The amazing Randi Pschic Contest (was: Science cannot give any answers)
David B. Greene
jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del) wrote:
>"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Daneel wrote:
>>
>>> Randi is the guy who offers $10,000 [Now pumped up to
>>> 1,000,000 by others donating to his Education Foundation]
>>> to anyone who demonstrates psychic capacities to him.
>>> It's still out for anyone...
So exactly what are the ground rules for this challenge?
>>I predict it will never be collected.
>>There's a loophole in there. It requires that to get the prize, one must
>>demonstrate the capability to Randi, who is obviously so handicapped by
>>his own worldview that he will never believe anybody else's world view.
>>Since that is the case, no, the money will never be collected.
>Do you lie just for sport? You must get a charge out of
>it since you do it constantly.
Gee, Del, I think you just lied ... unless you can show he lies
*constantly* that is.
>Let's see:
>1. "There's a loophole in there."
>Lie number one. No loop hole. You really shouldn't
>presume that everybody thinks and acts like you.
Can you guarantee that there is no loophole, or is that your
own opinion masqurading as fact?
>2. "It requires that to get the prize, one must
>demonstrate the capability to Randi,"
> Lie number 2. Randi is not a judge
Who is the judge?
>3."who is obviously so handicapped by his own
>worldview"
>Lie number 3 and another example of Seeber projecting
>his closed and narrow mind as an attribute of someone
>else.
A projection is not neccessarily a lie. Everyone probably projects.
You do it as well I'm sure. At any rate, would you care to name one
individual who has not ever been hanicapped by their own world view?
Thomas Kuhn indicated this is a problem with science in general.
>4. "that he will never believe anybody else's world
>view."
>More projection and lie number 4.
Who ele's world view is he going to believe?
>5. "Since that is the case,"
>Since that is not the case we have lie number 5
How can you be sure that there it is in no wise the case?
>6. "no, the money will never be collected."
>Perhaps, but not for the reasons you gave, making this
>lie number 6.
Or maybe they are the reasons, can you predict the future?
>To what do you attribute your utter contempt for the
>truth and honesty, Seeber? Were you abandoned in the
>wilderness as a child and raised by weasels? Whoever
>raised you sure fucked up.
>--
>E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net
Eric Greene
da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu (David B. Greene) wrote:
>Who is the judge?
[Lotta snips]
The Randi Challenge can be found at http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html
There are no judges in the chellenge. Both Randi and person
attempting to show "psychic" abilities decide beforehand what does or
does not consititute a demonstration of psychic ability. The person
taking the test has to specifiy what would show he did not show the
claimed abilities.
It's all right there if you take the time to read the webpage.
Eric Greene
The Unofficial C-8 Homepage
www.america.net\~erg
D. P. Roberts
>There are no judges in the chellenge. Both Randi and person
>attempting to show "psychic" abilities decide beforehand what does or
>does not consititute a demonstration of psychic ability. The person
>taking the test has to specifiy what would show he did not show the
>claimed abilities.
I would have a couple of things:
1. Make a little propeller spin which is placed under a glass. Place your
fingertips on the glass and make it spin.
2. I've been in the museum. Tell me which painting I'm thinking of.
Avital Pilpel
David B. Greene wrote:
> > Lie number 2. Randi is not a judge
>
> Who is the judge?
BOTH Randi and the challanger agree BEFOREHAND what would constitute a success
and what would constitute a failure, in a way that no judgement will be
necessary later. They do so according to what the _challanger_ agrees that he
can do.
Randi does not care for (say) logical inconsistencies with science or tells
people that "well, if you were _really_ psychic, you could also do _this_...".
He is merely the arbitrer, setting up a fair test checking the ability of the
challanger to do what the challanger _himself_ claims to be able to do.
For example, if I came to Randi and claimed I can mentally move purple objects
on fridays, Randi will not care whetether this is what a "real" psychic ability
is like or not or ask me to move other types of objects on other days. He will
simply arrange a test on friday where I will attempt to move purple objects,
since that is all I claimed.
An example from an actual case - an astrologer taking the challange and Randi
agreed that matching (at least) 10 out of 12 people with their sun sign will
constitute a success, less than that a failure.
The astrologer got _nobody's_ sign right.
This lack of judgement is, probably, one of the main reasons the Randi
challange is hated by so called "psychics" and other frauds: The fact is that
the arrangement of the challange means the challanger does _NOT_ have to
convince Randi - or anyone - that he passed; he merely has to do what _he
himself_ agreed befoehand that he _can_ do.
This means that failure can no longer be excused by the old "the judge was
biased against me" whine. But, apparently, no seer, astrologer, or psychic had
so far been able to even actually do what _they_ claim they can do.
Wally Anglesea
On Mon, 23 Mar 1998 01:23:00 -0500, Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu>
wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>This means that failure can no longer be excused by the old "the judge was
>biased against me" whine. But, apparently, no seer, astrologer, or psychic had
>so far been able to even actually do what _they_ claim they can do.
I dunno, RileyG once claimed he had "effected" the Mars Sojourner
probe. Pity he could never prove it, nor make Johns head explode.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
"needs sugar...." -Socrates
Chris Sutor
Organization: Tigerden Internet Services
Distribution:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Wally Anglesea (wang...@ozemail.com.au) spake thusly:
: I dunno, RileyG once claimed he had "effected" the Mars Sojourner
: probe. Pity he could never prove it, nor make Johns head explode.
He never claimed he'd "effect" the probe - he claimed he'd "effect" a very
specific part of the probe - one that didn't actually exist.
And he wondered why he got laughed at. Sheesh...
: Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
: "needs sugar...." -Socrates
--
COBALTatTIGERDENdotCOM I'd really like a New World Order, but
----==============---- I can only afford a slightly used one.
now with 10% real *****************************************
fruit juice! Don't blame me, I voted for Richard Dangerous
mitcho
Chris Sutor wrote:
> Wally Anglesea (wang...@ozemail.com.au) spake thusly:
>
> : I dunno, RileyG once claimed he had "effected" the Mars Sojourner
> : probe. Pity he could never prove it, nor make Johns head explode.
>
> He never claimed he'd "effect" the probe - he claimed he'd "effect" a very
> specific part of the probe - one that didn't actually exist.
>
> And he wondered why he got laughed at. Sheesh...
Yeah, anyone who doesn't know "effect" is a noun is clearly loopy.
We don't have that problem in AFU, so I have set followups accordingly.
Mitcho
mit...@netcom.com http://www.employees.org/~ozyman
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The slaves toiling in the temple of this god began to feel rebellion
at his harsh tasks. - Stephen Crane, 1895
Lloyd Zusman
mitcho <mit...@netcom.com> writes:
> Chris Sutor wrote:
> > Wally Anglesea (wang...@ozemail.com.au) spake thusly:
> >
> > : I dunno, RileyG once claimed he had "effected" the Mars Sojourner
> > : probe. Pity he could never prove it, nor make Johns head explode.
> >
> > He never claimed he'd "effect" the probe - he claimed he'd "effect" a very
> > specific part of the probe - one that didn't actually exist.
> >
> > And he wondered why he got laughed at. Sheesh...
>
> Yeah, anyone who doesn't know "effect" is a noun is clearly loopy.
>
> We don't have that problem in AFU, so I have set followups accordingly.
Well, I hope you realize that it's entirely correct usage to say that
something is able to *effect* a change in something else. Of course,
I have no idea whether RileyG actually used the word "effect" as a
verb in this manner.
And as an aside, it's also noteworthy that "affect" can be used as a
noun. Ask a psychologist if you don't believe me.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Richard Foy
In article <3515FFC1...@columbia.edu>,
Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>David B. Greene wrote:
>
>
>For example, if I came to Randi and claimed I can mentally move purple objects
>on fridays, Randi will not care whetether this is what a "real" psychic ability
>is like or not or ask me to move other types of objects on other days. He will
>simply arrange a test on friday where I will attempt to move purple objects,
>since that is all I claimed.
How about the following type of experiment:
Have an atomicly driven random number generator which biases a timer.
Have a set of lights showing the deviation of the random number
generator from the mean time. Have a set of subjects attempt to
control the timer.
Calculate the sum of the biases from the mean. Calculate the
probability of that sum being due to random variations of the random
number generator. If the probability is less than 1 in 100,000 the
experimenter wins the prize.
--
"A friendly study of all the scriptures is a
sacred duty of every individual." -- Gandhi
It helps one to sort out the BS from the wisdom.
URL http://www.rfoy.org
JohnAcadInt
D. P. Roberts wrote:
>
> >There are no judges in the chellenge.
<snip>
> I would have a couple of things:
>
> 1. Make a little propeller spin which is placed under a glass. Place your
> fingertips on the glass and make it spin.
>
> 2. I've been in the museum. Tell me which painting I'm thinking of.
The problem with your resoning is that there may well be solutions to
problems we cannot at all easily imagine - yet!
A further difficulty consists in the question - 'Who are *you*?' I
don't mean, 'Have I met you?' - but, rather, 'What is a 'who'?'
Ontology need not be boring, you know!
JohnM
&
The Trollenberg Terror
Del
In article <6f464i$157g$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu wrote:
da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu (David B. Greene) sez
>jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del) wrote:
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >>On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Daneel wrote:
> >>> Randi is the guy who offers $10,000 [Now pumped up to
> >>> 1,000,000 by others donating to his Education Foundation]
> >>> to anyone who demonstrates psychic capacities to him.
> >>> It's still out for anyone...
> So exactly what are the ground rules for this challenge?
Look it up, dufus.
> >>I predict it will never be collected.
> >>There's a loophole in there. It requires that to get the prize, one must
> >>demonstrate the capability to Randi, who is obviously so handicapped by
> >>his own worldview that he will never believe anybody else's world view.
> >>Since that is the case, no, the money will never be collected.
> >Do you lie just for sport? You must get a charge out of
> >it since you do it constantly.
> Gee, Del, I think you just lied ... unless you can show he lies
> *constantly* that is.
Let me guess: the middle of the week finds you
between clues. Couldn't you borrow one until
payday?
Oh well, I guess we have to make allowances for
ax-grinding agenda keepers. Oh Mr. Greene! Yoo
hoo! I just knocked off 6 lies from your little
side-kick in the very post of mine you virtually
responded to!
Did you miss them? Perhaps you are confused
regarding the definition of "constantly?"
(constantly: continually occurring, persistent)
Gee, B. Greene, I think you just lied ... unless
you can show he doesn't lie *constantly* that is.
Not that I really expect you to. Over the years
I've learned to lower my expectations when it
comes to fundy ethics.
>Let's see:
Yes, let's.
>>1. "There's a loophole in there."
>
>>Lie number one. No loop hole. You really shouldn't
>>presume that everybody thinks and acts like you.
>
>Can you guarantee that there is no loophole, or is that your
>own opinion masqurading [sic] as fact?
::sigh:: Let me explain how it works. Your
mendacious miscreant buddy didn't - and probably
still doesn't - know a thing about the challenge.
I know something about the challenge. Based upon
his complete ignorance of the subject, he made a
false accusation, a claim as it were. I, knowing
better, contradicted his false assertion.
Now let's put this all together. Teddy, having
made the claim in the first place, has the burden
of proof. It is not my - or anyone's - job to
disprove every asshole claim that comes down the
pike. Did you think it was? Or are you invoking
your "Christian" double standard here? Or what?
Apparently you think that unless I prove that no
loophole can possibly exist then - a loophole
exists. I can see the parallel to your
fundamentalist doctrine: God must exist. Can you
prove he doesn't? No? Well then God must exist.
Oh and something else: your little buddy wasn't
saying that *some* loophole must exist
*somewhere.* So it stands to reason that when I in
contradicted him I wasn't saying that no loophole
could possibly exist anywhere. He was saying the
loophole was this:
>
>>2. "It requires that to get the prize, one must
>>demonstrate the capability to Randi,"
And I was saying "no." So your "clever" demand
that I vouchsafe the impossibility of any loophole
is just another example of fundy dishonesty.
>> Lie number 2. Randi is not a judge
>
>Who is the judge?
You call me a liar and then want me to cure your
ignorance for you? You crack me up, Greene.
>
>>3."who is obviously so handicapped by his own
>>worldview"
>
>>Lie number 3 and another example of Seeber projecting
>>his closed and narrow mind as an attribute of someone
>>else.
>
>A projection is not neccessarily [sic] a lie.
Do you see the word "and?" It means: "Together
with or along with; in addition to; as well as."
Jot this down _and_ keep it handy. You will be
seeing the word again.
> Everyone probably projects.
I got a better one for you. Some people let their
wishful thinking get away from them and invent an
all powerful daddy in the sky that they think is
running their lives. They even think they talk to
it!
Isn't that fuckin' stupid?
>You do it as well I'm sure.
That's weird. You say this as if you thought your
opinion held some interest for me.
>At any rate, would you care to name one
>individual who has not ever been hanicapped [sic] by their own world
view?
Brilliant.
Ted says that Randi is: "*so* handicapped by his
own world view that he will never believe anybody
else's world view."
Now you're asking me if I can name a single
individual who doesn't suffer this condition? In
other words no one on earth is capable of
believing anybody elses world view? If that isn't
what you meant then your request for names is a
flatulent red herring.
Honestly. I don't need your inept reading of his
statement in order to rupture it. Ted is perfectly
capable of mucking it up himself without your
help. Thanks just the same.
Damn, I can't resist: name someone who isn't
handicapped by their world view?
Handicap: "A physical or mental disability.
disadvantage, hindrance."
Here you go: Bill Gates is not handicapped by his
world view.
>Thomas Kuhn indicated this is a problem with science in general.
Ah, so everyone in the world is incapable of
seeing anyone else's world view --- EXCEPT you.
You move fluidly between paradigms - Kuhn, the
Bible, whatever. Randi and the rest of the world,
on the other hand, just can't grasp such things.
I'm impressed I bet.
>>4. "that he will never believe anybody else's world
>>view."
>
>>More projection and lie number 4.
>
>Who ele's [sic] world view is he going to believe?
Once again Teddy makes a claim and Mr. Greene
thinks I must disprove it. You really do need to
reduce your output of illogic, sport. If you
still want an answer to your question, submit a
list of world views and I'll give you a breakdown.
>
>>5. "Since that is the case,"
>
>>Since that is not the case we have lie number 5
>
>How can you be sure that there it is in no wise the case?
You really are infatuated with the appeal to
ignorance fallacy aren't you? I'll humor you one
more time. It isn't the case that one must
"demonstrate the capability to Randi" "to get the
prize" since Randi isn't a judge, meaning Randi's
world view couldn't possibly enter in to it,
meaning that this is no loophole. Therefore Ted's
claim that this is the case isn't the case at all.
Kapech? Take your time.
>>6. "no, the money will never be collected."
>
>>Perhaps, but not for the reasons you gave, making this
>>lie number 6.
>
>Or maybe they are the reasons,
Or maybe: "You can't prove it isn't so" is the
sum total of your debate arsenal. My contention
has a nearly infinite better chance of being true.
>can you predict the future?
I don't need to any more than I need sonar to see
through your shallow and transparent argument.
But let's hear it for your double standard! You
know, the one you bemoan others having with
histrionic and selective outrage:
Greene sez:
"Albert himself has posted his great pride at being an atheist
Jew. And I for one am glad that he rejoices in his heritage and his faith.
OTOH, he has repeatedly on many occasions belittled those of other faiths
calling them liars, fools etc - but where were you then, oh great saviour
[sic]? One could be well reproved for calling a Jew a Muslim, or visa
versa but if Albert calls a Catholic or an Anglican a fundamentalist then
that is OK?
Where were you, oh mighty deliverer?
"How is it that that Andy, "defender of the faith," has no moral outrage
whan [sic] Albert says "If God is in all places, he must be in prostitutes
vigina [sic], puss, sewage, hell.... Maybe fundies should throw this God a
life jacket or he may drown in the sewage!"
------
Does that ring a bell, Pavlov?
How is it that you, Mr. Greene, have no "moral
outrage" when your crony speaks knowingly of
things he is completely ignorant of?
How is it that his claims are so unremarkable to
you while my objection to them earns your
undivided attention?
Surely you must have at least heard words like
"equity" "impartiality," and "fairness."
Or are you, as a theist, above such things?
Dan Drake
On Mon, 23 Mar 1998 06:23:00, Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
+ David B. Greene wrote:
+
+ > > Lie number 2. Randi is not a judge
+ >
+ > Who is the judge?
+
+ BOTH Randi and the challanger agree BEFOREHAND what would constitute a success
+ and what would constitute a failure, in a way that no judgement will be
+ necessary later. They do so according to what the _challanger_ agrees that he
+ can do.
+
+... [very good exposition of Randi's test snipped]
+
BTW the skeptic guys did a sort of mass text a few years ago with
dowsers in Australia. And they videotaped it so that you can watch the
whole process: all the participants agreeing to the conditions, the
setting up of the test, the execution, the complete failure of all the
dowsers to find the water under the conditions _they_ had agreed to, the
rationalizations they come up with after the fact. Instructive.
Sorry I don't know where or whether you can get this tape, though a
query to the Skeptical Inquirer might bear fruit.
BTW aren't you guys ashamed to be cross-posting to such a bloody mass of
ngs? I've trimmed a few of the most irrelevant, but really!
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/index.html
Many things are not seen in their true nature and as they really are,
unless they are seen as beautiful. Behavior is not intelligible, does
not account for itself to the mind, and show the reason for its
existing, unless it is beautiful.
--Matthew Arnold
David Hatunen
In article <oOD23kbSWpj7-p...@dnai-207-181-237-24.dialup.dnai.com>,
Dan Drake <d...@dandrake.com> wrote:
>BTW the skeptic guys did a sort of mass text a few years ago with
>dowsers in Australia. And they videotaped it so that you can watch the
>whole process: all the participants agreeing to the conditions, the
>setting up of the test, the execution, the complete failure of all the
>dowsers to find the water under the conditions _they_ had agreed to, the
>rationalizations they come up with after the fact. Instructive.
>
>Sorry I don't know where or whether you can get this tape, though a
>query to the Skeptical Inquirer might bear fruit.
It was shown on PBS in America, but I, too, have forgotten the
title.
>BTW aren't you guys ashamed to be cross-posting to such a bloody mass of
>ngs? I've trimmed a few of the most irrelevant, but really!
You're braver than I. I wouldn't presume to knwo where the others
are posting from.
--
*********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@wco.com) ************
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
******* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *******
D. P. Roberts
>>>>> Randi is the guy who offers $10,000 [Now pumped up to
>>>>> 1,000,000 by others donating to his Education Foundation]
>>>>> to anyone who demonstrates psychic capacities to him.
>>>>> It's still out for anyone...
No one has yet told me what direction I am facing as I type this, what color
shirt I am wearing and how many cats are sleeping around my feet.
That would go a ways toward convincing me, especially if it could be done on
two or three consecutive days.
Daniel Passmore
D. P. Roberts wrote:
>
> >>>>> Randi is the guy who offers $10,000 [Now pumped up to
> >>>>> 1,000,000 by others donating to his Education Foundation]
> >>>>> to anyone who demonstrates psychic capacities to him.
> >>>>> It's still out for anyone...
