|
Post by Bill Thompson on Mar 27, 2006 9:36:12 GMT -4
I know it will sound as if I am attacking an icon and a one of the most respected persons in our time and a hero at debunking a lot of cultural myths. But this is not my intention at all. I have respect for the man and in the past he has been good enough to answer many of my email messages.
So because of his hero status this may sound disturbing to some of you. If it does, I would request that you consider this as writing where I am only playing the devil’s advocate.
I think that the prize that Mr. Randi offers where if you can prove in a double blind study the existence of something supernatural is a Catch 22. If you can prove something is real in a double blind study it has become the subject of nature and not the subject of the supernatural. Things supernatural are out of nature. Once they are observed to be real then the fault lies in the fact that we had a miscategorization of the observed thing as not being natural before the test was done.
© 2006 William M. Thompson
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Mar 27, 2006 11:01:56 GMT -4
;D
I don't know if that would stand up in court if he tried to use it to avoid ponying up should the time ever come
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 27, 2006 11:26:24 GMT -4
As I understand it, the rules are agreed in advance with the claimant, so that it is clear what will constitute whether the claimant has won or not. Given that the Randi Foundation isn't going to agree anything that appears in advance to have a natural explanation, any hypothetical winner has opened up a new branch of science and deserves the money.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Mar 28, 2006 21:20:31 GMT -4
Just out of interest, whats randis definition of supernatural?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 29, 2006 9:10:19 GMT -4
Just out of interest, whats randis definition of supernatural? A little googling turned up this.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Mar 29, 2006 9:50:03 GMT -4
Thanks for that, It seems Randi is not as objective as he makes out to be -: www.remoteviewer.nu/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1970&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0www.alternativescience.com/james-randi-letter.jpgHere was someone who was willing to face the challenge of Randi in a scientific setting. Surely if Randi is interested in dis-proving such things, he would be eager to go ahead and disprove this man. If he can just move the goal posts when he feels like it, surely this is unfair. Also from his website-: "Other claims, such as Crop Circles and UFO's are rejected because they have been definitively proven to be the result of hoaxes or mass hysteria" Well the bit about crop circles id probably agree with, but definitely not the UFO's. All of them hoaxes, all of the sightings mass hysteria?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 29, 2006 10:51:20 GMT -4
The piece you quote is off in several ways. According to Randi's web site, he doesn't do the testing, it is done by mutually agreed researchers. Agreeing up front what constitutes paranormal activity makes perfect sense - Randi isn't imposing impossible conditions but discussing with the claimant what would constitute proof of the claim. If the claimant cannot agree conditions, it indicates lack of self-belief in the claimed powers.
I can also see Randi's point in the specific case of the man who claimed to live only on water. I cannot see any way of testing this without endangering the claimants life. To prove his point, the claimant would have to survive a significantly longer time without food that anyone on record, months possibly. Would you want to be involved in a test of this nature?
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Mar 29, 2006 11:21:45 GMT -4
I dont think its off at all.
Randis in the business of disproving the supernatural.
A person is ready to accept the challenge, regarding the water man. Of course its extreme, but as he says himself "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof"
Well then if its his self appointed purpose in life to expose these frauds, then do it. The test is taken at the claimants own risk anyway.
Or does randi hold the one and only true definition of what constitutes supernatural?
Of course rules are going to determine the nature of the test, and must be agreed on, otherwise no contract can be made.
Randi asks us to accept his judgment, and those of his appointed examiners.
Are the judges independent scientific people. Are the results they obtain peer reviewed as in other fields of research?
Regarding the UFO comment, what research has he done, or followed by way of third party to back up his claim. Can he show this proof?
I'm skeptical about randi, hes not great enquirer for me.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 29, 2006 12:08:00 GMT -4
It's Randi's money, I guess he has the right to select what sort of paranormal claims he wants tested. If you read the rest of Randi's FAQ page I gave you the link for, you'll see that he explains why he won't do any test that involves potential harm to the claimant.
...and can't you just see the water man's relatives' lawyers arguing that Randi had by neglect killed a person not in his right mind?
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Mar 29, 2006 12:23:31 GMT -4
I can see where you are coming from gwiz, but the whole point about the water mans claims, is that he says he can survive perfectly well on water, without adverse defects in his health - and he is willing to prove it.
If Randi wants to debate legal points he should of become a lawyer and not a illuminator of the natural world.
There was another case where a man verified his free energy machines abilities by thirty other PHD physicists. He wanted Randi to test his claims.
Randi was not interested because in his opinion no such machine could ever exist, ever. And therefore no testing was required.
In my humble opinion he has become blinded by his own self importance, and his investment in his views.
