info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
James Randi is a conman
51 views
Skip to first unread message
ibsh...@gmail.com
Apr 17, 2013, 3:28:40 AM4/17/13
to
http://stevevolk.com/archives/1040
The Joke of the James Randi Challenge (In Defense of Sheldrake)
The trickiest assignment I assigned myself, for my January 7 appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast, was to refute some things the new atheist thinker Sam Harris said about James Randi’s “1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge.”
I’ve endeavored to crater the myth of James Randi on a number of occasions. Randi, an amateur magician who found fame as an opponent of paranormal claims, has long served as the cranky elf of the skeptical movement. And I believe if anyone looks closely at the details of his career they will conclude, as I have, that he is a poor spokesman for critical thinking and rationality.
You can check out my previous coverage of him by following the link above. Here, I just want to address what is likely the worst, least credible thing Randi promotes: his long-running Challenge, in which he vows to give $1 million to anyonewho can prove a paranormal claim in a “controlled test.”
The Challenge has muddled the very boundaries of science, allowing Randi-ites to say paranormal claims don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny while conceding, when pressed, that the Challenge isn’t science.
Harris touted the Challenge on Rogan’s show, claiming that paranormal researchers should have to prove their case to Randi and his minions at the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) before they get a wider hearing. He even claimed there is “something fishy” about the refusal of scientists like Rupert Sheldrake to take part.
Harris gave his opinion on Rogan, But he is in the powerful position, in many people’s lives, of seeming to spout only truths. I myself owe Harris a deep personal debt for turning me on to meditation. But I’d like to clear up some misconceptions he surely furthered by speaking so adamantly in favor of Randi’s authority.
Others, before me, like Greg Taylor, at the Daily Grail, and Chris Carter, have pointed out the failings of Randi’s challenge. But allow me to summarize.
The Challenge begins with a red herring:
Randi boasts that the protocols of each test must be “mutually agreed upon.” But the only terms he agrees to insist that applicants obtain results beyond what would be demanded to determine scientific significance.
The preliminary test, which must be passed before an applicant can try for the million, demands odds against chance of 1,000 to 1. The second test, to win the million, requires the applicant to show results at better than a million to one against chance.
The result is that an applicant can—and did—achieve statistically significant positive results, yet was deemed to “fail” the challenge. Taylor quotes a psi researcher giving the following account:
“In the ganzfeld telepathy test the meta-analytic hit rate with unselected subjects is 32% where chance expectation is 25%. If that 32% hit rate is the ‘real’ telepathy effect, then for us to have a 99% chance of getting a significant effect at p < 0.005, we would need to run 989 trials. One ganzfeld session lasts about 1.5 hours, or about 1,483 total hours. Previous experiments show that it is not advisable to run more than one session per day. So we have to potentially recruit 989 x 2 people to participate, an experimenter who will spend 4+ years running these people day in and day out, and at the end we’ll end up with p < 0.005. Randi will say those results aren’t good enough, because you could get such a result by chance 5 in 1,000 times. Thus, he will require odds against chance of at least a million to 1 to pay out $1 million, and then the amount of time and money it would take to get a significant result would be far in excess of $1 million.”
In light of this, there is nothing “fishy” about the disinclination of a scientist like Sheldrake to participate in the Challenge. Statistical significance is built through sheer repetition. In fact, achieving a proper “sample size,” testing an effect enough times, is a bedrock of science. Conversely, failing to obtain a representative sample size is a hallmark of the Randi Challenge. Scientists like Sheldrake, Dean Radin or Daryl Bem conduct studies that requires dozens of people (or more) and take weeks or months or even years to perform. Randi puts on events that occur in a fraction of the time, generally over an evening or afternoon. In conclusion, Randi’s protocols simply won’t allow Sheldrake to conduct real science.
Now, other parapsychologists have contacted Randi about applying for the million dollar challenge: Dick Bierman and Sutbert Ertel claim they approached Randi but got nowhere.
In addition, there are other reasons anyone might decide not to apply. JREF requires applicants to grant the rights to all video, audio and written record of the tests to the JREF, and also to waive any legal claims stemming from the challenge. In other words, anyone who ventures into Randi’s lair, seeking to win $1 million, will find their every word and deed therein subject to Randi’s editing and promotional exploitation, without any legal recourse. (Taylor first reported this, providing a link to rules posted at Randi’s website that have subsequently been taken down.)
Given the long odds and Randi’s history of antipathy toward psi research and its practitioners—his woeful “Pigasus” award is a case in point—why would anyone subject themselves to this agreement?
