought actually you
could do a lot better than this - I was
sadly mistaken.
Steven Weller
D.C. wrote:
>But -- What you say about Milton does not compute
>with me at all. Milton merely cites examples
>of lines of research which have been mocked
>and suppressed because they involve *subjects
>out of tune with the times*. The case of Benveniste
>cited here recently is an example of this.
>There are many many more such examples.
>Milton is no crank - he is a very fair diligent reporter
>and a good writer.
This is an example of 'argument from authority.' Milton is no crank; well,
that's an opinion. I'm not familiar with the man or his work, so I'm not
saying he IS a crank. But the statement that he's not a crank is hardly
quantifiable. Everybody's a crank sometimes, no one is all the time.
He's a fair, diligent reporter - fine, so far as it goes. Reporters get
fooled all the time, so do scientists. Uri Gellar (to trot out a hoary
old example) had a LOT of fair, diligent reporters and respected scientists
in his camp. They were true believers.
A good writer - well, so was A. C. Doyle. Some of the Sherlock Holmes stories
are masterpieces of logic and deduction, and suggest a keenly analytical mind.
He also believed that obviously staged double-exposures were actual pictures
of faeries, and bogus 'spirit mediums' convinced him they could talk to the dead by using lame parlour tricks.
But where you lost me was:
>Do you believe in the censorship of ideas?
Tell me, D. C., yes or no - do you still beat your wife? It's a free country
(over here, at least), and anyone - crank or otherwise - is welcome to advance
their personal theories on the possibility of life after death, or the Lost
City of Atlantis, or the ability of sheep to predict the weather. But
everyone else is welcome to dismiss those theories (as well as the theory of
gravity, and of evolution, and anything else) if they don't find them
convincing. If a scientific journal doesn't choose to devote space to this or
that theory, that's their right. After all, it's their magazine. If someone
wants to disseminate their theories, they're welcome to publish them
themselves. To stop them from doing THAT would be the censorship of ideas,
but to insist that Scientific American (or whoever) has to recognize Uri
Gellar's spoon bending act as science, is censoring the ideas of the editors
of Scientific American. Or is their idea that Gellar's a fraud less worthy of
protection?
d c harris
wrote:
>
>D.C. wrote:
>
>>But -- What you say about Milton does not compute
>>with me at all. Milton merely cites examples
>>of lines of research which have been mocked
>>and suppressed because they involve *subjects
>>out of tune with the times*. The case of Benveniste
>>cited here recently is an example of this.
>>There are many many more such examples.
>>Milton is no crank - he is a very fair diligent reporter
>>and a good writer.
>
>This is an example of 'argument from authority.' Milton is no crank; well,
>that's an opinion. I'm not familiar with the man or his work, so I'm not
>saying he IS a crank. But the statement that he's not a crank is hardly
>quantifiable. Everybody's a crank sometimes, no one is all the time.
Well, I do not present this as an 'argument' but as
a conversational assertion. Milton presents evidence
from accredited scientists whose works have been suppressed
or ignored merely because they do not fit in with
the scientific trends of the moment. We do not talk
about extreme shores of scientific speculation being
ignored by sensible cautious men in white coats; we
speak of gross prejudice against facts which do
not accord with the preferred thinking of the moment.
In recent threads we referred to examples of
cheating by scientists who believe in evolution.
There are many such examples.
>But where you lost me was:
>
>>Do you believe in the censorship of ideas?
>
>Tell me, D. C., yes or no - do you still beat your wife?
To go against the current in science means probably
to end up being ridiculed by the scum of
the Earth. It means not getting jobs, not being
published. Do you follow?
You argue from authority - you *presume* the scientific
world is fair and objective.It is not.
Richard Milton
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
[Discussion about the experiments of Jacques Benveniste]
>No. To see how Randi himself described it in the first
>issue of Skeptic Magazine, in 1992, go here:
>
> http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.randi-paranormal.html
>
>(The description is way near the bottom; search on Benveniste
>and you'll find it; despite that failure, Randi encourages
>Benveniste to try for the prize; as I described elsewhere,
>Benveniste has recently wasted the time of a Nobel Laureate
>in preparation, and then backed out).
I think the Nobel Laureate that Blair is referring to here (as usual
erroneously) is Brian Josephson, professor of physics at the
Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge. You can read what Josephson
*really* thinks about Jacques Benveniste, as distinct from what
Blair Houghton is trying to imply he thinks, by consulting
Josephson's web site at
<http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10>
As anyone consulting this site will see, professor Josephson is a
supporter of Benveniste's work against people like "Nature" and John
Maddox.
>I looked up John Maddox. He's a physicist and former editor
>of Nature. Contrary to what Richard Milton is feeding you,
>Maddox is indubitably a scientist and scientific journalist.
Another Blairhoughtonism (i.e., elementary error of fact). I have
never said that John Maddox is not a scientist or that he is not a
journalist.
I know Maddox's behviour well. When he published a deliberately
slanted critique of my book in "Nature", several members of his
editorial staff were so disgusted with his treatment of me that
they phoned up the national press to "shop" him. As a result I
was interviewed by a senior journalist from one of the broadsheet
papers who wanted to write a feature about it but was prevented
from doing so.
>You'd think Richard would have more respect for a man who is
>doing what Richard pretends to be doing: protecting open
>debate and intellectual integrity in the sciences.
Of all the things that John Maddox has done, very few could even
remotely be construed as "protecting open debate and intellectual
integrity in the sciences". On the contrary, Maddox is a bigot and
CSICOP-supporter who's conduct has been disgraceful. A few
examples:-
* He called in an editorial for Ruper Sheldrake's book "A new
science of life" to be burned.
* He participated in the disgraceful and scientifically meaningless
dawn raid on Jacques Beneveniste's laboratory.
* He tried for ten months to prevent publication of Puthoff and
Targ's paper on Uri Geller's Stanford Research Institute
experiments and only gave in when copies of the paper started
circulating in photocopied form.
* He called Fleischmann and Pons's experiments in cold fusion
"licensed magic", "discreditable to the scientific community", and
"a serious perversion of the process of science."
These Maddoxian remarks need to be seen in the context that
Fleischmann and Pons's cold fusion experiments have now been
successfully replicated by more than 100 institutions worldwide
including the Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories,
Naval Research Laboratory, Naval Weapons Center at China Lake,
Texas A&M university, California Polytechnic Institute, Osaka and
Hokkaido universities and NTT labs. California Polytechnic
Institute has recorded power density levels from a cold fusion cell
that are 30 times higher than the output of a fuel rod in a typical
fission reactor.
>Richard Milton gives scientific journalism a foul odor.
Really? I can smell something foul, Blair. But it's not my
reporting. It's the red herrings you use in place of facts.
Richard Milton
The Alternative Science Web Site
http://alternativescience.com
Richard Milton
>(Blair P.>Houghton) wrote:
>>
>>I looked up John Maddox. He's a physicist and former editor
>>of Nature. Contrary to what Richard Milton is feeding you,
>>Maddox is indubitably a scientist and scientific journalist.
>>He almost certainly knows a real experiment when he sees one.
>
>I know who John Maddox is. Seems a fairly gifted
>sort of guy - seemed to do a good job in the main
>at Nature. For my money he made a comlete idiot
>of himself of himself with Benveniste. Maddox said
>homoeopathy did not ring any bells with him - therefore
>the whole thing was false. Enter Randi.
>I cannot take anyone like this - Maddox -
>really seriously. He ridicules fellow scientists
>simply because he does not share their beliefs.
>I mean, what newsgroup cowboys like you say
>about anything is pretty unimportant to me,
Whoaaa! Newsgroup Cowboy???
Just who did you have in mind here, DC?
Gabby Hayes? Slim Pickens?
Still, to be fair, Blair Houghton has done such a good job of
publicising my web site for me that I feel it's only fair to
reciprocate in some way. So I've decided to institute my own
version of the Randi "Challenge" -- except in my version people
will actually get paid because I'm not stacking the deck in
advance.
I will donate 5 pence (about 8 cents) to charity for every inane
insult, baseless assertion and offensive personal remark he's made
or will make about me on this thread, up to a limit of £30 ($50).
I've done a quick count and I make it about 50 so far = £2.50
The charity I'm going to donate the proceeds to is "Alternative
Technology" founded by Eugene Schumacher, the man who wrote the
book "Small is Beautiful". It invests in sustainable technology
for third world countries to enable them to develop themselves.
So c'mon now, Blair! You've got another £22.50 worth of inanity to
go to hit the target.
Richard ("the Amazing") Milton
The Alternative Science Web Site
Richard Milton
Vreejack wrote:
>In article <378DF465...@sirius-software.com>,
> Alan Brooks <al...@sirius-software.com> wrote:
>>
>> D C Harris wrote:
>>
>> > AS to perpetual motion, ask the British military
>> > what they are testing now.
>>
>> I was just in Cheltenham and had a look around. The closest thing I
>saw
>> to perpetual motion was the flow of Landlord's Ale.
>>
>
>LOL
>
>My typical challenge is simply this:
>"If you think you can violate the 2nd law so caually then you
>are wasting your time here; you deserve a Nobel."
