Just Immagine...

[bratok]

Imagine that thousands and thousands years ago, all people got burried in giant caves, because of an earth quake ( for example ). They lived there, in complete darkness. Stories about light and vision, that were passed from generation to generation, became dull and were considered as fairy tales about something that could never exist. This "blind" people made their schools and collages, and in no possible way could consider that they are somehow defective. Makeing one step forward and touching the ground to make sure that there's no hole, was completely normal for them.

Imagine that you are also one of them... but one day, you find a tiny tunel, leading to the surface. You squeeze yourself through it, your eyes pop open and see :eek: ... You see beautiful hills, valleys, waterfalls, meadows, forests, birds singing... you see everything that you always thought was just a sick imagination of your ancestors.

You run back into the cave... but now you can also see all this "blind" people. You see them touching the ground to make sure there's no hole on their pass, before makeing another step.

You scream to them "What are you doing here, in this darkness?! Get a showel and dig a tunel to the surface! You won't believe what's up there!" ... But they just look sadly at you, as at a mad man :( , and give you lots of scientific explanations they made up, to proove that there's no surface, no light, no eye sight...


What would you do?

[Instig8R]

When I was a kid my favorite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school we'd all go play in his cave, and every once in a while he would eat one of us.

It wasn't until later that I found out that Uncle Caveman was a bear.


Source: "Deep Thoughts"

[Stimpson J. Cat]

bratok,

Imagine that thousands and thousands years ago, all people got burried in giant caves, because of an earth quake ( for example ). They lived there, in complete darkness. Stories about light and vision, that were passed from generation to generation, became dull and were considered as fairy tales about something that could never exist. This "blind" people made their schools and collages, and in no possible way could consider that they are somehow defective. Makeing one step forward and touching the ground to make sure that there's no hole, was completely normal for them.

Imagine that you are also one of them... but one day, you find a tiny tunel, leading to the surface. You squeeze yourself through it, your eyes pop open and see ... You see beautiful hills, valleys, waterfalls, meadows, forests, birds singing... you see everything that you always thought was just a sick imagination of your ancestors.

You run back into the cave... but now you can also see all this "blind" people. You see them touching the ground to make sure there's no hole on their pass, before makeing another step.

You scream to them "What are you doing here, in this darkness?! Get a showel and dig a tunel to the surface! You won't believe what's up there!" ... But they just look sadly at you, as at a mad man , and give you lots of scientific explanations they made up, to proove that there's no surface, no light, no eye sight...


What would you do?

Let's ignore for now the fact that your hypothetical morlok would not actually be able to see at all, due to the fact that he will never have learned how to do so.

What would I do? I would prove it to people, either by taking them up to the surface, or by getting a light, and showing them right there in the cave.

Why do you ask?


Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
bratok,



Let's ignore for now the fact that your hypothetical morlok would not actually be able to see at all, due to the fact that he will never have learned how to do so.

What would I do? I would prove it to people, either by taking them up to the surface, or by getting a light, and showing them right there in the cave.

Why do you ask?


Dr. Stupid

But they won't listen. And it takes a certain character to be able to see the light.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by bratok
You see beautiful hills, valleys, waterfalls, meadows, forests, birds singing... you see everything that you always thought was just a sick imagination of your ancestors.
As Stimpy points out, you have never learned to see. What you would really do at this point is scream "YEEEOOOWWW!!! MY EYES HURT, MAKE IT STOP!!!"
You run back into the cave... but now you can also see all this "blind" people. You see them touching the ground to make sure there's no hole on their pass, before makeing another step.
Who turned the lights on all of a sudden down there? If it was that easy, why were they off in the first place?
But they just look sadly at you, as at a mad man :( ,

So now they can see too?

and give you lots of scientific explanations they made up, to proove that there's no surface, no light, no eye sight...


What would you do?
It should be really easy to design a controlled test by which you can demonstrate that, given a source of light and a clear line of sight, you can identify objects at a distance. The conditions under which you can do so can be clearly defined, and your ability to do it doesn't depend on anybody's belief system. Who knows, maybe there is a cave dweller offering a million dollars for such a demonstration!

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by bratok
Imagine that thousands and thousands years ago, all people got burried in giant caves, because of an earth quake ( for example ). They lived there, in complete darkness. Stories about light and vision, that were passed from generation to generation, became dull and were considered as fairy tales about something that could never exist. This "blind" people made their schools and collages, and in no possible way could consider that they are somehow defective. Makeing one step forward and touching the ground to make sure that there's no hole, was completely normal for them.

Imagine that you are also one of them... but one day, you find a tiny tunel, leading to the surface. You squeeze yourself through it, your eyes pop open and see :eek: ... You see beautiful hills, valleys, waterfalls, meadows, forests, birds singing... you see everything that you always thought was just a sick imagination of your ancestors.

You run back into the cave... but now you can also see all this "blind" people. You see them touching the ground to make sure there's no hole on their pass, before makeing another step.

You scream to them "What are you doing here, in this darkness?! Get a showel and dig a tunel to the surface! You won't believe what's up there!" ... But they just look sadly at you, as at a mad man :( , and give you lots of scientific explanations they made up, to proove that there's no surface, no light, no eye sight...


What would you do?

I'd "immagine" that having been buried in caves as a result of a massive earthquake, they'd all starve to death before they were able to produce another generation. Or suffocate .........

Regards,

AC.

[hammegk]

I imagine that Plato "imagined" a more fruitful analogy. :rolleyes:

[dmarker]

If you were going spelunking, wouldn't you have your own source of light?

[neutrino_cannon]

What about luminous fungi and bacteria? Surely we didn't get shafted by fate and had to in caves without those?

How would anyone survive in the cave? There shouldn't be enough oxygen to support them. How do they navigate tunnels? Do they just stumble around blindly or have they got especially sensative hearing, or even echolocation?