Harris is actually quite charitable (particularly for a materialist atheist) toward the paranormal in The End of Faith, which, in my opinion, remains his most worthwhile book. He is, I’d argue, a potential friend to the psi community. In this sense, his faith in James Randi reveals the little magician’s real talent as a showman—capable of swinging even a free thinker like Harris toward a dogmatic view.
The Joke of the James Randi Challenge (In Defense of Sheldrake)
The trickiest assignment I assigned myself, for my January 7 appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast, was to refute some things the new atheist thinker Sam Harris said about James Randi’s “1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge.”
I’ve endeavored to crater the myth of James Randi on a number of occasions. Randi, an amateur magician who found fame as an opponent of paranormal claims, has long served as the cranky elf of the skeptical movement. And I believe if anyone looks closely at the details of his career they will conclude, as I have, that he is a poor spokesman for critical thinking and rationality.
You can check out my previous coverage of him by following the link above. Here, I just want to address what is likely the worst, least credible thing Randi promotes: his long-running Challenge, in which he vows to give $1 million to anyonewho can prove a paranormal claim in a “controlled test.”
The Challenge has muddled the very boundaries of science, allowing Randi-ites to say paranormal claims don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny while conceding, when pressed, that the Challenge isn’t science.
Harris touted the Challenge on Rogan’s show, claiming that paranormal researchers should have to prove their case to Randi and his minions at the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) before they get a wider hearing. He even claimed there is “something fishy” about the refusal of scientists like Rupert Sheldrake to take part.
Harris gave his opinion on Rogan, But he is in the powerful position, in many people’s lives, of seeming to spout only truths. I myself owe Harris a deep personal debt for turning me on to meditation. But I’d like to clear up some misconceptions he surely furthered by speaking so adamantly in favor of Randi’s authority.
Others, before me, like Greg Taylor, at the Daily Grail, and Chris Carter, have pointed out the failings of Randi’s challenge. But allow me to summarize.
The Challenge begins with a red herring:
Randi boasts that the protocols of each test must be “mutually agreed upon.” But the only terms he agrees to insist that applicants obtain results beyond what would be demanded to determine scientific significance.
The preliminary test, which must be passed before an applicant can try for the million, demands odds against chance of 1,000 to 1. The second test, to win the million, requires the applicant to show results at better than a million to one against chance.
The result is that an applicant can—and did—achieve statistically significant positive results, yet was deemed to “fail” the challenge. Taylor quotes a psi researcher giving the following account:
“In the ganzfeld telepathy test the meta-analytic hit rate with unselected subjects is 32% where chance expectation is 25%. If that 32% hit rate is the ‘real’ telepathy effect, then for us to have a 99% chance of getting a significant effect at p < 0.005, we would need to run 989 trials. One ganzfeld session lasts about 1.5 hours, or about 1,483 total hours. Previous experiments show that it is not advisable to run more than one session per day. So we have to potentially recruit 989 x 2 people to participate, an experimenter who will spend 4+ years running these people day in and day out, and at the end we’ll end up with p < 0.005. Randi will say those results aren’t good enough, because you could get such a result by chance 5 in 1,000 times. Thus, he will require odds against chance of at least a million to 1 to pay out $1 million, and then the amount of time and money it would take to get a significant result would be far in excess of $1 million.”
In light of this, there is nothing “fishy” about the disinclination of a scientist like Sheldrake to participate in the Challenge. Statistical significance is built through sheer repetition. In fact, achieving a proper “sample size,” testing an effect enough times, is a bedrock of science. Conversely, failing to obtain a representative sample size is a hallmark of the Randi Challenge. Scientists like Sheldrake, Dean Radin or Daryl Bem conduct studies that requires dozens of people (or more) and take weeks or months or even years to perform. Randi puts on events that occur in a fraction of the time, generally over an evening or afternoon. In conclusion, Randi’s protocols simply won’t allow Sheldrake to conduct real science.
Now, other parapsychologists have contacted Randi about applying for the million dollar challenge: Dick Bierman and Sutbert Ertel claim they approached Randi but got nowhere.
In addition, there are other reasons anyone might decide not to apply. JREF requires applicants to grant the rights to all video, audio and written record of the tests to the JREF, and also to waive any legal claims stemming from the challenge. In other words, anyone who ventures into Randi’s lair, seeking to win $1 million, will find their every word and deed therein subject to Randi’s editing and promotional exploitation, without any legal recourse. (Taylor first reported this, providing a link to rules posted at Randi’s website that have subsequently been taken down.)
