The third story: Man healed of cancer in Finland

[JJM 777]

Of the three rather unusual incidents in my life, the third one occurred in 1998.

But before I relate the events, let me make some statements: The literary style of this text is prose. The text contains no humour, no exaggerations or distortions of reality, no intentionally misleading information. No essential information is consciously left unmentioned.

----------

A friend of mine, a fundamentalist Christian with a rather unintellectual mind (that is, low IQ), asked me some weeks ago: "Do you believe in miraculous healings?"

I tried to give an answer, but immediately he interrupted me, and said: "Don't explain anything. Just reply with one word: Yes or no?"

Again I began to explain, and this time he allowed me to speak without interrupting. What I said was: "I am thankful that I am not in desperate need of a miraculous healing. But I am also too young to die. If I were in danger of life at a young age like this, I would fight against death with all my might, and die with my boots on, like a soldier. I would refuse to simply give up and die, without resisting with all means that seem potentially helpful."

My explanation was all too complex for my friend to understand. Yet I believe that this explanation is quite universally applicable for people whom death is calling to the grave, while the person's will to live is still strong.

This is what happened to me personally, back in 1998, when I was 25 years of age...

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/skincancermalignantmelanoma.htm

The Web page linked above gives the following statistics about skin cancer (malignant melanoma):

- 1 person out of 10,000 in United Kingdom gets a malignant melanoma each year.
- 1,500 persons die to this cancer each year in United Kingdom.
- 90 percent of all cases are caused by sun radiation (the skin burning in sunlight several times).

One of the "warning signs" of skin cancer (malignant melanoma) is, according to the linked Web page:
"The appearance of a new irregular mole ... there is no need to worry UNLESS the colour of the new mole is uneven, or its edges are ragged)."

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/images/gha__100099000_ghp0003093.jpg
(Photo: A normal, healthy mole.)

Well, being 25 years of age, I got one of those things that doctors warn about. A new mole appeared on the skin, which didn't look at all like the other moles. It had a different colour (paler brown), and an uneven shape (not round like the other moles). And what was most alarming, this new mole kept growing and growing all the time, week after week, larger and larger.

I would estimate that the new strange mole on my skin grew at the speed of 0.5 millimeters per week. I did not pay any attention to it when I first noticed a new brown spot on my skin, 2 millimeters wide. But when its size was 5 millimeters some weeks later, and 10 mm yet two months later, I began to feel a bit uncomfortable about the situation -- which is exactly what doctors tell us to do.

But the doctors would also tell us to visit them, which is what I did not do. I have never been a very enthusiastic doctor-goer or medicine-taker. I began to habitually measure the growing strange mole, however, and at the point when its diameter was 15 mm (bigger than a thumbnail), I felt that something must be done about it, right now. Untreated (and even treated) skin cancer kills hundreds of people each year. I was not interested in joining those statistics.

Traditional medicine is one possible source where to seek help in your health problems, but also other options are claimed to be abundantly available. The faith healers, the psychics, the magic amulettes, the "alternative medicine", and so on. All these get their own share of the total world market of services that try to heal people from sicknesses.

I did not turn to any of these for help. Not even traditional medicine. I just didn't think that the situation was so far so dangerous that I would need to consult another human being to solve the problem. Yet I understood that there was a problem, and I was a bit worried about the situation. Just a bit. I didn't want to let the mole just keep growing and growing, week after week, larger and larger.

So I decided to kill it.

I took a sharp knife, and pressed the tip of its blade on the irregularly-shaped mole, now about 15 mm in size. My plan was to cut the mole off the skin. Quick and dirty. But I just couldn't do it. I simply didn't have the nerve to press the knife through my own skin.

(James Randi mentions in the book Flim-Flam! or Faith Healers -- I cannot remember which of them -- that he once successfully removed some kind of a large non-malignant tumor from his own forehead, simply cutting it off with a sharp blade. He doesn't mention in the book WHY he performed the operation himself, without consulting a doctor...)

A quick and dirty murder of the growing mole was out of the question, because I didn't have the nerve to wound my own skin. While I still had the blade of the knife pressed against the skin, I suddenly got another idea, much easier to carry out:

Suffocate it. Let the mole die to lack of air, like a fish on dry ground.