I also find your description of the trogolodye's reaction to the surface unlikely. The world would be completely alien to him/her, and most likely result in panic and or death.

Given that, I'd go to my cave buddies and say:
"Hey, see that crak in the wall, the one that's really skinny and goes a long ways?"

"Yeah mate."

"Don't go in there."

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But they won't listen. And it takes a certain character to be able to see the light.
Absolutely correct, we call those people who wont listen "closeminded".

The people with enough curiosity will see the terribly bright burning light, and they are rewarded with sight. It pays to be a skeptic!

[Trollbane]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But they won't listen. And it takes a certain character to be able to see the light.

Ahhh.. The catch-22 thing, right?

[Chaos]

That "painful brightness" analogy is really good. Maybe we have a new nominee for the language awards?

If your "seeing" logic and scepticism for the first time, it IS rather painful, not physically but mentally, to have all the secure beliefs, the illusion, come apart all at once. But once your through this, when your eyes have adjusted to the light, you´re better off.


As for the initial question: if all else failed, I´d probably knock one of them unconscious and carry him/her out, to see it themselves.

[thaiboxerken]

I think the implication here is rather stupid. If you think people have superpowers, just have them demonstrate it for us. Right now, this analagous story is just a big appeal to ignorance.

If there was light and I discovered it, I would show people. It's testable and objective.

[Purple Tentacle]

Perhaps there would be a blind caveman version of Randi, and if you take him to this light and prove that the sense of sight exists he will give you a million...I dunno, rocks...or whatever you cave people consider valuable.

Hurrah, and so your entire society would benefit from your efforts.

[Ratman_tf]

After thousands and thousand of years, would they even be able to see anymore? Maybe they'd have evolved sensitive hearing and smell and so sight would not even be an issue for them.

Oh, sorry. This was an analogy. My bad. :D

Seriously, are you saying that you have evidence for some paranormal or extraordinary claim, but no one will aknowledge it? If you know "The way to the sunlight", please share. I'd be fascinated by some actual evidence, instead of the assertations, anecdotes and sundry we get around here.

[Peter Morris]

That "painful brightness" analogy is really good. Maybe we have a new nominee for the language awards?

If your "seeing" logic and scepticism for the first time, it IS rather painful, not physically but mentally, to have all the secure beliefs, the illusion, come apart all at once. But once your through this, when your eyes have adjusted to the light, you´re better off. I think you are rather missing the point. In the analogy the skeptics are the cave dwellers who don't believe in the light, and refuse to come and see for themselves.

Perhaps there would be a blind caveman version of Randi, and if you take him to this light and prove that the sense of sight exists he will give you a million...I dunno, rocks...or whatever you cave people consider valuable.
Except that Randi wouldn't agree to go to the surface, he'd demand that you bring evidence oflight down to his cave. How would you do that, if you don't know what fire is? Or maybe you bring a candle from the surface, but its burned away before you reach Randi's cave.

The analogy is rather strained, here's an improved version:

A primitive tribe lives deep in the heart of the jungle, unaware of any people but themselves. They are rather inbred, and all blind through a quirk of genetics, but they have super-sensitive senses of smell, which enable them to "see" their surroundings. Their legends tell of days when they could see, but only idiots and children take them seriously. Then, for the first time in 20 generations, a child is born with perfect eyesight. How does he convince his tribe that he can see?

That tribe's version of Randi would probably devise a test where the claimant has a hood put over his head, so that he can't use his sense of smell, and he is then invited to identify certain objects by sight. His claim that the hood prevents him from seeing would be ridiculed. There's always some excuse, isn't there.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
That tribe's version of Randi would probably devise a test where the claimant has a hood put over his head, so that he can't use his sense of smell, and he is then invited to identify certain objects by sight. His claim that the hood prevents him from seeing would be ridiculed. There's always some excuse, isn't there.

Sure. When you could just use some kind of noseplugs.

Here's a better analogy. Say one of your tribesmen says he can see, but he really can't! He might be lying, or just delusional.

How would you test to make sure he really could see? Or would you just take his word for it without evidence?

[Eos of the Eons]

What would the people eat?

How would they avoid vitamin D deficiency from not seeing sunlight ever and not having any other Vitamin D rich food that was grown in sun?

How would they avoid vitamin C deficiency? Plants have vitamin C, and can only grow in light. Even moss needs light. Lightless caves have no plants.

What other animal would live in a lightless world for people to eat? What does that animal have to eat?

We can't survive without light. A better analogy would be people living in a building and never seeing outside. Thing is, they would have no reason not to go look if outside was found through a door or something. They would go look and find it too, and everyone would believe it's there because they can all see it.

Unless the guy who found 'outside' was a nutcase and noone else could see what he saw.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Peter Morris



That tribe's version of Randi would probably devise a test where the claimant has a hood put over his head, so that he can't use his sense of smell, and he is then invited to identify certain objects by sight.

Poor tribe. Now if they had the real Randi instead of the strawman model, the claimant would get to participate in the test design. Of course, once he had done so, and agreed to the protocol, it would strain credibility to suddenly "discover" that noseplugs interfered with his vision!

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I think you are rather missing the point. ....

Most of us understood your point, but agree that it's BS and flawed.

Tell me, what paranormal crap do you happen to believe in and do you have evidence?

You have this view that us skeptics are all close minded and that's why we can't "see" the light. It's really the other way around, you are blinded by the light and can't see anything else.

[Zep]

Given the current state of things in the world, I rather thought that the skeptic was the guy who found the light, and the woo-woos were the poor old troglodytes.

It just seemed to match reality so much better...

Oh well.

[Peter Morris]

Wayrad: Poor tribe. Now if they had the real Randi instead of the strawman model, the claimant would get to participate in the test design

What gives you that idea? When does Randi ever let his subjects participate in the test design? Randi tells the subjects the test he is willing to perform, they can choose to accept it or leave it.

