Randi's Flaw
Joseph R Abbott
powers". I can prove the existence of paranormal powers, but they are
not MY OWN personal paranormal "ability", they exist in the universe
naturally, therefore I can not qualify for the money. The agreement
states:
"I, James Randi, through the James Randi Educational Foundation, will
pay the sum of US$1,000,000 (One Million Dollars) to any person or
persons who can demonstrate any psychic,
supernatural or paranormal */ability/* of any kind under satisfactory
observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these
rules and limitations: "
By focusing on "ability" he is excluding people who can prove the
paranormal exists even when they themselves don't have any personal
paranormal powers.
Sherilyn
Joseph R Abbott <jab...@iprimus.ca> wrote:
[...]
>By focusing on "ability" he is excluding people who can prove the
>paranormal exists even when they themselves don't have any personal
>paranormal powers.
It's his money.
--
Sherilyn
pz
It's not a flaw. The prize was designed as a response to people who *do*
claim to posess super powers.
Of course, I don't think that a demand for special personal abilities is
present in the challenge. Dowsers and astrologers, for instance, don't
necessarily claim to have unique abilities as individuals -- they are
tapping into metaphysical laws. You're free to do the same.
--
pz
Tsu Dho Nimh
Well, what are these paranormal things you think you can prove
exist? I'm sure that even though you are NOT a ghost, if you
could prove they exist he'd be willing to give you a shot at the
prize.
Tsu Dho Nimh
--
"Y'know, I can *say* I'm Ming The Merciless, Emporer of Planet Mongo, but
unless I can produce a few legions of heavily-armed rocket ships, you're not
likely to take me seriously." Morely Dotes, 2001
Leo Sgouros
"Tsu Dho Nimh" <aba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae607ug110pe3pd3f...@4ax.com...
> jab...@iprimus.ca (Joseph R Abbott) wrote:
>
> >The problem with Randi's challenge is that it focuses on "super
> >powers". I can prove the existence of paranormal powers, but they are
> >not MY OWN personal paranormal "ability", they exist in the universe
> >naturally, therefore I can not qualify for the money. The agreement
> >states:
> >
> >"I, James Randi, through the James Randi Educational Foundation, will
> >pay the sum of US$1,000,000 (One Million Dollars) to any person or
> >persons who can demonstrate any psychic,
> >supernatural or paranormal */ability/* of any kind under satisfactory
> >observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these
> >rules and limitations: "
> >
> >By focusing on "ability" he is excluding people who can prove the
> >paranormal exists even when they themselves don't have any personal
> >paranormal powers.
>
> Well, what are these paranormal things you think you can prove
> exist? I'm sure that even though you are NOT a ghost, if you
> could prove they exist he'd be willing to give you a shot at the
> prize.
>
Need my address?
Like I said, there is nothing to "do"
Its all on usenet already.What it *means* is another matter.
Michael Painter
"Joseph R Abbott" <jab...@iprimus.ca> wrote in message
news:323991a7.0202...@posting.google.com...
First off define what *you* mean by "paranormal powers" then tell us how you
would prove such things.
Whining about it here will not help.
Randi responds to interesting things he receives in the mail and I'm sure
your claim will interest him.
He may not be able to give you the full million under the conditions that
he accepted the money but he has at least 10,000 of his own money up for
grabs.
I've got a nickel that says the IPU will appear before you can prove what
you claim.
Incidentally once you say "I can prove" anything the scientific community is
going to start rolling their eyes and looking for the exit.
Peter Bowditch
>Like I said, there is nothing to "do"
>
>Its all on usenet already.What it *means* is another matter.
Ahhh! I see now! It's another Benneth - "it's been proved already -
send me the million bucks".
-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
Cher
"Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:HKVb8.28364$Nv5.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Have you ever seen a guy named Edwards? He has a show called Crossing Over?
It's a strange one...He sure seems able to communicate with the dead...I've
not been able to figure it, I'd be curious as to ya'll's impression of it
(If you've seen it).
Cher
Joseph R Abbott
> It's not a flaw. The prize was designed as a response to people who *do*
> claim to posess super powers.
>
> Of course, I don't think that a demand for special personal abilities is
> present in the challenge.
The application speficically states "abilties".
> Dowsers and astrologers, for instance, don't
> necessarily claim to have unique abilities as individuals -- they are
> tapping into metaphysical laws. You're free to do the same.
I can prove astrology really does work, but I can not apply for the
prize because I have no special ability, I am not an astrologer. I can
merely prove that astrology as a science works.
pz
jab...@iprimus.ca (Joseph R Abbott) wrote:
"Merely"?
I suspect that if you e-mailed Randi and told him you could do something
specific and repeatable with astrology, you'd be able to get tested.
--
pz
SkimTirvin
No you can't. You're deluded if you think that.
Joseph R Abbott wrote:
>
> pz <p...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<pzm-BA8EF3.1...@news.onvoy.com>...
> > It's not a flaw. The prize was designed as a response to people who *do*
> > claim to posess super powers.
> >
> > Of course, I don't think that a demand for special personal abilities is
> > present in the challenge.
>
> The application speficically states "abilties".
>
> > Dowsers and astrologers, for instance, don't
> > necessarily claim to have unique abilities as individuals -- they are
> > tapping into metaphysical laws. You're free to do the same.
>
> I can prove astrology really does work,
Bullshit.
>but I can not apply for the
> prize because I have no special ability, I am not an astrologer.
If you have the ability to prove astrology works, you're not excluded,
so stop fucking weaseling.
Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
> I can
> merely prove that astrology as a science works.
No you can't. You're deluded if you think that.
Astrology is not a science.
Define the mechanism that causes Astrology to "work".
Define what you mean by the word 'work" when you say "Astrology works".
Betcha can't.
Duncan Wood
"Cher" <crge...@i-55.com> wrote in message
news:a4pf95$684$1...@news.datasync.com...
Troll?, try a google search
Peter Bowditch
>Have you ever seen a guy named Edwards? He has a show called Crossing Over?
>It's a strange one...He sure seems able to communicate with the dead...I've
>not been able to figure it, I'd be curious as to ya'll's impression of it
>(If you've seen it).
I've heard of him. He was the lying fraud who was going to talk to all
the people killed at the WTC on a television show. Thankfully some
sense broke out at the network and they canned this disgusting
spectacle.
The way Edward (singular) works is this:
JE: Do you have a loved one who has died?
Sad person: Yes.
JE: Give me your money.
SP: What is the message for me?
JE: Give me more money.
SP: I'm sorry, I have run out of money.
JE: Next.
Dan Pressnell
news:a4pf95$684$1...@news.datasync.com...
> Have you ever seen a guy named Edwards? He has a show called Crossing
Over?
> It's a strange one...He sure seems able to communicate with the
dead...I've
> not been able to figure it, I'd be curious as to ya'll's impression of it
> (If you've seen it).
No, nobody here has seen it. Is it any good? If it's on television, then
it must be real!
Dan
Dan Pressnell
> I can prove astrology really does work, but I can not apply for the
> prize because I have no special ability, I am not an astrologer. I can
> merely prove that astrology as a science works.
If you can prove astrology really works, I'm sure Randi will be glad to hear
from you.
Dan
Xcott Craver
>
>I can prove astrology really does work, but I can not apply for the
>prize because I have no special ability, I am not an astrologer. I can
>merely prove that astrology as a science works.
You can indeed apply for the prize with an astrological claim.
However you decide to read the exact wording of the text,
Randi *is* willing to conduct tests of astrology.
You may be aware that Randi is also willing to conduct tests
of crackpot devices, such as the DKL locator, whose inventors
do not really claim to have supernatural abilities.
There are many proponents of the paranormal who insist that
they don't have "special abilities" per se, but in the end they
still claim they can *do* something that can not presently be
explained by science. If you can do something, that's an "ability."
If you can prove that astrology works, I'd definitely consider
that a "supernatural ability."
But semantic issues aside, the fact is that Randi is indeed
willing to test people on such matters, even if you think he is not.
-X
Michael Painter
> Have you ever seen a guy named Edwards? He has a show called Crossing
Over?
> It's a strange one...He sure seems able to communicate with the
dead...I've
> not been able to figure it, I'd be curious as to ya'll's impression of it
> (If you've seen it).
> Cher
>
It's called cold reading when done in person. On his show it's a cross
betwen that and a lot of editing and gaining of infomrmation before the
show.
He's not very good at it.
I've seen good ones.
Xcott Craver
>>
>Have you ever seen a guy named Edwards? He has a show called Crossing Over?
>It's a strange one...He sure seems able to communicate with the dead...I've
>not been able to figure it, I'd be curious as to ya'll's impression of it
>(If you've seen it).
Hi,
I've only seen the TV show that appears on cable. I've never
seen the uncut, hours-long version, that is eventually edited
down to 20 minutes.
Even if Edwards was making random guesses, it'd probably seem
pretty amazing after so much of the less interesting footage
was edited out.
>Cher
-X
Wally Anglesea™
What blows me away, is that this dud says he "can merely prove that
astrology as a science works"
If he can do that, he'll be the first.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Dan Pressnell
news:m0m07uobl4srba1t8...@4ax.com...
> >If you can prove astrology really works, I'm sure Randi will be glad to
hear
> >from you.
> What blows me away, is that this dud says he "can merely prove that
> astrology as a science works"
>
> If he can do that, he'll be the first.
I wish I could prove astrology works. Because if I could, I would go get
Randi's million dollars!
Dan
jodream1
"Xcott Craver" <C...@Spamela.BrainHz.com> wrote in message
news:sHYb8.5631$_45....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Edwards is a total fraud and he plays on grieving people's emotions.
I've seen him twice and both times he didn't say anything a witty word-smith
couldn't say.