We had just painted the floors of our home some months ago, and we had half-empty buckets of floor paint left in the closet. I opened one of these paint buckets, and painted the growing mole with this thick and strong oil-based floor paint. The paint lasted for a week on the skin, but then it began to get cracking, and I rubbed it off. (The mole was in a place that is normally covered with clothes, so it didn't bother my everyday social life that I had some dark brown paint on my skin.)

The paint had made no noticeable effect on the mole, but I repeated the "treatment", and painted it again with the same paint. A week later I rubbed the cracking paint off, and applied a fresh layer of oil-based floor paint on the mole.

Over the next two months, the mole neither grew nor reduced in size. Instead it just... faded out. Its colour became paler and paler, week after week, until finally I was no longer able to detect its location any more. Whatever it was, it was now gone. The skin became perfectly healthy and normal, and has been so ever since.

Thinking about the incident later on, the "suffocation theory" may not be the only or most credible explanation for the disappearance of the strange mole. It is also possible that the mole died due to poisoning. Floor paints are not healthy food for anyone.

I believe in unexpected healings, even in cases where traditional medicine is not applied.

----------

Some JREF-minded people, including James Randi, have the habit of condemning "alternative treatments" a bit too quickly and strongly. If traditional medicine functions quickly like a sports car, that does not mean that reaching the same destination with a slower horse-wagon would be morally questionable. For some people it can even be a matter of money.

For example, in his weekly commentary for 5 December 2003, James Randi discusses with a Finnish JREF fan about the magazines of Finnair (a Finnish airline company), under the headline "Finnair quackery".

Randi: "I've encountered a variety of quack practices while on Finnair, including 'aromatherapy' and some 'vibrational' hand-passing 'cures' for the kinks that develop on long (9 hours!) flights."

My comment: Neither aromatherapy nor hand-passing motions are "quack practices", in the context and in the extent used by Finnair. Their function and tangible effect can be compared to the music that is heard from loudspeakers, or the movies that are shown on TV screen. Airline companies want to make their customers feel good during the flight, and for this reason they offer video films for the sense of sight, music for the sense of hearing, food and drinks for the sense of taste, "aromatherapy" for the sense of smell. The only sense still left without any entertaining attention is the sense of touch: the stewards cannot massage the customers, so they will need to do it themselves, whoever is interested in such entertainment. Women are more likely to be interested than men.

No miraculous powers or effects are claimed for any of these forms of entertainment. The hand-passing-motions are claimed to enrich blood circulation, which is the objective truth as well. Medical massage would do the job far more effectively, but such an option can hardly be arranged for 100 people during a flight.


Then Randi quotes the text of a Finnair magazine, submitted by a JREF fan:
"If you feel pressure from any reason whatsoever, it is worthwhile to do an exercise which brings down anxiety, relaxes irritated mind and gives new 'kick' to your life." These exercises include 'Energy eight exercise' (crossing your legs), 'Energy yawning' (yawning with eyes closed), 'Thinking cap' (rubbing ears), and 'finding of positive points'.

None of the entertaining claims made by the Finnair magazine are false: while others watch a movie, you can entertain yourself with massage, if you prefer such entertainment.

The only problem here seems to be that in other contexts (such as "alternative medicine") these same practices are claimed to do more than just entertain you and make you feel good. No such claims are made in the Finnair text. Randi barks at the wrong tree. Entertainment is often more or less silly, but calling it "quackery" is not appropriate.

Randi quotes yet another Finnair magazine text, submitted by a JREF fan:
"If you are embarrassed to make these movements in front of others, you can do the movements also in your mind. Amazingly enough, research results show that the effect is almost as good as when you make the actual exercises."

The claim is not completely unfounded. Mental excercise is part of the training of top athletes in some forms of sports: a sportsman practices movements in real life, and then while resting, he goes through the movements in his mind, over and over again. Mental training causes increasing blood circulation in the body parts that would participate in the motions, because the body prepares itself for performing the movements, not knowing that the sportsman is "only joking", without any actual intention to move anywhere at the moment.

The effect is certainly not "almost as good", but nevertheless, it is better than nothing. And satisfactory entertainment for many headache-oriented ladies.

[CFLarsen]

Since you like to make up stories about your life, why should we address this at all?