See, for example, his offer to test Chinese medicine described here:

http://www.randi.org/jr/122702.html

The claim: I can diagnosde a person's current medical condition from a recent photograph.

Randi's test: Can you diagnose current medical condition from an old photograph, when the condition has changed considerably since the photograph was taken.

The applicant objects to the protocol offered by Randi, pointing out that the test offered is different from the claim. Randi sticks to the same offered protocol. The applicant has no say in the design.

Do you have any instances where Randi has allowed the claimant to participate in the test design?


Thaiboxerken: Most of us understood your point, but agree that it's BS and flawed.

Tell me, what paranormal crap do you happen to believe in and do you have evidence?Typical Randi-fan strawman. The fact that I object to the serious flaws in Randi's test does not indicate that I believe his subjects. In fact, I see them as being equally dishonest.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

See, for example, his offer to test Chinese medicine described here:

http://www.randi.org/jr/122702.html

The claim: I can diagnosde a person's current medical condition from a recent photograph.

Randi's test: Can you diagnose current medical condition from an old photograph, when the condition has changed considerably since the photograph was taken.


The source you cite does not substantiate your statement. The applicant's son stated that there would be a problem because the dead person's soul might still be hanging around (still in its pre-death state of health, apparently!).

If what you are saying is that, for the practitioner to diagnose death, the photo would have to be so recent that in fact it showed a corpse, I agree.

[Zep]

Peter Morris,

The sections from that article you SHOULD have read more closely were were the claim that:
...her father could diagnose a person just by seeing their photo. No mention of "recent" or otherwise.

Randi's response was this:I sent him ten photos of persons I know, simply asking him to tell me whether each person shown was dead or alive, rather than having to go through evaluating the long, convoluted, vague, descriptions...

I believe that if your father can diagnose illnesses, as he claims he can, he should be able to diagnose death rather positively. This is the easiest, most direct, test for claims of diagnosis. You can see that there was no attempt to CHANGE the test criteria to something else, just to CLARIFY and SIMPLIFY the test.

The gentleman refused to be tested under these very reasonable conditions - his choice.

[thaiboxerken]

What gives you that idea? When does Randi ever let his subjects participate in the test design? Randi tells the subjects the test he is willing to perform, they can choose to accept it or leave it.

This is false, Randi does a question and answer session to come up with a test design. This means that the subjects are actively participating in the test design.


Randi's test: Can you diagnose current medical condition from an old photograph, when the condition has changed considerably since the photograph was taken.

The applicant objects to the protocol offered by Randi, pointing out that the test offered is different from the claim. Randi sticks to the same offered protocol. The applicant has no say in the design.

BS. The claim is that he can diagnose health and illness based on photos PERIOD. Death has to be easiest condition for a "medical" person to diagnose. Also, this isn't an official JREF challenge test. The "objection" to the protocol is an evasion, the chinese gal makes no attempt to object based on "death" or currency of the photo, instead she uses all kinds of BS to explain why they can't evaluate the photo. She didn't say the photo has to be recent at any time.


Do you have any instances where Randi has allowed the claimant to participate in the test design?

Yes, the easiest one for you to see is in the Sylvia Browne case. Reference the homepage to see it.


Thaiboxerken: Typical Randi-fan strawman. The fact that I object to the serious flaws in Randi's test does not indicate that I believe his subjects. In fact, I see them as being equally dishonest.

What BS do you believe in? It's very obvious that you have belief in some kind of paranormal crap, something that you have placed yourself in a position of "seeing the light" where the rest of us refuse to see it.

[Peter Morris]

Zep The gentleman refused to be tested under these very reasonable conditions - his choice.

The gentleman refused to be tested under conditions that he said are different from what he was claiming. His command of English is less than perfect, so his objection isn't entirely clear, but he is certainly saying that it doesn't work the way Randi expects it to work. Randi is asking him to do something he doesn't claim he can do.

The fact remains, Randi designed the test himself, the claimant was allowed no say in the design, it was a case of take it or leave it.

Thaiboxerken:
Do you have any instances where Randi has allowed the claimant to participate in the test design?

Yes, the easiest one for you to see is in the Sylvia Browne case. Reference the homepage to see it.

Nope, even in that the test was designed by Randi. SB may have accepted the protocol offered by Randi, but she had no say in the design whatsoever.

What BS do you believe in? It's very obvious that you have belief in some kind of paranormal crap, something that you have placed yourself in a position of "seeing the light" where the rest of us refuse to see it.

The usual lie from Randi fans. I point out flaws in Randi's tests, you cannot answer that, so you make up stuff, declare that I must believe in paranormal crap, and flame me for that. So much easier to do that than to defend Randi's dishonesty, isn't it.

[Diogenes]

I point out flaws in Randi's tests,

What flaws are you talking about..

Where did Randi ask someone to demonstrate an ability that the claimant did not claim to possess?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Nope, even in that the test was designed by Randi. SB may have accepted the protocol offered by Randi, but she had no say in the design whatsoever.Absolute Bull! The fact is, Randi suggested changes in response to Syliva's earlier objections, trying to find something she found acceptable. She finally accepted because she knew the suggested test was fair, and she couldn't raise a rational objection to it. There is simply no further level of participation which Randi could have offered Slyvia in designing the test.

Randi certainly hasn't said that he wouldn't consider a different test, if one were suggested which would be fair and accurate. Of course, SB will never suggest any test herself, because she knows she can't pass any but an obviously rigged one, and she doesn't want to tie herself down with her own words. Certainly she made a big mistake giving a definite answer while on TV, but at least she knows that the credulous fans will never hold her to it.

Had Randi ever refused a test that was clearly fair and accurate, this complaint would be worth considering. As it is, all we have is people complaining about tests they agreed to, when the reality of their inability to pass finally dawns on them. They are not complaining because the tests are unfair, but because they are fair, and they are trying to avaid the embarrassing realization either that they don't have the ability they thought they did, or that their fraud is going to be found out.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Nope, even in that the test was designed by Randi. SB may have accepted the protocol offered by Randi, but she had no say in the design whatsoever.