Given the long odds and Randi’s history of antipathy toward psi research and its practitioners—his woeful “Pigasus” award is a case in point—why would anyone subject themselves to this agreement?
Harris is actually quite charitable (particularly for a materialist atheist) toward the paranormal in The End of Faith, which, in my opinion, remains his most worthwhile book. He is, I’d argue, a potential friend to the psi community. In this sense, his faith in James Randi reveals the little magician’s real talent as a showman—capable of swinging even a free thinker like Harris toward a dogmatic view.
Cujo DeSockpuppet
Apr 17, 2013, 4:57:38 PM4/17/13
to
ibsh...@gmail.com wrote in
news:08d2537a-49d1-4a70...@googlegroups.com:
[flush]
http://tinyurl.com/6mtcw
Thanks for the gift of your st0000000000000pidity, Wankboi.
"UAPD officers were dispatched to the UA Health Sciences Library,
1501 N. Campbell Ave., Friday evening after a student called
saying that a man was masturbating near the computer terminals,
reports stated.
When officers arrived, they talked with the reporting student
who told police that she observed Ilya Shambat, 24, of a general
delivery address, allegedly masturbating under his shorts while
using a computer.
The witness said Shambat was "going to town" on himself with
his hands down his pants.
She stated that she was studying in the library and just
wanted Shambat to leave.
Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research
purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been
masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen
and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend
on the computer.
Officers had previously warned Shambat against trespassing
and this time arrested him for third-degree trespassing.
He was transported to Pima County Jail where he was refused
by Pre-Trial Services and booked."
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Nutrinos (sic) are one of the key understanding to this idea. This is
how
most aliens traverse the multiverse at this time." - Edmo on a full
delusional ride in his own created reality.
news:08d2537a-49d1-4a70...@googlegroups.com:
[flush]
http://tinyurl.com/6mtcw
Thanks for the gift of your st0000000000000pidity, Wankboi.
"UAPD officers were dispatched to the UA Health Sciences Library,
1501 N. Campbell Ave., Friday evening after a student called
saying that a man was masturbating near the computer terminals,
reports stated.
When officers arrived, they talked with the reporting student
who told police that she observed Ilya Shambat, 24, of a general
delivery address, allegedly masturbating under his shorts while
using a computer.
The witness said Shambat was "going to town" on himself with
his hands down his pants.
She stated that she was studying in the library and just
wanted Shambat to leave.
Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research
purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been
masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen
and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend
on the computer.
Officers had previously warned Shambat against trespassing
and this time arrested him for third-degree trespassing.
He was transported to Pima County Jail where he was refused
by Pre-Trial Services and booked."
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Nutrinos (sic) are one of the key understanding to this idea. This is
how
most aliens traverse the multiverse at this time." - Edmo on a full
delusional ride in his own created reality.
A B
Apr 18, 2013, 1:49:39 PM4/18/13
to
Just to say thanks for passing on a well-argued article, and sorry about
Cujo, he goes with the territory.
The fact that The Amazing Randi demands statistical significance of one in a
million is what gets me. I know full well that that isn't normal for other
branches of science - neither is 1 in 1000, even (in my first-year course 1
in 20 was given as the usual rule-of-thumb level to show that a preliminary
study had found something worth taking further), so how does he get away
with that?
Well, the answer is probably because he doesn't do it as science, among
professional scientists - he does it as a show, which is HIS trade. The
man's a conjurer, always was, and still is. Dressing up as a professor is
just the way he does his act - pity so many people seem to let it confuse
them.
--
A. B.
><>
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.
-----------------
<ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote on 17th April:
Cujo, he goes with the territory.
The fact that The Amazing Randi demands statistical significance of one in a
million is what gets me. I know full well that that isn't normal for other
branches of science - neither is 1 in 1000, even (in my first-year course 1
in 20 was given as the usual rule-of-thumb level to show that a preliminary
study had found something worth taking further), so how does he get away
with that?
Well, the answer is probably because he doesn't do it as science, among
professional scientists - he does it as a show, which is HIS trade. The
man's a conjurer, always was, and still is. Dressing up as a professor is
just the way he does his act - pity so many people seem to let it confuse
them.
--
A. B.
><>
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.
-----------------
<ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote on 17th April:
Cujo DeSockpuppet
Apr 19, 2013, 4:49:48 PM4/19/13
to
"A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote in
news:5170323d$0$23478$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:
> Just to say thanks for passing on a well-argued article, and sorry
> about Cujo, he goes with the territory.