He's never sure and he says, "I think" a lot.
Example: I think I see a man or it could be a woman. She is trying to get
through to someone with the initials
A, or BC or T. or R, but I'm not sure, it could be the initials B.B.. I
think it is a woman or it could be a man or a child.
Anyway this person is saying to me, "Tell her or him to watch the feet"
Bah fongool!
Jo
[Pretty broad range eh?]
> -X
>
>
lanny budd
I'll bet you could apply the same rigorous proof to demonstrate that
you are also the Queen of England.
thamus
following masterpiece:
Even what they leave is not very amazing. I happen to catch
a few minutes the other day. John was talking to two women:
JE: I'm getting something about the 5th, what does the 5th mean?
TGW(two gullable women): That's my daughter's birthday.
JE: Does she drive?
TGW: Yes
JE: What does she drive?
TWG: A Honda Civic.
JE: Does she have a bit of a lead-foot?
(audience laughs)
TWG: Sometimes, yes.
(audience laughs)
JE: [makes a siren noise while twirling finger]
(audience laughs)
TWG: [giggles a bit]
JE: How many tickets does she have?
(audience laughs)
TWG1: None.
TWG2: There was that one.
TWG1: Oh yeah.
JE: [makes a siren noise while twirling finger]
(audience laughs even louder)
Now what the hell is so amazing about that?
*He made no actual statements!* Even his leading
questions were off.
--
Thamus
http://www.thamus.org/News/
Morpheus
news:djZb8.100710$TI5.4...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
You wouldn't NEED Randi's million dollars. Someone with the ability to
predict the future reliably would be able to make many times that on Wall
Street in a single day :-)
thamus
the following masterpiece:
> pz <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:<pzm-BA8EF3.1...@news.onvoy.com>...
>
>> Dowsers and astrologers, for instance, don't necessarily claim to have
>> unique abilities as individuals -- they are tapping into metaphysical
>> laws. You're free to do the same.
>
> I can prove astrology really does work, but I can not apply for the
> prize because I have no special ability, I am not an astrologer. I can
> merely prove that astrology as a science works.
Well? Proceed...
--
Thamus
http://www.thamus.org/News/
Quack Buster
hey liar-ditch of gebesse computer consultants....wha' dat?
you're gonna need the money to defend yourself in your latest action?
(anticipated response from mister nixon-ditch):
"I've not been served by anyone...I am not a criminal...I am not an
animal....I'm Australian.....?"
ya ya ya.....we've heard it all before
here's the slow typing part 'cause...well you know...
you are a complete fucking asshole....
you are a pompous cock-up.....
go away....before we sue you again....
QuackBusters
Peter Bowditch
Mr O'Neill obviously doesn't understand the meaning of the word
"again". For something to happen "again" it has to have happened at
least once before. For him to sue me "again" would be impossible as he
has not sued me ever.
For those who came in late and are reading this in newsgroups where Mr
O'Neill is not a regular occurrence, you can see his collected works
at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/onews and the work of a friend of his
at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/strange/gal.htm
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so funny.
Joseph R Abbott
> No you can't. You're deluded if you think that.
>
> Joseph R Abbott wrote:
> >
> > pz <p...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<pzm-BA8EF3.1...@news.onvoy.com>...
> > > It's not a flaw. The prize was designed as a response to people who *do*
> > > claim to posess super powers.
> > >
> > > Of course, I don't think that a demand for special personal abilities is
> > > present in the challenge.
> >
> > The application speficically states "abilties".
> >
> > > Dowsers and astrologers, for instance, don't
> > > necessarily claim to have unique abilities as individuals -- they are
> > > tapping into metaphysical laws. You're free to do the same.
> >
> > I can prove astrology really does work,
>
> Bullshit.
>
> >but I can not apply for the
> > prize because I have no special ability, I am not an astrologer.
>
> If you have the ability to prove astrology works, you're not excluded,
> so stop fucking weaseling.
>
> Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
I will put up as soon as Randi puts up the prize money.
>
> > I can
> > merely prove that astrology as a science works.
>
> No you can't. You're deluded if you think that.
Then why wont Randi risk his money on my claim?
> Astrology is not a science.
It is as accurate as econmics as predicting the future and I can prove that.
>
> Define the mechanism that causes Astrology to "work".
I have absolutely no idea what causes it to work. But I can prove it does.
>
> Define what you mean by the word 'work" when you say "Astrology works".
It accurately predicts.
>
> Betcha can't.
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
>SkimTirvin <spoon...@moderatorsad.min> wrote in message news:<3C7045E6...@moderatorsad.min>...
>> No you can't. You're deluded if you think that.
>>
>> Joseph R Abbott wrote:
>> >
>> > pz <p...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<pzm-BA8EF3.1...@news.onvoy.com>...
>> > > It's not a flaw. The prize was designed as a response to people who *do*
>> > > claim to posess super powers.
>> > >
>> > > Of course, I don't think that a demand for special personal abilities is
>> > > present in the challenge.
>> >
>> > The application speficically states "abilties".
>> >
>> > > Dowsers and astrologers, for instance, don't
>> > > necessarily claim to have unique abilities as individuals -- they are
>> > > tapping into metaphysical laws. You're free to do the same.
>> >
>> > I can prove astrology really does work,
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> >but I can not apply for the
>> > prize because I have no special ability, I am not an astrologer.
>>
>> If you have the ability to prove astrology works, you're not excluded,
>> so stop fucking weaseling.
>>
>> Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
>
>I will put up as soon as Randi puts up the prize money.
The money is there. Of course, your kind always looks for an "out"
>
>>
>> > I can
>> > merely prove that astrology as a science works.
>>
>> No you can't. You're deluded if you think that.
>
>Then why wont Randi risk his money on my claim?
Have you *applied* for the challenge?
Thought not. Go away till you do.
>
>> Astrology is not a science.
>
>It is as accurate as econmics as predicting the future and I can prove that.
economics is slightly better baesd than the pathetic interpretation
that somehow the planets influence much more than the tides. Besides,
whether astrology is better than economics is not the point.
>
>>
>> Define the mechanism that causes Astrology to "work".
>
>I have absolutely no idea what causes it to work. But I can prove it does.
Bullshit. Your'e just hot air.
Stig Bull
> It is as accurate as econmics as predicting the future and I can prove
> that.
In that case, for your next stunt you can claim you can predict future, but
you won't bother to take the JREF challenge because you have "seen" that
Randi is too afraid to lose his money and therefore won't accept your claim.
--
Stig Bull
No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this electronic
message. To reduce download time, this message is made of 100% recycled
bytes.
Roddy Nyall
Joseph R Abbott wrote:
>
> SkimTirvin <spoon...@moderatorsad.min> wrote in message news:<3C7045E6...@moderatorsad.min>...
> > No you can't. You're deluded if you think that.
> >
> > Joseph R Abbott wrote:
> > >
> > > pz <p...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<pzm-BA8EF3.1...@news.onvoy.com>...
> > > > It's not a flaw. The prize was designed as a response to people who *do*
> > > > claim to posess super powers.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, I don't think that a demand for special personal abilities is
> > > > present in the challenge.
> > >
> > > The application speficically states "abilties".
> > >
> > > > Dowsers and astrologers, for instance, don't
> > > > necessarily claim to have unique abilities as individuals -- they are
> > > > tapping into metaphysical laws. You're free to do the same.
> > >
> > > I can prove astrology really does work,
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > >but I can not apply for the
> > > prize because I have no special ability, I am not an astrologer.
> >
> > If you have the ability to prove astrology works, you're not excluded,
> > so stop fucking weaseling.
> >
> > Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
>
> I will put up as soon as Randi puts up the prize money.
He already has.
So get fucking to it.
>
> >
> > > I can
> > > merely prove that astrology as a science works.
> >
> > No you can't. You're deluded if you think that.
>
> Then why wont Randi risk his money on my claim?
Who said he won't?
YOU are the one weaseling about taking it. Fill out the application
form; don't blame your weaseling on him!
>
> > Astrology is not a science.
>
> It is as accurate as econmics as predicting the future and I can prove that.
HAHHAHAHAHAHAAH!
That's not proving "Astrology works", pal.
Economics doesn't predict the future, it forecasts trends, and everyone
knows how wrong it can be
The weather is a similar case, It's often wrong. But both of those
predict things more accurately and with far more specificity than
Astgrology does.
Astrology is USELESS for predicting the future..
>
> >
> > Define the mechanism that causes Astrology to "work".
>
> I have absolutely no idea what causes it to work. But I can prove it does.
And how do you propose to do that?
>
> >
> > Define what you mean by the word 'work" when you say "Astrology works".
>
> It accurately predicts.
It accurately predicts *what*? Be specific.
Define your accuracy range.
Astrology does not and CANNOT predict things accurately, such as "At
8:07 on Wednesday, a bus will Hit Mr. Joeseph Werner in the Pollo Loco
Parking lot at 14th Street and Main."
Now, THAT is accuracy. Astrology can't do that.
>
> >
> > Betcha can't.
Happy Dog
> > Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
>
> I will put up as soon as Randi puts up the prize money.
I was wondering when you'd be back with this tired complaint. Do you have a
novel take on the "Randi doesn't really have the money" excuse or are you so
ill informed about the history of the Challenge that you're going to bore
anyone who isn't with the same tired excuses typical of pretenders who have
no hope of ever even applying?
> >
> > > I can
> > > merely prove that astrology as a science works.
> >
> > No you can't. You're deluded if you think that.
>
> Then why wont Randi risk his money on my claim?
Because you haven't applied. Did you read the rules? Maybe it's time for
you to declare the rules unfair and try to get special treatment.
> > Astrology is not a science.