>
> shirt I am wearing and how many cats are sleeping around my feet.
>
> That would go a ways toward convincing me, especially if it could be done on
> two or three consecutive days.
I'll give it a shot: you're facing northeast, your shirt's striped,
green and white stripes, and there are three cats sleeping around your
feet, and watch out, one of them's going to puke up a fur ball.
Allan and Liz MacDonald
Only part right, you win the fur ball.
Mike Ganopoulos
On Mon, 23 Mar 1998 01:23:00 -0500, Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu>
wrote:
>David B. Greene wrote:
>
>> > Lie number 2. Randi is not a judge
>>
>> Who is the judge?
>
>BOTH Randi and the challanger agree BEFOREHAND what would constitute a success
>and what would constitute a failure, in a way that no judgement will be
>necessary later. They do so according to what the _challanger_ agrees that he
>can do.
>
>Randi does not care for (say) logical inconsistencies with science or tells
>people that "well, if you were _really_ psychic, you could also do _this_...".
>He is merely the arbitrer, setting up a fair test checking the ability of the
>challanger to do what the challanger _himself_ claims to be able to do.
>
>For example, if I came to Randi and claimed I can mentally move purple objects
>on fridays, Randi will not care whetether this is what a "real" psychic ability
>is like or not or ask me to move other types of objects on other days. He will
>simply arrange a test on friday where I will attempt to move purple objects,
>since that is all I claimed.
...
Randi was a mediocre stage magician, who has made a career out of
revealing the tricks of other, more entertaining magicians. This is
nothing to be proud of.
What I'm wondering about is this: suppose you have a magic trick
that he can't figure out, and one that when observed is
indistinguishable from psychical ability. Is he going to show up, and
pay up, or is he going to arrange to be out of town that day?
Regards,
Mike Ganopoulos
Ben Walsh
Mike Ganopoulos wrote:
> What I'm wondering about is this: suppose you have a magic trick
> that he can't figure out, and one that when observed is
> indistinguishable from psychical ability. Is he going to show up, and
> pay up, or is he going to arrange to be out of town that day?
Eh, "Duh". That's what the whole point of the challenge is. If you can
do it under acceptable conditions, then it is magic, and he pays. His
money's still safe.
ben "reducto ad absurdum" w.
FUset
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The man with the telephone - | ben walsh
Put him in custody." | benw at iona dot com
-- Judge Terence Finn | http://bounce.to/heretic
Daneel
Mike Ganopoulos wrote:
<snip>
> What I'm wondering about is this: suppose you have a magic trick
> that he can't figure out, and one that when observed is
> indistinguishable from psychical ability. Is he going to show up, and
> pay up, or is he going to arrange to be out of town that day?
Since the check is handed to a third, agreed-upon person
before the test begins, obviously he can't run away.
Bye
Daneel [a#323 | student at the U. of Ediacara, ID #000666]
*************************************************************
"May absolutely increased ignorance flourish with relatively
increased knowledge." _Stephen Jay Gould_
Gregory Gyetko
Mike Ganopoulos wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 1998 01:23:00 -0500, Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >David B. Greene wrote:
> >
> >> > Lie number 2. Randi is not a judge
> >>
> >> Who is the judge?
> >
> >BOTH Randi and the challanger agree BEFOREHAND what would constitute a success
> >and what would constitute a failure, in a way that no judgement will be
> >necessary later. They do so according to what the _challanger_ agrees that he
> >can do.
> >
> >Randi does not care for (say) logical inconsistencies with science or tells
> >people that "well, if you were _really_ psychic, you could also do _this_...".
> >He is merely the arbitrer, setting up a fair test checking the ability of the
> >challanger to do what the challanger _himself_ claims to be able to do.
> >
> >For example, if I came to Randi and claimed I can mentally move purple objects
> >on fridays, Randi will not care whetether this is what a "real" psychic ability
> >is like or not or ask me to move other types of objects on other days. He will
> >simply arrange a test on friday where I will attempt to move purple objects,
> >since that is all I claimed.
>
> ...
>
> Randi was a mediocre stage magician, who has made a career out of
> revealing the tricks of other, more entertaining magicians. This is
> nothing to be proud of.
He is a skeptic who is out to make sure that pseudo-science (psychics,
telekinetics, telepaths, yogic flyers, alien abductees) aren't accepted as real by
a gullible public. It's a valid life to live.
> What I'm wondering about is this: suppose you have a magic trick
> that he can't figure out, and one that when observed is indistinguishable from
> psychical ability. Is he going to show up, and pay up, or is he going to arrange
> to be out of town that day?
Most magic tricks can be understood rather easily if one is standing in the right
spot.
> Regards,
> Mike Ganopoulos
Greg.
--
alt.atheism Atheist #911
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway,
so why waste my time?"
EAC homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9916/
Dru Morgan
In article <35196E...@yahoo.com>, heliog...@yahoo.com says...
>
>D. P. Roberts wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Randi is the guy who offers $10,000 [Now pumped up to
>> >>>>> 1,000,000 by others donating to his Education Foundation]
>> >>>>> to anyone who demonstrates psychic capacities to him.
>> >>>>> It's still out for anyone...
>>
color
>> shirt I am wearing and how many cats are sleeping around my feet.
>>
>> That would go a ways toward convincing me, especially if it could be done
on
>> two or three consecutive days.
>
>I'll give it a shot: you're facing northeast, your shirt's striped,
>green and white stripes, and there are three cats sleeping around your
>feet, and watch out, one of them's going to puke up a fur ball.
I'll say that you are facing your computer.
Dru "Am I close?" Morgan
Mike Combs
Ben Walsh wrote:
>
> Mike Ganopoulos wrote:
>
> > What I'm wondering about is this: suppose you have a magic trick
> > that he can't figure out, and one that when observed is
> > indistinguishable from psychical ability. Is he going to show up, and
> > pay up, or is he going to arrange to be out of town that day?
>
> do it under acceptable conditions, then it is magic, and he pays. His
> money's still safe.
I think what Mike meant by "magic trick" was a sleight of hand gag.
The possibility that there is a trick Randi could not penetrate is slim,
but I suppose not zero. He has promised that if he ever starts getting
mentally fuzzy in his old age that he will hand the Challenge over to
nimbler (but hopefully as experienced) minds.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just remember, the Borg are people too... well, partly...
Dan Drake
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:14:08, mg65...@netmeg.net (Mike Ganopoulos) wrote:
>...
>
> What I'm wondering about is this: suppose you have a magic trick
> that he can't figure out, and one that when observed is
> indistinguishable from psychical ability. Is he going to show up, and
> pay up, or is he going to arrange to be out of town that day?
>
Why not, instead of making insulting suggestions, read the discussion on
the subject? If you had, you'd have seen that Randi makes tests under
conditions that both sides agree on in advance. He is, therefore, staking
his own $10,000 on the proposition that he can set up conditions that will
prevent mere conjuring tricks from passing off as psychic abilities. You
got a problem with that?
Of course, he could propose insanely restrictive conditions that would
prevent even real psychic powers from being demonstrated. If he did, then
his proposals and the psychics' conter-proposals would be subject to
scrutiny by anyone who wanted to figure out where the truth lay. Kind of
like science. Kind of utterly unlike superstition and occultism.
If you have a proposed demonstration of psychic powers, or a clever enough
conjuring trick, get in touch with Randi. If he doesn't respond
reasonably, publish the facts. Be sure I hear about it, so that I can
decide whether to withdraw my own money from his pool.
There's a conjuring trick for you: he's got other people to back his
judgment with their own money, to the tune of a million dollars or so.
But it's nothing next to the trick of dangling a million dollars in front
of all the psychics and charlatans in the world and having none of them
take it.
Dr. John
mg65...@netmeg.net (Mike Ganopoulos) wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Mar 1998 01:23:00 -0500, Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>David B. Greene wrote:
>>
>>> > Lie number 2. Randi is not a judge
>>>
>>> Who is the judge?
>>
>>BOTH Randi and the challanger agree BEFOREHAND what would constitute a success
>>and what would constitute a failure, in a way that no judgement will be
>>necessary later. They do so according to what the _challanger_ agrees that he
>>can do.
>>
>>Randi does not care for (say) logical inconsistencies with science or tells
>>people that "well, if you were _really_ psychic, you could also do _this_...".
>>He is merely the arbitrer, setting up a fair test checking the ability of the
>>challanger to do what the challanger _himself_ claims to be able to do.
>>
>>For example, if I came to Randi and claimed I can mentally move purple objects
>>on fridays, Randi will not care whetether this is what a "real" psychic ability
>>is like or not or ask me to move other types of objects on other days. He will
>>simply arrange a test on friday where I will attempt to move purple objects,
>>since that is all I claimed.
>
>...
>
> Randi was a mediocre stage magician, who has made a career out of
>revealing the tricks of other, more entertaining magicians. This is
>nothing to be proud of.
>
> What I'm wondering about is this: suppose you have a magic trick
>that he can't figure out, and one that when observed is
>indistinguishable from psychical ability. Is he going to show up, and
>pay up, or is he going to arrange to be out of town that day?
>
Well, this statement demonstrates ignorance of the challenge. Try
reading the conditions first.
Gregory Gyetko
D. P. Roberts wrote:
> >>>>> Randi is the guy who offers $10,000 [Now pumped up to
> >>>>> 1,000,000 by others donating to his Education Foundation]
> >>>>> to anyone who demonstrates psychic capacities to him.
> >>>>> It's still out for anyone...
>
> No one has yet told me what direction I am facing as I type this, what color
> shirt I am wearing and how many cats are sleeping around my feet.
Let me try out my 'psychic' abilities:
I can not tell which way you were facing when you typed your message, but I
know that now, as I type my message, you are facing north. At the moment,
there are in fact no cats anywhere around your feet and the piece of clothing
which you are wearing over the top of your body could hardly be called a shirt.
Donald Fisk
mg65...@netmeg.net (Mike Ganopoulos) wrote:
> Randi was a mediocre stage magician, who has made a career out of
>revealing the tricks of other, more entertaining magicians. This is
>nothing to be proud of.
I'd hardly call bending a few spoons and pretending you're psychic
entertaining. Name one conjurer more entertaining than Randi that
Randi's exposed the tricks of. Anyway, revealing how to do tricks is
itself entertaining, as anyone who watches Penn and Teller will
realize.
>Mike Ganopoulos
Le Hibou http://homepages.enterprise.net/hibou/
"What the ... This is Lambic! Where's my culture of amoebic
dysentery?" -- Gary Larson
tee...@spamtrap.com
In alt.atheism Mike Ganopoulos <mg65...@netmeg.net> wrote:
: Randi was a mediocre stage magician, who has made a career out of
: revealing the tricks of other, more entertaining magicians. This is
: nothing to be proud of.
Well, since you obviously have more talent than he, I look forward to
seeing your magic show.
: What I'm wondering about is this: suppose you have a magic trick
: that he can't figure out, and one that when observed is
: indistinguishable from psychical ability. Is he going to show up, and
: pay up, or is he going to arrange to be out of town that day?
Contact him and find out.
JOHN P. GIUNTA
tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
Well, I have attempted to contact him psychically. I posed a question to
him and there was absolute silence from him. He obviously had nothing to say
on this or any other subject.
Ahem.
John Giunta
Avital Pilpel
Mike Ganopoulos wrote:
> Randi was a mediocre stage magician, who has made a career out of
> revealing the tricks of other, more entertaining magicians. This is
> nothing to be proud of.
>
Perhaps; but exposing fakes and frauds is something to be proud of.
> What I'm wondering about is this: suppose you have a magic trick
> that he can't figure out, and one that when observed is
> indistinguishable from psychical ability. Is he going to show up, and
> pay up, or is he going to arrange to be out of town that day?
Again:
You sign a legal contract beforehand. It specifies the claims the challanger claims
he can do, the results that would count as success, the conditions of the test that
assure it is fair and _both_ parties agree to, and the payment, amoung other things.
If you are such a good magician that you can get Randi to agree to a test he thinks
is fair and you know you can utilize to your advantage and win, you get the money.
But nobod ever succeded doing that. Sort of disproves the claim that he is a
"mediocre" magician, or else some serious magician would surely have won by now.
As for being "out of town that day": Well, again, it is a legal contract. If Randi
or the foundation does not pay, you can sue him and win.
Frankly, all this worry about "whether" Randi would pay or not would be slightly
more convincing if anyone had ever come close to winning. It is actually nothing
more than an obvious excuse by frauds to avoid getting tested while pathetically
attempting to shift the blame on Randi...
Avital Pilpel
Gregory Gyetko wrote:
> At the moment,
> there are in fact no cats anywhere around your feet and the piece of clothing
> which you are wearing over the top of your body could hardly be called a shirt.
>
> Greg.
>
And just _look_ at this place! And what have you had for dinner?
Avital Pilpel
Mike Ganopoulos wrote:
> What I'm wondering about is this: suppose you have a magic trick
> that he can't figure out, and one that when observed is
> indistinguishable from psychical ability. Is he going to show up, and
> pay up, or is he going to arrange to be out of town that day?
>
Win the challange and find out. If he will be out of town, you can sue him, and you
will win.
The "I could win but he doens't have the money" excuse is about as credible as
saying "I have the winning lotter ticket but I'll throw it away since I don't think
the state has the money".
In both cases, it brings into question the person's ability to win or to have the
winning lottery ticket in the first place, far more than it "discredits" the state
or Randi...
Kim
I can't believe I'm admitting this, and in THIS forum.
I was at home this morning and happened to catch the Montel Williams
show.Basically there was a man on who did an admirable job of
replicating what less honest folks would claim as pyschic ability
... and his point was that it was all the result of skill in body
language. He even managed to do something over the phone, claiming
that it was all body language.
I'm just hoping some of the audience remembers it when they run
into on of those "I see a bald man ... do you know any bald men?"
types.
-- Kim
cze...@nospam.us.oracle.com
David Hatunen wrote:
>
> In article <oOD23kbSWpj7-p...@dnai-207-181-237-24.dialup.dnai.com>,
> Dan Drake <d...@dandrake.com> wrote:
> >BTW aren't you guys ashamed to be cross-posting to such a bloody mass of
> >ngs? I've trimmed a few of the most irrelevant, but really!
>
> You're braver than I. I wouldn't presume to knwo where the others
> are posting from.
>
Jerome A. Schroeder
>...
>
> Randi was a mediocre stage magician, who has made a career out of
>revealing the tricks of other, more entertaining magicians. This is
>nothing to be proud of.
>
> What I'm wondering about is this: suppose you have a magic trick
>that he can't figure out, and one that when observed is
>indistinguishable from psychical ability. Is he going to show up, and
>pay up, or is he going to arrange to be out of town that day?
>
>Regards,
>Mike Ganopoulos
Randi has made a career of exposing fraud. There aint many higher
callings. Historically he's been around when push came to shove.
Jerry
Eric Gunnerson
Jerome A. Schroeder wrote in message
<3521c7ba...@news1.wolfenet.com>...
>
>>...
>>
>> Randi was a mediocre stage magician, who has made a career out of
>>revealing the tricks of other, more entertaining magicians. This is
>>nothing to be proud of.
>>
>> What I'm wondering about is this: suppose you have a magic trick
>>that he can't figure out, and one that when observed is
>>indistinguishable from psychical ability. Is he going to show up, and
>>pay up, or is he going to arrange to be out of town that day?
>
>callings. Historically he's been around when push came to shove.
Note that Houdini also spent a lot of time doing this.
Kirk Kerekes
In article <6g9hl9$18ac$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu wrote:
. [alt.folklore.urban snipped from followups]
.
. red...@oklahoma.net (Kirk Kerekes) wrote:
.
. >Let's face it -- the one consistent characteristic of the folks who don't
. >like the Randi Challenge is that they aren't _interested_ in determining
. >the _facts_ of a given situation.
.
. Or perhaps they don't like to blindly follow self anointed leaders like
. you do!
Wow -- two totally unsupported personal attacks in a single sentence. Is
that a new record?
. I find it funny that, in the twentieth century, one can still
. be pilloried for questioning authority. James Randi questions others
. and I'm sure he would welcome questions in return but his would be minions,
. like the Pharisees of old, haven't gotten the message [obviously -Ed].
There is a difference between questioning authority and being willfully
ignorant.
--
Kirk and Diane Kerekes/Red Gate Ranch
X-Face by "Saving Face" <http://www.santafe.edu/~smfr/utils.html>
tee...@spamtrap.com
In alt.atheism Eric Gunnerson <eri...@micronospamsoft.com> wrote:
: Jerome A. Schroeder wrote in message
: <3521c7ba...@news1.wolfenet.com>...
:>Randi has made a career of exposing fraud. There aint many higher
:>callings. Historically he's been around when push came to shove.
: Note that Houdini also spent a lot of time doing this.
It's actually ironic, too, since Houdini WANTED to find a psychic who
could allow him to communicate with his mother.
But he could not allow himself to believe without proving to himself that
someone wasn't trying to trick him. Hundreds of psychics later, he STILL
hadn't found one who could genuinely talk to the dead.
Louann Miller
In article <6gbf6q$ppv$2...@news.jumpnet.com>, tee...@spamtrap.com says...
Including Lady Conan Doyle. The Doyles were good friends of Houdini, and he
was well aware that they were completely sincere in their beliefs. It caused
a rift. Frauds you can just knock down and step on; the sincerely mistaken
take more careful handling.
Issac Merkle
[Snipped and condensed]
> : Note that Houdini also spent a lot of time [exposing fraudulent
mediums].
> It's actually ironic, too, since Houdini WANTED to find a psychic who
> could allow him to communicate with his mother.
> But he could not allow himself to believe without proving to himself that
> someone wasn't trying to trick him. Hundreds of psychics later, he STILL
> hadn't found one who could genuinely talk to the dead.
It is also interesting to note that Harry Houdini and his wife, Bess, made
a pact that whichever of the two died first would contact the other from
beyond the grave, if such a thing turned out to be possible. They
established a code known only to them so they would be able to authenticate
any alleged spirit voice claiming to be their dead spouse. After Houdini's
untimely death, Bess attended many seances with prominent mediums, hoping
that Harry would succeed in contacting her. None of the "spirits" she
communicated with used or mentioned the secret code.
Issac Merkle
SPIRIT
Paul G. Wenthold
That's awesome. And super interesting. It reminds me of my plan I was
going to use to prove/disprove the existence of time travel. I would
make
a pact with younger people who would agree that, if time travel were to
be developed within their lifetime, they would come to visit me on
a given date in a given place, say Dec 31, 1998 at my house in Lubbock.
They are instructed to make arrangements with others younger than
themselves,
who are instructed to make arrangements with those younger than
themselves,
etc so that if ever time travel is developed, someone will be committed
to
coming back to visit me. Then, I sit around on Dec 31 and see how many
people show up.
Of course, to get into a real Martin Gardner realm here, I can fix it so
that I can guarentee that time travel will never be developed. If,
instead
of picking Dec 31 at my house, they agree to meet me in my office at TTU
at 10:30 am on April 7, I know that it will never happen. Since I would
employ the services of trustworthy generations would live up to the
committment,
I can thus say that time travel can never be developed, since it didn't
happen.