Even you have to understand that is not true. For instance, Randi did not ask SB to diagnose whether people were dead or alive from their photographs. Why not? Clearly this is a test he is willing to use, and yet he did not expect SB to do it. For what possible reason? Could it because SB never said she could do that? Wouldn't the fact that Randi designed a test to test what SB claimed she could do consitute her having some say in the design?

What you are complaining about is that Randi won't allow them to cheat. Well, that's true: Randi won't allow them to build cheating methods into the test. This is a problem only for you and the people who want to cheat. The rest of the planet understands the value of a test that cannot be cheated on.

[Peter Morris]

Where did Randi ask someone to demonstrate an ability that the claimant did not claim to possess?

When he asked the Chinese medicine guy to judge which photographic subjects had died. The chinese medicine guy made it clear that this wasn't what he was claiming.

But that's what Randi was offering to test, take it or leave it.

[thaiboxerken]

The gentleman refused to be tested under conditions that he said are different from what he was claiming.

Hardly, he only said what his powers are not, but he didn't say WHY Randi's protocols were not appropriate. It was an evasion.


Nope, even in that the test was designed by Randi. SB may have accepted the protocol offered by Randi, but she had no say in the design whatsoever.

It was a question and answer session that resulted in the protocols, the answers to the questions WERE her input to the test. She also had adequate freedom to suggest any changes to the protocols.


The usual lie from Randi fans. I point out flaws in Randi's tests, you cannot answer that, so you make up stuff, declare that I must believe in paranormal crap, and flame me for that. So much easier to do that than to defend Randi's dishonesty, isn't it.

You have yet to point out ANY dishonesty on Randi's part. None at all.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
When he asked the Chinese medicine guy to judge which photographic subjects had died. The chinese medicine guy made it clear that this wasn't what he was claiming.

But that's what Randi was offering to test, take it or leave it. Ahem. Let's get this straight, so you can stop peddling this INVALID and INCORRECT claim.

1. The guy claimed to be able to diagnose illnesses and diseases from a person's photograph. Not a necessarily current one, just "a photograph".

2. Certainly one of the easiest "diseases" to diagnose would be death - if the person is dead or alive. I mean, that is the real BIGGIE, the far end of the scale, when it comes to sicknesses. And it is not hard to confirm this at all to anyone's satisfaction.

3. Randi offered the man 10 photographs of people, some of whom had this particular disease (of death) and some who didn't, and asked that they be diagnosed by whatever means the man claimed he had.

4. He refused to try, or his translator/daughter refused on his behalf. Whatever - it didn't fly.

Why did he refuse? We don't know and suspect he won't say - his choice. Was he asked to do something he didn't claim he could do? No - but the criteria Randi proposed were set such that the results of the man's diagnoses would actually be simply, immediately and clearly obvious to both tester and testee without requiring any further judgement.

Now, what further problem do you have with this?

[Dilettante]

In answer to the Morlok question:
Assuming I could find my way around at all, I'd try to bring back an object that no one down below had ever felt before. Maybe some grass.

(What do people eat down there, anyway?)

I would not try to claim that a Higher Power had intervened and given me the magic ability to see stuff, or to enter this other dimension where most people can't go.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Dilettante
I would not try to claim that a Higher Power had intervened and given me the magic ability to see stuff, or to enter this other dimension where most people can't go. You're never going to get rich quick with that attitude.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
......

The chinese medicine guy made it clear that this wasn't what he was claiming.



And you can honestly say that this is ' clear ' to you ?. .:rolleyes:

You are truly in the wrong place..

[jimlintott]

But they just look sadly at you, as at a mad man , and give you lots of scientific explanations they made up, to proove that there's no surface, no light, no eye sight..

If I was one of the scientists I would do what any credible scientist would do. I would examine the evidence and in this case admit that the current theories are wrong and set about formulating new theories that better fit the evidence at hand.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But they won't listen. And it takes a certain character to be able to see the light.

Ian, I know it's hard for you when the evidence bites you on the butt, but in fact in this silly caveman scenario, it's entirely possible to show effects of the light to even a blind person. Now, we won't point out the various really stupid mistakes in the scenario, but that's a different issue.

Our ex-caveman has a falsifiable, repeatable, confirmable theory. Psi, on the other hand, has not a single whit of evidence that is even remotely credible, is not falsifiable, hasn't been repeated, and utterly lacks confirmation.

Nice try, I suppose. You probably fooled someone for a few milliseconds.

[Rolfe]

I used to have a book with exactly that plot, when I was a child. Can't remember the title. The worst bit was the severe sunburn...

The trouble with this thread is that every time anyone says, well, I could prove the existence of the light by such-and-such a means, this is rejected because in this straw-man scenario the benighted trogs won't agree to accept this evidence.

This analogy would only be valid if there was any evidence that Randi had ever refused a self-evidently fair and reasonable test protocol.

Has he?

Rolfe.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I used to have a book with exactly that plot, when I was a child. Can't remember the title. The worst bit was the severe sunburn...

The trouble with this thread is that every time anyone says, well, I could prove the existence of the light by such-and-such a means, this is rejected because in this straw-man scenario the benighted trogs won't agree to accept this evidence.

This analogy would only be valid if there was any evidence that Randi had ever refused a self-evidently fair and reasonable test protocol.

Has he?

Rolfe.

Not unless you count the one about the guy living on air.. But the justification for rejection is pretty self evident in this case..

[Peter Morris]

This analogy would only be valid if there was any evidence that Randi had ever refused a self-evidently fair and reasonable test protocol.

Randi fans ignore the evidence.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris


Randi fans ignore the evidence.

We've seen what you consider "evidence".

[princhester]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
This analogy would only be valid if there was any evidence that Randi had ever refused a self-evidently fair and reasonable test protocol.