>
> It is as accurate as econmics as predicting the future and I can prove
that.
That's it? That's all you can do? Just out of interest, how do you define
"econmics"? The term is so vague that you could simply take random guesses
and then show that they were more accurate than someone who uses
conventional methods. Big deal.
> >
> > Define the mechanism that causes Astrology to "work".
>
> I have absolutely no idea what causes it to work. But I can prove it does.
> >
> > Define what you mean by the word 'work" when you say "Astrology works".
>
> It accurately predicts.
So why not show us some predictions?
erf
Michael Painter
> I will put up as soon as Randi puts up the prize money.
>
> >
> > > I can
> > > merely prove that astrology as a science works.
> >
> > No you can't. You're deluded if you think that.
>
> Then why wont Randi risk his money on my claim?
The money is there and except for $10,000 or so it was put up bu somebody
else so he does not even run the risk of loosing "his" money.
You on the other hand can make at least $1,000,000.00 plus demonstrate
nobody else has been able to do.
>
> > Astrology is not a science.
>
> It is as accurate as econmics as predicting the future and I can prove
that.
>
Do so.
Interesting Ian
"SkimTirvin" <spoon...@moderatorsad.min> wrote in message
news:3C7045E6...@moderatorsad.min...
>
> Define what you mean by the word 'work" when you say "Astrology works".
>
> Betcha can't.
There possibly could be a conventional causal mechanism. The planets are
associated with plasma fields and moreover there is a solar atmosphere that
extends far beyond the earth into space. The plasmas interact with the sun
and with each other. The interaction leads to a dependence of solar
activity on the relative positions of the planets. Watching the planets one
can predict certain features of solar activity with great precision. Solar
activity influences the quality of short wave radio signals, hence
fluctuations in this quality can be predicted from the position of the
planets as well. Solar activity has a profound influence on life. For
example variations in the electric potential of trees depend not only on the
gross activity of the sun but on individual flares and therefore again on
the positions of the planets.
Ian
Tsu Dho Nimh
>> Well, what are these paranormal things you think you can prove
>> exist? I'm sure that even though you are NOT a ghost, if you
>> could prove they exist he'd be willing to give you a shot at the
>> prize.
>>
>
>Need my address?
>Like I said, there is nothing to "do"
Can you demonstrate the existence of these powers at the
contracted time, under conditions you and JR have agreed to? If
you can't make it happen reliably and predictably, it's not good
enough.
And "evidence on usenet" is slightly below hearsay for
reliability.
Tsu Dho Nimh
--
"Y'know, I can *say* I'm Ming The Merciless, Emporer of Planet Mongo, but
unless I can produce a few legions of heavily-armed rocket ships, you're not
likely to take me seriously." Morely Dotes, 2001
Tsu Dho Nimh
>Have you ever seen a guy named Edwards? He has a show called Crossing Over?
>It's a strange one...He sure seems able to communicate with the dead...I've
>not been able to figure it, I'd be curious as to ya'll's impression of it
He's an exploitive SOB who uses "cold reading" to give the
impression he is communicating with the dead - search for that on
google.com.
If you watch him again, tape the show and see how many times he
is given the information by the person he is talking to
inresponse to leading questions. Of course, what you see is a
show edited down to only show what the producers want you to see.
The raw tapes would be more interesting.
Interesting Ian
"thamus" <tha...@spammit.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.02.17.2...@spammit.com...
I believe in an "afterlife", but I have to confess that really is *appalling
* bad. Is that example really stereotypical of the type of questions he
asks?? I hope you don't consider that anyone who believes in an afterlife
is going to regard this guy as genuinely being able to speak to the dead. I
sometimes despair that any intelligent dialogue can be generated regarding
the possibility of an afterlife or of paranormal phenomena. There's so
much crap being generated on both sides of the debate. It's hopeless.
Ian
Termite of Temptation
> >paranormal exists even when they themselves don't have any personal
> >paranormal powers.
>
> I have this notion ... in a world where everyone is
> blind, certain individuals claim to be able to perceive
> shapes at a distance using those two vestigal organs
> of unknown purpose located on either side of their noses.
>
> BlindRandi offers a big reward to anyone who can demonstrate
> this ability - but HE gets to set the conditions. The subject
> must be taken to the depths of a cave, locked in a wooden
> box and have their head covered by a thick feather-filled
> helment so that there is no chance they can cheat by using
> their senses of hearing, smell, taste or touch.
FYI, the conditions are decided by both Randi AND the participant before
hand. Randi uses conditions that will rule out cheating; otherwise he allows
the subject whatever conditions he or she likes. Read the claim.
Duncan
ed rhodes
That's not much of a comparison... don't forget; "If you laid all the
economists in the world end to end, they'd all point in different
directions."
Cardinal Chunder
> It accurately predicts.
If it accurately predicts, why don't go for the challenge? Prove it
beyond a shadow of a doubt and you'll be rich beyond your wildest
dreams, astrology will experience a golden age and the likes of Randi
will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
What have you got to lose?
Sherilyn
Yes, if you can use, say, horary astrology to predict the whereabouts
of hidden items with a reliability that could not be realistically
accounted for by chance, then you could win the prize.
>
>What have you got to lose?
>
Go for it, Joseph!
--
Sherilyn
Roger Smith
> >
> > TGW(two gullable women): That's my daughter's birthday.
I think it's amazing that those two women were able to answer all his
questions in unison! :-)
-- Roger
Harryfest 2002 - A Celebration of the Music of Harry Nilsson
June 14-16, 2002 - Orlando, Florida
http://www.harryfest.com/
Eric Prebys
Joseph R Abbott wrote:
>
> pz <p...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<pzm-BA8EF3.1...@news.onvoy.com>...
> > It's not a flaw. The prize was designed as a response to people who *do*
> > claim to posess super powers.
> >
> > Of course, I don't think that a demand for special personal abilities is
> > present in the challenge.
>
> The application speficically states "abilties".
>
> > Dowsers and astrologers, for instance, don't
> > necessarily claim to have unique abilities as individuals -- they are
> > tapping into metaphysical laws. You're free to do the same.
>
> I can prove astrology really does work, but I can not apply for the
> prize because I have no special ability, I am not an astrologer. I can
> merely prove that astrology as a science works.
If you can use astrology to predict something under controlled
conditions,
in a way inconsistent with other explanations, that would most
definitely
constitute a "paranormal ability".
I recommend you take the bet...
...or shut the fuck up.
-Eric
Michael Painter
"BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:G=dwPGflwW6Qion...@4ax.com...<snip>
> I have this notion ... in a world where everyone is
> blind, certain individuals claim to be able to perceive
> shapes at a distance using those two vestigal organs
> of unknown purpose located on either side of their noses.
>
> BlindRandi offers a big reward to anyone who can demonstrate
> this ability - but HE gets to set the conditions. The subject
> must be taken to the depths of a cave, locked in a wooden
> box and have their head covered by a thick feather-filled
> helment so that there is no chance they can cheat by using
> their senses of hearing, smell, taste or touch.
>
>
Randi insists on a mutually agreed upon test bed.
In your blind world it would be trivial to devise a test that would
demonstrate the use of some extra sense. Further the people would have no
reason to take somebody in a cave since they would not know about light.
The sighted person could prove his ability simply by always being able to
tell somebody they were going to walk into a wall or off a cliff. After a
while people would accept it. Nobody's ever done that with the paranormal.
We are blind to quantum theory but the tunnel diode works.
Edmond Wollmann
This is what gets astrologers in trouble, I have been trying to explain
to them that it is not a science, but that that is ok, they will never
get it because they give all power to science unconsciously and seek to
prove their craft to imbeciles like Randi so that they can be "valid."
Art, is equal, if not superior to, science. Maybe someday, they will see
their own Achilles heel and thank me.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. arctur...@earthlink.net (remove-)
© 2002 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/
ganesh
Can you show where these methods have been reviewed?
Thanks.
Cardinal Chunder wrote in message <3C713BA8...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com>...
Michael Painter
"Edmond Wollmann" <Arctu...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3C7160...@spamcop.net...
> Eric Prebys wrote:
>
> This is what gets astrologers in trouble, I have been trying to explain
> to them that it is not a science, but that that is ok, they will never
> get it because they give all power to science unconsciously and seek to
> prove their craft to imbeciles like Randi so that they can be "valid."
> Art, is equal, if not superior to, science. Maybe someday, they will see
> their own Achilles heel and thank me.
> --
Art is a subjective thing and has different meaning to everybody.
It is not based on anything but imagination and what a culture holds to be
art.
If I put cheese all over the walls of a motel room I'd be arrested and put
in the funny farm.(even if I did it in nearby Velveeta town) A famous artist
does it and it makes him money.
But I'm glad to hear wolly admit that there is no basis in fact for the
subject.
The opinion that art is superior to science is usually made by people who
have the time leisure and lifespan made possible by science for them to
appreciate what they think of as art.
Those same people would not hire an artist to build the circuits that power
their computer or operate on them.
Wally Anglesea™
>Does Randi use the scientific method in his tests?
>Can you show where these methods have been reviewed?
CSICOP.
>Thanks.
you are welcome.
funny how you are whining about your favourite beleifs being shown up
as kooky huh?
>
>Cardinal Chunder wrote in message <3C713BA8...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com>...
>>Joseph R Abbott wrote:
>>> It accurately predicts.
>>
>>If it accurately predicts, why don't go for the challenge? Prove it
>>beyond a shadow of a doubt and you'll be rich beyond your wildest
>>dreams, astrology will experience a golden age and the likes of Randi
>>will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
>>
>>What have you got to lose?
>>
>
--
Happy Dog
> Does Randi use the scientific method in his tests?
> Can you show where these methods have been reviewed?