I think I'm going to put it in my will that way.
paul
--
"They are only miracles to those who have never balanced
an oxidation-reduction equation."---James Earl Jones
Dominion
lou...@mail.smu.edu (Louann Miller) wrote:
>In article <6gbf6q$ppv$2...@news.jumpnet.com>, tee...@spamtrap.com says...
>>
>>In alt.atheism Eric Gunnerson <eri...@micronospamsoft.com> wrote:
>>: Jerome A. Schroeder wrote in message
>>: <3521c7ba...@news1.wolfenet.com>...
>>
>>:>Randi has made a career of exposing fraud. There aint many higher
>>:>callings. Historically he's been around when push came to shove.
>>
>>: Note that Houdini also spent a lot of time doing this.
>>
>>It's actually ironic, too, since Houdini WANTED to find a psychic who
>>could allow him to communicate with his mother.
>>
>>But he could not allow himself to believe without proving to himself that
>>someone wasn't trying to trick him. Hundreds of psychics later, he STILL
>>hadn't found one who could genuinely talk to the dead.
>
>Including Lady Conan Doyle. The Doyles were good friends of Houdini, and he
>was well aware that they were completely sincere in their beliefs. It caused
>a rift. Frauds you can just knock down and step on; the sincerely mistaken
>take more careful handling.
>
Two quick notes:
Lady Doyle convinced Houdini to have a sitting with her (she fancied
herself a medium using automatic writing). She wrote out a message
from Houdini's mom that Houdini KNEW could not have been written by
her. It was in English, a language she did not know. She also called
him Harry, which of course was not his real name. She would have
called him Erik.
The funniest book I have ever read is the theory put forth by Sir
Arthur that Houdini was a medium himself. How else could he do all
those amazing escapes? Doyle postulated that Houdini dematerialized
himself, moved away from the bonds, and then re-materialized. As a
person that knows a bit about magic, I can assure you there are far
easier methods. ;)
Dominion
J.McMoron. Billions of Lies Told
jer...@nicht.wolfenet.com
>It is also interesting to note that Harry Houdini and his wife, Bess, made
>a pact that whichever of the two died first would contact the other from
>beyond the grave, if such a thing turned out to be possible. They
>established a code known only to them so they would be able to authenticate
>any alleged spirit voice claiming to be their dead spouse. After Houdini's
>untimely death, Bess attended many seances with prominent mediums, hoping
>that Harry would succeed in contacting her. None of the "spirits" she
>communicated with used or mentioned the secret code.
>
>Issac Merkle
>SPIRIT
Like most intelligent and well educated folk, Houdini kept an open
mind. He probably felt that there was nothing to psychic phenomena,
but was willing to be convinced other wise.
Their little experiment didn't prove the falsity of psychic phenomena,
it merely increasted the probability that there is nothing to it.
Jerry
magus
In article <01bd6246$65ab4d80$910833cf@issac>, "Issac Merkle"
<spi...@icx.net> wrote:
[...]
After Houdini's
> untimely death, Bess attended many seances with prominent mediums, hoping
> that Harry would succeed in contacting her. None of the "spirits" she
> communicated with used or mentioned the secret code.
Unless you believe the excellent made-for-tv movie starring Sally
Struthers and Paul Michael Glasier. ;)
It may have not been factually correct, but the spirit (no pun intended)
in which it was done was far above normal TV fare.
--
Several days ago I had dinner at a chinese restaurant with Dr. Martin JisCHke (President of Iowa State University.). I was amazed that an hour later I was again hungry for power.
Michael Balarama
I used to live in LA and at the bottom of the street was Houdini's old
house. It was in disrepair and I would often think about this as I
regularly passed the house. It was at the base of thestreet youhad to
done form Laurel Canyon.
>
>It is also interesting to note that Harry Houdini and his wife, Bess, made
>a pact that whichever of the two died first would contact the other from
>beyond the grave, if such a thing turned out to be possible. They
>established a code known only to them so they would be able to authenticate
>untimely death, Bess attended many seances with prominent mediums, hoping
>that Harry would succeed in contacting her. None of the "spirits" she
>communicated with used or mentioned the secret code.
>
>SPIRIT
Eric Thunaes
Eric Gunnerson wrote:
>
> Jerome A. Schroeder wrote in message
> <3521c7ba...@news1.wolfenet.com>...
> >
> >>
> >> Randi was a mediocre stage magician, who has made a career out of
> >>revealing the tricks of other, more entertaining magicians. This is
> >>nothing to be proud of.
> >>
> >> What I'm wondering about is this: suppose you have a magic trick
> >>that he can't figure out, and one that when observed is
> >>indistinguishable from psychical ability. Is he going to show up, and
> >>pay up, or is he going to arrange to be out of town that day?
> >
> >callings. Historically he's been around when push came to shove.
>
> Note that Houdini also spent a lot of time doing this.
really go around exposing trade secrets. I do know that he has exposed
con artists, so called healers who take money from many unsuspecting
people. I think he deserves some praise for doing that.
Thx for listening.
The Philosopher's Stone
Eric Thunaes <je...@dlcwest.com> writes
>Hi, I'm an amateur Magician myself and as far as I know Randi doesn't
>really go around exposing trade secrets. I do know that he has exposed
>con artists, so called healers who take money from many unsuspecting
>people. I think he deserves some praise for doing that.
>Thx for listening.
psychical power. That's what makes him special.
~ Give Me Convenience Or Give Me Death ~
David B. Greene
red...@oklahoma.net (Kirk Kerekes) wrote:
>da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu wrote:
>. red...@oklahoma.net (Kirk Kerekes) wrote:
>.
>. >Let's face it -- the one consistent characteristic of the folks who don't
>. >like the Randi Challenge is that they aren't _interested_ in determining
>. >the _facts_ of a given situation.
>.
>. Or perhaps they don't like to blindly follow self anointed leaders like
>. you do!
>Wow -- two totally unsupported personal attacks in a single sentence. Is
>that a new record?
A record? Probably not - this is USENET after all. OTOH, James Randi *is*
most certainly self-annointed. So, were down to one personal attack which,
I feel, is pretty much quid pro quo given your previous comment.
>. I find it funny that, in the twentieth century, one can still
>. be pilloried for questioning authority. James Randi questions others
>. and I'm sure he would welcome questions in return but his would be minions,
>. like the Pharisees of old, haven't gotten the message [obviously -Ed].
>There is a difference between questioning authority and being willfully
>ignorant.
A lesson you would do well to heed.
Dave Greene
Dominion
Excuse me? Unlike MOST magicians? Please to name ANY well known
magician that claims real psychic powers. Hell give me the names of a
few amateur magicians that are claiming real powers and I will
PERSONALLY look into it.
People that claim psychic powers usually do anything rather than admit
that they have a background in magic. That is, those that DO have a
background in magic, such as Uri or that French guy...Gene something,
I will look it up if you don't know who I am talking about.
Though *I* did go thru a period where I was claiming psychic powers, I
was certainly the aberration in the group. None of my other magician
friends even bothered to learn mentalism much less claim real powers.
They all thought that "mental brain crap" was boring. ;)
The Philosopher's Stone
Dominion <co...@spam-hater.brokersys.com> writes
>Excuse me? Unlike MOST magicians? Please to name ANY well known
>magician that claims real psychic powers.
big scale magicians and who are quite happy with this being just a trick
are Penn and Teller and Randi.
> None of my other magician
>friends even bothered to learn mentalism much less claim real powers.
>They all thought that "mental brain crap" was boring. ;)
Look at it this way. If you go around wearing black and calling
yourself a magician there's a reason for it.
Xcott Craver
>> Excuse me? Unlike MOST magicians? Please to name ANY well known
>> magician that claims real psychic powers.
> They give the idea Tacit consent. The only people i know who are
>big scale magicians and who are quite happy with this being just a trick
>are Penn and Teller and Randi.
"Tacit consent?" Do you believe that Kevin Costner gives
"tacit consent" to the claim that he really *is* Robin Hood? I mean,
he never explicitly stated that he was just an actor playing a role.
> Look at it this way. If you go around wearing black and calling
>yourself a magician there's a reason for it.
In other words, no, most magicians do NOT claim real psychic
powers. One counterexample might be Kreskin, who does make it clear
that he's trained as a magician. Typically, charlatans keep hush-hush
about knowing magic.
As for people who go the extra mile to point out that "it's
all a trick," you can add Houdini and perhaps Andre Kole. Lord knows
there's more.
>~ Give Me Convenience Or Give Me Death ~
-Xcott
Carl Fink
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:18:34 GMT, Dominion
<co...@spam-hater.brokersys.com> wrote:
>
>Excuse me? Unlike MOST magicians? Please to name ANY well known
>magician that claims real psychic powers.
Kreskin.
Crossposts trimmed -- my ISP doesn't allow that many.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
"Ready to begin speaking in technobabble, Sir."
Alien technician in "Buck Godot" by Phil Foglio
David B. Greene
jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del) wrote:
>da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu wrote:
>>jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del) wrote:
>>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Daneel wrote:
>>>>> Randi is the guy who offers $10,000 [Now pumped up to
>>>>> 1,000,000 by others donating to his Education Foundation]
>>>>> to anyone who demonstrates psychic capacities to him.
>>>>> It's still out for anyone...
>> So exactly what are the ground rules for this challenge?
>Look it up, dufus.
S'matter, doncha know? Or do you advocate that no one ever request
information via USENET? Either way, your remark remains hopelessly
inane.
>>>>I predict it will never be collected.
>>>>There's a loophole in there. It requires that to get the prize, one must
>>>>demonstrate the capability to Randi, who is obviously so handicapped by
>>>>his own worldview that he will never believe anybody else's world view.
>>>>Since that is the case, no, the money will never be collected.
>>>Do you lie just for sport? You must get a charge out of
>>>it since you do it constantly.
>> Gee, Del, I think you just lied ... unless you can show he lies
>> *constantly* that is.
>Let me guess: the middle of the week finds you
>between clues. Couldn't you borrow one until
>payday?
Who needs to when you tossed all your out to the public?
>Oh well, I guess we have to make allowances for
>ax-grinding agenda keepers. Oh Mr. Greene! Yoo
>hoo! I just knocked off 6 lies from your little
>side-kick in the very post of mine you virtually
>responded to!
Good Gawd, man! I guess that makes you an ax-grinding
agenda keeper. Why else would you keep such a meticulous
count?
>Did you miss them? Perhaps you are confused
>regarding the definition of "constantly?"
>(constantly: continually occurring, persistent)
Gee, Del, I think you just lied ... unless you can show he lies
*constantly* that is.
>Gee, B. Greene, I think you just lied ... unless
>you can show he doesn't lie *constantly* that is.
I made no claim regarding his veracity so you lie again and the
burden of proff is still upon your shoulders to show that he
lies *constantly*
>Not that I really expect you to. Over the years
>I've learned to lower my expectations when it
>comes to fundy ethics.
oooh! The dreaded "F" word. Can you proove that I am a "fundy"?
If not then you have added another lie to you list.
>>Let's see:
>Yes, let's.
indeed
>>>1. "There's a loophole in there."
>>
>>>Lie number one. No loop hole. You really shouldn't
>>>presume that everybody thinks and acts like you.
>>
>>Can you guarantee that there is no loophole, or is that your
>>own opinion masqurading [sic] as fact?
>::sigh:: Let me explain how it works. Your
>mendacious miscreant buddy didn't - and probably
>still doesn't - know a thing about the challenge.
Obviously he knows something about it. At a minimum he knows of
its existence and who has sponsored it. That alone puts another
lie on your plate.
>I know something about the challenge. Based upon
>his complete ignorance of the subject, he made a
>false accusation, a claim as it were. I, knowing
>better, contradicted his false assertion.
>Now let's put this all together. Teddy, having
>made the claim in the first place, has the burden
>of proof. It is not my - or anyone's - job to
>disprove every asshole claim that comes down the
>pike.
True, we would all be satisfied if you would just
prove your own claims.
> Did you think it was? Or are you invoking
>your "Christian" double standard here? Or what?
What?!? Where does "Christian" come into this? The topic
is the paranormal, not theology. Are you the standard bearer
of all atheism such that any opposition is "Christian"? What
a central role you have set for yourself!
>Apparently you think that unless I prove that no
>loophole can possibly exist then - a loophole
>exists. I can see the parallel to your
>fundamentalist doctrine: God must exist. Can you
>prove he doesn't? No? Well then God must exist.
God?!?!? When did the amazing Randi mention "GOD" in his
challenge? Are you trying to change the topic? It is
one thing to indicate within reason that there is no
significant loophole but you went beyond that to say
"No loop hole" period. That is a claim worthy of proof.
>Oh and something else: your little buddy wasn't
>saying that *some* loophole must exist
>*somewhere.* So it stands to reason that when I in
>contradicted him I wasn't saying that no loophole
>could possibly exist anywhere. He was saying the
>loophole was this:
"No loop hole" you said. I don't want to be too rough
on you so I accept your recantation.
>>>2. "It requires that to get the prize, one must
>>>demonstrate the capability to Randi,"
>And I was saying "no." So your "clever" demand
>that I vouchsafe the impossibility of any loophole
>is just another example of fundy dishonesty.
I demanded nothing of you, Del. You lie once again.
>>> Lie number 2. Randi is not a judge
>>
>>Who is the judge?
>You call me a liar and then want me to cure your
>ignorance for you? You crack me up, Greene.
I think it is important here that in Seeber's point 2 he did not
say Randi is the judge. He clearly indicated that the capability
had to be demonstrated to Randi. If that is not the case then
let us know as you claim to know so much more about the challenge
than does Seeber. So, yet another lie (and non-sequitur to boot)
to add to your growing collection of mendacities you have uttered.
>>>3."who is obviously so handicapped by his own
>>>worldview"
>>
>>>Lie number 3 and another example of Seeber projecting
>>>his closed and narrow mind as an attribute of someone
>>>else.
>>
>>A projection is not neccessarily [sic] a lie.
>Do you see the word "and?" It means: "Together
>with or along with; in addition to; as well as."
>Jot this down _and_ keep it handy. You will be
>seeing the word again.
OK, point taken. Now, how is it that Randi is not
handicapped by his world view.
>> Everyone probably projects.
>I got a better one for you. Some people let their
>wishful thinking get away from them and invent an
>all powerful daddy in the sky that they think is
>running their lives. They even think they talk to
>it!
Maybe they do. What the hell has that got to do with
the Randi challenge. Last time I checked Randi wasn't
dumb enought to claim he could disprove God. You would
do well to follow his example.
>Isn't that fuckin' stupid?
Yes, if "your God is to small" (ref J. B. Phillips).
>>You do it as well I'm sure.
>That's weird. You say this as if you thought your
>opinion held some interest for me.
Obviously it does given your lengthy response to my post. So, you
lie once again.
>>At any rate, would you care to name one individual who has not ever
>>been hanicapped [sic] by their own world view?
>Brilliant.
Indeed.
>Ted says that Randi is: "*so* handicapped by his
>own world view that he will never believe anybody
>else's world view."
>Now you're asking me if I can name a single
>individual who doesn't suffer this condition? In
>other words no one on earth is capable of
>believing anybody elses world view? If that isn't
>what you meant then your request for names is a
>flatulent red herring.
If you want to fart fish then that is your business. Your
complaint is hardly conguent with the issue raised. Being
handicapped by one's world view in no way implies a complete
inability to understand or believe something about another's
world view.
>Honestly. I don't need your inept reading of his
>statement in order to rupture it. Ted is perfectly
>capable of mucking it up himself without your
>help. Thanks just the same.
The only thing ruptured is your few remaining brain cells.
Learn some basic logic.
>Damn, I can't resist: name someone who isn't
>handicapped by their world view?
>Handicap: "A physical or mental disability.
>disadvantage, hindrance."
>Here you go: Bill Gates is not handicapped by his
>world view.
I rather think he might be to some extent. In many ways I think
he is trapped by his own notariety.
>>Thomas Kuhn indicated this is a problem with science in general.
>Ah, so everyone in the world is incapable of
>seeing anyone else's world view --- EXCEPT you.
Wow! Now that really follows <chuckle>
("Brother can you paradigm?" -Ed)
>You move fluidly between paradigms - Kuhn, the
>Bible, whatever. Randi and the rest of the world,
>on the other hand, just can't grasp such things.
Isn't bringing up the Bible out of context here? I mean,
who mentioned it in this thread before you brought it up
just now?
>I'm impressed I bet.
Oviously with yourself.
>>>4. "that he will never believe anybody else's world
>>>view."
>>
>>>More projection and lie number 4.
>>
>>Who ele's [sic] world view is he going to believe?
>Once again Teddy makes a claim and Mr. Greene
>thinks I must disprove it. You really do need to
>reduce your output of illogic, sport. If you
>still want an answer to your question, submit a
>list of world views and I'll give you a breakdown.
OK, here is a list:
Edgar Caey's world view
Benny Hinn'e world view
Now please tell me which one Randi is going to believe.
>>>5. "Since that is the case,"
>>
>>>Since that is not the case we have lie number 5
>>
>>How can you be sure that there it is in no wise the case?
>You really are infatuated with the appeal to
>ignorance fallacy aren't you? I'll humor you one
>more time. It isn't the case that one must
>"demonstrate the capability to Randi" "to get the
>prize" since Randi isn't a judge, meaning Randi's
>world view couldn't possibly enter in to it,
>meaning that this is no loophole. Therefore Ted's
>claim that this is the case isn't the case at all.
>Kapech? Take your time.
Well, OK. Done. Gee, a judge is supposed to judge without letting
his own personal bias interfere. That is why he is a judge. Since
Randi isn't a judge and Seeber *never* claimed Randi is a judge your
stupid complaint ain't worth the TP you wiped it on. And I'm glad
that nothing has to be demonstrated to Randi cuz I'll just e-mail
him the results and collect the prize.
"Kapech? Take your time."
>>>6. "no, the money will never be collected."
>>
>>>Perhaps, but not for the reasons you gave, making this
>>>lie number 6.
>>
>>Or maybe they are the reasons,
>Or maybe: "You can't prove it isn't so" is the
>sum total of your debate arsenal. My contention
>has a nearly infinite better chance of being true.
I truly doubt it. I've not asked you to prove anything on this
point so we will just have to increment your lie counter. It
appears that you both agree that the money will never be collected
yet you call that a lie. You seem to be very inconsistent.
Mathematical aside: What the hell is "nearly infinite"?
>>can you predict the future?
>I don't need to any more than I need sonar to see
>through your shallow and transparent argument.
You remind me of Alice.
>But let's hear it for your double standard! You
>know, the one you bemoan others having with
>histrionic and selective outrage:
I admit, Del, your histrionics are indeed selective and outrageous.
Gad, it is about time you told some truth.
>Greene sez:
>"Albert himself has posted his great pride at being an atheist
>Jew. And I for one am glad that he rejoices in his heritage and his faith.
>OTOH, he has repeatedly on many occasions belittled those of other faiths
>calling them liars, fools etc - but where were you then, oh great saviour
>[sic]? One could be well reproved for calling a Jew a Muslim, or visa
>versa but if Albert calls a Catholic or an Anglican a fundamentalist then
>that is OK?
>Where were you, oh mighty deliverer?