Randi fans ignore the evidence.

You have so far referred to what you say is a lack of evidence that Randi allows input into test design. You say that Randi's proposed test for the Chinese photo thing wasn't appropriate. You don't provide any evidence the Chinese people actually proposed any fair and reasonable test that was refused. Nor do you provide any evidence of a fair and reasonable test proposed by Sylvia Browne that was refused.

So what evidence do you have of an actual fair and reasonable test that has been refused which sceptics posting to these boards ignore?

[Peter Morris]

You have so far referred to what you say is a lack of evidence that Randi allows input into test design. You say that Randi's proposed test for the Chinese photo thing wasn't appropriate. Correct so far. You don't provide any evidence the Chinese people actually proposed any fair and reasonable test that was refused. Nor do you provide any evidence of a fair and reasonable test proposed by Sylvia Browne that was refused.

Well, Princhester, since I never made that claim in the first place, I don't need to prove it.

I said that in those two cases Randi designed the tests and left it up to the applicants to take it or leave it. This is true, and proved.

I never stated that they offered a test, and Randi refused it. That is your usual habit of lying.

I have proved what I said, and I don't need to prove your distorted version of what I said.

So what evidence do you have of an actual fair and reasonable test that has been refused which sceptics posting to these boards ignore?

Here's a claim, which Randi simply refused to test under any protocol whatsoever. He would not offer a protocol himself, he would not accept a protocol offered by the applicant, he would not test it under any circumstances whatsoever.

http://alternativescience.com/randi's_letter.htm

But, as usual, you will weasel on this one.

Princhester, perhaps you would care to cite an example of Randi accepting a test suggested by an applicant.

[Eos of the Eons]

Why would anyone at all even take that whacko seriously and even give him a second thought to such an obvious ridiculous idiotic claim to not eating for 5+ years? Water is not a food product and has 0 calories. Such blatan idiocy does not derserve to be rewarded with any test of any sort to give the moron 15 minutes of fame. You were asked to find a fair and REASONABLE example, that is far from reasonable.

Randi was absolutely in his right to refuse such an idiot any thought of seriousness.

If he indeed existed on a liquid diet, then there would have to be more than water in whatever he claims to drink.


I just wanted to add that someone has to have at least an ounce of some sort of credibility (what their supporters think anyway) to be considered for them to be taken seriously enought to waste any time on.

Not only that, what about that Sylvia that agreed to take the test. That is a test accepted by Randi to do. Not only that, but it is so well known that I can't believe anyone could say that
Randi has never accepted to do a test.

[princhester]

Peter in your post (last one on page one of this thread) you quoted someone saying:

This analogy would only be valid if there was any evidence that Randi had ever refused a self-evidently fair and reasonable test protocol.

And then you said:

Randi fans ignore the evidence.

So I not unnaturally wondered what evidence there was that Randi had ever refused a self-evidently fair and reasonable test protocol, that you considered we were ignoring.

It's pretty simple stuff really. No need to get your knickers in a twist about it.

[Peter Morris]

And I want to know what evidence you have that Randi has ever accepted a protocol designed by an applicant.

Can you cite any?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And I want to know what evidence you have that Randi has ever accepted a protocol designed by an applicant.

Can you cite any?

Which of course nobody has claimed to be the case. What they have said is that the claimant "participates" in the design, not that the claimant designs the test. Surely you understand the difference?

SB objected to certain aspects of the protocol, changes were made to deal with the objections. Do you agree that this is participating in the design? Or do you continue to believe that "she had no say in the design whatsoever"?

[Barkhorn1x]

"Just Immagine... "

...if you could spell. :rolleyes:

OK - that was mean. But I wonder at the stones on this guy - to come in here and basically paint skeptics as a bunch of close-minded boobs - and he (or she) can barely form a grammatically correct sentence.

Oh I know, this could be construed as a sort of ad hom, but in this case I think not, as the line...

"But they just look sadly at you, as at a mad man , and give you lots of scientific explanations they made up, to proove that there's no surface, no light, no eye sight...


...pretty much tells me all I need to know about quality of Bratok's thought processes.

Science is just made up - yea sure. :roll:

Barkhorn.

[Peter Morris]

Which of course nobody has claimed to be the case. What they have said is that the claimant "participates" in the design, not that the claimant designs the test. Surely you understand the difference?

Actually, that's exactly what Princhester claims to be the case.

He demanded "evidence the Chinese people actually proposed any fair and reasonable test that was refused"

He want's evidence of the Chinese guy, or anyone else, proposing a test, and Randi refusing.

I want evidence of somebody proposing a test, and Randi accepting.

Since Randi fans claim that Randi has never refused a fair test, it should be easy to come up with examples of such.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Peter Morris


Actually, that's exactly what Princhester claims to be the case.

He demanded "evidence the Chinese people actually proposed any fair and reasonable test that was refused"

He want's evidence of the Chinese guy, or anyone else, proposing a test, and Randi refusing.

I want evidence of somebody proposing a test, and Randi accepting.

Since Randi fans claim that Randi has never refused a fair test, it should be easy to come up with examples of such.

The following is my opinion;

The problem is that paranormal practitioners would be happy if the JREF challenge went away. Because of this Randi has to be the more active participant and keep pushing the issue. Most of the claimants just find fault in the tests in an attempt to put it off until it either goes away or they can find a way to cheat. Suggestions do come from the participants, but everything has to be agreed to by both parties.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris


I want evidence of somebody proposing a test, and Randi accepting.


Depends on what you'll accept. There's Penta water, which suggtested the device to use in testing. Randi agreed and suggested a testing protocol. But they didn't write back.

There's also Mike Hutchinson's account of Randi testing an 'electrical dowser' using a piece of equipment designed by the dowser's sponsor. The protocol was fine and Randi agreed to it, but he put a piece of cloth of a gauge that he suspected was twitching when current was running and thus gave the dowser clues. Everything was the dowser's sponser's protocol, and they agreed to the cloth, but they didn't suggest it. Does that qualify?