Hi Vreejack,
I think you must mean the 1st law (energy cannot be created or
destroyed but only change its form) rather than the second which
has to do with heat flowing from higher temperature to lower
tempertures.
The interesting thing about the laws of thermodynamics is that they
are an unusual mixture of the theoretical and the empirical. If
you consult my website at <http://alternativescience.com/> you'll
see that the first law is entirely empirical and was
announced under the most inauspicious circumstances, which has led
many scientists in the twenieth century to question its validity.
(Only CSICOP-type skeptics treat it as an article of religious
faith).
Richard
The Alternative Science Web Site
http://www.alternativescience.com/
Richard Milton
Steven Weller wrote:
>
>D.C wrote:
>
>>It seems reasonable to refer to "authorities" in a
>>debate - I cannot for the life of me see what you talk
>>about.
>
>combatants are so disparate as not to even understand what 'argument
>from authority' is in the first place, or to recognize it as a logical
>fallacy once it's explained to them, how do you expect to convince
>them that they're mistaken in their beliefs?
What you need to appreciate, Stephen, is that Blair Houghton is not
employing an accepted tool of logic or rhetoric. What he is doing
in running a scam, and I think you may have unwittingly bought into
it.
When Blair encounters something he disagrees with (i.e., something
on the list that all "skeptics" are issued with by CSICOP) he
doesn't bother assembling facts or marshalling arguments. Instead
he simply accuses his opponent of committing some gross breach of
debating etiquette that will enable him to dismiss their
views rather than having to trouble about rebutting them.
What he does is this: If you present references to scientific
evidence from experiments conducted by respected scientists and
published in a peer reviewed magazine, he cries "This is just
argument from authority!"
If you do not present such evidence but offer to duke it out
yourself on the merits of the case, he cries, "But you haven't the
authority to debate this! You're not even a scientist. And anyway
my pal James Randi says it's all nonsense!"
If you point out to him the experimental evidence you are quoting
from impecable sources and was published in major
peer-reviewed publications, he replies that as far as he is
concerned the publication is rubbish and the people who write in it
are cranks.
Have you spotted the scam? As far as Blair is concerned he agrees
with Humpty Dumpty. When Blair uses a word, it means just what he
chooses it to mean -- neither more nor less.
>Give it a rest...
I couldn't agree with you more. But for Blair to decide to give it
a rest he would need to be behaving consciously in the first place.
Richard Milton
>Richard Milton<ric...@milton.win-uk.net> wrote:
>>1) If you'd troubled to read the web site you're criticising, you'd
>>know that references to the NBC television programme "Mysterious
>>Origins of Man" are included in a section of my site that is
>>concerned with scientific censorship, a section which deals with
>>the bigotry and ignorance of organisations like CSICOP and
>>individuals who masquerade as "skeptics".
>
>Did I mention bigotry? Did I mention CSICOP?
No-one has said that you mentioned bigotry or CSICOP. I explained
to you that while the scientific issues raised on my site are the
reported findings of professional scientists, usually in peer
reviewed publications, there are other issues that are cannot be so
referenced because no-one has yet studied them scientifically.
These include the irrational behaviour of people like yourself
and CSICOP supporters.
If you can't follow the arguments, say so and I will use simpler
language.
>You stated that you used material that came "only" from
>peer-reviewed journals. But in your website you reference a
>report on an infotainment television show. I haven't seen
>the show, but [. . .]
You're going to demonstrate once again that your complete
ignorance of a subject does not prevent you from offering expert
opinions on it.
> I can guess that it included a lot of subjective
>determinations, just like your reportage of it did.
By using your psychic powers, of course, as you didn't see it.
Specify a single example of "subjective determinations" in my
reportage, and this time back up your assertions with facts.
>>Blair, you really must stop thinking you can get away with
>>unsupported bullshit assertions in place of rational debate. You
>>can't. People can see through it.
>
>I'll leave it to those same people to determine whether
>or not you're projecting your own sociopathies on me, here.
Yes, let's leave it to them to decide.
>>[Richard Milton quotes from the "rules" of Randi's "challenge"]
>>>>"Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is
>>>>required"
>>>>
>>>>Translation: No "judging" is necessary because there is no way we
>>>>are ever going to part with any money whatever evidence is
>>>>presented to us.
>>>
>>>Now you're just libeling Randi and the JREF.
>>
>>Libel is a legal term that means publishing false statements.
>
>Bright boy. You may have a lollipop.
>
>Ask your lawyer what you should do. I bet his first piece
>advice is, "shut up," and his second is, "if you can't shut
>up, for god's sake apologize."
I have no need to apologise for the truth and it will take something
a little more substantial than Blair P. Houghton blowing smoke out
of his ears to make me shut up.
Thanks for drawing my attention to Randi's bogus challenge. I see
now that it merits much more extensive exposure and I shall be
adding a page to my Alternative Science Website giving the full
facts shortly.
>>My statement is true so it is not libellous. The published rules of
>>the Randi challenge prove the challenge to be bogus. If you wish
>>me to, I'll happily go into detail.
>
>Please do. But check with your lawyer first. He might have
>a word or two for you on the subject of handing your opponent
>the ammunition necessary to defeat you.
>
>>As I said before, it's much
>>simpler to visit Randi's web site and ask yourself this question:
>>under what circumstances could anyone win this challenge? It's clear
>>the answer is "none" because that's how the challenge has been
>>constructed.
>
>That question doesn't relate to your libelous statement re
>Randi's intent.
I'm beginning to wonder, Blair, if I'm talking to a Skeptibot
programmed by CSICOP to irritate. Even someone like you who is
deliberately twisting everything that is said can see that not only
does the question relate to my original statement, it virtually *is*
my original statement.
>When the claimant and Randi agree on a valid test of the claim,
>and the test proves the claim to be true, Randi will pay his
>$10,000 portion of the prize and the JREF will pay the balance
>of it.
>
>Do you say that this is not the conclusion that will be drawn
>by a reasonable person reading the website?
>
>Or do you choose to continue to make the libelous assertion
>that Randi will never agree on what constitutes a valid test
>of the claim?
I continue to make the true claim that any reasonable peson who
reads the challenge can see for themself that it is unwinnable
because it has been contructed to be unwinnable -- just like a
fairground hoopla stall.
>Or will you take the only honorable out left to you? Admit
>that it is not Randi, but the steady stream of crackpots
>seeking the prize who either have no ability to perform their
>claims or no intention of agreeing to any truly objective test
>of them. Admit that the number of claimants who will both
>agree to a valid test and can perform their claim successfully
>is so far smaller than 1.
Not only do I admit it -- I welcome your express confirmation of
what I have repeatedly said. The test has been constructed so that
anyone who is serious *has* to agree to whatever conditions Randi
imposes and so, of course, no-one has agreed.
>>I'm spamming? A week ago I posted a short, 6-line announcement of
>>my web site as I thought a few people might want to take
>>a look (they have).
>
>So have I, and several times you claimed--falseley and without
>evidence, a pattern that will not go unnoticed by future readers
>of this correspondence--that I hadn't.
>
>>There is one and only one reason why that short
>>announcement got escalated into a protracted thread and that is
>>because Blair P. Houghton, and only Blair P. Houghton, insists
>>on posting ill-informed comments about it.
>
>Hardly ill-informed. I've read it. Or should I say,
>"Completely ill-informed: I've read it..."
>
>Since the original posting, there's been little need for you
>to post the URL several times in the same posting.
>
>That's simply spamming.
No Blair, it's what we Internet users call a "signature". It's
quite a common device, you'll find. And I repeat. The one and
only reason that Blair P Houghton has been compelled to endure the
agony of reading my signature several times, is because Blair P
Houghton and only Blair P Houghton has insisted on posting
ill-informed comments several times.
Post a hundred more such stupid messages and you'll read it a
hundred more times. Post a thousand and you'll read it a thousand
times.
Richard Milton
Richard Milton
Steven Weller wrote:
>For the record, I personally believe that 'skepticism,' as it's usually prac-
>ticed by Randi and his ilk,* is just as much of a belief system as the kind
>of credulity the Alternative Science folks exhibit. I don't know that
>there's such a thing as (say) psychic phenomenon. But just as importantly,
>I don't know that there ISN'T.
You've summed up in five lines the top and bottom of my position,
too, Stephen.
>The fact that much of the evidence is annec-
>dotal and impossible to substantiate doesn't make it wrong, it just makes
>it unverifiable by the usual scientific methods.
This is the position that "skeptics" like Blair want reasonable,
open minded people like you to think. The reality is that there is
now a mountain of solid, replicated, peer-reviwed evidence that is
making even hardened skeptics like Susan Blackmore re-think their
extreme "there's no evidence" position.
That's all my book and website are about -- giving the
scientific leads and references that open-minded people like you can
follow up if they wish to. But people like Blair don't want that.
They don't want you to examine the primary experimental evidence
and make up your own mind. They want you to fall into line.
Richard
The Alternative Science Web Site
Steven Weller
Richard -
I appreciate your dedication to observation of detail and a refusal to
use pre-concieved notions of what's 'right' in place of actual, personal,
first-hand assembling of facts and marshalling of arguments.
My name, as you might notice in the sigfile of everything I've ever posted
to mws, is spelled S-T-E-V-E-N, not S-T-E-P-H-E-N.