Wankboi is a lying scumbag and delusional.
> The fact that The Amazing Randi demands statistical significance of
> one in a million is what gets me.
Actually what's required is a repeatable experiment that is better than
random chance.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"The Google archives; for 7 years and running--for all to see for as long
as the Internet shall live--evidences that I am the victor, and you
are the failures." - Edmo, keeping a record of his failures.
news:5170323d$0$23478$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:
> Just to say thanks for passing on a well-argued article, and sorry
> about Cujo, he goes with the territory.
> The fact that The Amazing Randi demands statistical significance of
> one in a million is what gets me.
random chance.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
as the Internet shall live--evidences that I am the victor, and you
are the failures." - Edmo, keeping a record of his failures.
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
Apr 20, 2013, 12:02:14 AM4/20/13
to
In article <08d2537a-49d1-4a70-b7bb-
98c169...@googlegroups.com>
ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://stevevolk.com/archives/1040
> The Joke of the James Randi Challenge (In Defense of Sheldrake)
>
>
> The trickiest assignment I assigned myself, for my January 7 appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast,
This continued until last year when Chan was caught after
>
> http://stevevolk.com/archives/1040
> The Joke of the James Randi Challenge (In Defense of Sheldrake)
>
>
> The trickiest assignment I assigned myself, for my January 7 appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast,
sexually abusing a preschooler in a toilet at the Yishun
Community Library on 27 Apr.
Chan pleaded guilty to one count of sexual penetration of a
minor on Thursday. He was jailed for 12 years and given 12
strokes of the cane yesterday.
Chan had gone to the library after lunch to look for 'targets' -
young boys going to the toilet alone.
When Chan saw a 6-year-old boy about to enter the toilet alone,
he immediately went inside to wait for the boy.
Once the boy stood in front of a urinal, Chan approached and got
him to remove his shorts and underwear.
He then lifted the boy with his left hand and molested him.
Next, he took the boy into a cubicle and performed oral sex on
him.
When he heard the boy's mother calling for the boy, Chan was
afraid and helped the boy put his clothes back on. He opened the
cubicle door and let the boy out.
He also helped the boy to wash his hands. It was this very act
that gave Chan away.
When the boy met his mother outside, she noticed that his hands
were wet. Knowing that he could not reach the tap, she asked if
anyone had helped him to wash his hands.
That was when the boy told his mother about his encounter with
Chan.
His mother immediately informed a library officer who got a male
library helper to check the male toilet.
He found a toilet cubicle occupied but did not receive a
response when he knocked on the door.
Chan eventually emerged from the cubicle and was identified by
the boy who was waiting outside the toilet with his mother.
Chan was arrested by the police the same day.
He told Dr Phang that he had performed the sexual act on the boy
because 'I want to know the feeling of enjoyment. To feel that
excitement'.
While Chan was aware that what he had done was illegal and
against social norms, he said: 'I'm doing this for very long,
and it's enjoyable, and I think I never cause any harm to the
person.'
He said he did not have any 'abnormal experiences' at the time
of the offence but claimed to 'have heard 'voices' located
within his mind for many years, instructing him to search for
more 'victims'.
And although he had a girlfriend for a number of years, the
purpose of their relationship was to 'cover up' his 'true sexual
preference/orientation'.
Chan said that sex with his then-girlfriend 'don't have that
kind of feeling which make me happiness'.
He said that sexual intercourse with his girlfriend was 'to
satisfy her' rather than for his own sexual gratification.
Chan told Dr Phang that he surfed paedophile websites 'about
three to four times a week'. These websites featured mainly
'young boys'.
Chan confessed that he lived out his deviant fantasies and
engaged in such behaviour 'sometimes few months once, and only
Saturday and Sunday' as he was busy at work on weekdays.
A B
Apr 20, 2013, 8:14:54 AM4/20/13
to
"Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cu...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1A7AB334BDA8s...@208.90.168.18...
one in a million like, well, a good slogan?
news:XnsA1A7AB334BDA8s...@208.90.168.18...
>> The fact that The Amazing Randi demands statistical significance of
>> one in a million is what gets me.
>
> Actually what's required is a repeatable experiment that is better than
> random chance.
Exactly, but how much better? One in twenty like a normal experiment, or
>> one in a million is what gets me.
>
> Actually what's required is a repeatable experiment that is better than
> random chance.
one in a million like, well, a good slogan?