(Penta water is in the Swift archives, I'd have to dig for the second test i mentioned).

[thaiboxerken]

Since Randi fans claim that Randi has never refused a fair test, it should be easy to come up with examples of such.

Actually, this is nigh-impossible to prove, as we'd have to interview EVERY single person in the world and then verify the interview.

Instead, with a claim like this, the burden of evidence is on the accuser (you) to find just ONE example of a fair test that Randi has refused. That is the most reasonable approach, as listing all examples of the tests Randi has refused is unacceptably and painstakingly long.

[princhester]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Actually, that's exactly what Princhester claims to be the case.

He demanded "evidence the Chinese people actually proposed any fair and reasonable test that was refused"

He want's evidence of the Chinese guy, or anyone else, proposing a test, and Randi refusing.

No, Peter. You said sceptics were ignoring evidence that Randi refused fair and reasonable tests and I asked what that evidence was. I did not demand anything, I was simply responding to your barb that sceptics were ignoring certain evidence by asking what that evidence was.

Is that so obnoxious or unreasonable?

Why do I bother?

[jimmygun]

I have a question...after Randi offered a test that he thought was fair and resonable to test the Chinese persons powers and was refused, did the claimant offer another test in reply?

Isn't this the way the challenge goes...You claim, Randi suggests a test, you agree with it or offer changes that Randi agrees with, reach an agreement then go on with the test?

[c0rbin]

Oh I know, this could be construed as a sort of ad hom, but in this case I think not, as the line...

No, no, no.

You are not debating this person. Calling him a troll (as you do by your 2nd paragraph), is not by any means a logical fallacy.

This person is clearly trolling and deserves to be attacked or ignored, depending on your own personally policy for dealing with trolls.

I like to go with my mood. Right now I feel like attacking.

Peter Peter Morris Morris
Weatherby George Dupris
Compared a bunch of skeptics
to cave folk who could not see.

Peter Peter Morris Morris
Said to the skeptics, said he:
"You will always be nipped at heal by woo-woo's
and most are as stupid as me."

Now Peter Peter Morris Morris
logged on to the internet
Peter Peter Morris Morris
Said: "I must never forget."

Peter Peter Morris Morris
Said to himself, said he:
"I must never forget that despite what I see,
It's what I wish that the world will be."

[Peter Morris]

Peter: I want evidence of somebody proposing a test, and Randi accepting.

Kookbreaker: Depends on what you'll accept. There's Penta water, which suggtested the device to use in testing. Randi agreed and suggested a testing protocol. But they didn't write back.

http://www.randi.org/jr/08-24-01.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/08-31-01.html

Indeed, Randi proposed the test, not Penta.

He went through several offers of different tests, at each stage telling Penta to accept his protocol, but he wouldn't accept theirs.

Randi dictated the criteria for success: 37 out of 50, or 18 out of 20. Non-negotiable, its Randi's definition of success or nothing.

Randi refused Penta's offer to test Penta water on Randi's body.
"Yes, of course we will pay you, but no, we would not use my body in a test."

Randi insisted that the test be carried out by scientists chosen by Randi. He refused Penta's choice of scientists.

"For similar reasons, we do not accept results offered by independent labs. We would be foolish to do so, I'm sure you will agree, since our reputation and our million-dollar prize is at stake. We presently have very competent, reputable, and willing colleagues at both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and at Harvard University, standing by to conduct the first set of tests. If those credentials are insufficient for you, please advise us. All of this must meet your standards, of course. "

The fact is, Randi dictated the conditions of the test, and insisted that Penta meet his demands. He refused all Pentas input into the test design.

peter: Since Randi fans claim that Randi has never refused a fair test, it should be easy to come up with examples of such.

[/b]Thaiboxerken:[/b] Actually, this is nigh-impossible to prove, as we'd have to interview EVERY single person in the world and then verify the interview.
Rubbish. Why would you need to interview everybody to prove that Randi once accepted a test designed by someone else?

thaiboxerken: Instead, with a claim like this, the burden of evidence is on the accuser (you) to find just ONE example of a fair test that Randi has refused.

Already given. But Randi fans will always deny that its fair.

As for the burden of proof, according to Randi fans " the claimant would get to participate in the test design"

Since Randi fans made this statement, it is up to Randi fans to prove that this has EVER happened.

It is always Randi who tells the claimant how Randi will conduct the trial. The claimant can take it or leave it.

princhester: No, Peter. You said sceptics were ignoring evidence that Randi refused fair and reasonable tests and I asked what that evidence was. I did not demand anything, I was simply responding to your barb that sceptics were ignoring certain evidence by asking what that evidence was.

Folks, check out princhester's comments earlier in this thread, you will see that I quoted him exactly.

This is not the first time princhester has denied saying what he said. Once he accused me of lying when I quoted him, in his words, "over literally." In princhester-land, being too truthful is dishonest, and Randi is never dishonest.

[thaiboxerken]

Since Randi fans made this statement, it is up to Randi fans to prove that this has EVER happened.

It's already been shown to have happened on once occasion, at least. Sylvia Browne participated in designing her test, the question and answer session IS that portion of test design. But, of course, you are a stupid believer so you won't see what's obvious. It's no use trying to have a rational discussion with you, since you are so biased against Randi, science and skeptics in general that you are not rational. So, STFU you troll.

[Peter Morris]

It's already been shown to have happened on once occasion, at least. Sylvia Browne participated in designing her test, the question and answer session IS that portion of test design.
Cite, Ken? Where is the description given by Randi of the protocol designed by Browne and accepted by Randi? Please provide a link so that I can see this example of Randi accepting a test designed by someone else.

The way I remember it, Randi designed the test himself, Browne promised to take the test Randi designed, but never came. Browne had no input into the test design, IIRC. If I'm wrong, provide a link showing how Randi accepted a test designed by Browne.