^ ^^^
Richard Milton
>I hate intellectual fascism in whatever shape or size
>it arises. I have not debated anything with Blair.
>Like someone patiently waiting to hear intelligent
>noise in the hiss of the Universe I have waited
>for Blair and his pals to makes noises I can construe
>as reasoned debate. They are utterly incapable of the
>latter and disappear in a puff of smoke like the
>intellectual wimps they are when you face them out.
>If you provide a clear example for them to discuss,
>they ignore this; if you quote authorities in your
>own defence, they ridicule this; if you ask them to
>explain their prejudices they vanish up their own
>backsides.
>
>People reading through their threads casually
>could easily mistake their moonshine for doughty
>reason -- but a few feathers of learning do not
>make for ideas.
>
>Cant, dressed up with a little (often irrelevant) learning,
>and sauced with brazen rhetoric, is what they offer as a
>substitute for reason -- and that cocktail, is one to
>bitter for this writer at any price.
Congratulations, DC, on remaining rational in the face of one of the
most infantile displays I have ever read on this or any other
newsgroup, from Blair Houghton.
However, you credit Blair far too much. His flight from the
field, once he realised the game was up, was nothing like as
dignified as vanishing up his own backside.
Richard
Richard Milton
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>DC, I just spent ten minutes writing, revising, and deleting
>one of the most unkind posts I've ever wanted to issue.
<snip>
>The non-scientific content of my unposted post, without the
>vituperation, boils down to this: You've proven that you do
>not understand science. You've resorted to unfounded ad
>hominem too many times. You've shown an unwillingness to
>accept your errors. I have no reason to believe any more that
>your postings are likely to influence the ideas of any other
>newsgroup reader. Therefore I choose never to reply to your
>postings again, no matter how wrong they are. My silence is
>not to be taken as assent, or fear; simply that, at long last,
>I've found someone on the net who isn't worth ten seconds of
>my time.
>
>I can't even say that about Jervis.
I had a feeling that, sooner or later, the real Blair P. Houghton
would come out into the open, and here he is.
A person who respects no-one except those who agree with him, cares
nothing for others unless they support his own opinions, and is
not interested in dialogue but merely in crushing his opponents
from the safety of his PC. A bully, a coward and a bigot.
Richard Milton
Richard Milton
"Eric Hocking" wrote:
>d c harris wrote in message
><932069798.2281....@news.in2home.co.uk>...
>>I referred to a feature in a major UK broadsheet -
>>The Times I think, in which a man's invention
>>was being tested at a Ministry of Defence
>>base.
>
>Could you be a little more specific? A search of the MoD and The Times's
>sites doesn't yield anything. When you say was being tested, how long ago
>are you thinking?
Hi Eric,
You can actually *buy* on the open market commercial devices that
are over-unity (i.e., which output more energy than is put into
them.)
If you visit http://www.infinite-energy.com/ you'll find
advertisements in Infinite Energy magazine which publish a
specification of the performance you will get. There are a
variety of devices, the most famous of which is the "Hydrosonic
Pump" invented by Jim Griggs which is installed in four customer
sites in the Atlanta area, including the fire station, a
gymnasium, a dry cleaning plant and the Atlanta Police Department.
the story is on my web site, http://www.alternativescience.com/
Regards
Richard
D C Harris
Milton) wrote:
>Of all the things that John Maddox has done, very few could even
>remotely be construed as "protecting open debate and intellectual
>integrity in the sciences". On the contrary, Maddox is a bigot and
>CSICOP-supporter who's conduct has been disgraceful. A few
>examples:-
>
D C -
I agree that Maddox is a prat. By the standards
of a prat though I can only say you can find worse!
D C Harris
>I had a feeling that, sooner or later, the real Blair P. Houghton
>would come out into the open, and here he is.
>
>A person who respects no-one except those who agree with him, cares
>nothing for others unless they support his own opinions, and is
>not interested in dialogue but merely in crushing his opponents
>from the safety of his PC. A bully, a coward and a bigot.
>
>
>Richard Milton
>
D C -
Richard - I have to say I cannot
buy the 'bully' or 'coward' --
a bigot certainly and one who vanishes
if he has a few informed replies to
deal with. (A very common newsgroup
phenomenon!)
Happy Dog
> You can actually *buy* on the open market commercial devices that
> are over-unity (i.e., which output more energy than is put into
> them.)
Sure. And psychics predict the stock market. How is it that almost all
physicists still believe Thermodynamics to be valid? Why have these miraculous
devices escaped them?
> If you visit http://www.infinite-energy.com/ you'll find
> advertisements in Infinite Energy magazine which publish a
> specification of the performance you will get. There are a
> variety of devices, the most famous of which is the "Hydrosonic
> Pump" invented by Jim Griggs which is installed in four customer
> sites in the Atlanta area, including the fire station, a
> gymnasium, a dry cleaning plant and the Atlanta Police Department.
Hydrosonic pumps are not over unity devices. They are commonly used to heat
liquids. Griggs device, if it worked, would invalidate thermodynamics.
Especially since the claim is that it produces up to ten times more energy than
the input amount. But, there is no controlled testing that it does? Why might
that be? It would also win Randi's prize if it worked as claimed. But I don't
see a challenge in the making. So, unless you have some hard evidence that
such a thing exists, you're not likely to be taken very seriously.
Here's one info on a Hydrosonic Pump:
http://www.hydrodynamics.com/index.html
> the story is on my web site, http://www.alternativescience.com/
The story of what?
erf
Blair P. Houghton
>Here's one info on a Hydrosonic Pump:
>
>http://www.hydrodynamics.com/index.html
Two statements at that URL jump out:
1. "The Hydrosonic Pump[tm] converts mechanical shaft energy
into heat energy at 100% efficiency."
2. "The drive source always has to have a Btu output equal
to or larger than the Pump[tm] for it to operate."
These statements are contradictory.
The first one also contradicts thermodynamics, but more
importantly it ignores friction in the shaft bearing and
losses in the drive motor.
And these guys aren't even trying to sell this as new-age
magic. They're just trying to push some fairly efficient
heaters. I hope they do good business.
>> the story is on my web site, http://www.##################.com/
>
>The story of what?
You choose. Just say "once upon a time" and click on his URL
--Blair
"There ain't no free head."
Blair P. Houghton
Benveniste is not after Randi's prize, he's challenged the
American Physical Society.)
Richard Milton<ric...@milton.win-uk.net> wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>Richard Milton<ric...@milton.win-uk.net> wrote:
>>>
>and CSICOP supporters.
>
>If you can't follow the arguments, say so and I will use simpler
>language.
That wasn't an argument, it was just slander tacked on
pointlessly to a sentence that had otherwise stated your
position well enough.
>>You stated that you used material that came "only" from
>>peer-reviewed journals. But in your website you reference a
>>report on an infotainment television show. I haven't seen
>>the show, but [. . .]
>
>You're going to demonstrate once again that your complete
>ignorance of a subject does not prevent you from offering expert
>opinions on it.
Once again, you remind me that relying on your website
for information tends to leave your readers in complete
ignorance of the subjects they have just researched there.
>> I can guess that it included a lot of subjective
>>determinations, just like your reportage of it did.
>
>By using your psychic powers, of course, as you didn't see it.
>Specify a single example of "subjective determinations" in my
>reportage, and this time back up your assertions with facts.
I won't have to go far or use any psychic powers (which is
not to say that I don't have any). From your website, the
front-page bullet on the mentioned story says:
* "Mysterious Origins of Man" -- NBC's film that made 'skeptics' foam
at the mouth
Did you observe any actual "foaming" at the mouths of any
actual "'skeptics'"? Or are you just making subjective
determinations in your coverage? Or are you just making
things up?
>>Ask your lawyer what you should do. I bet his first piece
>>advice is, "shut up," and his second is, "if you can't shut
>>up, for god's sake apologize."
>
>I have no need to apologise for the truth and it will take something
>a little more substantial than Blair P. Houghton blowing smoke out
>of his ears to make me shut up.
I hardly expected it to. But I note that you didn't rule out
discussing it with your lawyer. You may have a second lollipop.
>Thanks for drawing my attention to Randi's bogus challenge. I see
>now that it merits much more extensive exposure and I shall be
>adding a page to my Alternative Science Website giving the full
>facts shortly.
Don't forget, email to ra...@randi.org is a fine way to advertise
your website once you've updated it.
>>That question doesn't relate to your libelous statement re
>>Randi's intent.
>
>I'm beginning to wonder, Blair, if I'm talking to a Skeptibot
>programmed by CSICOP to irritate. Even someone like you who is
>deliberately twisting everything that is said can see that not only
>does the question relate to my original statement, it virtually *is*
>my original statement.
I'm not twisting a thing. Quite the contrary. I'm trying
to unravel it so that people in the audience can see that
you're playing games with them.
And "virtually *is*" does not change the fact that you ducked
your original, libelous assertion rather than admit it was
untrue.
>I continue to make the true claim that any reasonable peson who
>reads the challenge can see for themself that it is unwinnable
>because it has been contructed to be unwinnable -- just like a
>fairground hoopla stall.