>"How is it that that Andy, "defender of the faith," has no moral outrage
>whan [sic] Albert says "If God is in all places, he must be in prostitutes
>vigina [sic], puss, sewage, hell.... Maybe fundies should throw this God a
>life jacket or he may drown in the sewage!"
Thanks for the "blast from the past," Del. I kinda see Seeber as Albert to
your Andy. I like Albert. Why is it that you did not include Andy's words
in your selective quote?
>------
>Does that ring a bell, Pavlov?
Sure, I post - you drool.
>How is it that you, Mr. Greene, have no "moral
>outrage" when your crony speaks knowingly of
>things he is completely ignorant of?
How can someone I've never met be my crony? You lie again!
Although, I must admit, I find it exceedingly funny that
you think a debate about the Randi challenge is a moral
issue.
>How is it that his claims are so unremarkable to
>you while my objection to them earns your
>undivided attention?
Cuz you think that you are the center of the universe and I'm
just trying to help you out in that regard.
>Surely you must have at least heard words like
>"equity" "impartiality," and "fairness."
Sure, but I've not ever seen you demonstrate any of 'em here.
>Or are you, as a theist, above such things?
Mindless verbal abuse, although I find it incredible that you
think the Randi challenge has anything to do with theism.
Dave Greene
Del
In article <6gn2tn$1o8g$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu
wrote:
>jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del) wrote:
>>da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu wrote:
>>>jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del) wrote:
>>>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Daneel wrote:
>
>>>>>> Randi is the guy who offers $10,000 [Now pumped up to
>>>>>> 1,000,000 by others donating to his Education Foundation]
>>>>>> to anyone who demonstrates psychic capacities to him.
>>>>>> It's still out for anyone...
>
>>> So exactly what are the ground rules for this challenge?
>
>>Look it up, dufus.
>
>S'matter, doncha know? Or do you advocate that no one ever request
>information via USENET? Either way, your remark remains hopelessly
>inane.
What remains inane are your above suggested
alternatives which constitute a bifurcation fallacy. I
could just as easily say: too lazy to look it up
yourself, or just afraid of what you might find? But
that would just reduce me to your tactical level,
wouldn't it?
>>>>>I predict it will never be collected.
>>>>>There's a loophole in there. It requires that to get the prize, one must
>>>>>demonstrate the capability to Randi, who is obviously so handicapped by
>>>>>his own worldview that he will never believe anybody else's world view.
>>>>>Since that is the case, no, the money will never be collected.
>
>>>>Do you lie just for sport? You must get a charge out of
>>>>it since you do it constantly.
>
>>> Gee, Del, I think you just lied ... unless you can show he lies
>>> *constantly* that is.
>
>>Let me guess: the middle of the week finds you
>>between clues. Couldn't you borrow one until
>>payday?
>
>Who needs to when you tossed all your [sic] out to the public?
But I've seen no evidence that you have been able to
take advantage of them, let alone comprehend them. So
the question, which pertains to your inability or
unwillingness to follow the premise/conclusion chain,
remains unanswered.
>>Oh well, I guess we have to make allowances for
>>ax-grinding agenda keepers. Oh Mr. Greene! Yoo
>>hoo! I just knocked off 6 lies from your little
>>side-kick in the very post of mine you virtually
>>responded to!
>
>Good Gawd, man! I guess that makes you an ax-grinding
>agenda keeper. Why else would you keep such a meticulous
>count?
Note dear readers, we can form a tentative conclusion
regards Mr. Greene's inability or unwillingness to
understand the argument. I point to the 6 examples
which support my argument about Seeber's chronic lying.
He ignores this to instead opt for his red herring/ad
hominem response (above). I think it indicates
"unwillingness."
Note too the difference between my previous response to
Greene (which he parrots in part), and his response to
me, (above). It is the difference between legitimate
and fallacious argument. He accuses me of lying and I
rebut his accusation by citing the 6 examples. His
response, on the other hand, does not address my
rebuttal at all. Instead he goes off on a tangent
(making it a red herring) which is also a personal
attack:
"Good Gawd, man! I guess that makes you an ax-grinding
agenda keeper. Why else would you keep such a meticulous
count?"
The fact that he doesn't address my rebuttal makes his
personal attack an ad hominem.
>>Did you miss them? Perhaps you are confused
>>regarding the definition of "constantly?"
>>(constantly: continually occurring, persistent)
>
>Gee, Del, I think you just lied ... unless you can show he lies
>*constantly* that is.
Again Mr. Greene is unable or unwilling to answer the
questions or address the issues.
Apparently, Mr. Greene, you believe that repetition ad
nauseam will bestow flaxen attributes upon your
accusations. Be advised: such tactics will not imbue
your words with any additional import whatsoever. It
does, though, vividly support my contention about your
ax-grinding agenda.
>>Gee, B. Greene, I think you just lied ... unless
>>you can show he doesn't lie *constantly* that is.
>
>I made no claim regarding his veracity
No, you made one regarding mine, based upon my
observation of Seeber's absence of veracity. I have
supported my contention. You have not supported yours.
> so you lie again
No, what we see _again_ is your Christian contempt for
the truth and your willingness to bear false witness.
and the
>burden of proff [sic] is still upon your shoulders to show that he
>lies *constantly*
Thankfully the standard I must meet - and have met -
doesn't include overcoming your agenda driven
incredulity.
>>Not that I really expect you to. Over the years
>>I've learned to lower my expectations when it
>>comes to fundy ethics.
>
>oooh! The dreaded "F" word.
I can understand your dread.
> Can you proove [sic] that I am a "fundy"?
Odd that you haven't bothered to deny it.
>If not then you have added another lie to you list.
You have more than met my lowered expectations and I
thank you for validating my prediction in that regard.
I call something a lie if someone makes: 1) a
statement he has reason to believe is untrue, or 2) a
statement made with a reckless disregard for whether it
is true or not. Apparently Mr. Greene has another,
special definition for the word "lie."
Well, let's play his game.
I said:
"Not that I really expect you to. Over the years I've
learned to lower my expectations when it comes to fundy
ethics."
Nope, no accusation of Greene being a fundy. I alluded
only to "fundy ethics." So your statement, Mr. Greene,
that I "proove that [you are] a 'fundy'" and "If
not then [I] have added another lie to [my] list"
is itself a lie, by the "standard" you yourself apply.
But since you maintain a different standard for
yourself you will, of course, reject this otherwise
inescapable conclusion.
That said I will admit to using the questionable phrase
"fundy ethics" since it is an oxymoron.
>>>Let's see:
>
>>Yes, let's.
>
>indeed
>
>>>>1. "There's a loophole in there."
>>>
>>>>Lie number one. No loop hole. You really shouldn't
>>>>presume that everybody thinks and acts like you.
>>>
>>>Can you guarantee that there is no loophole, or is that your
>>>own opinion masqurading [sic] as fact?
>
>>::sigh:: Let me explain how it works. Your
>>mendacious miscreant buddy didn't - and probably
>>still doesn't - know a thing about the challenge.
>
>Obviously he knows something about it. At a minimum he knows of
>its existence and who has sponsored it. That alone puts another
>lie on your plate.
Hahahahahahahahaha! You better be careful. Straining to
raise nit-picking to the level of argument might earn
you a hernia.
Heck, you're not even very good at it.
For instance, it is NOT obvious he knows something
_about_ it. Knowing _of_ the existence of the challenge
does not imply knowing anything _about_ it.
So applying your fatuous (double) standard, you have
just lied again.
>
>>I know something about the challenge. Based upon
>>his complete ignorance of the subject, he made a
>>false accusation, a claim as it were. I, knowing
>>better, contradicted his false assertion.
>
>>Now let's put this all together. Teddy, having
>>made the claim in the first place, has the burden
>>of proof. It is not my - or anyone's - job to
>>disprove every asshole claim that comes down the
>>pike.
>
>True, we
"We?" Didn't the flea collar work?
> would all be satisfied if you would just
>prove your own claims.
Since I have, this qualifies as another Greene-defined
lie.
>
>> Did you think it was? Or are you invoking
>>your "Christian" double standard here? Or what?
>
>What?!? Where does "Christian" come into this?
It has been my experience, and you bear this out, that
certain self proclaimed Christians are agenda driven to
ignore the same behavior in themselves, or in their
fellow believers, that they would criticize in others.
Often, as in your case, they will even falsely accuse
others of this behavior while ignoring it in their
buddies.
This you clearly have done in the case of Seeber and
myself. You have completely ignored the lies your crony
made regarding Randi while scrambling about trying to
find something - anything - you can label a lie in my
case. In order to do this you have even invented a
special definition for the word. That this is true is
made obvious by the fact that so many of your
statements qualify as lies when held to the same
"standard."
I don't see how you could possibly deny this though
undoubtedly you will.
> The topic
>is the paranormal, not theology.
No it is not. The topic was the lies of your buddy
Seeber. Now the topic is that and more: your patent
dishonesty in defending him.
Here again, dear readers, we witness an example of
Greene's double standard. Not once did Greene mention
"the paranormal." He brought up such off-topic topics
as Thomas Kuhn and science, but mostly he tried to make
me, and my exposure of Seeber, the topic.
But now he expresses outrage that I have not adhered to
a subject that he himself has not once mentioned. The
reason for this seems clear: I am striking a little too
close to home for his taste.
> Are you the standard bearer
>of all atheism such that any opposition is "Christian"?
When they pull such goofy straw men as this out of
their bag of tricks, you know you must be close to pay
dirt.
> What a central role you have set for yourself!
Likewise when they assume their own conclusions - aka
beg the question, as Greene does here. Also notice that
once again he violates his externally applied
"standard" for lying: Did he PROVE I have set up such a
role for myself? ("Can you proove that I am a
'fundy'?")
What I find amazing is that it doesn't seem to matter
to them that such hypocrisy is so blatantly obvious.
>
>>Apparently you think that unless I prove that no
>>loophole can possibly exist then - a loophole
>>exists. I can see the parallel to your
>>fundamentalist doctrine: God must exist. Can you
>>prove he doesn't? No? Well then God must exist.
>
>God?!?!? When did the amazing Randi mention "GOD" in his
>challenge?
Perhaps the word "parallel" confuses you. Or the
concept of "analogy."
> Are you trying to change the topic?
LOL! Amusingly ironic.
It is
>one thing to indicate within reason that there is no
>significant loophole but you went beyond that to say
>"No loop hole" period.
Seeber said of the challenge:
> I predict [the money] will never be collected.
>There's a loophole in there. It requires that to get the prize, one must
>demonstrate the capability to Randi, who is obviously so handicapped by
>his own worldview that he will never believe anybody else's world view.
>Since that is the case, no, the money will never be collected.
---------
I quoted the above statement in its entirety and then
quoted each lie individually and commented upon it. I
did this to show that my comments on each individual
falsehood were not the result of taking his words out
of context.
Mr. Greene clearly has no such qualms. Anyway it is
obvious from the context that I am referring to - and
denying the existence of - the same specific (and
alleged) loophole Seeber is. That is what I am calling
a lie - duh!
Poor Greene. You really are at a loss for something to
attack aren't you?
> That is a claim worthy of proof.
>
>>Oh and something else: your little buddy wasn't
>>saying that *some* loophole must exist
>>*somewhere.* So it stands to reason that when I in
>>contradicted him I wasn't saying that no loophole
>>could possibly exist anywhere. He was saying the
>>loophole was this:
>
>"No loop hole" you said. I don't want to be too rough
>on you so I accept your recantation.
Too bad you couldn't admit your "lie" (Greene's
standard) and instead are forced to beg the question
("I accept your recantation") yet again.
>
>>>>2. "It requires that to get the prize, one must
>>>>demonstrate the capability to Randi,"
>
>>And I was saying "no." So your "clever" demand
>>that I vouchsafe the impossibility of any loophole
>>is just another example of fundy dishonesty.
>
>I demanded nothing of you, Del. You lie once again.
I didn't "recant" anything, Greene. So _you_ lie once
again. You're not exactly the sharpest knife in the
drawer, are you?
>>>> Lie number 2. Randi is not a judge
>>>
>>>Who is the judge?
>
>>You call me a liar and then want me to cure your
>>ignorance for you? You crack me up, Greene.
>
>I think it is important...
I'm sure you do, since you are without anything
credible to attack.
>... here that in Seeber's point 2 he did not
>say Randi is the judge.
But again you "lie." I did not say that Randi was not
_the_ judge. I said he was not _a_ judge. Gosh, this
nit picking game of yours is a lot of fun!
> He clearly indicated that the capability
>had to be demonstrated to Randi.If that is not the case then
>let us know as you claim to know so much more about the challenge
>than does Seeber.
Nice try at out of context interpretation. Sorry, no
cigar though. He clearly states that no money will ever
be collected because Randi will never believe anybody
else's world view. That means Seeber puts Randi in
judgment over who gets paid (which will be no one,
according to Seeber) or not.
So, yet another lie (and non-sequitur to boot)
>to add to your growing collection of mendacities [sic] you have uttered.
Hahahahahahahaha! Actually that's two more real lies
for you. Now do you see why your Bible worshipping
cultism is germane? There is a direct correlation
between your theism and your willingness to lie.
>
>>>>3."who is obviously so handicapped by his own
>>>>worldview"
>>>
>>>>Lie number 3 and another example of Seeber projecting
>>>>his closed and narrow mind as an attribute of someone
>>>>else.
>>>
>>>A projection is not neccessarily [sic] a lie.
>
>>Do you see the word "and?" It means: "Together
>>with or along with; in addition to; as well as."
>>Jot this down _and_ keep it handy. You will be
>>seeing the word again.
>
>OK, point taken.
Since we're playing by your rules I'll accept the
recantation of your lie then.
> Now, how is it that Randi is not
>handicapped by his world view.
Notice that Greene once again misquotes, conveniently,
to advance his agenda. Seeber didn't say "handicapped."
He said "_so_ handicapped" which, in context, obviously
meant Randi is handicapped to the point of being blind
to any other world view and thus will never pay off.
Boy that "context" thing sure is messing you up,
Greene.
>
>>> Everyone probably projects.
>
>>I got a better one for you. Some people let their
>>wishful thinking get away from them and invent an
>>all powerful daddy in the sky that they think is
>>running their lives. They even think they talk to
>>it!
>
>Maybe they do.
Maybe they believe this??? No maybe about it, sport. I
guess that's another one of your brand of lies.
> What the hell has that got to do with
>the Randi challenge.
I give up. What does it have to do with the Randi
challenge?
> Last time I checked Randi wasn't
>dumb enought [sic] to claim he could disprove God.
Ah, you invoke your double standard again. Now I get to
say: what the hell has _this_ got to do with the Randi
challenge?
> You would
>do well to follow his example.
Hahahahahahaha! Better advice for you sport!
>
>>Isn't that fuckin' stupid?
>
>Yes, if "your God is to small" (ref J. B. Phillips).
How many Gods are there?
>
>>>You do it as well I'm sure.
>
>>That's weird. You say this as if you thought your
>>opinion held some interest for me.
>
>Obviously it does given your lengthy response to my post.
You think this is for your benefit?? My gawd.
> So, you
>lie once again.
Hahahahahaha! What a moron!
>>>At any rate, would you care to name one individual who has not ever
>>>been hanicapped [sic] by their own world view?
>
>>Brilliant.
>
>Indeed.
Probably so from your point of reference, as sad as
that is.
>>Ted says that Randi is: "*so* handicapped by his
>>own world view that he will never believe anybody
>>else's world view."
>
>>Now you're asking me if I can name a single
>>individual who doesn't suffer this condition? In
>>other words no one on earth is capable of
>>believing anybody elses world view? If that isn't
>>what you meant then your request for names is a
>>flatulent red herring.
>
>If you want to fart fish then that is your business. Your
>complaint is hardly conguent [sic] with the issue raised.
Only in the sense that you refuse to take
responsibility for your own words.
Being
>handicapped by one's world view in no way implies a complete
>inability to understand or believe something about another's
>world view.
Notice, dear readers, how "cleverly" Greene changes the
wording _again_. Seeber said - and I used his exact
words - that Randi is "_so_ handicapped by his own
world view that he will never believe anybody else's
world view."
The first time around Greene omits the _so_ from "so
handicapped." This, to include anyone who has even the
slightest "world view handicap."
Now he changes it to :
a "*complete inability* to *understand* or believe
*something about* another's world view." ["*" around
the added text by Greene]
...which is also at odds with what Seeber claimed. Just
another indication of how desperate Greene is to find
something - anything - to attack.
>>Honestly. I don't need your inept reading of his
>>statement in order to rupture it. Ted is perfectly
>>capable of mucking it up himself without your
>>help. Thanks just the same.
>
>The only thing ruptured is your few remaining brain cells.
Which explains why you're doing so well.
>Learn some basic logic.
Hahahahahahahahaha! Notice how Greene relies on an
allusion to a hidden and unproven premise here. Geeze,
I love analyzing your stuff Greene! Please write back
early and often.
>>Damn, I can't resist: name someone who isn't
>>handicapped by their world view?
>
>>Handicap: "A physical or mental disability.
>>disadvantage, hindrance."
>
>>Here you go: Bill Gates is not handicapped by his
>>world view.
>
>I rather think he might be to some extent. In many ways I think
>he is trapped by his own notariety [sic].
Didn't you forget to accuse me of lying? Or was it
getting too ridiculous, even for you? Yeah, probably
just forgot.
>
>>>Thomas Kuhn indicated this is a problem with science in general.
>
>>Ah, so everyone in the world is incapable of
>>seeing anyone else's world view --- EXCEPT you.
>
>Wow! Now that really follows <chuckle>
Well it does require a bit of thinking. A bit too much
it seems, in your case.
>("Brother can you paradigm?" -Ed)
This little bit of conceit - the pretend editor - is at
least tolerable when done by someone with wit and
charm. But it makes you look like a self-important
boob.
>>You move fluidly between paradigms - Kuhn, the
>>Bible, whatever. Randi and the rest of the world,
>>on the other hand, just can't grasp such things.
>
>Isn't bringing up the Bible out of context here? I mean,
>who mentioned it in this thread before you brought it up
>just now?
Gosh, who brought up Kuhn? Or science? Try to rein in
your controlling impulses, sport. They are
hypocritical.
>>I'm impressed I bet.
>
>Oviously with yourself.
Oh "oviously." Hahahahahaha!
>>>>4. "that he will never believe anybody else's world
>>>>view."
>>>
>>>>More projection and lie number 4.
>>>
>>>Who ele's [sic] world view is he going to believe?
>
>>Once again Teddy makes a claim and Mr. Greene
>>thinks I must disprove it. You really do need to
>>reduce your output of illogic, sport. If you
>>still want an answer to your question, submit a
>>list of world views and I'll give you a breakdown.
>
>OK, here is a list:
Not of what I asked for ("a list of world views"). But
hey, I've come to expect just that kind of dishonest
tactic from you.
> Edgar Caey's world view
> Benny Hinn'e world view
I'm supposed to know who Edgar Caey and Benny Hinn'e
are, and their world views? Sorry to disappoint, but
I'm not as omniscient as you seem to believe.
>
>Now please tell me which one Randi is going to believe.