But, of course, you are a stupid believer so you won't see what's obvious. It's no use trying to have a rational discussion with you, since you are so biased against Randi, science and skeptics in general that you are not rational. So, STFU you troll.

The Randi fans' usual response. If someone fails to idolise Randi and believe every single word he says they must believe in Sylia Browne. Please try to understand, Ken, that I consider both of them equally dishonest.

I am not 'biased' against Randi, I simply have no respect for him because he lies so often.

I am biased in favour of science, but I see Randi make frequent scientific blunders in his attacks, and I point out hgis errors. Randi fans scream insults at me, but Randi is still wrong.

As for biased against 'skeptiks', I am a sceptic myself, but those who insist on spelling it with a 'k' are, in my experience, closed-minded idiots. Sceptic really means 'doubter', that is one who needs proof before he will believe. But 'skeptics' like Randi are 'disbelievers' who will cling to their disbelief no matter what.

I comment on the lies Randi tells because I feel that we sceptics have a duty to the truth. Randi fans hate me for that.

[Lothian]

Peter,

You miss the point. It doesn’t matter whether Randi details the test or not. Only an idiot would claim they could do something they couldn’t do when constrained under their own self imposed controls.

For example Natalia (?) could tell what was written down on a bit of paper if she was allowed to look at it.

The success of Natalia and other claimants being able to pass their own proposed test is down to

a) Cheating (conscious or not) or
b) Supernatural powers.

The former has to be eliminated.

Randi therefore will advise on changes or alternatives to the proposed test to eliminate any possibility of cheating. The claimant can accept these or provide alternative controls themselves, but I am sure you will agree the possibility of cheating or a non supernatural cause must be eliminated from any test.

By the way
My British Chambers Dictionary says

Sceptic- sometimes (and in the US) Skeptic.

I have always believed that all Americans are taught to spell it with a k. Are you saying that all Americans are closed minded idiots ?

By the way when you talk about ‘we sceptics’ I assume that you mean you and Luci, or are you one and the same as she is the only other person who I have seen use that term while spouting tripe.

[Peter Morris]

You miss the point. It doesn’t matter whether Randi details the test or not. Only an idiot would claim they could do something they couldn’t do when constrained under their own self imposed controls

Lothian, you miss the point. . It is not them being constrained under their own self imposed controls, its being constrained under controls set by Randi. The test offered by Randi is often totally different from what they say they can do.

Possibly the best example of this is when Randi tests dowsers.

Now, I consulted a geologist on the subject of underground water, and I'd like you to read what he had to say. http://tinyurl.com/qwp5

Note this part in particular "You drill two wells. One hits a small aquifer in the old lalke deposits, and you get 10 gpm... Then you drop another well 20 meters away, but this one hits those old streambed deposits, and you wind up getting 800 gpm."

Now, you have a dowser, who makes the claim that he can find a good place to put a well. How should we test him? I think he should be tested on his claim

Randi would refuse that test. In the first place, Randi would deny that the old streambed deposit exists at all. http://thedesertdowsers.tripod.com/sun.html "There are no streams of water flowing underground," he said. "There are large deposits of water that may seep through sandstone and move at the rate of 200 feet per year. There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. These people have delusions about underground rivers."

But lets look at the test that Randi always offers dowsers
http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.randi-paranormal.html

"I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth's surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don't want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success. "

He says similar things here: http://www.carolinaconnoisseur.com/film_Divining_Mom.htm
and here: http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm
and here: http://tinyurl.com/qwv7
and here:http://www.ncas.org/pdf/vol.15.1.pdf

Find a dry spot?. There is no such thing. They have a zero percent chance of success, because there is always some water. In most places its only a bare trickle, in a few spots its a large quantity. But Randi doesn't care about the difference.

Randi therefore will advise on changes or alternatives to the proposed test to eliminate any possibility of cheating. The claimant can accept these or provide alternative controls themselves, but I am sure you will agree the possibility of cheating or a non supernatural cause must be eliminated from any test.

No, he will set a ridiculous test that cannot be won, whether the claimant can dowse or not. His challenge, to find a dry spot is different from what dowsers claim, is unfair, and by nature impossible. And if they refuse to take his test, he declares victory by default.

By the way when you talk about ‘we sceptics’ I assume that you mean you and Luci, or are you one and the same as she is the only other person who I have seen use that term while spouting tripe.

I am a sceptic. I don't believe in dowsing. But I am an open minded sceptic, willing to change my mind if dowsers can demonstrate their abilities under proper controls. So, I want to see dowsers given fair tests. Randi's tests are not fair, or sensible.

[Peter Morris]

addendum to the above:

If a dowser claims he can find an old streambed deposit yielding 800gpm, Randi doesn't quite always test the claim by demanding he find a dry spot.

Sometimes he tests them by asking them to trace a 4 inch pipe with water trickling through. Or he might bury bottles of water and bottles of sand, and ask them to dowse which is which.

[Lothian]

Peter,

You have hit the nail on the head. A geologist….. There are many ways to find water underground, and others that give a good indication. Now a dowser claims to find water by dowsing. How can we know he is doing by dowsing as opposed to another means. I would not pay out to someone who can find an underground water source as that does not demonstrate dowsing. Randi does not always ask dowsers to find a dry spot. He tested someone earlier this year, I recall. There was a commentary about it. As I recall the test went something like.

10 cups were placed in the room. The dowser tested his equipment and declared there was no external factor (such as underground streams) affecting his equipment. He then measured each empty cup and the cups and the equipment showed no movement. The cups were then filled and the dower tested each one and the equipment registered a hit each time. The full cups were then in sight of the dowser covered and he again had a 100% divining record. Te cups were then emptied and covered again in full sight of the dowser and he tested them and the equipment declared them empty. The dowser was then taken out of the room and 5 cups filled, 5 left empty. When he came back in did he pick the 5 full cups or did his powers mysteriously fail? I don’t need to tell you the result.