Well, you find a "reasonable peson" among your cadre of
discredited and ostracized scientists and try to prove it
by mounting a valid challenge. Or is that too scientific
for you?
>>Or will you take the only honorable out left to you? Admit
>>that it is not Randi, but the steady stream of crackpots
>>seeking the prize who either have no ability to perform their
>>claims or no intention of agreeing to any truly objective test
>>of them. Admit that the number of claimants who will both
>>agree to a valid test and can perform their claim successfully
>>is so far smaller than 1.
>
>Not only do I admit it -- I welcome your express confirmation of
>what I have repeatedly said. The test has been constructed so that
>anyone who is serious *has* to agree to whatever conditions Randi
>imposes and so, of course, no-one has agreed.
Most applicants either run away bleating something equally
irrational about the rules, or perform preliminary tests and
genuinely discover that they have no paranormal abilities.
You'll have to ask Randi for the list of people who've gone
so far as to make a run-for-record test.
Nobody knows how many, like you, just claim "Randi's fixed
it" and never even apply.
But the number who are willing to post libels about it on a
website is somewhat smaller.
Go ahead. Email Randi. He reads and responds just like a
normal human being (which he is, despite your image of him
with a whip and workbook edition of Fahrenheit 451).
Tell him what you've said here.
Mention my name. (Though, while I was the 4th or 5th person
to join the JREF during its first general membership drive--
I chose #9 because #1 and #7 were taken--he and I have only
corresponded twice a couple of years ago and talked on the
telephone once, and the time that I was asked to help observe
during a local pre-screening the candidate backed out early,
so Randi might not really know who I am; I'm in Phoenix, if
that will jog his memory).
Discuss your perception of the rules with him. Be reasonable
and scientific about it. Avoid accusatory comments like "What
are you smoking?" (The first thing you ever said to me here.)
Unless he is smoking and you're interested.
>>Since the original posting, there's been little need for you
>>to post the URL several times in the same posting.
>>
>>That's simply spamming.
>
>No Blair, it's what we Internet users call a "signature". It's
A URL in a signature is one thing. You take plenty of
opportunities to work it into your messages, hawking it like
a beeper salesman as you go. Hence my use of the word "several".
Or did you miss that?
>quite a common device, you'll find. And I repeat. The one and
>only reason that Blair P Houghton has been compelled to endure the
>agony of reading my signature several times, is because Blair P
>Houghton and only Blair P Houghton has insisted on posting
>ill-informed comments several times.
It's getting easier to refute your lies and specious nonsense:
I logged in today and found you responding to at least three
other people.
--Blair
"That boy doesn't need a reality check;
he needs a reality trust-fund..."
Blair P. Houghton
>I will donate 5 pence (about 8 cents) to charity for every inane
>insult, baseless assertion and offensive personal remark he's made
>or will make about me on this thread, up to a limit of £30 ($50).
How about doing the same for the large number of similar things
you've called me?
--Blair
"Such grandstanding. And by
a spear-carrier. Shameful."
Blair P. Houghton
>Steven Weller wrote:
>>For the record, I personally believe that 'skepticism,' as it's usually prac-
>>ticed by Randi and his ilk,* is just as much of a belief system as the kind
>>of credulity the Alternative Science folks exhibit. I don't know that
>>there's such a thing as (say) psychic phenomenon. But just as importantly,
>>I don't know that there ISN'T.
>
>You've summed up in five lines the top and bottom of my position,
>too, Stephen.
No, your position is not one of an unallied centrist.
You are very definitely standing in the extremes, and pretending
to be objective.
>This is the position that "skeptics" like Blair want reasonable,
>open minded people like you to think.
Go ahead. Kiss Steven's ass. It's great television.
>The reality is that there is
>now a mountain of solid, replicated, peer-reviwed evidence that is
>making even hardened skeptics like Susan Blackmore re-think their
>extreme "there's no evidence" position.
Who is the peer of a crackpot? Another crackpot?
>That's all my book and website are about -- giving the
>scientific leads and references that open-minded people like you can
>follow up if they wish to.
And selling more of your books. If there's any objectivity
in you, it's that all you really want to do is collect royalties
and you don't care what you have to say to do it.
>But people like Blair don't want that.
>They don't want you to examine the primary experimental evidence
>and make up your own mind. They want you to fall into line.
That's simple horseshit and you know it. He can look at all the
"experimental evidence" he wants to. But he should know what a
salted goldmine is, and that while careful, well-meaning scientists
can make mistakes, there aren't that many of those spending grant
money on research into the paranormal.
--Blair
"From there, I give you the universe."
Blair P. Houghton
>What you need to appreciate, Stephen, is that Blair Houghton is not
>employing an accepted tool of logic or rhetoric. What he is doing
>in running a scam, and I think you may have unwittingly bought into
>it.
That's a simple reversal of the premise. You're the one
"running the scam", and that's what I've been saying since
you showed up here.
>When Blair encounters something he disagrees with (i.e., something
>on the list that all "skeptics" are issued with by CSICOP) he
Another damned lie, as transparent as it is specious.
I've never seen anything from CSICOP except the stories
Jim Lippard posts on his website about the infighting
that went on there what, twenty years ago?
>doesn't bother assembling facts or marshalling arguments. Instead
>he simply accuses his opponent of committing some gross breach of
>debating etiquette that will enable him to dismiss their
>views rather than having to trouble about rebutting them.
I haven't told you I'd stop responding to you. I stopped
responding to someone who was ignoring plain statements of
fact, just as Steven noted. Ettiquette didn't enter into it.
>What he does is this: If you present references to scientific
>evidence from experiments conducted by respected scientists and
>published in a peer reviewed magazine, he cries "This is just
>argument from authority!"
As it was done, it was. The references weren't used as mere
bibliography, but themselves were meant to persuade the reader
that the statements were true. But I don't recall which
peer-reviewed sources you mean. I've called you on your Mensa
Magazine banners, and Harris on trying to use the word
"physicist" as a stand-in for a really good argument from
authority. So, no marks there pending a review of your
referents, but the best you can do is 50% on this one...
>If you do not present such evidence but offer to duke it out
>yourself on the merits of the case, he cries, "But you haven't the
>authority to debate this! You're not even a scientist. And anyway
>my pal James Randi says it's all nonsense!"
You're the one who says you're not a scientist. I'm still
arguing with you. And I've never said anything like that
with Randi's name on it.
>If you point out to him the experimental evidence you are quoting
>from impecable sources and was published in major
>peer-reviewed publications, he replies that as far as he is
>concerned the publication is rubbish and the people who write in it
>are cranks.
I never said anything like that about any such publication.
Hint: The Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration
is neither "impecable" nor "major". And as a magazine goes,
it's closer to Mad than Nature.
>Have you spotted the scam?
Look on Dickie's website. The scam starts at his bow-tie and
goes up.
>As far as Blair is concerned he agrees
>with Humpty Dumpty. When Blair uses a word, it means just what he
>chooses it to mean -- neither more nor less.
I've never had any conversation with Mr. Dumpty, nor
did I even realize that this phrase was due to him.
But as a concrete example of what Richard is talking about
vis a vis the usage of words, I give you his redaction of the
Randi Challenge, whenever he finally writes it and posts
it on his silly website.
>>Give it a rest...
>
>I couldn't agree with you more. But for Blair to decide to give it
>a rest he would need to be behaving consciously in the first place.
More of Richard's specious nonsense.
* * *
Okay. What's the score?
Richard writes seven paragraphs, and, oh, too bad, zero of
them are the truth. (Though there might be a half-point and
salvation from total failure in it if he can come up with
evidence for that thing about the peer-reviewed argument
from authority, so tune in next week when he gets more time
on the computer at the loony bin to play "What's My Problem?!")
--Blair
"Pretty typical day from the
desk of Richard (H?) Milton."
Blair P. Houghton
>However, you credit Blair far too much. His flight from the
>field, once he realised the game was up, was nothing like as
>dignified as vanishing up his own backside.
You're too close. That's *your* head.
--Blair
"Bite off those polyps while
you're up there."
Blair P. Houghton
>>one of the most unkind posts I've ever wanted to issue.
>
>would come out into the open, and here he is.
Funny. And here I just apologized to you for mispelling
your name.
>A person who respects no-one except those who agree with him, cares
>nothing for others unless they support his own opinions, and is
>not interested in dialogue but merely in crushing his opponents
>from the safety of his PC. A bully, a coward and a bigot.
I'm secure in the knowledge that you couldn't be more wrong.
--Blair
"Take that."
Blair P. Houghton
>The interesting thing about the laws of thermodynamics is that they
>are an unusual mixture of the theoretical and the empirical. If
>you consult my website at <http://alternativescience.com/> you'll
>see that the first law is entirely empirical and was
>announced under the most inauspicious circumstances, which has led
>many scientists in the twenieth century to question its validity.
Fine by me. I've had occasion to think of how it might be
violated. Like you, I'd like to get in on it and become rich.
Unlike you, I don't think I know anyone who has the answer.
But you'll notice that your "inauspicious circumstances" don't
change the fact that every thermodynamic process ever observed
since then performs the scientifically sufficient function of
supporting that theory.
It serves so well in that role that the claim that somehow a
process or machine has managed to violate it is a red flag,
an easy point of attack for other scientists to attempt to
find out whether or not the science involved is being applied
correctly.