*sigh* It would take so much less time to explain the Challenge to people
if they would read the rules before asking questions like this. The
"scientific method" is a set of guidelines used to uncover or create
knowledge. The Challenge simply requires that Randi and the Applicant agree
on exactly what method will be used to demonstrate, either successfully or
unsuccessfully, the Applicant's claim. It isn't necessary to employ the
"scientific method" to prove that a person can correctly guess a coin toss
nine times out of ten.
arf
Cujo
So what you are doing is a cold read of the person and getting the chart
to fit. Thank you for your kookiness.
--
"How does it serve you to waste your life in fruitless efforts and
ad hominems, only to harass an asshole and delusional kook?"
Edmo admits his true nature while backpedaling furiously.
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych
http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/cujcert.jpg
Fanatic Legion # 555-PLNTY
Rank: Colonel
Motto: "ABUNDANCE!"
Title: Czar of Intelligence
Wally Anglesea™
Then explain how a womans womb stops this energy.
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <Arctu...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>This is what gets astrologers in trouble, I have been trying to explain
>to them that it is not a science, but that that is ok, they will never
>get it because they give all power to science unconsciously and seek to
>prove their craft to imbeciles like Randi so that they can be "valid."
>Art, is equal, if not superior to, science. Maybe someday, they will see
>their own Achilles heel and thank me.
You can't pass the test so that makes Randi an imbecile?
Spåmster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Eric Prebys wrote:
> >
> > Joseph R Abbott wrote:
> > >
> > > pz <p...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<pzm-BA8EF3.1...@news.onvoy.com>...
> > > > It's not a flaw. The prize was designed as a response to people who *do*
> > > > claim to posess super powers.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, I don't think that a demand for special personal abilities is
> > > > present in the challenge.
> > >
> > > The application speficically states "abilties".
> > >
> > > > Dowsers and astrologers, for instance, don't
> > > > necessarily claim to have unique abilities as individuals -- they are
> > > > tapping into metaphysical laws. You're free to do the same.
> > >
> > > I can prove astrology really does work, but I can not apply for the
> > > prize because I have no special ability, I am not an astrologer. I can
> > > merely prove that astrology as a science works.
> >
> > If you can use astrology to predict something under controlled
> > conditions,
> > in a way inconsistent with other explanations, that would most
> > definitely
> > constitute a "paranormal ability".
> >
> > I recommend you take the bet...
> >
> > ...or shut the fuck up.
> >
> > -Eric
>
> This is what gets astrologers in trouble, I have been trying to explain
But never coherently.
ka&g
"Joseph R Abbott" <jab...@iprimus.ca> wrote in message
news:323991a7.0202...@posting.google.com...
> The problem with Randi's challenge is that it focuses on "super
> powers".
well, yes.
so i don't understand why randi-challenge fanatics (both pro and con) post
these sorts of things to misc.health.alternative.
if randi was going around testing various chiropractic, acupuncture or
cancer cure claims, then i could see the point. i understand that there is
lots of homeopathic attention, but disregarding the many health claims made
in the other three areas makes it all a rather superfluous topic.
as i have oft been scolded for here at mha, randi's challenge evidently
doesn't have a whole helluva lot to do with medicine, alternative or
otherwise.
> I can prove the existence of paranormal powers, but they are
> not MY OWN personal paranormal "ability", they exist in the universe
> naturally, therefore I can not qualify for the money. The agreement
> states:
>
> "I, James Randi, through the James Randi Educational Foundation, will
> pay the sum of US$1,000,000 (One Million Dollars) to any person or
> persons who can demonstrate any psychic,
> supernatural or paranormal */ability/* of any kind under satisfactory
> observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these
> rules and limitations: "
>
> By focusing on "ability" he is excluding people who can prove the
> paranormal exists even when they themselves don't have any personal
> paranormal powers.
hey, whatever. it's randi's (plus some friends') money and his rule. he
calls the shots.
again, i don't understand why randi's challenge is ever really an
appropriate topic on MHA.
(certainly, if discussing conventional medicine isn't appropriate, then
discussing the randi challenge isn't either.)
--
Dawn: "You're not fleeing, you're...moving at a brisk pace."
Buffy: "Quaintly referred to in some cultures as 'The Big Scairdy
Run-Away'."
pz
"ka&g" <ka&g...@nospam.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
> again, i don't understand why randi's challenge is ever really an
> appropriate topic on MHA.
Homeopathy is one subject that Randi considers fair game for the
challenge, so of course it is topical in that newsgroup.
>
> (certainly, if discussing conventional medicine isn't appropriate, then
> discussing the randi challenge isn't either.)
If homeopathy weren't appropriate, then Randi's challenge wouldn't be,
either. But sadly, people do take homeopathy seriously.
--
pz
Dan Pressnell
> Does Randi use the scientific method in his tests?
> Can you show where these methods have been reviewed?
This is priceless. Those who reject science complain that Randi doesn't
have his tests "reviewed."
Dan
Dan Pressnell
news:u7332pp...@corp.supernews.com...
> > The problem with Randi's challenge is that it focuses on "super
> > powers".
>
>
> well, yes.
>
> so i don't understand why randi-challenge fanatics (both pro and con) post
> these sorts of things to misc.health.alternative.
Because those who claim to have those super powers are embarassed to take
the test, so they engage in a smear campaign.
Dan
ka&g
> In article <u7332pp...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "ka&g" <ka&g...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > again, i don't understand why randi's challenge is ever really an
> > appropriate topic on MHA.
>
> Homeopathy is one subject that Randi considers fair game for the
> challenge, so of course it is topical in that newsgroup.
was homeopathy the topic started here in this thread? nope.
the general purpose of the randi challenge seemed to be under scrutiny by
the original poster.
if homeopathy is the only alt health topic/challenge that the randi spiel
covers, that's a sad thing.
there's the rub, see.
what's considered "supernatural"?
aren't most alt health claims considered super natural? if not, why not? but
that's all beside the point.
cross posted discussions from the above NGs are frequent, intrusive and
space-wasting.
sure, i use my filter regularly, but if others can whine about 'don't
discuss conventional med faux pauxs' then i can whine about the
off-MHA-topicness of the randi challenge. (for apparently anything health
related other than homeopathy)
> > (certainly, if discussing conventional medicine isn't appropriate, then
> > discussing the randi challenge isn't either.)
>
> If homeopathy weren't appropriate, then Randi's challenge wouldn't be,
> either. But sadly, people do take homeopathy seriously.
see above.
Interesting Ian
"Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote in message
news:itr27u8c48gru9m5t...@4ax.com...
I fail to understand your meaning. Please elaborate.
Ian
pz
"ka&g" <ka&g...@nospam.net> wrote:
> "pz" <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:pzm-6B5E3C.1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> > In article <u7332pp...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "ka&g" <ka&g...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > again, i don't understand why randi's challenge is ever really an
> > > appropriate topic on MHA.
> >
> > Homeopathy is one subject that Randi considers fair game for the
> > challenge, so of course it is topical in that newsgroup.
>
> was homeopathy the topic started here in this thread? nope.
>
> the general purpose of the randi challenge seemed to be under scrutiny by
> the original poster.
>
> if homeopathy is the only alt health topic/challenge that the randi spiel
> covers, that's a sad thing.
It isn't. Lots of flaky, superstitious "health" practices are fair game.
>
> there's the rub, see.
>
> what's considered "supernatural"?
>
> aren't most alt health claims considered super natural?
No.
> if not, why not?
Because they don't involve magical thinking, and only invoke natural
causes.
> but
> that's all beside the point.
>
> cross posted discussions from the above NGs are frequent, intrusive and
> space-wasting.
>
> sure, i use my filter regularly, but if others can whine about 'don't
> discuss conventional med faux pauxs' then i can whine about the
> off-MHA-topicness of the randi challenge. (for apparently anything health
> related other than homeopathy)
>
>
> > > (certainly, if discussing conventional medicine isn't appropriate, then
> > > discussing the randi challenge isn't either.)
> >
> > If homeopathy weren't appropriate, then Randi's challenge wouldn't be,
> > either. But sadly, people do take homeopathy seriously.
>
> see above.
--
pz
ka&g
> In article <u736s6t...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "ka&g" <ka&g...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > if homeopathy is the only alt health topic/challenge that the randi
spiel
> > covers, that's a sad thing.
"pz" <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:pzm-092391.1...@news.onvoy.com...
> It isn't. Lots of flaky, superstitious "health" practices are fair game.
really? could you name some of them for me?
do they include acupuncture theories?
> > there's the rub, see.
> >
> > what's considered "supernatural"?
> >
> > aren't most alt health claims considered super natural?
>
> No.
>
> > if not, why not?
>
> Because they don't involve magical thinking, and only invoke natural
> causes.
ok, so---like i asked above, what health-related topic besides homeopathy
'involves magical thinking without invoking natural causes' ?
ka&g
"Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ZDYb8.28761$Nv5.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> It's called cold reading when done in person. On his show it's a cross
> betwen that and a lot of editing and gaining of infomrmation before the
> show.
> He's not very good at it.
> I've seen good ones.
here's an idea....why don't a bunch of the various regular usenet 'skeptics'
get together (secretly via private email, of course) and get tickets for a
particular show date?
(personally, i am agnostic when it comes to all this after-worldy stuff.
none of this inexplicable 'supernatural' contact has happened to me
yet----if it does, i reckon you could paint me a believer)
anyway, for this mass skeptic infiltration shindig, someone be the
designated 'secretary' of the event to write it all down. (well, it'd be on
tv, also, right?)
this would be something interesting, educational, and well worth doing for
the 'skeptic cause', don't y'all think?
pz
wrote:
> > In article <u736s6t...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "ka&g" <ka&g...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > > if homeopathy is the only alt health topic/challenge that the randi
> spiel
> > > covers, that's a sad thing.