The above test is simple the tester first checks that his equipment works and that he can do the test. He is then tested. Without cheating he has no way of knowing which 5 cups have water. I accept that the dowser may say he can find water in a field but if he does there is no proof that it was done as a result of dowsing. The test above is one that dowsers should be able to do if they have such ability but it eliminate cheating. This is the point I am making. The claims made are generally in a format that allows cheating or other means of achieving the same result. It follows that passing such a test is not proof of the paranormal. The format has to be changed, otherwise you only have someone that can do a very entertaining trick. Worth a few quid perhaps but to win a million you have to change science.

I found the commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html) Sorry some of the facts above are wrong, it was gold not water but the gist is the same.

[Corwyn]

Bratok,

Your analogy is stupid and here is why.

In your analogy THERE IS light, It can be tested and varified..
Your discoverer of light can show the light can show the effect of the light.

If the other cave dwellers don't want to GO to the light
he can use mirrors or chrystals to reflect the light in the
eyes of the cave dwellers who don't want to go.


Most woowoo artist don't even claim that they are will to take us to the light. What they say is if you give me $20 I will tell you about the light. But you can't see the affects of the light and I most certainly will not let you see or examine the light.

You JUST have to take my word that there is a light.


Corwyn

[princhester]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Folks, check out princhester's comments earlier in this thread, you will see that I quoted him exactly.

Actually you took certain words that I'd said, and stated that they were a "demand" that I had made. Which they were not.

[thaiboxerken]

Cite, Ken?

The link is on the front page of this website. Randi asked Browne several questions then submitted a test based on her answers. That IS a Q&A session. If she had a problem with the test, all she had to do was tell him and they could have modified it right then and there.


If I'm wrong, provide a link showing how Randi accepted a test designed by Browne.

No one made that claim.


Please try to understand, Ken, that I consider both of them equally dishonest.

But you are considering Randi dishonest for no honest reason.


I am not 'biased' against Randi, I simply have no respect for him because he lies so often.

You are biased because he doens't lie very often and often admits mistakes when they are pointed out to him. The dishonest person here is you.


but Randi is still wrong.

You haven't shown this to be true at all.

As for biased against 'skeptiks', I am a sceptic myself, but those who insist on spelling it with a 'k' are, in my experience, closed-minded idiots. Sceptic really means 'doubter', that is one who needs proof before he will believe. But 'skeptics' like Randi are 'disbelievers' who will cling to their disbelief no matter what.

Disbeliever, eh? So, do you have evidence of anything considered paranormal? The skeptics here don't believe in the paranormal because there hasnt' been any credible evidence. Because the claims made often fail or contradict science.

I comment on the lies Randi tells because I feel that we sceptics have a duty to the truth. Randi fans hate me for that.

You have yet to speak any truth. You're about as sceptic as Lucianarchy or Clancie.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lothian
Worth a few quid perhaps but to win a million you have to change science.


I think Morris's big complaint is that Randi takes the claimants out off of their stage and places them in a lab where they can't cheat.

:rolleyes:

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But they won't listen. And it takes a certain character to be able to see the light.

Except it doesn't take 'a certain character' to see light. That's the whole point. If we are going to accept that anything is objectively real, by definition its detection must not depend on atitudes and opinions.

By using light as an analogy, but then addind the caveat "it takes a certain character to see" blithely dismisses the difference between things that are objectively real and figments of our imagination.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
As for the burden of proof, according to Randi fans " the claimant would get to participate in the test design"

Since Randi fans made this statement, it is up to Randi fans to prove that this has EVER happened.
Morris, you are such a liar. We have proven the truth of this to you over and over.

Consider: Did Randi ask Sylvia to dowse? Did he ask that dowsing guy he test to make predictions? The answer, as you well know, is no in both cases. He asked the dowser to dowse because that is what the dowser said he could do, and he asked Slyvia to predict because that is what she said she could do. Now, if he creates the test based on what the claimant claims to be able to, isn't that participating in the test design?

If you would read the dowsing test account, you would see that the dowser passed the test with flying colors - when he was allowed to cheat (they simply showed him where the objects where). Then, when he was asked to do the exact same test again, minus only the part where they show him the answer, he was suddenly unable to perform. The dowser himself asserted that the test was valid (during the trial where he was shown the answer).

You know this, and yet you keep on repeating your lies. Why?

Seriously. Why?

[uruk]

Just Immagine...

Imagine that thousands and thousands years ago, all people got burried in giant caves, because of an earth quake ( for example ). They lived there, in complete darkness. As the years passes there were some who claimed the surface, vision and sight never existed. They engaged in deceit, trickery and political bullying to force their belief on others. All pictures and books about the surface, light and vision were burned. As were the people who tended the vast libraries and repositories of knowledge. This continued untill the memories became dull and were considered as fairy tales about something that could never exist. These "blind" people made their schools and collages, and in no possible way could consider that they are somehow defective. Nor could anyone question the beliefs for fear of punishment. Makeing one step forward and touching the ground to make sure that there's no hole, was completely normal for them.

Imagine that you are also one of them... but one day, you find a tiny tunel, leading to the surface. You squeeze yourself through it, your eyes pop open and see ... You see beautiful hills, valleys, waterfalls, meadows, forests, birds singing... you see everything that you always thought was just a sick imagination of your ancestors.

You run back into the cave... but now you can also see all this "blind" people. You see them touching the ground to make sure there's no hole on their pass, before makeing another step.

You scream to them "What are you doing here, in this darkness?! Get a shovel and dig a tunnel to the surface! You won't believe what's up there!" ... But they just look sadly at you, as at a mad man , and give you lots of religious and philosophical explanations they made up, to proove that there's no surface, no light, no eye sight or even caves for that matter...


What would you do?

Oh wait, That happened for real.