Cujo DeSockpuppet
Apr 20, 2013, 5:30:25 PM4/20/13
to
"A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote in
news:517286bf$0$1136$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:
> "Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cu...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1A7AB334BDA8s...@208.90.168.18...
>> "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote in
>> news:5170323d$0$23478$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:
>>> The fact that The Amazing Randi demands statistical significance of
>>> one in a million is what gets me.
>>
>> Actually what's required is a repeatable experiment that is better
>> than random chance.
>
> Exactly, but how much better? One in twenty like a normal experiment,
> or one in a million like, well, a good slogan?
anything happens. If you actually check Randi's past record, you'll
plainly see that this is all transparent to the claimant and anyone else.
If you claim you can walk through solid concrete walls, I'd say I'd be
pretty impressed if you could do it one out of a hundred times. If you're
going to predict coin flips, you ought to be able to do a bit better than
50 percent consistently in the agreed sample size. As I'm not going to
explain a statistics and probability book in a post, you'll need to come
up with a more "concrete" example.
So, assuming Wankboi isn't whining further in this thread, it's your turn
to design an experiment. We did have one of the supposed astrologers[1]
here try one with a scientist here some time ago, so you might want to
look that up.
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/4b3320187bd1d735?
dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
Feel free to research further.
[1] Raytard Murphy, the Ted Kennedy of astrologers.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
and psychological data." - Edmo dreams of becoming a cautionary tale.
Hercules ofZeus
Apr 25, 2013, 12:06:05 AM4/25/13
to edi...@skeptics.com.au, jr...@randi.org, chal...@randi.org, chal...@skeptics.com.au, ne...@nine.com.au, ne...@seven.com.au, ne...@ten.com.au, ne...@thechronicle.com.au, in...@zooweekly.com.au
Actually James Randi is not the problem.
I pointed out 3 serious flaws with his $1,000,000 contract in 2007
(www.SKEPTICSSUCK.com)
which he later fixed up in his revision.
1/ No onus to publish applications or reply
2/ No viewing of video demonstration evidence (will be discarded)
3/ Media spotlight following only
All fixed for several years now!
Also J.R. has stopped heckling religious groups
and his motto is to co-exist in the teaching environment alongside
with religious teaching to serve as scientific methodology and
critique.
************
The problem is the lack of support by the paranormal crowd.
People like you and AB in fact.
You are the James Randis on the opposite side of the coin.
Your presence and participation in online debates makes it
look like there is investigation going on...
There is not, I have posted my Paranormal Protocol 100 times
10 years I've been posting my Paranormal Protocol
and the BELIEVERS detract from experimental progress
more so than the Skeptics who are supposed to be the ones
lying in wait....
The son of God has been tortured for 20 years by USA DoD already!
While you all listened to me scream!
Herc
--
PARABET 1.0
DAY 1 - CHANNEL WORD 1
DAY 2 - CHANNEL WORD 2
DAY 3 - CHANNEL WORD 3
DAY 4 - SHUFFLE / GUESS / PAYOUT
NO SKEPTIC (OR BELIEVER) HAS BOTHERED IN 10 YEARS!
THERE ARE NO | 0 | ZERO
Genuine paranormal investigators AT ALL on the ENTIRE PLANET!
I've been literally screaming 10 years for ANYONE to test me out!
------------------------------------------------
No GHOSTBUSTER MYTHBUSTER ... PROGRAM OF FOX TV
has ever bothered to read alt.paranormal or sci.skeptic in 10 years!
some investigators!!!
Let's go to a Haunted House and expose the phonies!!
------------------------------------------------
You skeptics and anti-skeptics should stop your stupid bullshit
You push me down worse than they do. bunch of fking traitors every
religious person on the planet
HERE IS A MILLION TO ONE PICTURE RIGHT HERE
IN FRONT OF YOUR STUPID FACES
http://chatzombie.com/Dragon.jpg
CANT SEE IT? YOU'RE A BULLSHITTER
A B
Apr 27, 2013, 8:47:25 AM4/27/13
to
"Hercules ofZeus" <herc.i...@gmail.com> wrote on 20th April:
hop it. So that'll maybe be enough of that.
>The problem is the lack of support by the paranormal crowd.
>People like you and AB in fact.
>You are the James Randis on the opposite side of the coin.
>Your presence and participation in online debates makes it
>look like there is investigation going on...
>There is not, I have posted my Paranormal Protocol 100 times
>10 years I've been posting my Paranormal Protocol
>
>and the BELIEVERS detract from experimental progress
>more so than the Skeptics who are supposed to be the ones
>lying in wait....