What purpose would it serve?

[JJM 777]

I don't "make up" what hasn't happened.

I made some final conclusions, which serve a purpose.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
I don't "make up" what hasn't happened.

I made some final conclusions, which serve a purpose.

You forged the photo, and falsely claimed that people took a closed-minded attitude. That's not "making up" things?

[Virgil]

Hi winston welcome back.

you sly dog you, you had me fooled for a moment ;)



Virgil

[JJM 777]

You forged the photo, and falsely claimed that people took a closed-minded attitude.

The text says: "Photo: a normal, healthy mole." That is exactly what is seen in the photo.

The photo is not presented as evidence, it is an illustration to help people with weaker fluency in English to understand what the heck a "mole" is, without the need to consult a dictionary.

Neither is it claimed that this photo would have anything to do with my body. It wouldn't make any difference, though, because even without any photos it is obvious that every person has some healthy moles in his body.

I have not deviated from my original statement: the text did not contain any exaggerations of reality or misleading information, neither was any necessary information concealed from the reader.

[haggisman]

Thinking about the incident later on, the "suffocation theory" may not be the only or most credible explanation for the disappearance of the strange mole. It is also possible that the mole died due to poisoning. Floor paints are not healthy food for anyone.

I find it hard to believe that the oil floor paint exclusively targeted the supposedly cancerous cells when they are practically the same as the surrounding healthy tissue, which apparently survived completely unharmed in your account.

A Johns Hopkins University study found 300 toxic chemicals and 150 carcinogens that may be present in paint (Dadd, Debra Lynn, Nontoxic and Natural, 1984)
from FNSB (http://www.co.fairbanks.ak.us/PublicWorks/SolidWaste/oilpaint.htm)

I would hardly advise painting your skin with paint anyway; you even seem to be aware it’s not advisable.

At the end of the day you don’t even know if it was malignant melanoma, and through reluctance to visit a doctor you may have caused more harm than good in the long run.

[Ralph]

So you thought you might have a form of skin cancer which you knew would kill you if you ignored it.

Instead of seeking treatment ASAP and undergoing a little minor--but LIFE-SAVING surgury, you thought "nah--I think I'll experiment a little bit, paint the thing, and see what happens".

Don't you think that's a little strange?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The text says: "Photo: a normal, healthy mole." That is exactly what is seen in the photo.

I am talking about the photo of the dog.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The photo is not presented as evidence, it is an illustration to help people with weaker fluency in English to understand what the heck a "mole" is, without the need to consult a dictionary.

Thank you for your concern. May I suggest a bit more modesty, when it comes to lecturing people on their "weaker fluency in English"? If people don't understand, they will ask. There is no need for you to assume that your English is superior.

[MRC_Hans]

Yeah, well. Wait long enough and all things come clear ;). Welcome in the open about your motives, JJM.

But first your story.

Facts (all assuming the story is not fiction):

You had a mole.
The mole grew.
You painted the mole.
The mole vanished.

Another fact: The title of this thread is "Man healed of cancer".

Since you did not consult a doctor, you do not know if you had cancer. A mole that grows is suspect of cancer, but it is by no means certain to be cancer. In fact, most moles that grow are not cancer.

The paint, containing several toxic substances, might very well have caused wide-spread cell death in the area and thus been instrumental in making the mole go away. You are lucky you did not poison yourself or create a large ulceration. And of course you are lucky that it was not a malignant melanome, because then you would probably have been dead now.

Now for your motives:

So you are yet another one who has an agena against the JREF in general and Randi in particular. Why did you not just say so from the start, instead of boring us with silly stories? What is it with you people that you never seem to be able to come straight to a point?

Hans

[Zep]

Given that the picture is of SOMEONE ELSE'S mole, how are we to know that what this person had wasn't just a plain ol' zit?

[Jyera]

JJM,

Some comment/question here.

1. There is no mention of professional diagnosis by a qualified doctor. So the case need some convincing that it is indeed cancer.

Even if the painting did apparently worked. We could hardly classify it as a cure for cancer. Now with all evidence gone, it would better to close the case without further investigation.

2. It seemed there is no witness to this healing.
If you think you are dying from cancer, and that it is growing a very fast rate of 0.5 mm per week, surely your family ought to be worried and involved. There isn't any mention about your family and friend and I find it odd.