So the form of its origin, and the identity of its progenitor,
and the belittling of his credentials don't matter to its
validity as a theory.
>(Only CSICOP-type skeptics treat it as an article of religious
>faith).
I wouldn't know a "CSICOP-type" skeptic if I saw one. Because
I've never seen one.
But I doubt they would fit your description of them.
--Blair
"Did a CSICOP member steal
your lunch money once? Hey!
Jervis! Would that be Freud
or Rank?"
Blair P. Houghton
>If you visit http://www.infinite-energy.com/ you'll find
>advertisements in Infinite Energy magazine which publish a
>specification of the performance you will get. There are a
>variety of devices, the most famous of which is the "Hydrosonic
>Pump" invented by Jim Griggs which is installed in four customer
>sites in the Atlanta area, including the fire station, a
>gymnasium, a dry cleaning plant and the Atlanta Police Department.
A note on using government services organizations as testimonials:
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/btcarrol/skeptic/quadro.html
Not only are they archetypal arguments from authority, the
people involved are highly unlikely to be able to evaluate
scientific claims on their own.
--Blair
"Richard, are you going to come back here
and apologize as each one of those devices
is found to be just as bound to the known
laws of thermodynamics as your bicycle?"
Happy Dog
> Happy Dog <happ...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Here's one info on a Hydrosonic Pump:
> >
> >http://www.hydrodynamics.com/index.html
>
> Two statements at that URL jump out:
>
> 1. "The Hydrosonic Pump[tm] converts mechanical shaft energy
> into heat energy at 100% efficiency."
Um, not to nitpick, darling, but what, other than heat, is the shaft
energy converted to?
> 2. "The drive source always has to have a Btu output equal
> to or larger than the Pump[tm] for it to operate."
>
> These statements are contradictory.
>
> The first one also contradicts thermodynamics, but more
> importantly it ignores friction in the shaft bearing and
> losses in the drive motor.
Which are turned into heat. Just as claimed.
> And these guys aren't even trying to sell this as new-age
> magic. They're just trying to push some fairly efficient
> heaters. I hope they do good business.
Hey, just thought it would be fun to try arguing as a nitpicking idiot
for a bit. You're correct. But, note that they explicitly state that
"Although the Pump™ is very efficient at converting
mechanical energy to heat, there is a loss in the conversion of fuel
to mechanical energy, such
as in an electric motor." I don't think that they are making any
bogus claims.
erf
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by b...@primenet.com (Blair P. Houghton):
>Happy Dog <happ...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>Here's one info on a Hydrosonic Pump:
>>
>>http://www.hydrodynamics.com/index.html
>
>Two statements at that URL jump out:
>
>1. "The Hydrosonic Pump[tm] converts mechanical shaft energy
>into heat energy at 100% efficiency."
An IC engine driving a shaft dyno does the same. No big
trick.
>
>2. "The drive source always has to have a Btu output equal
>to or larger than the Pump[tm] for it to operate."
>
>These statements are contradictory.
>
>The first one also contradicts thermodynamics,
IIRC, entropy requires that everything eventually degrades
to heat, so this doesn't really violate thermo. Unless, of
course, they claim it's 100% reversible.
> but more
>importantly it ignores friction in the shaft bearing and
>losses in the drive motor.
Not really; they appear as heat.
>
>And these guys aren't even trying to sell this as new-age
>magic. They're just trying to push some fairly efficient
>heaters. I hope they do good business.
>
>>> the story is on my web site, http://www.##################.com/
>>
>>The story of what?
>
>You choose. Just say "once upon a time" and click on his URL
>
> --Blair
> "There ain't no free head."
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Blair P. Houghton
>>
>>1. "The Hydrosonic Pump[tm] converts mechanical shaft energy
>>into heat energy at 100% efficiency."
>
>An IC engine driving a shaft dyno does the same. No big
>trick.
Again, sound energy is lost, and heat is wasted. Unless
they've found a way to make a shaft from 100% insulating
materials.
99.9%, I'd buy that in a second. 100%? Fuhgedaboutit.
>IIRC, entropy requires that everything eventually degrades
>to heat, so this doesn't really violate thermo. Unless, of
>course, they claim it's 100% reversible.
Didn't see that claim. Didn't see where they'd have the
knowledge to even fake that claim. They'd also have to make
it clear what kind of reversible they're talking about, or
they'd have customers trying to light fires under the pump to
get the shaft to go with "100% efficiency".
>> but more
>>importantly it ignores friction in the shaft bearing and
>>losses in the drive motor.
>
>Not really; they appear as heat.
Too true. And oh so inefficient.
--Blair
"Make a hell of a camp stove."
Steven Weller
>>1. "The Hydrosonic Pump[tm] converts mechanical shaft energy
>>into heat energy at 100% efficiency."
Wasn't this one of the 'alternative science' - type things they just
debunked on a PBS special (might have been Nova)? Some kind of wacky
pump thing that generated heat energy in excess of the energy put into
the device, right? They set one up in 55 gallon drum, ran it through
the paces, and found it came nowhere near the claims made by the pro-
moters. Seems like the researchers were Brits in the video.
James J. Lippard
>
>"Eric Hocking" wrote:
>
>>d c harris wrote in message
>><932069798.2281....@news.in2home.co.uk>...
>>>I referred to a feature in a major UK broadsheet -
>>>The Times I think, in which a man's invention
>>>was being tested at a Ministry of Defence
>>>base.
>>
>>Could you be a little more specific? A search of the MoD and The Times's
>>sites doesn't yield anything. When you say was being tested, how long ago
>>are you thinking?
>
>
>Hi Eric,
>
>are over-unity (i.e., which output more energy than is put into
>them.)
Richard:
How much does your local electrical utility provider pay you each month
for all the excess electricity you're surely generating as the result
of your use of such devices?
Or are you unaccountably still paying for electricity?
--
Jim Lippard lip...@discord.org http://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Richard Milton
Steven Weller wrote:
>Richard -
>
>I appreciate your dedication to observation of detail and a refusal to
>use pre-concieved notions of what's 'right' in place of actual, personal,
>first-hand assembling of facts and marshalling of arguments.
>
>My name, as you might notice in the sigfile of everything I've ever posted
>to mws, is spelled S-T-E-V-E-N, not S-T-E-P-H-E-N.
> ^ ^^^
>--
>Life Continues, Despite
>Evidence to the Contrary,
>
>Steven
Steven -- please accept my sincere apologies for getting your name
wrong in the heat of the moment.
As punishment, I have booked myself into the Blair P. Houghton
academy of factual accuracy for a course of remedial treatment. It
may, of course, take some time.
Regards
Richard
Richard Milton
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>I won't have to go far or use any psychic powers (which is
>not to say that I don't have any). From your website, the
>front-page bullet on the mentioned story says:
>
> * "Mysterious Origins of Man" -- NBC's film that made 'skeptics' foam
> at the mouth
>
>Did you observe any actual "foaming" at the mouths of any
>actual "'skeptics'"? Or are you just making subjective
>determinations in your coverage? Or are you just making
>things up?
No "skeptic" even attempted to rebut the scientific issues raised in
the film but here is a sample of their responses:-
'atrocious'; 'garbage'; 'anti-intellectual trash'; 'evil';
'deliberate, fraudulent misinformation'; 'claptrap'; 'utter rubbish';
'nonsense'; A bunch of hooey; 'unadulterated hogwash'; 'bullshit';
'A piece of junk'; 'crap'; 'shame on you, liars and opportunists',
and "Frankly, you are either morons or liars."
As I say on my site, you might imagine that these remarks came from
the keyboards of pharmaceutically-challenged undergraduates or
semiliterate teenagers. In fact they are the words of senior
scientists and academics (including several professors) from Yale,
University of California at Berkeley, State University of New York,
University of Texas at Austin, Wisconsin, New Mexico State,
Colorado, Northwestern, and other universities.
Two of them were so busy foaming at the mouth they let the cat out
of the bag completely:
"Thanks largely to the efforts of people like yourself, the American
public is generally not capable of evaluating the "arguments" and
"evidence" you present."
Another went even further. "You should be banned from the airwaves."
Here the "skeptics" finally showed their true colours. According to
them the American people are incapable of evaluating scientific
arguments and evidence for themselves. Consequently, people who
provide evidence or arguments that contradict the accepted view
should be banned from broadcasting. Perhaps you agree with them?
[RM]
>>I continue to make the true claim that any reasonable peson who
>>reads the challenge can see for themself that it is unwinnable
>>because it has been contructed to be unwinnable -- just like a
>>fairground hoopla stall.
>
>Well, you find a "reasonable peson" among your cadre of
>discredited and ostracized scientists and try to prove it
>by mounting a valid challenge. Or is that too scientific
>for you?
They are only ostracised by you and your pal Randi and only
discredited according to you. No-one else outside of Pseudoscience
Central thinks so. Real skeptics are too busy trying to understand
the nature of the anomalous phenomena that Benveniste has
discovered.
>Benveniste agreed. Until he backed out. But his backing out
>wasn't due to anything Randi did. There was an intermediary
>specifically placed so as to keep Benveniste from claiming
>that Randi is skewing the system in his favor. I don't have
>the name handy; he's that Nobel Laureate I talked about earlier.