If his framework of thinking is restricting his testing, then he is not being a true scientist.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 29, 2006 12:34:50 GMT -4
If his framework of thinking is restricting his testing, then he is not being a true scientist. I doubt Randi would claim to be a scientist. AFAIK, he is a stage magician who got irritated seeing other people using the same techniques to fake paranormal powers. His subsequent career as a debunker is aimed at exposing these frauds, rather than testing any claim whatever. Perpetual motion machines are way beyond his area of expertise. If anyone really has one they should be going for a Nobel prize, not trying for Randi's money.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Mar 29, 2006 13:03:23 GMT -4
Yes he is a very good magician, i think i saw him on the paul daniels show once? lol Thats my point hes not a true scientist, and he makes sweeping claims about technology's and areas he has no knowledge of. You either set up an institute as a professional body to objectively investigate these sorts of claims regarding free energy machines and the such like, or you don't. If he uses the excuse its not my area of expertise, every time someone wants to challenge his moral position on the truth its a cop out. Why not employ his own scientists who do know about it, to do the tests. Its ok to be a skeptic like randi, but if he can not stand up, when his own type of critical thinking is used on him and his organization, then i do not have much time for him.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 29, 2006 19:09:50 GMT -4
Truthseeker said:
Here's Randi's take on things. Apart from agreeing that many words were exchanged, they don't seem to agree on much.
In any case, you're missing the point. Randi is not trying to disprove anything. He's offering the money to anyone who can prove something.
Care to provide some examples?
Well, you may have a point here. But I'll take a punt and say that Randi says this on the basis of his experience.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 29, 2006 19:38:50 GMT -4
Yes. Randi doesn't need to define "supernatural." All he has to do is determine if a claim meets with science as we understand it. For that he has the services of a number of scientific consultants. If something is done within the methods of science and within shouting distance of our current conception of the universe, let them write a paper about it and get it published in Physical Abstracts. If it requires that we re-write much of science as we know it, then it is something he's interested in testing.
I think where Randi's little test stands is at that junction where matters of faith attempt to cloak themselves in the words of science. His test says very simply "If you think what you have is real, testable, but has been ignored by mainstream science, then we will test it and award you."
But, actually, what his test says is "If you say you can lose weight, improve TV reception, find gold, ad nas using some method that is accurate and reproducible than we ask you to either prove it or shut up."
What really angers him (and me) is quackery in a white coat, babble that includes the terms "quantum" and "vibration" (frequently!) and, more than anything else, people who prey on those either too gullible or careless to understand what kind of snake oil they are being sold.
Me, I haven't as large a problem in someone choosing to spend a significant part of their time and money on an intangible being. It's no more wasteful of human resources than watching football on TV. What I have a problem with is people who leverage that belief for their own gain -- whether through selling you homeopathic preparations or tithing you to buy the Pope a bigger cathedral and a couple of foreign wars.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 29, 2006 20:45:32 GMT -4
Truthseeker said: Perhaps this guy can establish his bona fides by some other means. I’m a member of the Canberra Skeptics, affiliated with the Australian Skeptics. The AS has $110,000 available in the same way as Randi’s million. Most of the applicants here in Oz are water diviners. But setting up a formal test takes time and money, so applicants are now asked to complete a simple series of self-tests. If they pass them, they’re welcome to come back for a formal test. I understand that the number of water-divining applicants has reduced since that protocol was established. In the case of someone living without food, the Australian “60 Minutes” program tested a breatharian named Jasmuheen several years ago. Funnily enough (or not), she showed the effects of malnourishment within a couple of days. Jasmuheen said it was because the test was taking place in the city. So everyone moved out to a country location. Yet her condition continued to worsen, until the doctor monitoring the test stepped in to terminate the test, as Jasmuheen was getting dangerously unwell. Nevertheless, Jasmuheen claimed afterwards that she felt fine the whole time. Every time you say, “Well, this person might have a genuine claim,” I’m sure I could reply, “Well, this person might have a mental illness.” People have died following breatharian diets, and I think Randi is quite within his rights to prevent people from risking harm to themselves by following through on their claims. The problem is that if the test supervisors step in to save a claimant’s life, the claimant can always say they stepped in unnecessarily. Randi’s a professional magician. He’s run into a lot of charlatans in his life, and I dare say he can spot them better than the rest of us. What to you might seem legalistic nit-picking is to him quite possibly just another charlatan trying to use weasel words. Can you name this free energy person? Is he the one who’s wanted in a number of states in the USA for defrauding people by getting them to “invest” in his “machine”? Can you give us some more details about the machine and the 30 PhDs? The question with getting 30 PhDs to sign off on the machine is whether they were allowed to pull the machine apart completely, reassemble it and still get it to work as a free energy machine. I invite you to visit www.lutec.com.au and investigate their free energy machine. You’ll also find some critical comments about the Australian Skeptics on that site. Then tell us whether you find their claims believeable. Also, Randi’s had plenty of experience with scientists falling for magic tricks, thinking they were seeing genuine paranormal events. One was the scientists who were fascinated by the man who could make a matchbox stand up on the back of his hand. Another was the scientist Peter Phillips who was investigating the paranormal skills of a couple of young men. The day after each test, Randi wrote to Phillips, explaining possible ways to fake the results of that test. However, Phillips never twigged to the fact that as Randi wasn’t part of the testing team, he shouldn’t have known the nature of the test. Well, Randi would be the first person to admit he’s not perfect, and you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. However, in his 80-odd years, he’s come across a lot of charlatans, and a lot of people convinced they can’t be fooled. Well, that’s the thing – he’s a magician, not a scientist. He starts from the basis that some people aim to fool others, and that others can be fooled. As far as I know, he’s rarely been proven wrong.
|
|