>
>The son of God has been tortured for 20 years by USA DoD already!
>
>While you all listened to me scream!
>
>Herc
>--
>PARABET 1.0
>
>DAY 1 - CHANNEL WORD 1
>DAY 2 - CHANNEL WORD 2
>DAY 3 - CHANNEL WORD 3
>DAY 4 - SHUFFLE / GUESS / PAYOUT
>NO SKEPTIC (OR BELIEVER) HAS BOTHERED IN 10 YEARS!
>
>THERE ARE NO | 0 | ZERO
>
>Genuine paranormal investigators AT ALL on the ENTIRE PLANET!
>
>I've been literally screaming 10 years for ANYONE to test me out!
Just to point out, Graham: I offered just the other day, and you told me to
>People like you and AB in fact.
>You are the James Randis on the opposite side of the coin.
>Your presence and participation in online debates makes it
>look like there is investigation going on...
>There is not, I have posted my Paranormal Protocol 100 times
>10 years I've been posting my Paranormal Protocol
>
>and the BELIEVERS detract from experimental progress
>more so than the Skeptics who are supposed to be the ones
>lying in wait....
>
>The son of God has been tortured for 20 years by USA DoD already!
>
>While you all listened to me scream!
>
>Herc
>--
>PARABET 1.0
>
>DAY 1 - CHANNEL WORD 1
>DAY 2 - CHANNEL WORD 2
>DAY 3 - CHANNEL WORD 3
>DAY 4 - SHUFFLE / GUESS / PAYOUT
>NO SKEPTIC (OR BELIEVER) HAS BOTHERED IN 10 YEARS!
>
>THERE ARE NO | 0 | ZERO
>
>Genuine paranormal investigators AT ALL on the ENTIRE PLANET!
>
>I've been literally screaming 10 years for ANYONE to test me out!
hop it. So that'll maybe be enough of that.
Graham Cooper
Apr 27, 2013, 9:17:47 PM4/27/13
to
On Apr 27, 10:47 pm, "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote:
> "Hercules ofZeus" <herc.is.h...@gmail.com> wrote on 20th April:
Youve (falsely) offered numerous times.
Try not lying to God for once.
Herc
> "Hercules ofZeus" <herc.is.h...@gmail.com> wrote on 20th April:
Try not lying to God for once.
Herc
Graham Cooper
Apr 27, 2013, 9:35:10 PM4/27/13
to
On Apr 27, 10:47 pm, "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote:
> "Hercules ofZeus" <herc.is.h...@gmail.com> wrote on 20th April:
clever little tart!
Herc
Graham Cooper
Apr 27, 2013, 9:36:15 PM4/27/13
to
> >I've been literally screaming 10 years for ANYONE to test me out!
>
> Just to point out, Graham: I offered just the other day, and you told me to
> hop it. So that'll maybe be enough of that.
> --
> A. B.><>
Herc
Graham Cooper
Apr 27, 2013, 9:46:20 PM4/27/13
to
On Apr 27, 10:47 pm, "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote:
> "Hercules ofZeus" <herc.is.h...@gmail.com> wrote on 20th April:
The problem is the lack of support by the paranormal crowd.
People like you and AB in fact.
You are the James Randis on the opposite side of the coin.
AB WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!
HERC HAS HAD A FAIR PSYCHIC TEST FOR 10 YEARS!
HE SCREAMED MURDER 10,000 POSTS FOR NOTHING!
BECAUSE AB HAD IT ALL SORTED RIGHT?
YOU LITTLE FUCKING CHEATING BLAME SHIFTING WHORE
ADAM
AS IN GENESIS ADAM YOU LYING FUCKING SHIT
Graham Cooper
Apr 27, 2013, 9:48:03 PM4/27/13
to
> > Just to point out, Graham: I offered just the other day, and you told me to
> > hop it. So that'll maybe be enough of that.
> > --
> > A. B.><>
>
> OH SO YOU JUST DEBUNKED ME YOU LITTLE FUCKING WHORE ??
>
> The problem is the lack of support by the paranormal crowd.
> People like you and AB in fact.
> You are the James Randis on the opposite side of the coin.
>
EVERY TIME I GET SOMEWHERE WITH THE SKEPTICS
AB COMES ALONG AND CALLS ME A RETARD
THROWS FUCKING PSYCHO BABBLE TERMS
INTO THE WATER!