>
> "pz" <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:pzm-092391.1...@news.onvoy.com...
>
> > It isn't. Lots of flaky, superstitious "health" practices are fair game.
>
> really? could you name some of them for me?
>
> do they include acupuncture theories?
Yes. Acupuncture, acupressure, chiropractic, reflexology, aromatherapy,
ear candling, crystal healing, rebirthing...lots of bizarre New Age
nonsense.
>
> > > there's the rub, see.
> > >
> > > what's considered "supernatural"?
> > >
> > > aren't most alt health claims considered super natural?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > if not, why not?
> >
> > Because they don't involve magical thinking, and only invoke natural
> > causes.
>
> ok, so---like i asked above, what health-related topic besides homeopathy
> 'involves magical thinking without invoking natural causes' ?
Done.
You're welcome.
--
pz
ka&g
> In article <u738rb...@corp.supernews.com>, "ka&g" <ka&g...@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > In article <u736s6t...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > "ka&g" <ka&g...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > if homeopathy is the only alt health topic/challenge that the randi
> > spiel
> > > > covers, that's a sad thing.
> >
> > "pz" <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:pzm-092391.1...@news.onvoy.com...
> >
> > > It isn't. Lots of flaky, superstitious "health" practices are fair
game.
> >
> > really? could you name some of them for me?
> >
> > do they include acupuncture theories?
>
> Yes. Acupuncture, acupressure, chiropractic, reflexology, aromatherapy,
> ear candling, crystal healing, rebirthing...lots of bizarre New Age
> nonsense.
well, isn't that something! a regular usenet 'skeptic' who actually states
that acupuncture is 'new age nonsense' !
> > > > there's the rub, see.
> > > >
> > > > what's considered "supernatural"?
> > > >
> > > > aren't most alt health claims considered super natural?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > > if not, why not?
> > >
> > > Because they don't involve magical thinking, and only invoke natural
> > > causes.
> >
> > ok, so---like i asked above, what health-related topic besides
homeopathy
> > 'involves magical thinking without invoking natural causes' ?
>
> Done.
>
> You're welcome.
aw, don't thank me yet.
so, now that you've named the alt treatments that (you believe) are
considered worthy of randi attention, which ones are not??
(you stated NO when i asked if *most* alt health claims could be considered
'supernatural')
obviously, herbal treatments are not supernatural.
please name some other alternative health treatments that (you believe)
should NOT be considered "supernatural", ie unworthy of randi challenge
attention.
pz
wrote:
[snip]
> so, now that you've named the alt treatments that (you believe) are
> considered worthy of randi attention, which ones are not??
>
> (you stated NO when i asked if *most* alt health claims could be considered
> 'supernatural')
My apologies, I was in error. I didn't notice that you'd specified
"alt", and thought you were asking about health care treatments in
general.
Most alternative health care claims are totally bogus garbage.
>
> obviously, herbal treatments are not supernatural.
>
> please name some other alternative health treatments that (you believe)
> should NOT be considered "supernatural", ie unworthy of randi challenge
> attention.
Rather few of them, actually.
--
pz
Michael Painter
"Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:s_gc8.104634$H37.14...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
The astrologer uses the time and location of birth to do their thing.
What prevents the magic rays from penetrating the womb?
Why is it effective only at the time of birth?
The inverse square law being what it is why does the position on the earth
affect the chart?
What is the relationship of this solar activity with the position of the
stars and planets?
Why hasn't science noted this relationship.
Why are the stars involved?
Which system of astrology is this valid for? Sidereal or tropical?
Why did the importance of some planets become important only after they were
discovered?
What is the significance of planets going "retrograde"?
Why do charts prepared by different astrologers all asking the same agreed
on questions all totally different and apparently random in nature?
Michael Painter
> "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
> >news:G=dwPGflwW6Qion...@4ax.com...
> >> jab...@iprimus.ca (Joseph R Abbott) wrote:
> >>
> ><snip>
> >> I have this notion ... in a world where everyone is
> >> blind, certain individuals claim to be able to perceive
> >> shapes at a distance using those two vestigal organs
> >> of unknown purpose located on either side of their noses.
> >>
> >> BlindRandi offers a big reward to anyone who can demonstrate
> >> this ability - but HE gets to set the conditions. The subject
> >> must be taken to the depths of a cave, locked in a wooden
> >> box and have their head covered by a thick feather-filled
> >> helment so that there is no chance they can cheat by using
> >> their senses of hearing, smell, taste or touch.
> >>
> >> Now Randi isn't QUITE that bad, but ...
> >>
> > Randi insists on a mutually agreed upon test bed.
> >
> >In your blind world it would be trivial to devise a test that would
> >demonstrate the use of some extra sense.
>
> can accomplish wonders ... and, of course, there
> would be plenty of SKEPTICS eager to find alternative
> explainations.
>
> >Further the people would have no
> >reason to take somebody in a cave since they would not know about light.
>
> I was thinking more in terms of (a) noise-reduction
> and (b) isolation.
>
> >The sighted person could prove his ability simply by always being able to
> >tell somebody they were going to walk into a wall or off a cliff.
>
> Shortly before I began answering your post, I walked down
> the hall of my now-empty office building with my eyes
> closed. The AC unit was humming in the background. It was
> not too hard for me to perceive when I passed open doors
> or was approaching walls because they created a change in
> the ambient hum. You CAN hear a cliff, if you know what
> to listen for.
It goes well past that. Blind people can do that and do simple echo
location to get distances from walls and some other clever things.
Try your walk with wires across the hall way and steps and odds and ends
of furniture. Do it rapidly.
Have the blind ones fill a glass with water and tell them when to stop from
across the room.
Tell them the shape of things without touching them.
Hell, just tell them you rearrange the furnature every day or tell them
where they missed cleaning. I've got blind friends and know what they can
and can't do.
>
> >After a while people would accept it.
>
> Isn't that "... would burn them at the stake" ?
>
> >Nobody's ever done that with the paranormal.
>
> Oh, I agree. If there *are* any of the traditionally-
> described "paranormal" abilities, they are so weak and
> erratic that they don't stand-out above the background.
> (well, unless the military grabs-up all the skilled
> candidates for use as weapons ... but that should go
> into 'alt.conspiracy') My concern is that prejudice
> AGAINST such things may, even unconsciously, lead us
> to fabricate faulty "tests" and/or dismiss marginally
> positive results.
There is no prejudice against them. They used to be believed in and studied.
Serious pewople spent serious time as science developed.
They found they were non existant.
Science tests what it knows every day, over and over again. When it fails
the test it is discarded.
>
> Insofar as "paranormal" abilities go however, so MANY
> people have done so MANY kinds of tests that we would
> hope any such errors were diluted into insignificance.
> If we want "paranormal" abilities, we are going to have
> to create them with technology since we sure 'nuf don't
> seem to be born with them.
>
> The only curious thing is that the history of such claimed
> abilities seems SO long and extensive, embraced even when
> belief constitutes a psychological threat, that it's
> impossible to simply dismiss the idea as simple
> wish-fulfillment, misunderstanding or hallucination. The
> question is whether this compels us to study PSI some
> more - in case we've missed something - or whether we
> should really be studying WHY so many believe in such
> things so strongly and so easily.
>
> >We are blind to quantum theory but the tunnel diode works.
>
> We are blind to MANY things which exist. Sometimes it's a
> blindness of the senses - but at other times it's a darker
> sort of blindness ... the limitations of our minds. What
> would the same old universe look like, through the same
> old senses, to someone with, say, an IQ of 2000 ??? The
> same "reality" ? I don't believe so. We are all as the
> prisoners in Platos cave - doomed to only perceive a
> narrow, distorted, slice of reality - a small-picture
> worldview in a big-picture universe. Technology can help
> us a little, but in the end the limiting factor is we
> ourselves - not enough senses nor enough grey matter to
> make real "I *get it*" sense of it all.
>
Peter Bowditch
>ok, so---like i asked above, what health-related topic besides homeopathy
>'involves magical thinking without invoking natural causes' ?
NAET
magic magnets
Therapeutic Touch
chiropractic ( when based on the mythical "subluxation")
colour therapies
energy therapies
vibration (Rife, Beck, Clark, ...)
faith healing
meridian stuff (acupuncture, iridology, reflexology, ...)
It all depends on the claim being made. If it is the sort of claim
made for medicine - the treatment works better than existing methods
or than doing nothing - then it is not a candidate for the Randi
challenge but for a clinical trial. Claims of the type "I can detect x
phenomena" are easily testable. For example, if acupuncture and
iridology both work it should be possible to predict in advance what
changes will occur in the iris when certain acupuncture points are
stimulated.
-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
Edmond Wollmann
Nor is Randi necessary to prove that astrological or psychological
counsel improves the quality of life, that is up to the client not
Randi.
And you are wrong, NOTHING is ever proven anyway. Therefore, Randi's
whole assumption is fallacious.
One can ONLY "prove" something to oneself, by believing it is valid.
Nothing is ever "disproven" or "proven"
Hypothesis=The thesis, or main idea, of an experiment consisting of a
statement that predicts the relationship between at least two variables.
That's it.
ALL assertions are constructs. Construct=Hypothesis to explain
phenomena.
Hypothetical construct=Concepts to explain unseen processes, such as
hunger or learning; postulated to explain observable behavior. Astrology
is a valid hypothetical construct to explain the interconnectedness of
man and the universe.
NOTHING is ever proven. The null hypothesis is disproved or changes in
the null hypothesis are weighed against alternative hypothesis.