3. The thick oil-based paint for painting floor was kept in the closet for "some months" and used to apply to the skin for "two months". Was the same pail of paint used? If it is it meant it was opened for at least 7 to 8 ocassions. And lasted ast least more than 3 to four months. I thought an open paint can hardly last that long without hardening and be unusable.
As I'm no painting professional, please pardon my lack of knowledge, it there is indeed paint that last so long.

4. I find it odd that there is no mention of where the mole is located. At the very least it should have been mentioned on the arm or leg or body or back. Why? Is it because it is located at some weird part of your anatomy? :).

[Kopji]

But sometimes moles just go away by themselves. I had one do that very thing so I know it is true. The paint may have had no effect at all.

And yet the subject of such an experiment often feels confident enough to promote this possibly life threatening course of treatment. After all, early treatment is important in treating cancer. Seeing doctor is an early course of action, rather than a last choice.

Skin cancer is often treatable if caught early. Why risk your life on paint at all?

By the way, I have had skin cancer, and also had it removed. The depth of the cut section of skin was more than a quarter inch deep to get all the cancer. This sounds more like a doctor visit, not a Rambo trick I'd want to do after a few beers.

[Darat]

Sounds more like a wart to me - irregular shaped growth and often just disappear after a few weeks or months.

[Archon1]

There is no doubt that these stories are simply made up to prove something incomprehensible to us. It all sounds like "The Celestine Prophecy" to me, especially the part about coincidences.

Archon1

[Blondin]

JohnJoe, I don't see the connection between your story and your mention of miraculous healing. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about your mole. I have a "birthmark" on my face that has faded in and out and changed in size all my life. At times it is not perceptible at all.

The title of your thread is very misleading. You have no evidence that your mole was cancerous at all. There is nothing miraculous about the mole's behaviour and disappearance.

I fail to see any connection at all with your story and your mini-tirade about Mr Randi's comments about Finnair. First you seem to be defending alternative medicine then you state that Finnair's "entertainment" doesn't constitute alternative medicine.

Just what is your point?

[HTmonkey]

Nice story, JJM, and well written too, but can you tell me about the
man who was healed of cancer instead of yourself?

[JJM 777]

So you are yet another one who has an agena against the JREF in general and Randi in particular. Why did you not just say so from the start, instead of boring us with silly stories? What is it with you people that you never seem to be able to come straight to a point?

That is simply unfounded rubbish. I have quoted Randi on several occasions, and this is the first time that I find need for correction in his statements.

So Randi is infallible, then, beyond any critical discussion? If that is your attitude, you then you are a believer. A very devout believer.

"Against the JREF in general and Randi in particular..." I cannot believe this nonsense. I bet Randi has ten or twenty friends who drink beer with him and make at least as many critical comments about some of his statements as I have done, and still they are friends.

A friendship without critical excahnge of thoughts is not friendship. It is either slavery or emotionless ignorance.

If you would be so kind as to stop putting "agendas" into my mouth, and focus on reality.

[CFLarsen]

JohnJoeMittler,

How do you know it was cancer, if you didn't see a doctor?

[goodvibes]

He had better hope it wasn't a melanoma because if it was, removing the mole is only part of the treatment. If the thickness of the melanoma is greater then 1mm, it is advisable (according to the surgeon who removed my melanoma) to check one of the nearest lymph nodes to see if the cancer has spread there. If it does get there it can then spread to the rest of the body through the lymphatic system.

My melanoma was 1.1mm thick, some lymph nodes under my arm were checked and it had spread there. The rest of the nodes were then removed. My haemotologist tells me that there is a 50% chance of the melanoma recurring in another part of my body and it could even be 25 years before it does so.

The point I want to make to him is that treating cancer involves more than just removing the symptoms and is too complex to be left to amateurs.

[Jyera]

Let's get back to the subject matter.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
JohnJoeMittler,

How do you know it was cancer, if you didn't see a doctor?

Yeah, I'm interested to know too.
I have others doubts in my previous posting which you might want to help to clear too.

- Jyera.

[Virgil]

WinstonWU,


c'mom...some of of missed you. give us a little love.