YOURE A FUCKING ANTICHRIST AB
DONT YOU FUCKING LIE ABOUT IT
YOU PUT ME DOWN EVERY SINGLE TIME I GET SOMEWHERE
A B
Apr 30, 2013, 4:55:33 PM4/30/13
to
"Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cu...@petitmorte.net> wrote on 20th April:
I remember seeing that experiment discussed. Trouble is, it was based on
the technique of chart rectification, and many astrologers think that's a
load of old rope anyway. (Just the other week someone in
alt.astrology.moderated was calling it "rectal-fication". See - a.a.mod can
be fully as refined as a.a when it gets down to it...) So testing that
wouldn't be all that enlightening.
Trouble is, what I mostly do is birth chart interpretation, and that's
usually a long-winded business. Not something I'd want to be doing dozens
of times over to get to high statistical significance, or that you'd be
wanting to score for accuracy dozens of times over, for that matter.
Have to think about this. Unless you've any ideas of your own?
> If you claim you can walk through solid concrete walls, I'd say I'd be
> pretty impressed if you could do it one out of a hundred times. If you're
> going to predict coin flips, you ought to be able to do a bit better than
> 50 percent consistently in the agreed sample size. As I'm not going to
> explain a statistics and probability book in a post, you'll need to come
> up with a more "concrete" example.
>
> So <...> it's your turn
> pretty impressed if you could do it one out of a hundred times. If you're
> going to predict coin flips, you ought to be able to do a bit better than
> 50 percent consistently in the agreed sample size. As I'm not going to
> explain a statistics and probability book in a post, you'll need to come
> up with a more "concrete" example.
>
> to design an experiment. We did have one of the supposed astrologers
> here try one with a scientist here some time ago, so you might want to
> look that up.
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/4b3320187bd1d735?
> dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
>
> Feel free to research further.
I've kept forgetting to answer this post, sorry!
> look that up.
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/4b3320187bd1d735?
> dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
>
> Feel free to research further.
I remember seeing that experiment discussed. Trouble is, it was based on
the technique of chart rectification, and many astrologers think that's a
load of old rope anyway. (Just the other week someone in
alt.astrology.moderated was calling it "rectal-fication". See - a.a.mod can
be fully as refined as a.a when it gets down to it...) So testing that
wouldn't be all that enlightening.
Trouble is, what I mostly do is birth chart interpretation, and that's
usually a long-winded business. Not something I'd want to be doing dozens
of times over to get to high statistical significance, or that you'd be
wanting to score for accuracy dozens of times over, for that matter.
Have to think about this. Unless you've any ideas of your own?
Cujo DeSockpuppet
May 1, 2013, 8:01:50 PM5/1/13
to
"A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote in
news:51802fcf$0$1107$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:
> "Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cu...@petitmorte.net> wrote on 20th April:
>> If you claim you can walk through solid concrete walls, I'd say I'd
>> be pretty impressed if you could do it one out of a hundred times. If
>> you're going to predict coin flips, you ought to be able to do a bit
>> better than 50 percent consistently in the agreed sample size. As I'm
>> not going to explain a statistics and probability book in a post,
>> you'll need to come up with a more "concrete" example.
>>
>> So <...> it's your turn
>> to design an experiment. We did have one of the supposed astrologers
>> here try one with a scientist here some time ago, so you might want
>> to look that up.
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/4b3320187bd1d735?
>> dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
>>
>> Feel free to research further.
>
> I've kept forgetting to answer this post, sorry!
>
> I remember seeing that experiment discussed. Trouble is, it was based
> on the technique of chart rectification, and many astrologers think
> that's a load of old rope anyway. (Just the other week someone in
> alt.astrology.moderated was calling it "rectal-fication". See -
> a.a.mod can be fully as refined as a.a when it gets down to it...) So
> testing that wouldn't be all that enlightening.
> Trouble is, what I mostly do is birth chart interpretation, and that's
> usually a long-winded business. Not something I'd want to be doing
> dozens of times over to get to high statistical significance, or that
> you'd be wanting to score for accuracy dozens of times over, for that
> matter.
especially after any possible ways to cheat are dismissed.
> Have to think about this. Unless you've any ideas of your own?
see how it could be tested. Otherwise, it can be tested using the
scientific method.
We've had a fair share of folks who have made conflicting claims through
the years, just not many who dared claim it a science that can be tested
and measured.