Well I don't know your two buddies, but in general if
the question was "how's the wife and kids?" or "what
time is the X Files on?" I'd guess he'd believe the
answer from either one, unless or until they proved
unreliable. If, on the other hand, they made an
extraordinary claim, then I doubt Randi would just
accept their opinion. No sensible person would.
Now _evidence_, you see, is a different matter
entirely. That's what Randi's challenge is all about.
>>>>5. "Since that is the case,"
>>>
>>>>Since that is not the case we have lie number 5
>>>
>>>How can you be sure that there it is in no wise the case?
>
>>You really are infatuated with the appeal to
>>ignorance fallacy aren't you? I'll humor you one
>>more time. It isn't the case that one must
>>"demonstrate the capability to Randi" "to get the
>>prize" since Randi isn't a judge, meaning Randi's
>>world view couldn't possibly enter in to it,
>>meaning that this is no loophole. Therefore Ted's
>>claim that this is the case isn't the case at all.
>
>>Kapech? Take your time.
>
>Well, OK. Done. Gee, a judge is supposed to judge without letting
>his own personal bias interfere. That is why he is a judge.
> Since
>Randi isn't a judge and Seeber *never* claimed Randi is a judge
Right. He just said Randi decided who got, or, more
accurately, who did not get, the prize. But he never
said "Judge!" Heck no. Furthest thing from it!
This reminds me of the fundy assertion that "the words
'separation of church and state' are not found in the
Constitution, gosh darn it!" But this is even more
disingenuous than that.
> your
>stupid complaint ain't worth the TP you wiped it on.
You sound a little perturbed. Was it something I said?
And I'm glad
>that nothing has to be demonstrated to Randi cuz I'll just e-mail
>him the results and collect the prize.
I trust that the above contains some meaning for you
that you are able to understand.
>"Kapech?
Ah, no.
> Take your time."
I don't think there is that much time.
>>>>6. "no, the money will never be collected."
>>>
>>>>Perhaps, but not for the reasons you gave, making this
>>>>lie number 6.
>>>
>>>Or maybe they are the reasons,
>
>>Or maybe: "You can't prove it isn't so" is the
>>sum total of your debate arsenal. My contention
>>has a nearly infinite better chance of being true.
>
>I truly doubt it. I've not asked you to prove anything on this
>point so we will just have to increment your lie counter.
I was right! It wasn't too ridiculous for you! You did
forget! Hahahahahaha!
> It appears that you both agree that the money will never be collected
>yet you call that a lie.
Oops! Since the "Greene lie" standard is still in
effect, I guess you just lied again. Boy, isn't being
held to your own standard a real pisser?
> You seem to be very inconsistent.
I've had a hard time believing you were this dumb, but
I admit you are beginning to change my mind. I'd
explain it to you (it has something to do with my "but
not for the reasons you gave" statement) but I think it
would be effort wasted.
>
>Mathematical aside: What the hell is "nearly infinite"?
This too, I'm afraid.
>>>can you predict the future?
>
>>I don't need to any more than I need sonar to see
>>through your shallow and transparent argument.
>
>You remind me of Alice.
Thanks! She was the only one on The Honeymooners" with
any brains. You sort of remind me of Norton.
>>But let's hear it for your double standard! You
>>know, the one you bemoan others having with
>>histrionic and selective outrage:
>
>I admit, Del, your histrionics are indeed selective and outrageous.
Oooooo!: "I know you are but what am I?" Aren't you
afraid Pee Wee Herman will sue you for plagiarism?
>Gad, it is about time you told some truth.
That's really low. I hoped never to be accused of
telling "the Greene truth."
>>Greene sez:
>>"Albert himself has posted his great pride at being an atheist
>>Jew. And I for one am glad that he rejoices in his heritage and his faith.
>>OTOH, he has repeatedly on many occasions belittled those of other faiths
>>calling them liars, fools etc - but where were you then, oh great saviour
>>[sic]? One could be well reproved for calling a Jew a Muslim, or visa
>>versa but if Albert calls a Catholic or an Anglican a fundamentalist then
>>that is OK?
>>Where were you, oh mighty deliverer?
>
>>"How is it that that Andy, "defender of the faith," has no moral outrage
>>whan [sic] Albert says "If God is in all places, he must be in prostitutes
>>vigina [sic], puss, sewage, hell.... Maybe fundies should throw this God a
>>life jacket or he may drown in the sewage!"
>
>Thanks for the "blast from the past," Del. I kinda see Seeber as Albert to
>your Andy.
Well it gives you something to say when you have no
other response to the example of your blatant
hypocrisy.
> I like Albert. Why is it that you did not include Andy's words
>in your selective quote?
They weren't germane. Why didn't YOU include them, if
you thought they were? We know the answer to that,
don't we: why belabor this example of your obvious
hypocrisy?
>
>>------
>
>>Does that ring a bell, Pavlov?
>
>Sure, I post - you drool.
Come on! I admit that sophists like you don't grow on
trees. But even so, I'm not _that_ hard up for examples
to scrutinize.
>>How is it that you, Mr. Greene, have no "moral
>>outrage" when your crony speaks knowingly of
>>things he is completely ignorant of?
>
>How can someone I've never met be my crony?
Ah. You were so incensed at the word "crony" you plumb
forgot to address the point about your blatant
hypocrisy.
> You lie again!
Sorry. There is nothing in the word that demands you
physically meet the person. I guess that's another real
lie for you.
>Although, I must admit, I find it exceedingly funny that
>you think a debate about the Randi challenge is a moral
>issue.
It wasn't - until you and Seeber made it one.
>>How is it that his claims are so unremarkable to
>>you while my objection to them earns your
>>undivided attention?
>
>Cuz you think that you are the center of the universe and I'm
>just trying to help you out in that regard.
Thanks but just tearing your sophistic pretensions
apart doesn't make me feel like I am the center of the
universe. Nice try though.
>>Surely you must have at least heard words like
>>"equity" "impartiality," and "fairness."
>
>Sure, but I've not ever seen you demonstrate any of 'em here.
But you aren't exactly the guy I'd call to pick 'em out
of a line up.
>
>>Or are you, as a theist, above such things?
>
>Mindless verbal abuse, although I find it incredible that you
>think the Randi challenge has anything to do with theism.
The Randi challenge doesn't have anything to do with
it. But then, your attack didn't have anything to do
with the Randi challenge. It was just a vehicle to try
to advance some agenda of yours. That much is obvious
by your selective disregard of your crony's lies.
--
E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net
tee...@spamtrap.com
In alt.atheism Dominion <co...@spam-hater.brokersys.com> wrote:
: The funniest book I have ever read is the theory put forth by Sir
: Arthur that Houdini was a medium himself. How else could he do all
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle always puzzled me a bit.... He SEEMED fairly
intelligent, and spent so much time pulling elaborate pranks and hoaxes of
his own that I have to wonder how much of his expressed ideas about
mysticism he actually believed. After all, if you know how YOU fooled
others, wouldn't it be natural to assume that you can be fooled as well?
Dominion
tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
Of course. I have mentioned once in a.r.s. that I was the almost
victim of the pigeon drop, one of the oldest con's in the book. I have
no doubt at all I can be fooled. Dia Vernon did it with depressing
regularity. ;)
However, when it comes to Doyle and his belief in the paranormal there
is little doubt that he was sincere. Misguided but sincere.
Read "The Coming Of Fairies" if you can find a copy. That book really
says it all.
JohnAcadInt
Kirk Kerekes wrote:
> In article <6g9hl9$18ac$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
> da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu wrote:
> . [alt.folklore.urban snipped from followups]
> .
> . red...@oklahoma.net (Kirk Kerekes) wrote:
> .
> . >Let's face it -- the one consistent characteristic of the folks who don't
> . >like the Randi Challenge is that they aren't _interested_ in determining
> . >the _facts_ of a given situation.
And a "fact" - what is that? Or perhaps one ought to ask, 'What are they?'
"It is patent that there-are-facts....'. Or is it? If there are facts, why
bother? The Titanic sank, Socrates took hemlock, Jesus was nailed to a cross,
the British do not as a nation wash their hands. What, exactly, is a fact?
> Kirk and Diane Kerekes/Red Gate Ranch
JohnM
&
The Trollenberg Terror
JohnAcadInt
JohnAcadInt wrote:
> Kirk Kerekes believes:
> > In article <6g9hl9$18ac$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
> > da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu wrote:
> > . [alt.folklore.urban snipped from followups]
> > .
> > . red...@oklahoma.net (Kirk Kerekes) wrote:
> > .
> > . >Let's face it -- the one consistent characteristic of the folks who don't
> > . >like the Randi Challenge is that they aren't _interested_ in determining
> > . >the _facts_ of a given situation.
And a "fact" - what is that? Or perhaps one ought to ask, 'What are "they"?'
"It is patent that there-are-facts....'. Or is it? If there are facts, why
bother? The Titanic sank, Socrates took hemlock, Jesus was nailed to a cross,
the British do not as a nation wash their hands. What, exactly, is a "fact"?
"You sold the blacks into slavery!" Did I? The Earth goes around the sun,
does it?
As far as I can tell, each of these statements relies on somebody's belief-
system. It may seem a bit mean of me, but would you kindly translate them
into non-anthropic language
However, even if you do, you will still be in difficulty! There will be an
even greater mystery, won't there?
Once you have become accustomed to thinking in terms of *us* and *them*,
you will no longer know what I am talking about. [Gee, I'd never thought
of it that way! Is he for real? Ed.]
> > Kirk and Diane Kerekes/Red Gate Ranch [The Home of Truth! Ed.]
Kind rgds
JohnAcadInt
tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
<snip>
>... Hundreds of psychics later, [Houdini] STILL
> hadn't found one who could genuinely talk to the dead.
Talk to the dead? By definition, impossible! Are you for
real?
JohnM
&
The Trollenberg Tarrot
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
>
>red...@oklahoma.net (Kirk Kerekes) wrote:
>
>> Let's face it -- the one consistent characteristic of the folks who
>> don't like the Randi Challenge is that they aren't _interested_ in
>> determining the _facts_ of a given situation.
>
>Let's face it, the reason people make challenges like Randi's is for
>propaganda reasons, and because they want people to believe sillyness like
>the above.
No. They want people to show that their sillyness is real.
>
>For example, take the challenge from the "Insitiute of Historical
>Research", they have put up a challenge that has lasted many years now.
>They will give $10.000 to anyone that can prove there was a jewish
>holocaust during World War II.
Oh, nice propaganda move here. Equate Randi with the
holocaust deniers!
Of course, Randi insists that both sides agrees on what
constitutes success and when the other side has agreed on
this they then can't perform what they claim.
The holocaust deniers don't tell anyone what their challenge
requires to have "proven".
<snip of rest of idiotic comparision called a strawman>
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,
our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot
alter the state of facts and evidence.
gargoyle
JohnAcadInt wrote:
I can talk to the dead. I may not get an answer, but I can talk to
them.
--
http://members.tripod.com/~Laydewolf/index.htm
http://www.unnet.com/gargoyle/
Louann Miller
In article <353398A2...@unnet.com>, garg...@unnet.com says...
>> >... Hundreds of psychics later, [Houdini] STILL
>> > hadn't found one who could genuinely talk to the dead.
>> Talk to the dead? By definition, impossible! Are you for
>> real?
> I can talk to the dead. I may not get an answer, but I can talk to
>them.
Things are taking a Shakespearean turn here. "I can call spirits from the
vasty deep." / "Why so can I, or so can any man. But will they come when you
do call for them?"
I'm not superstitious, but let's just call it "The Scottish Play."
Joe Boswell
In article <6h0chj$4rh$2...@hermes.seas.smu.edu>, Louann Miller
<lou...@mail.smu.edu> writes
>Things are taking a Shakespearean turn here. "I can call spirits from the
>vasty deep." / "Why so can I, or so can any man. But will they come when you
>do call for them?"
>
>I'm not superstitious, but let's just call it "The Scottish Play."
>
quoting Henry IV Part I Act III Scene I, somewhere around line 54.
Maybe you thinking of the Merkin Scotland, that is in England, and so
distresses the Scots.
--
Joe Boswell * If I cannot be free, I'll be cheap.
Paul Chefurka
Louann Miller wrote:
>
> Things are taking a Shakespearean turn here. "I can call spirits from the
> vasty deep." / "Why so can I, or so can any man. But will they come when you
> do call for them?"
>
> I'm not superstitious, but let's just call it "The Scottish Play."
This I hadn't heard before. Is it unlucky to utter the name M**B***?
Paul
JohnAcadInt
a gargoyle wrote:
> JohnAcadInt reacts to the intrusion:
John: Who is this that interrupts my sleep!?
[ Thumps table. Calls for soup.]
Gargoyle: It's me; well, rather, I.
John: Pull up a grammar and sit down, child.
You look familiar. [ Glances at some
drawings of early reptiles.]
Gargoyle: I think you didn't want to see me.
John: Oh, don't trouble yourself. In my line of work....
> > tee...@spamtrap.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >... Hundreds of psychics later, [Houdini] STILL
> > > hadn't found one who could genuinely talk to the dead.
> >
> > Talk to the dead? By definition, impossible! Are you for
> > real?
> >
> > JohnM
> > &
> > The Trollenberg Tarrot
>
> I can talk to the dead. I may not get an answer, but I can talk to
> them.
Of course. A friend talks to his girlfriend: her head was cut off
by a plank driven by a freak storm. Children talk to their toys and
to imaginary friends: it is great fun when they let you in on it!
Makes me wonder, sometimes, where creativity goes to! I think the
idea of the Houdini poster was to hold talks *with* 'em. I pedant my
own canoe, so I am not sure! I have never before addressed a gargoyle,
tho' I have known one or two quite nice girls. There was, too, alas,
P, who had a deliciously seductive voice but a face like the east end
of a westbound pig. I saw people cringe upon meeting her! Thinking
myself immune, I met her for a drink. I needed it!
I hope the Net won't turn to silicon!
n
[Mine's a Guinness? What's yours? Ed.]
Yrs all the same [ Well, ... Ed.]
JohnM
&
The TT
PS - Life is not a zero-sum game - whatever nonsense you have heard
to the contrary.
"Penny Lane is in my ears and in my eyes."
Ron Cecchini
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
> > Of course, Randi insists that both sides agrees on what
> > constitutes success and when the other side has agreed on
> > this they then can't perform what they claim.
>
> And if you are not successfull at that time, Randi has in the agreement
> ensured the right to use your name publicly. (And give you the same
> treatment worldwide that he gave Geller).
As they very well should be, for being the cons, frauds & cheats that they are.
The very fact that Randi tries to get both parties to agree on a stringent
set of conditions before conducting a test is testimony to the fact that he
is trying to follow the scientific method as closely as possible, leaving no
room for error and variable factors.
It's you "psychically inclined" folks who should be *happy* that he is willing
to go to such great lengths, because if/when you ever pass his test, there
will be no room for anyone to cry "Foul!" and to accuse Randi of flawed testing
methods.
But instead, the RV-ers, the psychics, the healers, et al, they run away
like the powerless little cowards that they are.
By the way, if you're detecting a bit of, shall we say, "vinegar" in my tone
of voice, it is because these cons & cheats bother me to my *core*.
Why?
Because it is not so much that they are bothering just me; if it were, I could
easily learn to just ignore them. Instead, such frauds & conmen perpetuate
ILLOGIC & UNSCIENTIFIC THOUGHT which I truly believe will be the downfall of
this WORLD. I earnestly believe that it is only when everyone learns how to
think in a LOGICAL & CRITICAL way that we, as a species, will have a fighting
chance.
So far, however, it looks like having a cerebral cortex is proving to be
evolutionary DISadvantageous. Maybe the cockroaches (and Keith Richards)
have it right...
> But of course like Randi, they dont accept "biased" testimonies, they too
> want lab-like measureable "scientific" proofs.
There is no room in science for "biased testimony".
It's either put up or shut up.
Ron
(who honestly can not understand why ANYONE would EVER seriously consider
the lunatic spewings of a crackpot when they are not shown any proof...)
Jeff Lanam
Paul Chefurka <pche...@newbridge.com> wrote in article
<3533C577...@newbridge.com>...
According to theatrical tradition, to use the play's name or quote
from
it, except when actually producing it, is bad luck. Allegedly, there
are
an unusual number of accidents occurring when the Scottish Play is
produced. Some of this may be due to to the fact that there is a lot
of swordplay involved. The superstition may arise from the
witchcraft
in the play. There is some discussion of this at
www.shakespeare.com.
Eric Dew
In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.980414...@hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no> Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> writes:
>
>red...@oklahoma.net (Kirk Kerekes) wrote:
>
>> Let's face it -- the one consistent characteristic of the folks who
>> don't like the Randi Challenge is that they aren't _interested_ in
>> determining the _facts_ of a given situation.
>
>Let's face it, the reason people make challenges like Randi's is for
>propaganda reasons, and because they want people to believe sillyness like
>the above.
>
>Research", they have put up a challenge that has lasted many years now.
>They will give $10.000 to anyone that can prove there was a jewish
>holocaust during World War II.
>
>in their revisionist propaganda.
>
>But just like Randi they can claim: "Noone has ever managed our challenge.
>We have the true answers. Those that disagree with us are not interested
>in the facts, but just in their own irrational beliefs."
>
By Randi doesn't ask paranormals to measure against a yardstick that Randi
creates. Randi asks the testee what the standard is, and then sees if the
testee can meet the standard.
Suppose a person claims to be able to read cards face down. If the person
claims he can get 75% correct, then that's the yardstick. Randi claims that
no one has been able to beat what they claim.
EDEW
Bruce Hutchinson
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> scribed:
>red...@oklahoma.net (Kirk Kerekes) wrote:
>
>> Let's face it -- the one consistent characteristic of the folks who
>> don't like the Randi Challenge is that they aren't _interested_ in
>> determining the _facts_ of a given situation.
>
>Let's face it, the reason people make challenges like Randi's is for
>propaganda reasons, and because they want people to believe sillyness like
>the above.
>
>For example, take the challenge from the "Insitiute of Historical
>Research", they have put up a challenge that has lasted many years now.
>They will give $10.000 to anyone that can prove there was a jewish
>holocaust during World War II.
>
>Of course their real interest is not in finding the _facts_ but to use it
>in their revisionist propaganda.
>
>But just like Randi they can claim: "Noone has ever managed our challenge.
>We have the true answers. Those that disagree with us are not interested
>in the facts, but just in their own irrational beliefs."
Your strawman comparison is too ludicrous for words. The IHR historically
has accepted nothing as "Proof" because of their lack of a subjective
approach. They have denied the physical proof of photographs, mass burial
pits, bone laden ovens, meticulous Nazi record keeping, and survivor
testimony. The "10k challange" is pure propaganda. Their method is to
deny everything.
It is also ludicrous to see how consistantly Randi opponents trot out the
fabrication that Randi will act as the judge to _decide_ whether the
claiment has psychic ability or not. Randi has demonstrated in all
previous challanges that he is simply the facillitator to the
demonstration, and acts only to prevent cheating, slight-of-hand, etc. It
is up to the claimant, _not_ Randi, to state what (s)he can do. Randi and
the claiment then decide what constitutes success. Notice- no judging.