Probability values determine whether there is significant evidence for
rejecting or accepting the null hypothesis.
Theories are made of constructs. Constructs are beliefs and paradigms.
Theory=A systematic arrangement of facts with respect to some real or
HYPOTHETICAL laws; a hypothetical explanation of phenomena; a hypothesis
NOT YET empirically verified as a law, but accepted as the basis for
experimentation; an exposition of the general or abstract principles of
any science or humanity which have been DERIVED from PRACTICE; a plan or
a system SUGGESTED as a METHOD of action; an ideal arrangement of
events, usu. preceded by in; a doctrine or SCHEME of things resting
merely on SPECULATION, contemplation, supposition, or conjecture!
Lexicon/Webster, page 1018 #2 of two volume set.
Hypothesis generate theories. Theories generate data to look at.
Theories exist within paradigms. Paradigms are sets of belief
assumptions.
"The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe,
enter into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application
of scientific principles, in Kuhn's view, is the concept of a paradigm,
a conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
In addition to injecting inevitable biases into the definition and
collection of data, a paradigm may also affect the interpretation of
facts. In other words, the meaning or import given to data may depend to
a considerable extent on a paradigm.
University of Southern California", State University of New York"
Davidson and Neale, 6th edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
In short paradigmatical definitions (beliefs) can affect perception.
Absence of evidence from one paradigm to another proves only that the
above connections have different sets of propositions to explain
results.
We can never PROVE anything beyond a doubt, we can only measure the
truth premise of inductive logic through confidence intervals and tests
of significance-which still doesn't prove anything.
Hence we never proved that the Earth was round, we only disproved to
some degree, in this reality, at this time with these assumptions-that
it is not flat (in relative terms).
Cujo
> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>> "ganesh" <gan...@x.com> wrote in message
>> > Does Randi use the scientific method in his tests?
>> > Can you show where these methods have been reviewed?
>
>> *sigh* It would take so much less time to explain the Challenge to
>> people if they would read the rules before asking questions like this.
>> The "scientific method" is a set of guidelines used to uncover or
>> create knowledge. The Challenge simply requires that Randi and the
>> Applicant agree on exactly what method will be used to demonstrate,
>> either successfully or unsuccessfully, the Applicant's claim. It
>> isn't necessary to employ the "scientific method" to prove that a
>> person can correctly guess a coin toss nine times out of ten.
>> arf
>
> Nor is Randi necessary to prove that astrological or psychological
> counsel improves the quality of life, that is up to the client not
> Randi.
> And you are wrong, NOTHING is ever proven anyway. Therefore, Randi's
> whole assumption is fallacious.
> One can ONLY "prove" something to oneself, by believing it is valid.
>
> Nothing is ever "disproven" or "proven"
Then why are you trying to collect damages when you've admitted that you
are "the richest, most successful person on the planet"?
Can I be sued first? Just imagine what it would be like if you had my
money and I was as bankrupt and broke as you are, fucknozzle!
el...@no.spam
Joseph R Abbott <jab...@iprimus.ca> wrote:
>The problem with Randi's challenge is that it focuses on "super
>powers".
That's a false statement.
>I can prove the existence of paranormal powers,
Then you could win the challenge. I don't your claim is true though.
el...@no.spam
Joseph R Abbott <jab...@iprimus.ca> wrote:
>The application speficically states "abilties".
So? How would you demonstrate something that isn't
an ability?
el...@no.spam
>>>I can prove astrology really does work,
>>Bullshit.
>>If you have the ability to prove astrology works, you're not excluded,
>>so stop fucking weaseling.
>>Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
>I will put up as soon as Randi puts up the prize money.
Ah, the ol' there's no prize money excuse. How lame.
Tristan Haydn
Edmond Wollmann, Usenet kook of the Millenium, wrote:
>
> Eric Prebys wrote:
> >
> > Joseph R Abbott wrote:
> > >
> > > pz <p...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<pzm-BA8EF3.1...@news.onvoy.com>...
> > > > It's not a flaw. The prize was designed as a response to people who *do*
> > > > claim to posess super powers.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, I don't think that a demand for special personal abilities is
> > > > present in the challenge.
> > >
> > > The application speficically states "abilties".
> > >
> > > > Dowsers and astrologers, for instance, don't
> > > > necessarily claim to have unique abilities as individuals -- they are
> > > > tapping into metaphysical laws. You're free to do the same.
> > >
> > > I can prove astrology really does work, but I can not apply for the
> > > prize because I have no special ability, I am not an astrologer. I can
> > > merely prove that astrology as a science works.
> >
> > If you can use astrology to predict something under controlled
> > conditions,
> > in a way inconsistent with other explanations, that would most
> > definitely
> > constitute a "paranormal ability".
> >
> > I recommend you take the bet...
> >
> > ...or shut the fuck up.
> >
> > -Eric
>
> This is what gets astrologers in trouble, I have been trying to explain
> to them that it is not a science, but that that is ok, they will never
> get it because they give all power to science unconsciously and seek to
> prove their craft to imbeciles like Randi so that they can be "valid."
> Art, is equal, if not superior to, science.
Not your "art", plagiarism boy.
And it certainly isn't superior when it comes time to save some lives
via medicine, or design that computer you keep ranting on or the
keyboards you keep smashing.
> Maybe someday, they will see
> their own Achilles heel and thank me.
For having the biggest Achilles heel of all. Next to you, theirs will
seem insignificant.
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <Arctu...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Nor is Randi necessary to prove that astrological or psychological
>counsel improves the quality of life, that is up to the client not
>Randi.
Nobody has shown that it doesn't, Edie.
>And you are wrong, NOTHING is ever proven anyway. Therefore, Randi's
>whole assumption is fallacious.
Randi's assumption is an agreement between jref and the testee. Your
assertion is false. I suspect your whining about Randi's challenge
is based simply on your own knowledge that you cannot pass the
challenge.
Tristan Haydn
Self-contradicting idiotic hypocrite Edmond Wollmann wrote:
...
> And you are wrong, NOTHING is ever proven anyway. Therefore, Randi's
> whole assumption is fallacious.
> One can ONLY "prove" something to oneself, by believing it is valid.
>
> Nothing is ever "disproven" or "proven"
Really?
Then why the hell did you say this today, you stupid dumbfuck?:
" Look folks, the
Internet and usenet are not some secret society, and whatever you know
is acceptable in normal everyday life will BE PROVEN BY ME to be what is
acceptable here."
How are you going to do that, edddie?
How are you going to win in court if nothing can be proven?
You have to prove your case!
You're saying you can't do it!
But we knew tha already!
Please try to explain why you contradict yourself in the most stupid,
oafish manner.
Thanks for your kookism.
Michael Painter
> news:323991a7.0202...@posting.google.com...
>
> > The problem with Randi's challenge is that it focuses on "super
> > powers".
>
>
> well, yes.
>
> so i don't understand why randi-challenge fanatics (both pro and con) post
> these sorts of things to misc.health.alternative.
>
> if randi was going around testing various chiropractic, acupuncture or
> cancer cure claims, then i could see the point. i understand that there is
> lots of homeopathic attention, but disregarding the many health claims
made
> in the other three areas makes it all a rather superfluous topic.
>
> as i have oft been scolded for here at mha, randi's challenge evidently
> doesn't have a whole helluva lot to do with medicine, alternative or
> otherwise.
??? Randi's opinion on chiropractic, acupuncture or cancer cure claims is
well known and he puts them all with pseudoscience. Anyone from any of those
disiplines could apply for the test just as well as the dowsers who have
done so.
Tom Kerr
In article <4X6c8.100531$H37.13...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
"Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"SkimTirvin" <spoon...@moderatorsad.min> wrote in message
>news:3C7045E6...@moderatorsad.min...
>> Define the mechanism that causes Astrology to "work".
>>
>> Define what you mean by the word 'work" when you say "Astrology works".
>>
>> Betcha can't.
>
>There possibly could be a conventional causal mechanism. The planets are
>associated with plasma fields and moreover there is a solar atmosphere that
>extends far beyond the earth into space. The plasmas interact with the sun
>and with each other. The interaction leads to a dependence of solar
>activity on the relative positions of the planets.
This last sentence is highly speculative. What's your evidence for the
dependence of solar activity on planetary positions?
>Watching the planets one
>can predict certain features of solar activity with great precision.
I'm unaware of any such studies. There have been hypotheses in the past that
claim some causal link between sunspots and planets, but as I said above,
they are highly speculative and certainly not generally accepted.
>Solar
>activity influences the quality of short wave radio signals, hence
>fluctuations in this quality can be predicted from the position of the
>planets as well.
The effects on radio transmission etc by solar activity are usually
predicted after a large outburst is observed from the Sun, and not from the
positions of planets.
>Solar activity has a profound influence on life. For
>example variations in the electric potential of trees depend not only on the
>gross activity of the sun but on individual flares and therefore again on
>the positions of the planets.
I simply don't follow the logic in this argument. Has the electric potential
of trees been correlated with planetary positions?
Michael Painter
>
>
>
> "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:ZDYb8.28761$Nv5.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > It's called cold reading when done in person. On his show it's a cross
> > betwen that and a lot of editing and gaining of infomrmation before the
> > show.
> > He's not very good at it.
> > I've seen good ones.
>
> here's an idea....why don't a bunch of the various regular usenet
'skeptics'
> get together (secretly via private email, of course) and get tickets for a
> particular show date?
>
> (personally, i am agnostic when it comes to all this after-worldy stuff.
> none of this inexplicable 'supernatural' contact has happened to me
> yet----if it does, i reckon you could paint me a believer)
>
> anyway, for this mass skeptic infiltration shindig, someone be the
> designated 'secretary' of the event to write it all down. (well, it'd be
on
> tv, also, right?)