I don't know enough about your methods and procedures to offer much more
than to tell you what you could claim and test.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
writings that I also post in the proper groups--Because I am
EXTREMELY competant, I am able to carry 30 units, write
articles, date 25 year olds, kill spinics accounts, do artworks
of high calibur, and read 10 books at a time. Where do
you find the courage or audacity to challenge me?" - Edmo
A B
May 2, 2013, 10:54:25 AM5/2/13
to
"Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cu...@petitmorte.net> wrote:
> "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote in
> news:51802fcf$0$1107$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:
> "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote in
> news:51802fcf$0$1107$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:
>> Trouble is, what I mostly do is birth chart interpretation, and that's
>> usually a long-winded business. Not something I'd want to be doing
>> dozens of times over to get to high statistical significance, or that
>> you'd be wanting to score for accuracy dozens of times over, for that
>> matter.
>
> I think what is usually tested is the repeatability of the claim,
> especially after any possible ways to cheat are dismissed.
Sorry, I don't quite get you there. The point surely is whether you can
>> usually a long-winded business. Not something I'd want to be doing
>> dozens of times over to get to high statistical significance, or that
>> you'd be wanting to score for accuracy dozens of times over, for that
>> matter.
>
> I think what is usually tested is the repeatability of the claim,
> especially after any possible ways to cheat are dismissed.
repeat it more often than would be expected by chance, i.e. statistical
significance?
>> Have to think about this. Unless you've any ideas of your own?
>
> If you're going to claim astrology is an art and not a science, I don't
> see how it could be tested. Otherwise, it can be tested using the
> scientific method.
>
> We've had a fair share of folks who have made conflicting claims through
> the years, just not many who dared claim it a science that can be tested
> and measured.
>
> I don't know enough about your methods and procedures to offer much more
> than to tell you what you could claim and test.
interpreting itself is an "art", in that it can't be reduced to exact rules
or be done equally well by a computer - certainly not so far; but the
RESULTS should be objectively right or wrong.)
Anyway, afraid this discussion has run out of time since I'm going away on
holiday and won't have an Internet connection. Just wanted to answer so
that you didn't think I'd run away when faced with too much science! Maybe
we could try some experiments when I get back...
All the best,
Cujo DeSockpuppet
May 2, 2013, 7:32:01 PM5/2/13
to
"A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote in
news:51827e2b$0$23478$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:
> "Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cu...@petitmorte.net> wrote:
>> "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote in
>> news:51802fcf$0$1107$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk:
>>> Trouble is, what I mostly do is birth chart interpretation, and
>>> that's usually a long-winded business. Not something I'd want to be
>>> doing dozens of times over to get to high statistical significance,
>>> or that you'd be wanting to score for accuracy dozens of times over,
>>> for that matter.
>>
>> I think what is usually tested is the repeatability of the claim,
>> especially after any possible ways to cheat are dismissed.
>
> Sorry, I don't quite get you there. The point surely is whether you
> can repeat it more often than would be expected by chance, i.e.
> statistical significance?
One of the terms is that Randi can adjust an experiment to leave no
possible way to cheat. So he can adjust blindfolds, inspect "black
boxes" and anything else to remove any possibilties of "sleight of hand".
>>> Have to think about this. Unless you've any ideas of your own?
>>
>> If you're going to claim astrology is an art and not a science, I
>> don't see how it could be tested. Otherwise, it can be tested using
>> the scientific method.
>>
>> We've had a fair share of folks who have made conflicting claims
>> through the years, just not many who dared claim it a science that
>> can be tested and measured.
>>
>> I don't know enough about your methods and procedures to offer much
>> more than to tell you what you could claim and test.
>
> I'm not trying to claim it's an art and not a science. (The actual
> chart interpreting itself is an "art", in that it can't be reduced to
> exact rules or be done equally well by a computer - certainly not so
> far; but the RESULTS should be objectively right or wrong.)
> Anyway, afraid this discussion has run out of time since I'm going
> away on holiday and won't have an Internet connection. Just wanted to
> answer so that you didn't think I'd run away when faced with too much
> science! Maybe we could try some experiments when I get back...
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
hole me you son of a bitch!" - The Delusional Wollkook
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
faruqbina...@gmail.com
Nov 12, 2015, 10:29:00 PM11/12/15
to
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 3:28:40 PM UTC+8, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://stevevolk.com/archives/1040
> The Joke of the James Randi Challenge (In Defense of Sheldrake)
>
You are a clueless butthurt religious freak I bet???
> http://stevevolk.com/archives/1040
> The Joke of the James Randi Challenge (In Defense of Sheldrake)
>
No one can prove paranormal, psychic powers exist because they are all scammers fakes and charlatans..
Rand i is an expert magician, not an amateur, and Christians are too dumb to speak his name, so go fuck off!
0 new messages