Virgil

[Jyera]

1. I propose all here to limit this thread to the discussion of the "mole". Too messy to and distracting to discuss to many things in one thread.

2. I propose we stop commenting about the "Finnair" part.
Not because it is not worth the while to discuss. But because it does not seemed to be relation between the "mole" story with the "Finnair" part. Even if there is some relation , I predict it would lead to a different area of discussion that justify a separate thread.

3. I propose JJM delete the "Finnair" part and to start a separate thread for the "Finnair" parts if he so wishes.

[JJM 777]

Many of you have asked how I know that it was certainly cancer. My original story ends with these words: "Whatever it was, it was now gone." That is my diagnosis of the disease.

The thickness of the "mole" or whatever was 0 mm. With one's eyes closed, it would have been impossible to locate it with fingers.

The location of the "mole" was in the diagonal crease between abdomen and left thigh.

Paint buckets can be reopened tens of times, even half a year after the bucket was first opened. Usually there will be a dry layer of paint on the top, under which the rest of the paint is in perfect condition.

The timing of the events makes it a bit unreasonable to believe that the cause for the disappearance of the "mole" would have been anything else than the paint applied to it.

[Darat]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler


...snip...

The timing of the events makes it a bit unreasonable to believe that the cause for the disappearance of the "mole" would have been anything else than the paint applied to it.

Why?

[Archon1]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The timing of the events makes it a bit unreasonable to believe that the cause for the disappearance of the "mole" would have been anything else than the paint applied to it.

With that logic I can assume that if I have the flu and drink a beer before I goto bed then wake up feeling much better the beer must have cured me?

Archon1

[Stitch]

[i]
The timing of the events makes it a bit unreasonable to believe that the cause for the disappearance of the "mole" would have been anything else than the paint applied to it. [/B]

If you have a condition, 1 of 3 things will happen:
1) It will get better
2) It will stay the same
3) It will get worse

That applies to something that is treated or un-treated. It is also quite possible for one of the outcomes to be observed and then this changes to another, before moving on to another. Cancer going in to remission would be a good example.

One would hope that something that is treated would generally get better. There are also plenty of occasions when things get better on their own. I get headaches now and again. I don't usually take anything for them and some time later, treated or not, they go away.

You seem to be making a causal link between the application of paint and the dissapearance of a mole without any evidence to support that link.

Personally I believe that if you had not put the paint on, the mole would have gone in half the time, but I guess we will never know will we? :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
Many of you have asked how I know that it was certainly cancer. My original story ends with these words: "Whatever it was, it was now gone." That is my diagnosis of the disease.

So, you admit that the title of this thread is misleading? You admit that you start with a lie?

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The timing of the events makes it a bit unreasonable to believe that the cause for the disappearance of the "mole" would have been anything else than the paint applied to it.

That's what I'd like to know, too.

[JJM 777]

You admit that you start with a lie?

No one will ever know for sure what the "mole" was. Any doctor would advise to suspect such a growing new mole to possibly be a malignant tumor -- that is, cancer.

The word "lie" means saying something that is known not to be true.

The title was not the best possible, but in the text I made it clear that the diagnosis was quite uncertain.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The word "lie" means saying something that is known not to be true.


The word "lie" also means saying something that is NOT known to be true.

The title is a lie because you don't know it was cancer. You should just fess up and move on.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
No one will ever know for sure what the "mole" was. Any doctor would advise to suspect such a growing new mole to possibly be a malignant tumor -- that is, cancer.


Any quack doctor may offer such advice without a diagnosis. Any respected doctor would tell you to see a doctor and get the condition diagnosed.

The thing that gets my goat a bit here is that you are drawing conclusions based on an un-confirmed starting point.

At best you can claim "A 'mole' like thing appeared on my skin, it grew larger over a period of time. I don't know what it was, I didn't get it checked out, after some time it disappeared again. During the later part of the time that I had the mole I put some floor paint on it, which may have sped up the disapearance, but then again it may not"

I don't see that you are in a position to draw any meaningful conclusions, you can speculate all you like however

[Jyera]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The word "lie" means saying something that is known not to be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ipecac
The word "lie" also means saying something that is NOT known to be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would support JJM's version.
There is dishonesty when saying something that is known not to be true.

But when saying something that is NOT known to be true,
We may just plainly be ignorant or careless.