>
> this would be something interesting, educational, and well worth doing for
> the 'skeptic cause', don't y'all think?
NO, the show would not air or the yes/no answers given by the skeptic would
be cut.
Cold readers, even good ones, can't function in that environment.
It is heavily edited and at least one person has stated that some answers
to a question "A" on TV were the answers to some questions "B" done after
the fact.
Tom Kerr
In article <s_gc8.104634$H37.14...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
"Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote in message
>news:itr27u8c48gru9m5t...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:59:24 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
>> <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> >There possibly could be a conventional causal mechanism. The planets are
>> >associated with plasma fields and moreover there is a solar atmosphere
>> >that extends far beyond the earth into space. The plasmas interact with the
>> >sun and with each other. The interaction leads to a dependence of solar
>> >activity on the relative positions of the planets. Watching the planets
>> >one can predict certain features of solar activity with great precision.
>> >Solar activity influences the quality of short wave radio signals, hence
>> >fluctuations in this quality can be predicted from the position of the
>> >planets as well. Solar activity has a profound influence on life. For
>> >example variations in the electric potential of trees depend not only on
>> >the gross activity of the sun but on individual flares and therefore again on
>> >the positions of the planets.
>>
>> Then explain how a womans womb stops this energy.
>
>I fail to understand your meaning. Please elaborate.
I think Wally's referring to the fact that a lot of astrologers, if not most
of them, say that it's a child's first breath that defines the point at
which a chart becomes valid. If you're going to propose some sort of
electromagnetic energy as a mechanism for astrology, then you have to
explain how it's only at this point that electromagnetism is important and
not when the baby is still in the mother's womb.
Happy Dog
> > *sigh* It would take so much less time to explain the Challenge to
people
> > if they would read the rules before asking questions like this. The
> > "scientific method" is a set of guidelines used to uncover or create
> > knowledge. The Challenge simply requires that Randi and the Applicant
agree
> > on exactly what method will be used to demonstrate, either successfully
or
> > unsuccessfully, the Applicant's claim. It isn't necessary to employ the
> > "scientific method" to prove that a person can correctly guess a coin
toss
> > nine times out of ten.
> > arf
>
> Nor is Randi necessary to prove that astrological or psychological
> counsel improves the quality of life
Who said it was?
> And you are wrong, NOTHING is ever proven anyway. Therefore, Randi's
> whole assumption is fallacious.
By that reasoning, nevermind.
< rest of question begging diversion crap snipped >
arf
taipe...@hotmail.co
<snipetty-snip>
>One can ONLY "prove" something to oneself, by believing it is valid.
>
Ergo, I have proven to myself that you are a kook, merely by believing it is a valid belief. I also believe I am the King of Ruritania.
Bow before me, knave!
H.R.H, Germán
taipe...@hotmail.co
>
>"Edmond Wollmann" <Arctu...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:3C7160...@spamcop.net...
>> Eric Prebys wrote:
> >
>> This is what gets astrologers in trouble, I have been trying to explain
>> to them that it is not a science, but that that is ok, they will never
>> get it because they give all power to science unconsciously and seek to
>> prove their craft to imbeciles like Randi so that they can be "valid."
>> Art, is equal, if not superior to, science. Maybe someday, they will see
>> their own Achilles heel and thank me.
>> --
>Now wolly admits that it is an art.
>Art is a subjective thing and has different meaning to everybody.
>It is not based on anything but imagination and what a culture holds to be
>art.
>If I put cheese all over the walls of a motel room I'd be arrested and put
>in the funny farm.(even if I did it in nearby Velveeta town) A famous artist
>does it and it makes him money.
>
>But I'm glad to hear wolly admit that there is no basis in fact for the
>subject.
>
>
>The opinion that art is superior to science is usually made by people who
>have the time leisure and lifespan made possible by science for them to
>appreciate what they think of as art.
>Those same people would not hire an artist to build the circuits that power
>their computer or operate on them.
This is a lovely piece of weaseling by Wollmann, ain't it. And this attitude is so damn different from the attitude of an artist-scientist like Vladimir Nabokov, who talked about the precision of poetry and the passion of science.
Germán
Eric Hocking
> That's not much of a comparison... don't forget; "If you laid all the
> economists in the world end to end, they'd all point in different
> directions."
If you laid all the econimists in the world end to end around the
equator.... 2/3 would drown...
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
SPAM TRAP:Replace "com" with "co.uk" to reply
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
Emperor 'Ostwind' Norton III
>Nor is Randi necessary to prove that astrological or psychological
>counsel improves the quality of life, that is up to the client not
>Randi.
>And you are wrong, NOTHING is ever proven anyway. Therefore, Randi's
>whole assumption is fallacious.
>One can ONLY "prove" something to oneself, by believing it is valid.
Ok, so maybe that whole 'proving the astrological community frauds'
thing was just a really big typo.
>Nothing is ever "disproven" or "proven"
Such a convienient excuse.
ash
['Psychopath is the word of the day, fucknuts.']
--
"I feel like a fugitive from th' law of averages."
*****************************************************************
Riven against a Black Sun twosixone ...that which we are, we are.
ootdontspatteredwemandanabundanceofthreatsandsecretlawsuitsgiveme
myRepublicbackyoulyingthievingbastardssuemenowbabyalltheyllreally
dointheendisturnthecountryintoonebigconcentrationcampgetoffmywave
Cujo
news:a4t3lh$6fp$1...@gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au:
> "ed rhodes" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> That's not much of a comparison... don't forget; "If you laid all the
>> economists in the world end to end, they'd all point in different
>> directions."
>
> If you laid all the econimists in the world end to end around the
> equator.... 2/3 would drown...
Let's do it! Chain the other 1/3rd to the rest of them!
Interesting Ian
"Tom Kerr" <t...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:u73q6ti...@news.supernews.com...
I was merely proposing how the position of the planets might effect life on
our planet. It certainly wasn't intended as a defense of the statements of
astrology! The sentiment is often expressed that the position of the
planets could not conceivably have any influence on our personality.
Bearing in mind what I have said such a conclusion is premature. If it were
ever discovered the basic tenets of astrology are correct there is
absolutely no reason to think there is anything supernatural or paranormal
about it.
Ian
Tom Kerr
But what you said is speculative at best. I could say unicorns exist,
therefore the conclusion that the universe expands is premature.
You've made this huge claim that planets affect solar activity and on that
basis claim that we can't conclude there isn't some astrological mechanism.
It's a particularly weak argument and deserves to be shot down.
>If it were
>ever discovered the basic tenets of astrology are correct there is
>absolutely no reason to think there is anything supernatural or paranormal
>about it.
The first thing to do would be to find a correlation between planetary
positions and the behaviour of people. Then, if such a correlation can be
found, a mechanism needs to be found.
David A McIntee
"Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote > > That's not much
of a comparison... don't forget; "If you laid all the
> > economists in the world end to end, they'd all point in different
> > directions."
>
> If you laid all the econimists in the world end to end around the
> equator.... 2/3 would drown...
Great plan! Can we do it with lawyers as well? And spammers, and
politicians, and...
--
--
"Oh go away, repress someone else."
http://www.btinternet.com/~david.mcintee
Redemption 03- Blake's 7/Babylon 5 convention, 21-23 February 2003.
http://www.smof.com/redemption
Currently reading: The List Of Seven by Mark Frost
This month's guest quote: "It takes more than death to kill me. " (Hang Man
Chang)
David A McIntee
"Tom Kerr" <t...@lava.net> wrote
> >Watching the planets one
> >can predict certain features of solar activity with great precision.
>
> I'm unaware of any such studies. There have been hypotheses in the past
that
> claim some causal link between sunspots and planets, but as I said above,
> they are highly speculative and certainly not generally accepted.
I'm assuming he means that planetary gravity wells exert tidal forces on the
sun as they orbit it.
ganesh
how does the potential applicant ensure that they are not
being 'set up' by a publicity scam? If these tests aren't up
to the standards of the scientific method, or reviewed in peer
journals then why would any 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' claimant
want to submit themselvesto demonstrations which don't
even follow the scientific methods???
Without such protocols, the challenge certainly can't be
taken seriously. The only people who'll apply are those who
are ignorant of the importance of the scientific methods.
Don't you think that such a challenge is just a publicity
stunt designed to bait claimants to enter the challenge in
order to declare them frauds? Don't you think that's just
entrapment? Where are the past test methods and protocols
published for review for future claimants to check out?
Thanks.
Happy Dog wrote in message <8aec8.10869$I01.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>"ganesh" <gan...@x.com> wrote in message
>> Does Randi use the scientific method in his tests?
>> Can you show where these methods have been reviewed?
>
ganesh
I am interested in reading up on the past methods and protocols,
so your direction is valuable. I am not whining, just asking.
Thanks.
Wally Anglesea™ wrote in message <1rr27uciuc02dqvj3...@4ax.com>...
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:25:14 -0000, "ganesh" <gan...@x.com> wrote:
>
>>Does Randi use the scientific method in his tests?
>>Can you show where these methods have been reviewed?
>
>CSICOP.
>
>>Thanks.
>
>you are welcome.
>
>funny how you are whining about your favourite beleifs being shown up
>as kooky huh?
>
>
>
>>
>>Cardinal Chunder wrote in message <3C713BA8...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com>...
>>>Joseph R Abbott wrote:
>>>> It accurately predicts.
>>>
>>>If it accurately predicts, why don't go for the challenge? Prove it
>>>beyond a shadow of a doubt and you'll be rich beyond your wildest
>>>dreams, astrology will experience a golden age and the likes of Randi
>>>will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
>>>
>>>What have you got to lose?