I've replied to this elsewhere, but I'll expand on it here. I
believe the Nobel laureate you are talking about is Brian Josephson,
professor of physics at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge. You are
trying to imply that Josephson somehow doesn't believe in Benveniste.
Here's what Josephson wrote in a letter to "New Scientist"
"molecule memories
Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy (Editorial, 27
September, p 3 and Letters, 18 October, p 58): criticisms centred
around the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a
solution after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point,
since advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not
to molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the
water's structure.
Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot
have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But
cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an
ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic
distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have
not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy
that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account.
A related topic is the phenomenon, claimed by Jacques Benveniste's
colleague Yolène Thomas and by others to be well established
experimentally, known as "memory of water". If valid, this would be
of greater significance than homeopathy itself, and it attests to
the limited vision of the modern scientific community that, far
from hastening to test such claims, the only response has been to
dismiss them out of hand.
BRIAN D. JOSEPHSON
University of Cambridge"
>You'll have to ask Randi for the list of people who've gone
>so far as to make a run-for-record test.
>
>Nobody knows how many, like you, just claim "Randi's fixed
>it" and never even apply.
On the contrary, we have a sound scientific basis for estimating
how many people there are who could win Randi's challenge if he
hadn't prevented them by stacking the deck against them, because we
have Radin and Nelson's paper from "Foundations of Physics" and many
other such studies.
Against this empirical work we have Blair P. Houghton blowing
smoke out of his ears.
Richard Milton
The Alternative Science Website
http://www.alternativescience.com/
Richard Milton
Happy Dog wrote:
>Richard Milton wrote:
>
>> You can actually *buy* on the open market commercial devices that
>> are over-unity (i.e., which output more energy than is put into
>> them.)
>
>Sure. And psychics predict the stock market. How is it that almost all
>physicists still believe Thermodynamics to be valid? Why have these miraculous
>devices escaped them?
It's surprising isn't it, that when you can buy over-unity devices
over the counter people still express such hopelessly irrational
sentiments as you're expressing here, instead of actually chekcing
the facts for themselves.
It makes one wonder what evidence "skeptics" would be willing to
accept.
>> If you visit http://www.infinite-energy.com/ you'll find
>> advertisements in Infinite Energy magazine which publish a
>> specification of the performance you will get. There are a
>> variety of devices, the most famous of which is the "Hydrosonic
>> Pump" invented by Jim Griggs which is installed in four customer
>> sites in the Atlanta area, including the fire station, a
>> gymnasium, a dry cleaning plant and the Atlanta Police Department.
>
>Hydrosonic pumps are not over unity devices.
The device I have referred you to demonstrably is over-unity. The
point of my post is that you don't have to take my word for it. Go
to Atlanta. Talk to the county surveyor. Talk to the police
department. Go to Hydrodynamics Inc and see for yourself. Don't
burble on to me about how impossible it all is because you're too
late -- it's already happened.
> Griggs device, if it worked, would invalidate thermodynamics.
I assume you mean the first law of thermodynamics. Actually you're
mistaken. the consensus of scientific opinion is that Griggs's
device makes use of thermoluminescence and it thus no more violates
the first law than a glow-worm does.
>Especially since the claim is that it produces up to ten times more energy than
>the input amount.
Where on earth did you get this figure from? Not from anything I've
written.
>But, there is no controlled testing that it does? Why might
>that be?
Didn't you read what I wrote? There have been many independent
controlled tests. See my website for full details of the tests
and who they were conducted by. http://www.alternativescience.com/
It would also win Randi's prize if it worked as claimed. But I don't
>see a challenge in the making.
For reasons I've already given here there is no such thing as an
experiment that could win Randi's prize.
>So, unless you have some hard evidence that
>such a thing exists, you're not likely to be taken very seriously.
There evidence is on my website, as you were told in the first
place. But you apparently prefer to post objections than consult it.
>> the story is on my web site, http://www.alternativescience.com/
>
>The story of what?
>erf
So let's recap. You refuse to accept my statements about Griggs's
device. When I refer you to a source you can check for yourself
you refuse to consult it. There's a word for this and it's not
"skepticism".
Blair P. Houghton
>>actual "'skeptics'"? Or are you just making subjective
>>determinations in your coverage? Or are you just making
>>things up?
>
>No "skeptic" even attempted to rebut the scientific issues raised in
>the film but here is a sample of their responses:-
>
>'atrocious'; 'garbage'; 'anti-intellectual trash'; 'evil';
>'deliberate, fraudulent misinformation'; 'claptrap'; 'utter rubbish';
>'nonsense'; A bunch of hooey; 'unadulterated hogwash'; 'bullshit';
>'A piece of junk'; 'crap'; 'shame on you, liars and opportunists',
>and "Frankly, you are either morons or liars."
Where's the foam?
>As I say on my site, you might imagine that these remarks came from
>the keyboards of pharmaceutically-challenged undergraduates or
>semiliterate teenagers. In fact they are the words of senior
>scientists and academics (including several professors) from Yale,
>University of California at Berkeley, State University of New York,
>University of Texas at Austin, Wisconsin, New Mexico State,
>Colorado, Northwestern, and other universities.
So what are you saying about these people? That they are incapable
of making a cogent determination of what is "anti-intellectual trash",
"bullshit", or the work of "morons or liars"?
>Two of them were so busy foaming at the mouth they let the cat out
>of the bag completely:
>
>"Thanks largely to the efforts of people like yourself, the American
>public is generally not capable of evaluating the "arguments" and
>"evidence" you present."
That's a hell of a cat, since that same statement can be
applied to you, Richard. Your response to their diatribes is
to call it "foaming at the mouth" rather than "aggressive
disagreement." See the difference? One term is an insult,
devoid of truth, and the other is a report of the facts.
>Another went even further. "You should be banned from the airwaves."
In some countries, that'd be legal recourse.
>Here the "skeptics" finally showed their true colours. According to
>them the American people are incapable of evaluating scientific
>arguments and evidence for themselves. Consequently, people who
>provide evidence or arguments that contradict the accepted view
>should be banned from broadcasting. Perhaps you agree with them?
Nope. I would prefer that their Executive Producers would
merely recognize their diseducational junk and refuse to allow
the project to be produced. But that isn't how the ratings
system causes things to work.
But with all this you have avoided admitting that I did show
that the phrase "cry of a conspiracy of intellectuals" applies
to your website and postings.
>[RM]
>>Well, you find a "reasonable peson" among your cadre of
>>discredited and ostracized scientists and try to prove it
>>by mounting a valid challenge. Or is that too scientific
>>for you?
>
>They are only ostracised by you and your pal Randi and only
>discredited according to you.
That's funny. Benveniste seems to think they've tried to shut
him out. So do you. I don't mind if they conduct science,
as long as they don't mind if people check their work. Randi
doesn't seem to mind. He's invited them to win a lucrative
prize.
That's not to say that I don't mind if they try to sell patent
medicine on the side while conducting the science that they
purport to be basing the medicine's powers on.
>No-one else outside of Pseudoscience
>Central thinks so. Real skeptics are too busy trying to understand
>the nature of the anomalous phenomena that Benveniste has
>discovered.
Or the nature of the procedural and logical anomalies that
caused him alone to observe it.
>I've replied to this elsewhere, but I'll expand on it here. I
>believe the Nobel laureate you are talking about is Brian Josephson,
>professor of physics at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge. You are
>trying to imply that Josephson somehow doesn't believe in Benveniste.
You are trying to imply that he does. From what you post,
he's merely leaving the door open for the formerly well-
regarded Benveniste to conduct his research in the hope that
maybe, just maybe, there's something to it.
>Here's what Josephson wrote in a letter to "New Scientist"
[...anyone can go back and look at the text...]
What I notice most of all about that letter is how evenhanded
and respectable Josephson is. Unlike you.
And unlike me, at times, but then, I'm in an argument with
you. I'm not creating websites trying to bias and excite
readers before they get to the information I'm pretending to
present for their level-headed perusal.
BTW, I agree with Josephson's scientific assessments. Water
has a dipole electric moment, and can form local structure;
hence surface tension and the droplet-forming oscillation of
a faucet stream.
But it's outside the realm of probability that water can retain
structural elements imparted to it by microscopic, hyperdilute
substances, that the water can then express a macroscopic,
measurable electrical oscillation due to these elements, and
that the water can maintain this structure during transport
and ingestion, and in fact all the way to sites of disease in
the body.
Josephson invented one of my favorite things on this Earth,
the Josephson Junction, which is a superconducting transistor.
And I was a bit dismayed to realize he's the guy fronting for
Benveniste. But your posting shows I had nothing to fear.
Josephson is just doing science. Benveniste may not be, but
Josephson is helping him to have the chance to show what he
*is* doing.
BTW, Josephson is not happy that Benveniste has recently
refused to demonstrate his work.
>>You'll have to ask Randi for the list of people who've gone
>>so far as to make a run-for-record test.
>>Nobody knows how many, like you, just claim "Randi's fixed
>>it" and never even apply.