Either the claimant does what (s)he said... or not. Very simple.
What is revealing is that some of the claiments _really_ thought that they
had powers- no conscious cheating was involved.
What really scares "psychic" blowhards like Curly, Dames, Geller, etc, is
that they _know_ that they cheat, and they know that Randi will design a
double-blind test that will either prevent them from cheating, or (worse
yet!) catch them in the act. So all they can do is bluster like spoiled
brats. It is pathetic.
hutch
"Once an idea is created, it never disappears, no matter
how often it is disproved" -- as quoted by Milton Rothman
Karin M. Weber
Jeff Lanam wrote:
Or from the fact that it's the bloodiest and darkest of all
Shakespeare's plays.
--
Gregory Gyetko
Oeystein Hokstad wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Ron Cecchini wrote:
>
> > Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
>
> > > And if you are not successfull at that time, Randi has in the agreement
> > > ensured the right to use your name publicly. (And give you the same
> > > treatment worldwide that he gave Geller).
>
> > As they very well should be, for being the cons, frauds & cheats that
> > they are.
>
> Ah, that is exactly how Randi wants you to think. But the fact is, it is
> rather common among people to some time in their lives to have experienced
> something they would call "paranormal". Something that very few can
> explain or claim to do voluntarily (except the few you can see putting in
> ads in the paper, which i will agree to are as you say cons, frauds &
> cheats.) The only problem is that Randi (and you) think that everybody
> that say they have experienced something out of the ordinary are "cons
> frauds & cheats".
No, a great many of the UFO sighters and abductees have been *conned themselves*.
In the USA, people walk around thinking that they have abducted by UFOs. In Europe
people think that witches were sitting on their chests, keeping them immobile. Why
the difference? Culture. Your culture suggests things to you and you incorporate
those in to your dreams.
So, no, not all of these people can be called frauds. Some are just deluded.
> It is like, here is a crappy analogy: say some guy told you that blushing
> doesnt exists. Even though you had experienced it some times in your life
> and believe it to be real, no matter how many millions of dollars that guy
> held in front of your nose, you could never go into his lab and do it
> voluntarily and "prove" its existance.
Eventually, yes you could. Or you could perform a double-blind experiment and
watch some 13 year old boy's face as you allude to the fact that he likes a
particular girl. BLUSH!! Bingo. All you need is *one* example of change in
facial skin tone due to embarrassment and it's been proven.
> > The very fact that Randi tries to get both parties to agree on a stringent
> > set of conditions before conducting a test is testimony to the fact that he
> > is trying to follow the scientific method as closely as possible, leaving no
> > room for error and variable factors.
>
> What is "*the* scientific method"? I study sociology for example, I dont
> think your "scientific method" would work very well there. I dont think
> this method is very useful in parapsychology or psycology either.
Really? Are you honestly saying that scientific studies are never done in any of
these 'sciences'? You've got to be kidding. Sociological studies are done all of
the time. Some of them are called "Gallup Polls". Other times people ... never
mind, you're a sociologist so you ought to know how experimentation is done. As
for parapsychology, ever heard of Zener (Xener?) cards? And psychology? Well, I'd
have to agree with you that a lot of looks like a crock from the outside, but I've
never seen the inside so I don't know.
> > Because it is not so much that they are bothering just me; if it were, I could
> > easily learn to just ignore them. Instead, such frauds & conmen perpetuate
> > ILLOGIC & UNSCIENTIFIC THOUGHT which I truly believe will be the downfall of
> > this WORLD. I earnestly believe that it is only when everyone learns how to
> > think in a LOGICAL & CRITICAL way that we, as a species, will have a fighting
> > chance.
>
> What is science to you, just physics, biology and chemistry??
Negatory. Science is the proposing and attempted falsification of hypotheses and
theories via observation. You can do that to astrology if you want and call it 'a
scientific analysis of astrology'.
Greg.
--
alt.atheism Atheist #911
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway,
so why waste my time?"
EAC homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9916/
Louann Miller
In article <3533C577...@newbridge.com>, pche...@newbridge.com says...
>> I'm not superstitious, but let's just call it "The Scottish Play."
>
>This I hadn't heard before. Is it unlucky to utter the name M**B***?
>
>Paul
This is supposed to be an actor's superstition (and I'm not one) but I don't
know if it's a real fear anymore or just a running gag. See the third season
of the British comedy "Black Adder" for a severe sendup of the idea.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> >For example, take the challenge from the "Insitiute of Historical
>> >Research", they have put up a challenge that has lasted many years now.
>> >They will give $10.000 to anyone that can prove there was a jewish
>> >holocaust during World War II.
>
>> Of course, Randi insists that both sides agrees on what
>> constitutes success and when the other side has agreed on
>> this they then can't perform what they claim.
>
>And if you are not successfull at that time, Randi has in the agreement
>ensured the right to use your name publicly. (And give you the same
>treatment worldwide that he gave Geller).
>
Not quite correct.
But, if you can do what you claim to be able to do, why
should you worry about this?
Then you'd be able to do what you like to Randi's rep.
>
>> The holocaust deniers don't tell anyone what their challenge
>> requires to have "proven".
>
>Wrong, you can read their disclaimer if you want.
Sorry but there is not quite the same openess as far as what
constitutes a win.
>
>But of course like Randi, they dont accept "biased" testimonies, they too
>want lab-like measureable "scientific" proofs.
>
Randi doesn't ask for lab-like measureable "scientific"
proofs. You tell him what you can do and with what
percentage accuracy and he designs a test to let you do it.
You agree ahead of the time on the test and the success
criteria.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
<snip>
>Randis approach to the paranormal is in a similar vein: people who believe
>in the paranormal do it out of economical motivations.
Wrong!
Randi has stated that a great many of the people who have
taken his challenge are sincere people.
As you would know if you bothered to read up on it and the
challenges he has conducted.
In fact, he has frequently stated that the worst of the con
people won't take his challenge because it would show them
up.
Dowsers in particular he singles out as sincere.
<snip>
>
>Randi says everything has to be scientificly proved, but of course when 30
>independant universities wordlwide has findings that indicate the
>existance of something "paranormal", that suddenly isnt good enough.
Randi has never said everything has to be scientifically
proven. He says if you claim you can do something you
should be able to demonstrate it.
And 30 independent universities worldwide haven't got
findings that indicate the existance of something
"paranormal".
Of course, you can show where I am incorrect on this. Just
post the name of the professors what papers they have
published in peer-reviewed journals and the names of the
Universities in such a manner that this claim can be checked
on.
Thank you.
<snip>
Gregory Gyetko
Oeystein Hokstad wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Gregory Gyetko wrote:
>
> > Oeystein Hokstad wrote:
> >
> > > What is "*the* scientific method"? I study sociology for example, I dont
> > > think your "scientific method" would work very well there. I dont think
> > > this method is very useful in parapsychology or psycology either.
> >
> > Really? Are you honestly saying that scientific studies are never done in any of
> > these 'sciences'?
>
> Nope, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that in these sciences
> there is not always possible to measure or produce effects by putting up
> some specific external criteria or variables. (I dont think every
> subjective phenomena can be reproduced in Randis lab)
But *if* you are a psychic, then you ought to be able to demonstrate it through naming
cards or something.
*If* you can read minds, then you ought to be able to pass simple messages from one
person to another.
If you are expecting some like the following story to count:
"I was thinking of my deceased father and at the same time his favourite Simon and
Garfunkel song came on the radio"
Then, yes, I suppose that we can never 'detect' this in a lab.
What other sorts of things would you say can't be scientifically detected?
Dan Krislov
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
>It is like, here is a crappy analogy: say some guy told you that blushing
>doesnt exists. Even though you had experienced it some times in your life
>and believe it to be real, no matter how many millions of dollars that guy
>held in front of your nose, you could never go into his lab and do it
>voluntarily and "prove" its existance.
You're right, this really is a crappy analogy. The problem with it is
that many people are making a living off of claims that they can
produce paranormal results voluntarily--i.e., fortune telling for
money, aura reading, etc. What's wrong with saying that people who
can demonstrate this "power" voluntarily when they are paid ought to
be able to demontrate it voluntarily under controlled circumstances?
You're right that Randi's challenge doesn't prove the non-existence of
random paranormal phenomena, but we already know it is impossible to
prove a negative. There has to be some burden of proof on advocates
to prove a positive before we should take their claims as
scientifically respectable--until then, post-hoc tales of spooky
coincidences aren't enough to overcome my skepticism.
Dan Krislov
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
>
>Most research on the paranormal is done by repetetive samplings over a
>long period, like predicting a random outcome. For example, take 100
>people and make them do 10000 predictions each, and in sum you can find
>very statisticly significant results. This is a research method Randi
>would never accept. He wants someone to come into his lab and demonstrate
>visible "psychic powers" at an instant. And I guess he would never accept
>statistics as a proof anyway, his challenge is really only for the flashy
>Geller-types.
You'd better define your terms here. Statistical siginificance is
conventionally designated as results with a probability of 5% or less.
By definition, if you run your experiment on a group of 100, you
should expect to find 2.5 people who "demonstrate" statistically
significant psychic ability (1/2 of people at the .05 level will be on
the other end of the scale--i.e., guessing really poorly). Show me
someone who can consistently do significantly better than chance at
such a test, then you'll have something.
Wes Taylor
Oeystein Hokstad wrote:
>twitchb wrote:
>> >Randis approach to the paranormal is in a similar vein: people who believe
>> >in the paranormal do it out of economical motivations.
>> Wrong!
>> Randi has stated that a great many of the people who have
>> taken his challenge are sincere people.
>Nod OK, let me rephrase: Randi thinks that people that belive in the
>paranormal do it out of economical motivations and/or are gullible and/or
>irrational. Any way, there is always something terribly wrong with people
>that dont share his paradigm.
Not true. Randi has a fairly clear idea, as do others who actually looked at the
subject (unlike what you appear to have done) that there are numerous mechanisms
by which rational people can reach seriously wrong conclusions if they are not
skeptical and analyze weird results carefully.
Nothing wrong with them unless they start wrapping up their own identity in the
beliefs.
>> And 30 independent universities worldwide haven't got
>> findings that indicate the existance of something
>> "paranormal".
>> Of course, you can show where I am incorrect on this. Just
>> post the name of the professors what papers they have
>> published in peer-reviewed journals and the names of the
>> Universities in such a manner that this claim can be checked
>> on.
>I dont have the reference here with me, but if you can read Norwegian :)
>look in the thorough and enjoyable book by Erik Damman: "Bak tid og rom".
>In this book the "30-universities" quote is taken from an interview with
>Eysenck, the acknowledged professor of psycology in England. I dont
>remember which university he belongs to, maybe some of the readers from
>the UK know?
>And if youre actually interested in parapsychological research done at
>universities, you could for example have a look at Princeton's page:
>http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/index.html
I think you missed ther 'peer reviewed' part. that means that the research was
checked over by others not associated with the research team for methodological
flaws. Another question is did the research have a person competent to detect
fraud examine the experiment. Given how muchs money can be made as a 'psychic'
if you have a nice university research report 'proving' your posers exist, this
should be always be done.
Wes Taylor
Oeystein Hokstad wrote:
>Patrick Juola wrote:
>> >Most research on the paranormal is done by repetetive samplings over a
>> >long period, like predicting a random outcome. For example, take 100
>> >people and make them do 10000 predictions each, and in sum you can find
>> >very statisticly significant results. This is a research method Randi
>> >would never accept.
>> Actually, it's a research method that he would be glad to accept *if*
>> it were sufficiently protected against trickery.
>Hmmm...I don't buy the argument that most scientists are gullible and are
>"tricked" by participants, that dont even have an opinon on paranormality.
I thas nothign to do with gullible. It has to do with competency at detecting
both fraud and self deception. Most scientists are not trained to do this.
>> His quibbles aren't generally with the number-crunchers, although he (and any other reputable
>> scientist)
>Well, he is rather quick to point out that they are "incompetent".
See above.
>> will generally point out very quickly that these sorts of
>> statistical tests are *very* subject to fraud, bias, and evaporation of
>> previously seen "effects," which is why it is *crucial* to reproduce
>> results.
>I would say that these statistical test are the ones that are most neutral
>and hardest to trick by fraud or bias...
BS. Statistical tests only determine if a diggnificant difference exists between
the baseline or random expectation and the observed results. Deception of fraud
can cause easily cause such a difference.
>> All he's really interested in is that whatever effects one claims will
>> stand up to methodological scrutiny. *IF* I were to suggest to him
>> that I could predict 55% of coin flips, we could easily set up a way
>> of testing that claim. (He -- or an agreed representative -- flips
>> a coin 10000 times; I call it 10000 times. 5250+ I win, 5249- I lose.)
>I dont think it is possible to predict 55%, but lets say it is possible to
>predict 50.01%. Would he be willing to set up a couple of million coin
>flips? :) It would of course be necessary to have several participants,
>but I could probably find a way to share $1 million with 49 of my friends
>:)
You would actually need nearly 100,000,000 to test that claimn and you would
need to be right (at 100 million flips) 50,100,000 times. At prediction per
second that would take somewhee near 4 years at 24 hours a day. Ino other
words, you would have to plan in doing nothig else for the next decade, as would
your freinds.
>> All he'd really need to be satisfied about it was that it was a fair
>> coin, fairly flipped -- which is easy enough to check by simply filming
>> the flips in slow-motion.
>Nod, that is the reason I think this is the best way to test concerning
>fraud.
>> > He wants someone to come into his lab and demonstrate
>> >visible "psychic powers" at an instant. And I guess he would never accept
>> >statistics as a proof anyway, his challenge is really only for the flashy
>> >Geller-types.
>> There certainly seem to be enough of those around making *claims* and
>> separating people from their hard-earned money. If, as he suggests, most
>> of them are frauds, then I think he's doing the world a service.
>Agreed, if most of them are frauds, but I dont think he is making the
>world a service when he lumps those people who make easy claims, together
>with those who try to reason seriously about it.
>> And, if you don't believe that most of those are frauds, then why can't
>> any of the flashy Geller-type effects stand up to scrutiny?
>This the only area I think Randi makes a few good points, but who needs
>Randi to know that Curley is a fraud? :)
It's the less flashy but self deceptive ty[es Randi is very usefu; for, as well
as the Geller clones.
Ron Cecchini
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
> Ah, that is exactly how Randi wants you to think.
Aren't there alt.conspiracy.* newsgroups for this kind of thinking...?
> But the fact is, it is rather common among people to some time in their
> lives to have experienced something they would call "paranormal".
Big deal.
I've had experiences that were quite "paranormal" in nature.
I've heard voices, seen shadows talk to me, and supposedly "sensed" a presence.
I even seen one-a dem li'l green fellers -- well, his rocket ship, that is!
However, I now know that there are much more rational explanations for what
I supposedly encountered.
There is not one, single, rational reason why you should believe me just
because I said it was so. There is no room in science for subjectivity.
If you have a problem with this, then you are admitting to having a problem
with logic in general. If that's the kind of world you like to live in, fine.
Go ahead. Live long and prosper.
But if you make a claim and state something as fact, then you *HAVE* to be
prepared to back it up. Otherwise, you are a spewing crackpot.
It really is that simple.
> The only problem is that Randi (and you) think that everybody that say they
> have experienced something out of the ordinary are "cons frauds & cheats".
I'm sure there are some people who believe they possess the abilities they
claim to have. I would consider such people "victims" of faulty reasoning
and ignorant in the way of the scientific method and critical analysis.
> What is "*the* scientific method"? I study sociology for example, I dont
> think your "scientific method" would work very well there.
No, maybe it wouldn't.
That's why it (sociology) is considered a "soft" science, as opposed to the
"hard" sciences of chem/bio/physics. Being that it's the study of human
behavior, the number variables are just too immense to try to conduct any kind
of rigorous, conclusive test. Perhaps some tests, sure. But for the most part
the extraneous variables can not be removed. Humans are just too complex.
This does not mean that you should abandon the scientific method in your
studies. Not at all. If you have a theory about human behavior, you still
have to test it. And if it fails, then you abandon the idea that your
theory applies to the human species as a whole. I.e. all it takes is
one counter-example to disprove your theory.
> I dont think this method is very useful in parapsychology or psycology
either.
No, for the same reason listed above.
However, I would classify parapsych as a "pseudoscience", as I am currently
of the opinion that it is an endeavor running around under the guise of being
a true science.
As I have been challenging everyone, demonstrate to me that parapsychological
phenomena truly exist -- and then we'll talk.
> What is science to you, just physics, biology and chemistry??
I said it yesterday, did I not?
I could say, again, that science is a method, or a process, a systematic
way for acquiring knowledge. Some would say that that is actually the
definition of the scientific method, but I think the dictionary will show
that I'm right. Whatever. Science can also be thought of as the body
of knowledge we've acquired so far using the scientific method.
Some strict definitions of science might limit it to the study of the physical
Universe, something that *behavior* would not fall under. However, humans
are physical beings, so there is merit to their study. Moreover, if we really
are just a bunch of swirling chemicals, well, then the studies of, say,
chemistry and biology would be pertinent to the study of human behavior, and
vice-versa, I suppose.
In short, no, I don't limit the scope of science to just the "natural sciences".
> > There is no room in science for "biased testimony".
>
> Heh, trolled you there :) Think about if a few seconds, and read your last
> sentence again, do you relly mean that?
I publically state that I stand by everything I ever say.
I've read my above statement again a few times now -- still sounds valid.
Science by definition is OBJECTIVE, *not* SUBJECTIVE.
Subjectivity results from preconceived notions and biases.
Such prejudices may lead a scientist to pursue one area of investigation
over another (as I think I'm discussing in another thread here), but that
does not mean that their findings, if scientifically accumulated, are somehow
invalid. If something is scientifically proven, then it is scientifically
proven -- it doesn't matter what the investigator's motivations were.
To clarify, my remark (that you think you somehow trapped me with) means,
in paraphrase, that nothing should ever be accepted as true just because
someone says so. This is pretty commonsensical, is it not?
<Hulk Hogan Mode>
Don't try to troll me, brother! You will *looooooose*!
</Hulk Hogan Mode>
Ron
(no, not a *threat*. i'm just saying i'll give you a run for your money.)
Ron Cecchini
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
> Randi says everything has to be scientificly proved, but of course when
> 30 independant universities wordlwide has findings that indicate the
> existance of something "paranormal", that suddenly isnt good enough.
Only when said studies exist in isolation; i.e. in the labs and offices of
the people writing the papers. When it has been determined that said studies
were conducted in a scientific way, and the results written up in a peer-
reviewed journal, and confirmed via repeated experiment, um, I don't think
Mr. Randi will have much to say. He may still like to see for himself, but
I suspect he won't automatically poo-poo the results if they were published
as I outlined above.
> Most research on the paranormal is done by repetetive samplings over a
> long period, like predicting a random outcome. For example, take 100
> people and make them do 10000 predictions each, and in sum you can find
> very statisticly significant results. This is a research method Randi
> would never accept. He wants someone to come into his lab and demonstrate
> visible "psychic powers" at an instant. And I guess he would never accept
> statistics as a proof anyway,
Of course not! Statistical correlation *IS NOT* scientific proof!