If Ipecac version is true, many of us will be liars, many times over during a normal discussion.

We can say the title is misleading.
But evidence, witness or confession have to be present to say that JJM is indeed lying.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Jyera
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The word "lie" means saying something that is known not to be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ipecac
The word "lie" also means saying something that is NOT known to be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would support JJM's version.
There is dishonesty when saying something that is known not to be true.

But when saying something that is NOT known to be true,
We may just plainly be ignorant or careless.

If Ipecac version is true, many of us will be liars, many times over during a normal discussion.

We can say the title is misleading.
But evidence, witness or confession have to be present to say that JJM is indeed lying.

A common legal definition of misrepresentation (lying is just misrepresentation) is saying something either knowing it to be false, OR not caring whether it is true or false. On that basis JJM wouldn't be doing too well at this point if he was in court!

The former is fraudulent misrepresentation (knowing it is false). The latter is negligent misrepresentation (not caring whether true or false). Either way it is misrepresentation. So either way it is a lie. It's just a question of how BAD a lie it is. But the lie itself is not in any doubt. So Ipecac is technically correct.

The third kind, where someone says something false, honestly believing it to be true, and having taken all reasonable measures to ensure that it IS true, but have somehow ended up with the wrong information nonetheless, is called innocent misrepresentation. Which, as the name implies is generally NOT taken to be a lie, the teller is judged innocent.

[CFLarsen]

John,

You said:

The timing of the events makes it a bit unreasonable to believe that the cause for the disappearance of the "mole" would have been anything else than the paint applied to it.

Why?

[JJM 777]

... why?

Just because the growth ended and the fade-out began exactly at the time when the floor-paint treatment was begun. For a pure coincidence, the odds are quite small... but greater than zero, of course.

[Archon1]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
... why?

Just because the growth ended and the fade-out began exactly at the time when the floor-paint treatment was begun. For a pure coincidence, the odds are quite small... but greater than zero, of course.

I think you are using reverse logic. The odds that the paint had anything to do with the moles dissapearance are quite small. Greater than zero? Probably not.

Archon1

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
... why?

Just because the growth ended and the fade-out began exactly at the time when the floor-paint treatment was begun. For a pure coincidence, the odds are quite small... but greater than zero, of course.

How small? How do you calculate that? As compared to what?

[Jyera]

This thread has gone on for a while.

I recall John's concluding remark in his first post in the thread.

I believe in unexpected healings, even in cases where traditional medicine is not applied.

At this point,
I'm interested to know from John,

(1) Does he still believe in unexpected healings?
(2) Does he believe that this case about the "mole-cure" is a STRONG case supporting his belief that there is unexpected healings ?

The current discussion seems to indicate that many here is trying to convince to John that it is not a STRONG case of unexpected healing.
John are you convinced by the discussion?

If "No" I would think it might be interesting and beneficial for the group to find out why?

One fact remains that John is the only one experiencing it.
We should not belittle personal experience.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jyera
We should not belittle personal experience.

Nobody is belittling it. We are investigating it, and coming up with natural explanations.

If paint can heal cancer, then we need to know. If it cannot, then we need to put that belief at rest, so that other people don't waste time and money on trying that, endangering their health and lives.

[Jyera]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Nobody is belittling it. We are investigating it, and coming up with natural explanations.
If paint can heal cancer, then we need to know. If it cannot, then we need to put that belief at rest, so that other people don't waste time and money on trying that, endangering their health and lives.
I'm glad that everyone here respect personal experience.

CFLarsen, perhaps you should try for the $1mill challenge for ability to read everyone's mind. :) .
My mind reading ability is slightly inferior to yours.
It seem fairly clear to me , based on my "psykic" sense, that no one in this thread is, so far, convinced that "paint can heal(kill?) cancer". The only person I cannot read is John.
I detect an fuzzy field around him with regard to this subject. :)
Just joking.

Nevertheless, regardless of our respect for personal experience and belief, belief that might endanger health and lives are not to be taken lightly. That I agree.

John had an experience to share, and had a point to to make.
While we shared and debated about his experience, I thought it relevant to also explore the point he is trying to make.
Which I understood as ... "I believe in unexpected healing."