>
>On the contrary, we have a sound scientific basis for estimating
>how many people there are who could win Randi's challenge if he
>hadn't prevented them by stacking the deck against them, because we
>have Radin and Nelson's paper from "Foundations of Physics" and many
>other such studies.
Gee, thanks for the clear bibliographic reference. I'll take
it on faith that you mean this one:
Radin, D. I. & Nelson, R. D. (1989). Evidence for
consciousness-related anomalies in random physical
systems, Foundations of Physics, 19, 12, 1499.
Radin and Nelson showed that a large number of papers in
parapsychology journals, when reviewed using something known
as "meta-analysis", indicate in gross some positive correlation
between mental activity and the action of random systems.
The fact that FoP published this paper is no more proof that
it's true than when Nature published Benveniste. It's no
proof that the papers Radin and Nelson were reviewing were
accurate or even honest. And it's no proof that those who
achieve negative results are equally likely to be published.
If you believe that their work does indicate that you or any
other person could perform to the satisfaction of the Challenge,
then go for it. A million dollars awaits.
Your unsubstantiated claims that Randi has "stacked the deck"
against honest people are still just more libel.
>Against this empirical work we have Blair P. Houghton blowing
>smoke out of his ears.
Which brings us, circularly, right back where you started this
little tirade, with smoke, something you're eminently familiar
with, using it and mirrors constantly to imply that you are
somehow an unbiased reporter of the facts.
--Blair
"No time for jokes. Time for dinner."
Blair P. Houghton
>As punishment, I have booked myself into the Blair P. Houghton
>academy of factual accuracy for a course of remedial treatment. It
>may, of course, take some time.
In your case, I'm in favor of cloning a new one and starting
all over from the beginning.
--Blair
"Nahh. Just lop it off."
Happy Dog
> >Sure. And psychics predict the stock market. How is it that almost all
> >physicists still believe Thermodynamics to be valid? Why have these miraculous
> >devices escaped them?
>
> It's surprising isn't it, that when you can buy over-unity devices
> over the counter people still express such hopelessly irrational
> sentiments as you're expressing here, instead of actually chekcing
> the facts for themselves.
Sure. Do you pay a dime for energy? Yes? Why? Why is it that people aren't
setting up power plants all over the world and becoming rich with this technology?
> It makes one wonder what evidence "skeptics" would be willing to
> accept.
Evidence from independent researchers that over unity devices exist. And there
isn't any.
> >Hydrosonic pumps are not over unity devices.
>
> The device I have referred you to demonstrably is over-unity. The
> point of my post is that you don't have to take my word for it. Go
> to Atlanta. Talk to the county surveyor. Talk to the police
> department. Go to Hydrodynamics Inc and see for yourself. Don't
> burble on to me about how impossible it all is because you're too
> late -- it's already happened.
Bulldinky. It follows from this that unlimited cheap energy is available. This is
such a fantastic claim that you'll have to do better than tell people to talk to the
APD.
> > Griggs device, if it worked, would invalidate thermodynamics.
>
> I assume you mean the first law of thermodynamics. Actually you're
> mistaken. the consensus of scientific opinion is that Griggs's
> device makes use of thermoluminescence and it thus no more violates
> the first law than a glow-worm does.
Sure. That makes perfect sense. Now how about the second law?
> >Especially since the claim is that it produces up to ten times more energy than
> >the input amount.
>
> Where on earth did you get this figure from? Not from anything I've
> written.
From websites about Griggs pump.
> >But, there is no controlled testing that it does? Why might
> >that be?
>
> Didn't you read what I wrote? There have been many independent
> controlled tests. See my website for full details of the tests
> and who they were conducted by. http://www.alternativescience.com/
I did. They're crap.
> It would also win Randi's prize if it worked as claimed. But I don't
> >see a challenge in the making.
>
> For reasons I've already given here there is no such thing as an
> experiment that could win Randi's prize.
More crap and an accusation of fraud.
> >So, unless you have some hard evidence that
> >such a thing exists, you're not likely to be taken very seriously.
>
> There evidence is on my website, as you were told in the first
> place. But you apparently prefer to post objections than consult it.
It isn't. You haven't satisfied almost every physicist that over unity devices
exist.
> >> the story is on my web site, http://www.alternativescience.com/
>
> So let's recap. You refuse to accept my statements about Griggs's
> device. When I refer you to a source you can check for yourself
> you refuse to consult it. There's a word for this and it's not
> "skepticism".
I saw no proof of Grigg's claims. Please point me to the exact page containing it.
erf
Blair P. Houghton
>It makes one wonder what evidence "skeptics" would be willing to
>accept.
You've asked that as a question before, in this very thread,
and had it answered, perfectly well.
Are you making it clear that you do not understand what you
read, that you do not care to learn, that your prejudice
outweighs all attempts to defeat it?
--Blair
"Of course you are."
Eric Hocking
>"Eric Hocking" wrote:
>>Could you be a little more specific? A search of the MoD and The Times's
>>sites doesn't yield anything. When you say was being tested, how long ago
>>are you thinking?
>
>
>Hi Eric,
>
>are over-unity (i.e., which output more energy than is put into
>them.)
The hydronic pump isn't over-unity device, and doesn't quite appear to be
what Mr Griggs is claiming.
Are you implying that this is the device that the MoD is testing?
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
=== London, England (nee Melbourne, Australia) ===
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking
Vreejack
>
> >In article <378DF465...@sirius-software.com>,
> > Alan Brooks <al...@sirius-software.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> D C Harris wrote:
> >>
> >> > AS to perpetual motion, ask the British military
> >> > what they are testing now.
> >>
> >> I was just in Cheltenham and had a look around. The closest thing
I
> >saw
> >> to perpetual motion was the flow of Landlord's Ale.
> >>
> >
> >LOL
> >
> >My typical challenge is simply this:
> >"If you think you can violate the 2nd law so caually then you
> >are wasting your time here; you deserve a Nobel."
>
> Hi Vreejack,
>
> I think you must mean the 1st law (energy cannot be created or
> destroyed but only change its form) rather than the second which
> has to do with heat flowing from higher temperature to lower
> tempertures.
No, I was referring to the second law. It is the second law,
which requires that entropy must increase whenever energy is
transferred or work is done, which is usually violated
by the concept of a perpetual-motion-machine. Unless
you are proposing to make energy out of nothing to make
up the losses.
> The interesting thing about the laws of thermodynamics is that they
> are an unusual mixture of the theoretical and the empirical. If
> you consult my website at <http://alternativescience.com/> you'll
> see that the first law is entirely empirical and was
> announced under the most inauspicious circumstances, which has led
> many scientists in the twenieth century to question its validity.
> (Only CSICOP-type skeptics treat it as an article of religious
> faith).
And high-school physics instructors. Did you go?
As for it being highly empirical, well, yes. That is
the whole point. Have you found an exception?
Does the 1st law only apply in certain conditions?
The last guy to find an exception and develop the theory
that subsumes the 1st law was Einstein. Remember e=mc^2?
--
Send no unsolicited appeals or sales promotions.
Praise Thomas Aquinas
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by b...@primenet.com (Blair P. Houghton):
>Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>sci.skeptic, posted by b...@primenet.com (Blair P. Houghton):
>>>Two statements at that URL jump out:
>>>
>>>1. "The Hydrosonic Pump[tm] converts mechanical shaft energy
>>>into heat energy at 100% efficiency."
>>
>>An IC engine driving a shaft dyno does the same. No big
>>trick.
>
>Again, sound energy is lost, and heat is wasted. Unless
>they've found a way to make a shaft from 100% insulating
>materials.
Sure, but the sound *also* degrades to heat. My point was
that anything claiming to convert low-entropy kinetic energy
into high-entropy heat isn't really making much of a claim.
>
>99.9%, I'd buy that in a second. 100%? Fuhgedaboutit.
Why? Eventually, *all* forms of energy will degrade to heat;
they're simply claiming to bypass the "useful extraction"
part. ;-)
>
>>IIRC, entropy requires that everything eventually degrades
>>to heat, so this doesn't really violate thermo. Unless, of
>>course, they claim it's 100% reversible.
>
>Didn't see that claim. Didn't see where they'd have the
>knowledge to even fake that claim. They'd also have to make
>it clear what kind of reversible they're talking about, or
>they'd have customers trying to light fires under the pump to
>get the shaft to go with "100% efficiency".
I doubt if it would do any good; the customers who'd buy
these devices wouldn't understand the warning.
>
>>> but more
>>>importantly it ignores friction in the shaft bearing and
>>>losses in the drive motor.
>>
>>Not really; they appear as heat.
>
>Too true. And oh so inefficient.
But if what you're *selling* is, by definition,
inefficiency...
Richard Milton
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>Richard Milton<ric...@milton.win-uk.net> wrote:
>>I will donate 5 pence (about 8 cents) to charity for every inane
>>insult, baseless assertion and offensive personal remark he's made
>>or will make about me on this thread, up to a limit of £30 ($50).
>
>How about doing the same for the large number of similar things
>you've called me?
I'll do that with pleasure. Unfortunately, the total so
far is £0.