Ye gads, man, do you know *anything* about the scientific method ?!?
Ron
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: > Of course, Randi insists that both sides agrees on what
: > constitutes success and when the other side has agreed on
: > this they then can't perform what they claim.
: And if you are not successfull at that time, Randi has in the agreement
: ensured the right to use your name publicly. (And give you the same
: treatment worldwide that he gave Geller).
And well-deserved treatment that is.
--
***********************************************************
* *
* | Logic used | Logic not used | *
* -----------------|---------------|------------------| *
* Data used | Science | Empiricism | *
* -----------------|---------------|------------------| *
* Data not used | Rationalism | Mysticism | *
* *
***********************************************************
Peter Ceresole
In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.980415...@hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no>,
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
>I am fully aware that correlation in itself doesnt measure any causal
>effects, but in spite of that it can be a very useful indicative tool,
>right?
It can also be strongly deceptive- that's the problem. Statistical
correlation is pretty useless without some fairly soundly based
non-statistical supporting evidence.
--
Peter
Ron Cecchini
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
> Nothing can be "proved" in the strict sense of the word, you can only
> falsify or give strong indications. But somewhere in this practical world
> you sometimes have to draw the line and *assume* something to be proved.
Yes, but you should do so with the understanding that you are being a
little loose with your speech, as your first sentence is correct.
> I am fully aware that correlation in itself doesnt measure any causal
> effects, but in spite of that it can be a very useful indicative tool,
> right?
Yes, but as Peter then said, it can also be dangerous.
You can draw a statistical correlation between a nearly infinite
number of things with the thing you are trying to prove, all of
which may be wrong.
How you gather your data is of utmost importance.
Ron
Carl Fink
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:42:17 +0200, Oeystein Hokstad
<oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
>
>Nod OK, let me rephrase: Randi thinks that people that belive in the
>paranormal do it out of economical motivations and/or are gullible and/or
>irrational. Any way, there is always something terribly wrong with people
>that dont share his paradigm.
In the name of Thomas Kuhn, I beg you to stop abusing the word
"paradigm" in this manner.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
Manager, Dueling Modems Computer Forum
<http://dm.net>
Bruce Hutchinson
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> scribed:
>
>On 15 Apr 1998, Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
>
>> Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> scribed:
>Randis approach to the paranormal is in a similar vein: people who believe
>in the paranormal do it out of economical motivations.
>
Wrong. At others have pointed out, many of the subjects Randi has tested
truely believe in their "powers". But, as Randi HAS said, many of those
who professionally work as "Psychics" seem to be awfully reluctant to
demonstrate their "powers". So you are right, sort of, because this
reluctance does stem from economic reasons- if they are exposed, there goes
their career!
>Randi says everything has to be scientificly proved, but of course when 30
>independant universities wordlwide has findings that indicate the
>existance of something "paranormal", that suddenly isnt good enough.
Again, this is a strawman argument that is often repeated by detractors.
Randi has NEVER stated that the procedures he uses constitute "science".
All he asks from the claimants is a _demonstration_. True, he does use
scientically sound methods for double-blind conditions, but that is hardly
science. He also relies heavily on his experience and training as a
professional magician to prevent cheating and slight of hand. Again, this
can hardly be classified as "science", and Randi certainly does not make
any pretensions what-so-ever that it is. He DOES, however, take
considerable delight in debunking research teams that fail to employ a
experienced magician to help design proper conditions, then seemingly come
up with positive results.
As for "30 Universities: The studies that have been published on the
Princeton site simply are indicative that there is more than a little
interest. However- can you point us to a peer-reviewed published study
that demonstrates the positive existance of any paranormal effect? To the
best of my knowledge, none exist. This simply points out that any positive
results seemingly cannot be replicated. To any scientist, this means that
the study's positive results were probably due to experimental error,
contamination, or were a statistical fluke.
I suspect, BTW that there are a lot more than 30 that are involved in the
paranormal
>> The "10k challange" is pure propaganda. Their method is to
>> deny everything.
>
>Im of course not saying that Randi is as bad as IHR, I think sceptisism is
>healthy. But the IHR is an extreme example of someone who is not a neutral
>sceptic, but who have a paradigm they want to defend. In my opinion that
>is the position of Randi, he has a paradigm to defend. Randi constantly
>deny every finding and research on the paranormal.
Again- false strawmen. It is a oft-repeated mis-representation that Randi
has an agenda to protect- that he is out to destroy any and all paranormal
beliefs. Quite to the contrary, he has stated publicly many times that he
would love to test a real psychic or paranormal, and he is willing to pay
$1.1m for the privilege!
HOWEVER.... Randi is extremely well known for his ruthless determination
to root out those who purvey quackery, deliberate fraud, and pure hokum for
economic gain. Well publicized examples of his efforts include Geller and
the Quadro people. Note that these people use patently fraudulent methods
to sell their particlar brand of huksterism to the gullable. Randi uses
every means at his disposal to try and stop these people.
But please note that those who take the Challange that have sincere beliefs
in their powers receive almost no negative publicity from Randi. The
demonstrations are quietly done, and just as quietly debunked. You almost
never hear about them except for a couple of lines in his newsletters.
This is hardly what you would expect from a rabid defender of the skeptics,
as many have tried to portray him.
>Most research on the paranormal is done by repetetive samplings over a
>long period, like predicting a random outcome. For example, take 100
>people and make them do 10000 predictions each, and in sum you can find
>very statisticly significant results. This is a research method Randi
>would never accept.
That is because he does not consider himself a scientist- and I repeat, he
has never portrayed himself to be one.
>He wants someone to come into his lab and demonstrate
>visible "psychic powers" at an instant.
Again, wrong. He will allow the claimant considerable latitude in setting
the time, place and atmosphere- _so long_ as these conditions do not allow
for cheating. And remember, the claimant, as part of the challange
agreement, has clearly stated what (s)he can do under what conditions.
Randi simply lets them do that, but under supervision and double-blind
procedures.
>And I guess he would never accept
>statistics as a proof anyway, his challenge is really only for the flashy
>Geller-types.
He tests several claimants a year. Again, you rarely hear about them,
because that is not Randi's style. It is only the flashy Geller-types that
use pure hokum- and call it "psychic powers"- that draw his public wrath.
Bruce Hutchinson
kri...@DONOTSPAM.hotmail.com (Dan Krislov) scribed:
>Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
>
>>It is like, here is a crappy analogy: say some guy told you that blushing
>>doesnt exists. Even though you had experienced it some times in your life
>>and believe it to be real, no matter how many millions of dollars that guy
>>held in front of your nose, you could never go into his lab and do it
>>voluntarily and "prove" its existance.
>
>You're right, this really is a crappy analogy. The problem with it is
>that many people are making a living off of claims that they can
>produce paranormal results voluntarily--i.e., fortune telling for
>money, aura reading, etc. What's wrong with saying that people who
>can demonstrate this "power" voluntarily when they are paid ought to
>be able to demontrate it voluntarily under controlled circumstances?
EXACTLY! It does bother me considerably when dowsers, psychics, astrall
travellers, etc state that they can "do their thing" when ever required
(for a fee, of course)- _except_ when under controlled conditions. Then,
all of a sudden, their "gift" becomes "fleeting" and only occasionally
reliable.
Decidedly curious :)
Wes Taylor
Oeystein Hokstad wrote:
>> >And if youre actually interested in parapsychological research done at
>> >universities, you could for example have a look at Princeton's page:
>> >http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/index.html
>> I think you missed ther 'peer reviewed' part. that means that the research was
>> checked over by others not associated with the research team for methodological
>> flaws. Another question is did the research have a person competent to detect
>> fraud examine the experiment. Given how muchs money can be made as a 'psychic'
>> if you have a nice university research report 'proving' your posers exist, this
>> should be always be done.
>Well, you can read the reports yourself, and make up your mind:
>Are the researchers at Princeton competent, or do they have poor
>methodology and/or do they fabricate the results because of economical
>motivations?
>You got to have some guts to assume the latter...?
>Sigh, I think this is the only area of research where findings always are
>explained as being caused by incompetence or dishonesty.
They are probably wuite competent in the area they were trained in. They are
almost certainly *not* trained stage magicians or others skilled at detecting
fraud and deception of a 'slieght of hand' or 'mentalist act' tyoe. Without that
training or the use of such an expert they are incompetent to design an adequate
experiment.
Entirerly different from lack of competence in their fields.
Hugh Gibbons
In article <B15AE76C...@cara.demon.co.uk>, pe...@cara.demon.co.uk
(Peter Ceresole) wrote:
! In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.980415...@hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no>,
! Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
!
! >I am fully aware that correlation in itself doesnt measure any causal
! >effects, but in spite of that it can be a very useful indicative tool,
! >right?
!
! It can also be strongly deceptive- that's the problem. Statistical
! correlation is pretty useless without some fairly soundly based
! non-statistical supporting evidence.
!
It depends on how strong the statistical evidence is. If the sample
size is large, and all the reasonable confounding factors are
accounted for, and the data still show a relationship too strong to
happen by chance alone a causal relationship must be assumed, even
if it is not understood. Of course, there are still three possible
causal relationships.
(i) A causes B.
(ii) B causes A.
(iii) C causes both A and B.
I have noticed many, many cases of researchers assuming (i) without
explicitly addressing the possibility of (ii) and (iii).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I've sworn off being obnoxious. No, I mean it this time.
David B. Greene
[followups trimmed a bit]
jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del) wrote:
>da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu wrote:
>>jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del) wrote:
>>>da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu wrote:
>>>>jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del) wrote:
>>>>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Daneel wrote:
>>>>>>> Randi is the guy who offers $10,000 [Now pumped up to
>>>>>>> 1,000,000 by others donating to his Education Foundation]
>>>>>>> to anyone who demonstrates psychic capacities to him.
>>>>>>> It's still out for anyone...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I predict it will never be collected. There's a loophole in
>>>>>>there. It requires that to get the prize, one must
>>>>>>demonstrate the capability to Randi, who is obviously so
>>>>>>handicapped by his own worldview that he will never believe
>>>>>>anybody else's world view. Since that is the case, no, the money
>>>>>>will never be collected.
>>
>>>>>Do you lie just for sport? You must get a charge out of
>>>>>it since you do it constantly.
>>
>>>> Gee, Del, I think you just lied ... unless you can show he lies
>>>> *constantly* that is.
>Note dear readers, we can form a tentative conclusion
>regards Mr. Greene's inability or unwillingness to
>understand the argument.
"Dear Readers"! Hey, anyone out there besides Del reading
these posts? He is in desperate need of someone to save him
from himself! ... <silence>
>I point to the 6 examples
>which support my argument about Seeber's chronic lying.
>He ignores this to instead opt for his red herring/ad
>hominem response (above). I think it indicates
>"unwillingness."
When you call Seeber a "liar" for stating "It requires that to
get the prize, one must demonstrate the capability to Randi,"
That makes you a liar because the Randi challenge states:
"I, James Randi, through the James Randi Educational Foundation,
will pay the sum of US$1,100,000 to any person or persons who
demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of
any kind under satisfactory observing conditions."
Ergo, you are ignorant about this part of the challenge and, in spite
of all your protestations to the opposite, your charge that Mr. Seeber
lied on this point is itself a lie. QED
>>>Did you miss them? Perhaps you are confused
>>>regarding the definition of "constantly?"
>>>(constantly: continually occurring, persistent)
>>
>>Gee, Del, I think you just lied ... unless you can show he lies
>>*constantly* that is.
>
>Again Mr. Greene is unable or unwilling to answer the
>questions or address the issues.
OK, let me simplify things for you. Unless you can show me he lied last
Tuesday then you cannot demonstrate that he lies constantly. Unless you
can demonstrate he lied on July 4th, 1985 then you cannot demonstrate he
lies constantly. So, to repeat the question which you have been unable or
unwilling to answer:
"Gee, Del, I think you just lied ... unless you can show he
lies *constantly* that is."
>>>Gee, B. Greene, I think you just lied ... unless
>>>you can show he doesn't lie *constantly* that is.
>
>>I made no claim regarding his veracity
> I call something a lie if someone makes: 1) a
>statement he has reason to believe is untrue, or 2) a
>statement made with a reckless disregard for whether it
>is true or not. Apparently Mr. Greene has another,
>special definition for the word "lie."
Yeah, I believe it is a lie if Randi says a demonstration needs to be
made to win the challenge and then you say that Seeber lied by saying
a demonstration was required. Is that clear enough?
>>>>>1. "There's a loophole in there."
>>>>
>>>>>Lie number one. No loop hole. You really shouldn't
>>>>>presume that everybody thinks and acts like you.
>>>>
>>>>Can you guarantee that there is no loophole, or is that your
>>>>own opinion masqurading [sic] as fact?
>>
>>>::sigh:: Let me explain how it works. Your
>>>mendacious miscreant buddy didn't - and probably
>>>still doesn't - know a thing about the challenge.
>>
>>Obviously he knows something about it. At a minimum he knows of
>>its existence and who has sponsored it. That alone puts another
>>lie on your plate.
>
>Hahahahahahahahaha! You better be careful. Straining to
>raise nit-picking to the level of argument might earn
>you a hernia.
>
>Heck, you're not even very good at it.
>
>For instance, it is NOT obvious he knows something
>_about_ it. Knowing _of_ the existence of the challenge
>does not imply knowing anything _about_ it.
Well, if I grant you that then you still need to address the other point
about his knowing who sponsored it. To that we could add his correct
knowledge that a demonstration is required which you denied by calling that
claim a lie. It is clear he knows *something* about the challenge.
>>>Apparently you think that unless I prove that no
>>>loophole can possibly exist then - a loophole
>>>exists. I can see the parallel to your
>>>fundamentalist doctrine: God must exist. Can you
>>>prove he doesn't? No? Well then God must exist.
>>
>>God?!?!? When did the amazing Randi mention "GOD" in his
>>challenge?
>
>Perhaps the word "parallel" confuses you. Or the
>concept of "analogy."
Please expound further! There seems to be no parallel as Randi has not
mentioned God or religion in his challenge. Hey, there are atheists that
believe in the paranormal - a point made several times by some of the a.a
regulars.
>>It is
>>one thing to indicate within reason that there is no
>>significant loophole but you went beyond that to say
>>"No loop hole" period.
>
>Seeber said of the challenge:
>
> "I predict [the money] will never be collected.
> There's a loophole in there. It requires that to get the prize,
> one must demonstrate the capability to Randi, who is obviously so
> handicapped by his own worldview that he will never believe anybody
> else's world view. Since that is the case, no, the money will never
> be collected."
>
>I quoted the above statement in its entirety and then
>quoted each lie individually and commented upon it. I
>did this to show that my comments on each individual
>falsehood were not the result of taking his words out
>of context.
>
>Mr. Greene clearly has no such qualms. Anyway it is
>obvious from the context that I am referring to - and
>denying the existence of - the same specific (and
>alleged) loophole Seeber is. That is what I am calling
>a lie - duh!
>
>Poor Greene. You really are at a loss for something to
>attack aren't you?
No, I asked how you could state with absolute certainty that there
was "No loop hole." If you cannot then just admit it. You broke up
his statement into parts and clearly indicated it was a lie that a
demonstration was required period and later indicated that there was
"No loop hole" period. You also stated that Seeber lied about Randi
being a judge when he in fact did not claim Randi was a judge. At any
rate I asked you a simple question about how you could be sure there
was "No loop hole" and you went totally apoplectic which was actually
kinda fun to watch. So, how do you know that there is "No loop hole"?
Do you take all of Randi's pronouncements on faith?
>>>>>2. "It requires that to get the prize, one must
>>>>>demonstrate the capability to Randi,"
>>
>>>And I was saying "no." So your "clever" demand
>>>that I vouchsafe the impossibility of any loophole
>>>is just another example of fundy dishonesty.
>>
>>I demanded nothing of you, Del. You lie once again.
>
>I didn't "recant" anything, Greene. So _you_ lie once
>again. You're not exactly the sharpest knife in the
>drawer, are you?
There are people who are smarter than me but it is clear that you are not
one of them. I understand your claim of "no" in response to Seeber's
remark that a demonstration is required. Seeber is right about this and
your denial of a demonstration requirement is wrong. And I still demanded
nothing of you in regard to proving the impossibility of a loop hole. I
merely asked if you could prove that there were no loop holes.
>>>>> Lie number 2. Randi is not a judge
>>>>
>>>>Who is the judge?
>>
>>>You call me a liar and then want me to cure your
>>>ignorance for you? You crack me up, Greene.
>>
>>I think it is important here that in Seeber's point 2 he did not
>>say Randi is the judge.
>> He clearly indicated that the capability
>>had to be demonstrated to Randi. If that is not the case then
>>let us know as you claim to know so much more about the challenge
>>than does Seeber.
>
>Nice try at out of context interpretation. Sorry, no
>cigar though. He clearly states that no money will ever
>be collected because Randi will never believe anybody
>else's world view. That means Seeber puts Randi in
>judgment over who gets paid (which will be no one,
>according to Seeber) or not.
Well that is your inference but it is pathetically little to justify that
Seeber claims "Randi is the judge." You made up this little tap dance after
the fact anyway because in your original complaint it was *you* and *you*
alone that separated the context of money collection from the demonstration
requirement in your list of alleged lies. If they were so inextricably
intertwined as you now try to pretend they were then you should have left
them together as a single alleged lie before applying the "Randi is not
a judge" complaint to the demonstration requirement alone. You had a
completely different complaint about the money collection part. Why
backpedal now? (why not? -Ed)
>>>>>3."who is obviously so handicapped by his own worldview"
>>>>
>>>>>Lie number 3 and another example of Seeber projecting
>>>>>his closed and narrow mind as an attribute of someone
>>>>>else.
>>>>
>>>>A projection is not neccessarily [sic] a lie.
>>
>>>Do you see the word "and?" It means: "Together
>>>with or along with; in addition to; as well as."
>>>Jot this down _and_ keep it handy. You will be
>>>seeing the word again.
>>
>>OK, point taken. Now, how is it that Randi is not
>>handicapped by his world view.
>
>Notice that Greene once again misquotes, conveniently,
>to advance his agenda. Seeber didn't say "handicapped."
>He said "_so_ handicapped" which, in context, obviously
>meant Randi is handicapped to the point of being blind
>to any other world view and thus will never pay off.
>
>Boy that "context" thing sure is messing you up,
>Greene.
I know it messed up your double standards, Del, 'cuz your attempt to
hold Seeber's remark of "so handicapped" as a universal absolute while
you try to excuse your "No loop hole" remark as being provisional only.
Your version of truth reminds me of George "read my lips" Bush.
>>>> Everyone probably projects.
>>
>>>I got a better one for you. Some people let their
>>>wishful thinking get away from them and invent an
>>>all powerful daddy in the sky that they think is
>>>running their lives. They even think they talk to
>>>it!
>>
>>Maybe they do.
>
>Maybe they believe this??? No maybe about it, sport. I
>guess that's another one of your brand of lies.
Dunno 'bout that. Your claim that sky daddies are the only theistic
concept of God is not correct.
>> What the hell has that got to do with the Randi challenge.
>
>I give up. What does it have to do with the Randi challenge?