>>>
>>
>
>--
>
>Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
>http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
>
>"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
pz
"ganesh" <gan...@x.com> wrote:
> OK, so the scientific method is not used in the tests,
No, Happy Dog is wrong. The scientific method is used in the tests. The
scientific method is used by many people all the time -- heck, you can
use the scientific method when you are cooking.
> then
> how does the potential applicant ensure that they are not
> being 'set up' by a publicity scam? If these tests aren't up
> to the standards of the scientific method, or reviewed in peer
> journals then why would any 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' claimant
> want to submit themselvesto demonstrations which don't
> even follow the scientific methods???
> Without such protocols, the challenge certainly can't be
> taken seriously.
Oh, please. You don't even understand the scientific method, so who are
you to whine about the protocols?
> The only people who'll apply are those who
> are ignorant of the importance of the scientific methods.
You keep going on and on about the scientific method. So do tell -- what
is it? How would *you* design a test of a paranormal phenomenon that
adheres to the scientific method?
> Don't you think that such a challenge is just a publicity
> stunt designed to bait claimants to enter the challenge in
> order to declare them frauds? Don't you think that's just
> entrapment? Where are the past test methods and protocols
> published for review for future claimants to check out?
> Thanks.
>
> Happy Dog wrote in message <8aec8.10869$I01.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> >"ganesh" <gan...@x.com> wrote in message
> >> Does Randi use the scientific method in his tests?
> >> Can you show where these methods have been reviewed?
> >
> >*sigh* It would take so much less time to explain the Challenge to people
> >if they would read the rules before asking questions like this. The
> >"scientific method" is a set of guidelines used to uncover or create
> >knowledge. The Challenge simply requires that Randi and the Applicant agree
> >on exactly what method will be used to demonstrate, either successfully or
> >unsuccessfully, the Applicant's claim. It isn't necessary to employ the
> >"scientific method" to prove that a person can correctly guess a coin toss
> >nine times out of ten.
--
pz
Michael Davis
Are you still beating this dead horse?
>
> OK, so the scientific method is not used in the tests, then
> how does the potential applicant ensure that they are not
> being 'set up' by a publicity scam?
Randi takes an equal risk. Kooks just love to paint him as the source
of all evil in their attempts at self promotion and publicity. Since
Randi and the applicant agree on the conditions before hand, neither
side would have valid grounds for complaint afterwards.
> If these tests aren't up
> to the standards of the scientific method, or reviewed in peer
> journals then why would any 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' claimant
> want to submit themselvesto demonstrations which don't
> even follow the scientific methods???
What part of $1,000,000 don't you understand?
> Without such protocols, the challenge certainly can't be
> taken seriously.
Nobody takes you paranormalist clowns seriously now. But if you win
Randi's money you could maybe buy some respect.
> The only people who'll apply are those who
> are ignorant of the importance of the scientific methods.
Or those who want to make some money or a name for themselves, or
those who want to demonstrate to someone other than unquestioning true
believers that their claims are real.
> Don't you think that such a challenge is just a publicity
> stunt designed to bait claimants to enter the challenge in
> order to declare them frauds? Don't you think that's just
> entrapment?
No. I think you are just whining and making excuses.
> Where are the past test methods and protocols
> published for review for future claimants to check out?
> Thanks.
What would be the point of that? This isn't science, remember? These
aren't experiments. Randi has simply challenged paranormalists to do
what they already claim they can do under conditions agreed to in
advance by both parties that prevent cheating. The conditions of the
tests agreed to in advance by both parties in past tests are not
likely to be relevant to future ones, especially if different claims
are being tested.
Why are so many paranormalists so afraid to just do their thing for
Randi under conditions that prevent cheating and collect the money?
Why all the excuses and hypocritical whining about the scientific
method and attacks on his character? Is it that they *can't* do their
thing without cheating?
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"There seems to me to be absolutely no limit to the inanity and
credulity of the human race. Homo Sapiens! Homo idioticus!" - Arthur
Conan Doyle
Eric Prebys
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Eric Prebys wrote:
> >
> > Joseph R Abbott wrote:
> > >
> > > pz <p...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<pzm-BA8EF3.1...@news.onvoy.com>...
> > > > It's not a flaw. The prize was designed as a response to people who *do*
> > > > claim to posess super powers.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, I don't think that a demand for special personal abilities is
> > > > present in the challenge.
> > >
> > > The application speficically states "abilties".
> > >
> > > > Dowsers and astrologers, for instance, don't
> > > > necessarily claim to have unique abilities as individuals -- they are
> > > > tapping into metaphysical laws. You're free to do the same.
> > >
> > > I can prove astrology really does work, but I can not apply for the
> > > prize because I have no special ability, I am not an astrologer. I can
> > > merely prove that astrology as a science works.
> >
> > If you can use astrology to predict something under controlled
> > conditions,
> > in a way inconsistent with other explanations, that would most
> > definitely
> > constitute a "paranormal ability".
> >
> > I recommend you take the bet...
> >
> > ...or shut the fuck up.
> >
> > -Eric
>
> This is what gets astrologers in trouble, I have been trying to explain
> to them that it is not a science, but that that is ok, they will never
> get it because they give all power to science unconsciously and seek to
> prove their craft to imbeciles like Randi so that they can be "valid."
> Art, is equal, if not superior to, science. Maybe someday, they will see
> their own Achilles heel and thank me.
> --
Am I correct in interpreting that statement to be an admission that
astrology has no predictive power beyond random chance?
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. arctur...@earthlink.net (remove-)
> © 2002 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
> Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
> Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/
> http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ganesh
Pz, I would design the test around controlled replications
and have the methods, protocols and results reviewed by
a major scientific journal. Nothing else is satisfactory.
Thanks.
pz wrote in message ...
Happy Dog
> OK, so the scientific method is not used in the tests, then
> how does the potential applicant ensure that they are not
> being 'set up' by a publicity scam? If these tests aren't up
> to the standards of the scientific method, or reviewed in peer
> journals then why would any 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' claimant
> want to submit themselvesto demonstrations which don't
> even follow the scientific methods???
My last response to this poster began: *sigh* It would take so much less
time to explain the Challenge to people
if they would read the rules before asking questions like this. Obviously,
it was ignored.
> Without such protocols, the challenge certainly can't be
> taken seriously. The only people who'll apply are those who
> are ignorant of the importance of the scientific methods.
Read the bloody rules! The applicant and Randi must agree on the protocol
beforehand. To date, I've yet to see any reasonable request refused.
> Don't you think that such a challenge is just a publicity
> stunt designed to bait claimants to enter the challenge in
> order to declare them frauds? Don't you think that's just
> entrapment? Where are the past test methods and protocols
> published for review for future claimants to check out?
They are available at the JREF. Many are published in Randi's books and on
his website. One is currently being discussed there now. Instead of making
obtuse and ill-informed observateions like above, why don't you look at
Randi's website and comment directly on rules you object to?
arf
Happy Dog
> > OK, so the scientific method is not used in the tests,
>
> No, Happy Dog is wrong. The scientific method is used in the tests.
My reply was in objection this poster's use of question begging epithets to
make their point. Note my use of quotations. Perhaps It was too subtle for
you.
moo
Michael Painter
"BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:1zhyPEl9afCh0k...@4ax.com...
> "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >"BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote
> >> Oh, I agree. If there *are* any of the traditionally-
> >> described "paranormal" abilities, they are so weak and
> >> erratic that they don't stand-out above the background.
> >> (well, unless the military grabs-up all the skilled
> >> candidates for use as weapons ... but that should go
> >> into 'alt.conspiracy') My concern is that prejudice
> >> AGAINST such things may, even unconsciously, lead us
> >> to fabricate faulty "tests" and/or dismiss marginally
> >> positive results.
>
> >There is no prejudice against them. They used to be believed
> >in and studied. Serious pewople spent serious time as science
> >developed. They found they were non existant.
> >
> >Science tests what it knows every day, over and over again.
> >When it fails the test it is discarded.
>
> You act as if I'm "anti-science". Nothing further
> from the truth. It's the testing and re-testing
> which makes science superior to religious dogma -
> an adaptive, evolving, body of knowledge as
> opposed to something set in stone and quarantined
> behind a tall fence.
>
> Still though, AS a system of evolving knowledge,
> 'science' is prone to missing things. There are
> plenty of missing facts and plenty of faulty
> old paradigms which will be stretched as far as
> possible to cover incongruent new evidence until
> they finally burst under the strain (more a
> 'human nature' issue than strictly 'scientific').
>
> As such, we can never lay the issue of 'paranormal'
> abilities to rest. Re-testing, using new methodologies,
> must continue. Each round may diminish our belief
> in such abilities, but we are still a ways from any
> sure 'nuf conclusions. Persons claiming 'paranormal'
> abilities should always be asked to prove their
> skills, rather than being immediately dismissed.
> By all evidence, 99.99% of such claimants will be
> either frauds or seriously deluded - but finding
> that 0.01% would be interesting, to say the least.
>
> I don't know HOW 'paranormal' abilities might work.
> Science has identified pretty much every form of
> energy within and affecting matter ... and none
> of them seem to fit the necessary parameters for
> being generated and directed by a human brain in
> enough quantity to accomplish anything. Claims
> by 'psychics' as to how it all might work get
> wilder and more desperate each year. Still, we
> have to check it out, see if the numbers add up,
> otherwise WE become the inflexible dogmatists.
>
There are more important things to do than continue to test claims that have
been falsified millions of times, especially when those making the claims
that they are valid will not offer any assistance.
Looking for the Tacyon, which is at least allowed for in theory, would be
more productive.
Happy Dog
Of course. But I get the feeling that you don't have an adequate grasp of
it. Why don't you clear this up by explaining what you think it is.
erf