Richard Milton
The Alternative Science Website
http://wwww.alternativescience.com/
Richard Milton
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>Richard Milton<ric...@milton.win-uk.net> wrote:
>>Steven Weller wrote:
>>>For the record, I personally believe that 'skepticism,' as it's usually prac-
>>>ticed by Randi and his ilk,* is just as much of a belief system as the kind
>>>of credulity the Alternative Science folks exhibit. I don't know that
>>>there's such a thing as (say) psychic phenomenon. But just as importantly,
>>>I don't know that there ISN'T.
>>
>>You've summed up in five lines the top and bottom of my position,
>>too, Stephen.
>
>No, your position is not one of an unallied centrist.
>
>You are very definitely standing in the extremes, and pretending
>to be objective.
Another steaming pile of Blairhoutenism. I have not (and do
not) take any position on any of the scientific issues I report
other than to ask those people who are being blinkered to look
again, and in a few cases -- such as the pseudoscience of
Darwinism -- to suggest people examine the evidence for themselves
instead of swallowing what they're spoonfed.
It matters nothing to me what people think, unlike Blair P Houghton
who is very keen that you should not, under any circumstances,
make up your own minds about the data but listen to him and his pal
Randi, who are the arbiters of whatis true science and what is
crackpot science.
>>The reality is that there is
>>now a mountain of solid, replicated, peer-reviwed evidence that is
>>making even hardened skeptics like Susan Blackmore re-think their
>>extreme "there's no evidence" position.
>
>Who is the peer of a crackpot? Another crackpot?
Are you beginning to understand yet what you're doing, Blair? When
invited to consider evidence for anomalous phenomena, you call the
messenger a crackpot. When it's pointed out that distinguished
scientists think the subject worth looking at, you tar them with
the same brush. Your analyst will explain this behaviour to you.
>>That's all my book and website are about -- giving the
>>scientific leads and references that open-minded people like you can
>>follow up if they wish to.
>
>And selling more of your books. If there's any objectivity
>in you, it's that all you really want to do is collect royalties
>and you don't care what you have to say to do it.
I don't intend to dignify this remark with a reply but I've left it
here so people can see how desperate you're getting now that
you're running out of corners to hide and your usual slippery
prevarication isn't working this time.
>>But people like Blair don't want that.
>>They don't want you to examine the primary experimental evidence
>>and make up your own mind. They want you to fall into line.
>
>That's simple horseshit and you know it. He can look at all the
>"experimental evidence" he wants to. But he should know what a
>salted goldmine is, and that while careful, well-meaning scientists
>can make mistakes, there aren't that many of those spending grant
>money on research into the paranormal.
The reason why there has to be a Richard Milton and an Alternative
Science Website is because there are already too many Blair
Houghtons whose irrational witch-hunting ridicule is stopping honest
scientists spending grant money researching taboo subjects.
Richard Milton
The Alternative Science Website
http://www.alternativescience.com/
Richard Milton
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>Richard Milton<ric...@milton.win-uk.net> wrote:
>>What you need to appreciate, Stephen, is that Blair Houghton is not
>>employing an accepted tool of logic or rhetoric. What he is doing
>>in running a scam, and I think you may have unwittingly bought into
>>it.
>
>That's a simple reversal of the premise. You're the one
>"running the scam",
When someone points out that you're not wearing any clothes, Blair,
you have to do something better than retort "Yes I am, it's *him*
who's not wearing any clothes." At least, you do, if you want to
stop sounding like Homer Simpson.
> and that's what I've been saying since
> you showed up here.
Er, no. I "showed up here" on the Internet in 1983 and on mws three
or four years ago. You've only been shooting your mouth off for the
last two weeks, since I mentioned my website.
>Hint: The Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration
>is neither "impecable" nor "major". And as a magazine goes,
>it's closer to Mad than Nature.
I repeat what I've said three times already and I'll go on saying
it. The Society for Scientific Explorations consists of several
thousand professional scientists who are investigating difficult
subjects of research. Blair P. Houghton is the man who
sweeps up after a failed conjuror who travels the country
masquerading as a scientist.
>Look on Dickie's website. The scam starts at his bow-tie and
>goes up.
This is your considered response to the facts, evidence, references
and arguments I've advanced over the past two weeks? That I have
been photographed wearing a bow-tie? Why stop at my clothes,
Blair? Maybe I have some physical handicap you could poke fun at.
>>As far as Blair is concerned he agrees
>>with Humpty Dumpty. When Blair uses a word, it means just what he
>>chooses it to mean -- neither more nor less.
>
>I've never had any conversation with Mr. Dumpty, nor
>did I even realize that this phrase was due to him.
That's odd. he often speaks fondly of you, and the many hours you
spent together discussing scientific topics. He recalls you as
being extraordinarily gifted and knowledgeable. But then he is
only a single-celled organism.
>But as a concrete example of what Richard is talking about
>vis a vis the usage of words, I give you his redaction of the
>Randi Challenge, whenever he finally writes it and posts
>it on his silly website.
So let's see. You haven't yet read what I'm going to write about
Randi and his challenge, what evidence I'm going to present, what
references I'm going to give. But being the sort of all-seeing,
all-knowing chap that you are, you can tell us before I've even
written it that you're not going to like it. How is that,
exactly, Blair? It couldn't possibly be that you've made your mind
up *before* you've even read what I write could it?
And, come to think of it, it couldn't possibly be that you've
already made up your mind about *everything* I write regardless of
its content, so that, in fact, you would post exactly the same
responses regardless of content? Because there's a word for that.
>Okay. What's the score?
Sadly, "Alternative Technology" has still only made about £4.50.
Still, perhaps Blair can do better tomorrow.
Richard Milton
>Richard Milton<ric...@milton.win-uk.net> wrote:
>>Steven Weller wrote:
>>>For the record, I personally believe that 'skepticism,' as it's usually prac-
>>>ticed by Randi and his ilk,* is just as much of a belief system as the kind
>>>of credulity the Alternative Science folks exhibit. I don't know that
>>>there's such a thing as (say) psychic phenomenon. But just as importantly,
>>>I don't know that there ISN'T.
>>
>>You've summed up in five lines the top and bottom of my position,
>>too, Stephen.
>
>No, your position is not one of an unallied centrist.
>
>You are very definitely standing in the extremes, and pretending
>to be objective.
Another steaming pile of Blairhoutenism. I have not (and do
not) take any position on any of the scientific issues I report
other than to ask those people who are being blinkered to look
again, and in a few cases -- such as the pseudoscience of
Darwinism -- to suggest people examine the evidence for themselves
instead of swallowing what they're spoonfed.
I seek to inform people, not to control what they think, unlike
Blair P Houghton who is very keen that you should not, under any
circumstances, make up your own minds about the data but listen to
him and his pal Randi, who are the sole arbiters of what is true
science and what is crackpot science.
>>The reality is that there is
>>now a mountain of solid, replicated, peer-reviwed evidence that is
>>making even hardened skeptics like Susan Blackmore re-think their
>>extreme "there's no evidence" position.
>
>Who is the peer of a crackpot? Another crackpot?
Are you calling the review committee of "Foundations of Physics"
crackpots? Because they are, among others, the reviewers I'm
referring to. If that is what you're calling them, you need to
provide something a little more substantial than your rabidly
out-of-control prejudices.
James J. Lippard
>or four years ago. You've only been shooting your mouth off for the
>last two weeks, since I mentioned my website.
Really? That's when I was first here, too, though it wasn't called
the Internet then. I had access through my employment with a large
U.S. government contractor. Those were the days of SF-Lovers,
Human-Nets, Poli-Sci digests, etc. I didn't gain access to Usenet
until a few years later. What were you accessing back then, and how
did you get your access?
Steven Weller
It's interesting to me that Richard Milton keeps quoting me on this:
>>Steven Weller wrote:
>>>For the record, I personally believe that 'skepticism,' as it's usually prac-
>>>ticed by Randi and his ilk,* is just as much of a belief system as the kind
>>>of credulity the Alternative Science folks exhibit. I don't know that
>>>there's such a thing as (say) psychic phenomenon. But just as importantly,
>>>I don't know that there ISN'T.
...though leaving off the other end of that asterisk, but has neglected to
make any comment about my challenge to him to make the water in my cup salty
(as he claims is entirely possible) by e-mail.
Just had a sip, and it's still not the least bit brackish.
Still not hearing any response to my extraordinarilty simple question about
his self-described 'kitchen table' methodology, whereby a person can
supposedly make a solution of histamine in distilled water, and then 'dilute'
(rather than, say, filter) it to the extent that it has not even a single
molecule of histamine remaining.
These are both legitimate challenges, Richard. You've claimed that, as your
hero claims, it's possible to directly transmit the electrochemical infor-
mation necessary to impart the 'memory' of a weak aqueous solution, via
e-mail. You took a stab at it (which I will assume was intended as a joke,
because I'm a charitable guy) but still haven't even described the method-
ology, let alone pulled off the trick. You've also claimed that 'virtually
anyone' can mix up a solution of distilled water and histamine at the kitchen
table, and then dilute it to the extent that not a single molecule of the
histamine remains. Still not hearing how THAT works, either.
I may not be the only person waiting to hear these answers, Richard, but think
what a terrific thing that is for you! You could go a long ways toward de-
bunking Blair and his ilk, just by demonstrating what you've claimed is
possible!