Absolutely nothing in my book but *you* brought the topic up. At least
you are now admitting that you are changing the topic where you denied
it before.
>> Last time I checked Randi wasn't
>>dumb enought [sic] to claim he could disprove God.
>> You would do well to follow his example.
>
>Hahahahahahaha! Better advice for you sport!
But I do! I'm not trying to disprove God either. From your remark
it would seem that we could infer that you would try such a stunt.
>>>Isn't that fuckin' stupid?
>>
>>Yes, if "your God is to small" (ref J. B. Phillips).
>
>How many Gods are there?
Suppose you tell me. You brought this out of context topic up.
>>>Ted says that Randi is: "*so* handicapped by his
>>>own world view that he will never believe anybody
>>>else's world view."
>>
>>>Now you're asking me if I can name a single
>>>individual who doesn't suffer this condition? In
>>>other words no one on earth is capable of
>>>believing anybody elses world view?
>>Being handicapped by one's world view in no way implies a
>>complete inability to understand or believe something about
>>another's world view.
>
>Notice, dear readers, how "cleverly" Greene changes the
>wording _again_. Seeber said - and I used his exact
>words - that Randi is "_so_ handicapped by his own
>world view that he will never believe anybody else's
>world view."
Notice, dear readers, how Del is too stoopid to realize I was addressing
his comments. I clearly asked him if he would care to name anyone not
handicapped by their world view. Fairly clear and explicit and directed to
Del. He can't answer and wants to hid behind Seeber who has now ironically
become his savior. Seeber may not have formulated his point in the
clearest prose but he does raise a good point with regard to the problem of
finding common ground in such disputes. If Del wants to play silly word
games that is his own prerogative.
>The first time around Greene omits the _so_ from "so
>handicapped." This, to include anyone who has even the
>slightest "world view handicap."
>
>Now he changes it to :
>
>a "*complete inability* to *understand* or believe
>*something about* another's world view." ["*" around
>the added text by Greene]
Keep dancin' Del, keep dancin'
>...which is also at odds with what Seeber claimed. Just
>another indication of how desperate Greene is to find
>something - anything - to attack.
Your own paranoid delusions are what cause you to think you are "under
attack." I was addressing you, not Seeber. The question is simple and
germane to the Randi challenge IMO. "Would you care to name one individual
who has not ever been handicapped [sic] by their own world view?" I see
now that you are not interested at all in the Randi challenge but only in
calling people names, poking fun at Seeber, and now trying to dance around
the whole think like a dervish proclaiming his own righteousness. I'm
gratified, though, that you have recanted your inference that Seeber's "so
handicapped" remark amounted to a charge of a complete inability to
understand or believe something about another's world view.
>>>Ah, so everyone in the world is incapable of
>>>seeing anyone else's world view --- EXCEPT you.
>>
>>Wow! Now that really follows <chuckle>
>>("Brother can you paradigm?" -Ed)
>
>This little bit of conceit - the pretend editor - is at
>least tolerable when done by someone with wit and charm.
(which is why Del has not tried it. -Ed)
>But it makes you look like a self-important boob.
(But Del looks like a self important boob regardless -Ed)
>>>You move fluidly between paradigms - Kuhn, the
>>>Bible, whatever. Randi and the rest of the world,
>>>on the other hand, just can't grasp such things.
>>
>>Isn't bringing up the Bible out of context here? I mean,
>>who mentioned it in this thread before you brought it up
>>just now?
>
>Gosh, who brought up Kuhn? Or science? Try to rein in
>your controlling impulses, sport. They are hypocritical.
I'm stunned that you think science has no place in the Randi challenge but
I'm afraid most everyone will find your notion quaint.
>>>I'm impressed I bet.
>>
>>Oviously with yourself.
>
>Oh "oviously." Hahahahahaha!
You know, this "little bit of conceit" puzzled me at first. I mean,
Del seemed to pick out *every* spelling error and typo I had made
while making *absolutely* none himself. Geez, I had never seen such
a stellar spelling performance on USENET before! Not even the venerable
Arne Langsetmo, the other a.a spelling Pharisee, could match Del's
performance as even he missed a few that others made and made some of
his own. Like Del didn't even drop a character or inadvertently double
hit a key. This seemed too good to be true so I pasted the post into a
Word document and ran spellcheck. Sure enough, not a single fault on
Del's part and every error I had made was followed by "[sic]." I became
suspicious and did some checking - whoa, Del was using "NewsWatcher" to
post his articles. So I checked and guess what! One of NewsWatcher's
claims to fame is a spellchecker! Way to go, Del :-0 You can use a
spellchecker - what a man, what a man. I mean, I have no objection to
using one if it is available but using one merely to pretend you are
soooo smart is small minded and childish indeed [sick [sic]]. The ultimate
spelling lame - using a spellchecker to pretend you are something you
are not :-D ROTFL! Hey, Del, am I "striking to close to home"? Heh,
five will get you ten he drops this if he even responds at all!
(any takers? -Ed :)
>>>>>4. "that he will never believe anybody else's world
>>>>>view."
>>>>
>>>>>More projection and lie number 4.
>>>>
>>>>Who ele's [sic] world view is he going to believe?
>>
>>>Once again Teddy makes a claim and Mr. Greene
>>>thinks I must disprove it. You really do need to
>>>reduce your output of illogic, sport. If you
>>>still want an answer to your question, submit a
>>>list of world views and I'll give you a breakdown.
>>
>>OK, here is a list:
>> Edgar Caey's world view
>> Benny Hinn'e world view
>
>I'm supposed to know who Edgar Caey and Benny Hinn'e
>are, and their world views? Sorry to disappoint, but
>I'm not as omniscient as you seem to believe.
Machts Nicht, if you can't deal with a list of world views then
don't ask for one.
>Now _evidence_, you see, is a different matter
>entirely. That's what Randi's challenge is all about.
Yes, and is this why you denied that a demonstration was required?
>>>>>5. "Since that is the case,"
>>>>
>>>>>Since that is not the case we have lie number 5
>>>>
>>>>How can you be sure that there it is in no wise the case?
>>
>>>You really are infatuated with the appeal to
>>>ignorance fallacy aren't you? I'll humor you one
>>>more time. It isn't the case that one must
>>>"demonstrate the capability to Randi" "to get the
>>>prize" since Randi isn't a judge, meaning Randi's
>>>world view couldn't possibly enter in to it,
>>>meaning that this is no loophole. Therefore Ted's
>>>claim that this is the case isn't the case at all.
>>
>>>Kapech? Take your time.
>>
>>Well, OK. Done. Gee, a judge is supposed to judge without letting
>>his own personal bias interfere. That is why he is a judge.
>
>Right. He just said Randi decided who got, or, more
>accurately, who did not get, the prize. But he never
>said "Judge!" Heck no. Furthest thing from it!
Actually, no, he did not say that - feel free to quote him if he did.
OTOH, IMO, Randi has decided who gets the prize - check the challenge.
It is fairly explicit about who gets the prize.
(careful or Del will call Randi the liar next -Ed)
Now you say "It isn't the case that one must 'demonstrate the capability
to Randi' 'to get the prize'" but that is at odds with Randi's own words.
He clearly indicates that a demonstration is required.
>>>>>6. "no, the money will never be collected."
>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps, but not for the reasons you gave, making this
>>>>>lie number 6.
>>>>
>>>>Or maybe they are the reasons,
>>
>>>Or maybe: "You can't prove it isn't so" is the
>>>sum total of your debate arsenal. My contention
>>>has a nearly infinite better chance of being true.
>>
>>I truly doubt it. I've not asked you to prove anything on this
>>point so we will just have to increment your lie counter.
>>It appears that you both agree that the money will never be collected
>>yet you call that a lie.
>>Mathematical aside: What the hell is "nearly infinite"?
>
>This too, I'm afraid.
Ah, Del is a math ignoramus as well ;)
>>>>can you predict the future?
>>
>>>I don't need to any more than I need sonar to see
>>>through your shallow and transparent argument.
>>
>>You remind me of Alice.
>
>Thanks! She was the only one on The Honeymooners" with
>any brains. You sort of remind me of Norton.
Gosh, the mighty spelling Del left out a quote mark. Heh, his spellchecker
don't handle that ;) On the other point, I think he has demonstrated that
he rides the short bus.
>Oooooo!: "I know you are but what am I?" Aren't you
>afraid Pee Wee Herman will sue you for plagiarism?
Yeah, actually, I am. But at the same time the cops will be busting your
ass for impersonating him in a movie theater.
>>>Does that ring a bell, Pavlov?
>>
>>Sure, I post - you drool.
>
>Come on! I admit that sophists like you don't grow on
>trees. But even so, I'm not _that_ hard up for examples
>to scrutinize.
Ding-ding! He does it again <grin>
>Thanks but just tearing your sophistic pretensions
>apart doesn't make me feel like I am the center of the
>universe. Nice try though.
That is funny coming from you but I'll give you another chance. If you
are not a sophist yourself then you ought to be able to answer why you
claimed Seeber's remark that a demonstration was required to win the Randi
challenge was a lie when Randi himself made that a requirement. You've not
answered this and you just dance around it. To refresh your memory here is
your complaint:
[Del quoting Seeber]
2. "It requires that to get the prize, one must
demonstrate the capability to Randi,"
[Del responding to above quote]
"Lie number 2."
I rather imagine that Del ain't commin' back on this thread. I'm
reasonably certain I'll get *plonked*
(thank God for minor miracles -Ed)
Dave Greene
karl mamer
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> writes:
> Let's face it, the reason people make challenges like Randi's is for
> propaganda reasons, and because they want people to believe sillyness like
> the above.
>
> For example, take the challenge from the "Insitiute of Historical
> Research", they have put up a challenge that has lasted many years now.
> They will give $10.000 to anyone that can prove there was a jewish
> holocaust during World War II.
>
> Of course their real interest is not in finding the _facts_ but to use it
> in their revisionist propaganda.
>
> But just like Randi they can claim: "Noone has ever managed our challenge.
> We have the true answers. Those that disagree with us are not interested
> in the facts, but just in their own irrational beliefs."
Small problem. No legit historian would ever give the nod to the IHR's
standards by which the evidence is judged. However, Randi's protocols
more than pass muster with any professional scientist.
--
"I guess communism has *all* the answers!"
-- Who Me? by Jack Chick
Visit the Conspiracy Arc-Hive!
http://www.netizen.org/Arc-Hive
Karl Brace
I'm remembering something that happened a few years back, and
I hope someone can fill in the details.
Some well-known psychic-power debunker trained a couple of
magicians to fool a pro-psychic organization into thinking they
really did have psychic abilities. They pro-psychic
organization had their people carefully test these two men on
their powers and certified them as authentic. They were very
careful because they didn't want to certify something who
wasn't authentic. The TV clip I remember showed the two men at
a banquet about to accept an award for being certified as
psychic, but they announced they couldn't accept the award
because they were magicians and not psychic. Their goal was to
show that a good magician can fool even a careful observer.
Can someone fill in the details? Who put these guys up to it?
What was the organization who tested them? What psychic feat
did they fool people into thinking they could perform? When
did this happen?
Karl Brace
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
>
>
>> >And if youre actually interested in parapsychological research done at
>> >universities, you could for example have a look at Princeton's page:
>> >http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/index.html
>>
>> I think you missed ther 'peer reviewed' part. that means that the research was
>> checked over by others not associated with the research team for methodological
>> flaws. Another question is did the research have a person competent to detect
>> fraud examine the experiment. Given how muchs money can be made as a 'psychic'
>> if you have a nice university research report 'proving' your posers exist, this
>> should be always be done.
>
>Well, you can read the reports yourself, and make up your mind:
>
>Are the researchers at Princeton competent, or do they have poor
>methodology and/or do they fabricate the results because of economical
>motivations?
Isn't it interesting how "30 independant universities
wordlwide" has boiled down tp Princeton?
Dan Mckinnon
In sci.skeptic Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
> Ah, that is exactly how Randi wants you to think. But the fact is, it is
> rather common among people to some time in their lives to have experienced
> something they would call "paranormal". Something that very few can
> explain or claim to do voluntarily (except the few you can see putting in
> ads in the paper, which i will agree to are as you say cons, frauds &
> cheats.) The only problem is that Randi (and you) think that everybody
> that say they have experienced something out of the ordinary are "cons
> frauds & cheats".
That's an outright distortion of the facts, very close to a lie.
Most people, including myself, have experienced "something out of the
ordinary".
It's just that the origin of the experience need not be _extraordinary)
or "paranormal".
> It is like, here is a crappy analogy: say some guy told you that blushing
> doesnt exists. Even though you had experienced it some times in your life
> and believe it to be real, no matter how many millions of dollars that guy
> held in front of your nose, you could never go into his lab and do it
> voluntarily and "prove" its existance.
He could, without your knowledge, set you up for an embarassing
experience or two, and observe it. You _would_ be able to accurately
describe the conditions under which you blushed!?
I have never in my life heard of people voluntarily blushing, but I
have heard of people claiming psychic powers, and they seldom seem to
delineate the conditions under which they operate until _After_ they fail
a test, which strangely enough, didn't fit those conditions! <G>
> What is "*the* scientific method"? I study sociology for example, I dont
> think your "scientific method" would work very well there. I dont think
> this method is very useful in parapsychology or psycology either.
I assume sociology uses statistics a lot? Is there or is there not an
accepted way of gathering statistics to avoid bias in replies, to make
sure questions are neutral, and so on? does this not strike you as
"scientific". The math used to determine the accuracy and reliability of
the statistics is not "scientific"?
You are right if you are saying people do not, as individuals, behave
predictably.
I'm not sure of any relevance to people who claim paranormal skills.
I can play a guitar. A skeptical observer won't stop me, although I do
suffer from satage fright, and wion't play as well.
So why do paranormalists claim a "skeptic effect"?
> > Because it is not so much that they are bothering just me; if it were, I could
> > easily learn to just ignore them. Instead, such frauds & conmen perpetuate
> > ILLOGIC & UNSCIENTIFIC THOUGHT which I truly believe will be the downfall of
> > this WORLD. I earnestly believe that it is only when everyone learns how to
> > think in a LOGICAL & CRITICAL way that we, as a species, will have a fighting
> > chance.
> What is science to you, just physics, biology and chemistry??
No, it's a way of _thinking_, as he just said above.
Dan
Andrew Ducker
In article <6h2cjh$431$2...@hermes.seas.smu.edu>, Louann Miller
<lou...@mail.smu.edu> writes
The probable explanation for this is that Macbeth is one of the more
popular of Shakespeare's plays. Therefore if a troupe was running low
on money it could always be provided on to raise some. Therefore
running Macbeth was a sign that you had fallen on bad times.
Samael
--
Home: sam...@dial.pipex.com * I'm a brit. Infer Necessary Smileys
Work: and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk * This is _not_ a rehearsal
Will Elliott
In article <qTiZWQA2...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Ducker
<and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The probable explanation for this is that Macbeth is one of the more
> popular of Shakespeare's plays. Therefore if a troupe was running low
> on money it could always be provided on to raise some. Therefore
> running Macbeth was a sign that you had fallen on bad times.
>
> Samael
Cite, please.
Landis D. Ragon
Karl Brace <br...@cadtls.enet.dec.com> wrote:
1. Randi
2. Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, from a grant founded
by the McDonnell Foundation. It seems old man McDonnell was a mystic
from way back. That's why we manufactured airplanes called Voodoo,
Gremlin, Phantom, Phantom II, Banshee etc <*sigh*>
3. Lots... Moving stuff, reading minds, the usual.
4. Early 1980s?
>Karl Brace
Landis D. Ragon
Chief Elf in the toy factory...
Dave/Kristin Hall
Oeystein Hokstad (oeys...@nvg.org) wrote:
: Patrick Juola wrote:
: Hmmm...I don't buy the argument that most scientists are gullible and are
: "tricked" by participants, that dont even have an opinon on paranormality.
Rutherford didn't believe his own (well, actually his grad student's)
results. He definately had an opinion. And yet, he changed his opinion
when the experiment (shooting neutrons at gold foil, IIRC) was repeatable.
In other words, any good scientist will throw out his opinions before he
throws out test data. HOWEVER....
: I would say that these statistical test are the ones that are most neutral
: and hardest to trick by fraud or bias...
BWAHAHAHAAA! I just spend 3 hours "massaging" data to get results that
were acceptable to my boss (at his request for political reasons). Did
I tell any lies? No. Did I leave out certain, selected data? Yes. Do
I know the whole story? Yes. Does my boss? Pretty much. Does his boss?
Possibly. Does his boss's boss? Nope.
No, when you're trying to prove the (commonly believed to be) impossible,
you had best keep it simple. IE, keep it 100% under your own control.
--
David Hall
Propulsion Performance Office (Code 4732H0D)
Naval Air Warfare Center - Weapons Division
China Lake, CA 93555
Ron Cecchini
theh...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Dave/Kristin Hall) wrote:
> BWAHAHAHAAA! I just spend 3 hours "massaging" data to get results that
> were acceptable to my boss ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
> Did I leave out certain, selected data? Yes.
... ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
> David Hall
> Propulsion Performance Office (Code 4732H0D)
> Naval Air Warfare Center - Weapons Division
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm wondering if we should all be getting a little nervous...
Ron
MindFlayer
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Kevin D. Quitt penned this in one
fell sweep: <3549c795....@dnews.pacificnet.net>
>On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:15:50 +0200, Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
>>Are the researchers at Princeton competent, or do they have poor
>>methodology and/or do they fabricate the results because of economical
>>motivations?
>
>subjects were are to affect PRE-RECORDED data streams, as opposed to affecting
>an active random-number generator.
An active random-number generator is totally deterministic, making it
as set in stone as a pre-recorded data stream.
--
********************************************************************************
* MindFlayer alt.atheist #696 * Don't fuck with logic -- you will lose. *
* http://www.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/ * --Me *
********************************************************************************
MindFlayer
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Gregory Gyetko penned this in one
fell sweep: <35376310...@nospam.newbridge.com>
>MindFlayer wrote:
>
>> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Kevin D. Quitt penned this in one
>> fell sweep: <3549c795....@dnews.pacificnet.net>
>> >On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:15:50 +0200, Oeystein Hokstad <oeys...@nvg.org> wrote:
>> >>Are the researchers at Princeton competent, or do they have poor
>> >>methodology and/or do they fabricate the results because of economical
>> >>motivations?
>> >
>> >I have serious doubts about their controls. According to their literature,
>> >subjects were are to affect PRE-RECORDED data streams, as opposed to affecting
>> >an active random-number generator.
>>
>> An active random-number generator is totally deterministic, making it
>> as set in stone as a pre-recorded data stream.
>
>don't know what "active" means in this sense.)
I just let the "active" part go. ;)
>There are two types, afaik, the kind that uses a seed to some crazy multiplying
>trick so that the number *looks* random and the kind that monitors noise on an
>electrical circuit and gets it number from that.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the RL-based kind... Sorry. it's just that, in
CS, we never end up dealing with true randomness -- pseudo-random
generators are just as good as true random ones for us, and much cheaper...
>In that sense that the whole universe is deterministic, I suppose neither is truly
>random, but otherwise the second kind of generator is random.
Well, there IS QM...