[JJM 777]

I haven't given the word "unexpected" a supernatural meaning. "Unexpected" usually means an uncommon event, caused by an uncommon natural phenomenon.

For example: "We mourn the unexpected death of Mrs. Smith, who died last Saturday in a car accident." What happened to Mrs. Smith was unexpected, and statistically improbable (in case of any individual human being), yet not supernatural.

My main points were:
- Traditional medicine is not the only road to healing, even though it may be the fastest and safest route.
- Traditional medicine only uses the most effective known methods.
- The reason that floor paint is not used for any purpose in traditional medicine IS NOT that it would be completely ineffective as a poison (many drugs are poisons). But traditional medicine probably knows more effective poisons, which have less side effects, and which don't stink so bad or look so silly on the skin.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
I haven't given the word "unexpected" a supernatural meaning. "Unexpected" usually means an uncommon event, caused by an uncommon natural phenomenon.

Nevertheless, you - in the same post - jabs at Randi, when he criticizes supernatural claims. Why? Did you just want to grab an opportunity - completely unrelated, it seems?

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
For example: "We mourn the unexpected death of Mrs. Smith, who died last Saturday in a car accident." What happened to Mrs. Smith was unexpected, and statistically improbable (in case of any individual human being), yet not supernatural.

I'll just take a wild guess here: Are you on some sort of quest to see how much you can play with words, so you can laugh at people getting confused?

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
Traditional medicine is not the only road to healing, even though it may be the fastest and safest route.

If you have other ways, let's test them, and save lives.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
Traditional medicine only uses the most effective known methods.

No, it sometimes use methods that are not the most effective. But it does use those who have been scientifically proven effective.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The reason that floor paint is not used for any purpose in traditional medicine IS NOT that it would be completely ineffective as a poison

Try drink it. No, wait. Don't. You might actually try it.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
(many drugs are poisons).

Anything is "poison", if you overdo it.

Oh....btw: How small are the odds? How do you calculate that? As compared to what?

[JJM 777]

jabs at Randi, when he criticizes supernatural claims. Why? Did you just want to grab an opportunity - completely unrelated

Randi criticized NATURAL claims. As I pointed out, airline companies generally, and the discussed Finnair magazine in particular, do not make supernatural claims. The magazine claimed very little -- and said nothing that was not true.

The odds are five against one that this discussion thread will soon reach its saturation point.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
Randi criticized NATURAL claims. As I pointed out, airline companies generally, and the discussed Finnair magazine in particular, do not make supernatural claims. The magazine claimed very little -- and said nothing that was not true.

You're thinking about this one?

In the past, I've encountered a variety of quack practices while on Finnair, including "aromatherapy" and some "vibrational" hand-passing "cures" for the kinks that develop on long (9 hours!) flights.
Source (http://www.randi.org/jr/120503lin.html)

The healing power of essential oils is the main attraction in aromatherapy. It is also the main question for the skeptic. There is very little evidence for all the claims made by aromatherapists regarding the various healing properties of oils.
SkepDic, on Aromatherapy (http://www.skepdic.com/aroma.html)

Vibrational hand-passing cures are not paranormal either?

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The odds are five against one that this discussion thread will soon reach its saturation point.

Before it does, then you better answer the question:

How small are the odds? How do you calculate that? As compared to what?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You forged the photo, and falsely claimed that people took a closed-minded attitude.....

I am talking about the photo of the dog.



What photo? What dog? What's your evidence of fakery exactly?

Lets not forget that something you declared to be a fake (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19874) later turned out to be real. Why should we believe you this time?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
What photo? What dog? What's your evidence of fakery exactly?

This dog. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42467)

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Lets not forget that something you declared to be a fake (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19874) later turned out to be real. Why should we believe you this time?

From the thread:

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
and the second (manipulated) image shows how its eyes looked.

That's why.

That I turn out to be wrong on one occasion does not make me wrong for eternity.

[JJM 777]

Vibrational hand-passing cures are not paranormal either?

You make the very same mistake that I criticized Randi for. Some quotes from my original post:

"... in OTHER contexts (such as "alternative medicine") these same practices are claimed to do more than just entertain you and make you feel good. NO SUCH CLAIMS are made in the Finnair text. Randi barks at the wrong tree."

"No miraculous powers or effects are claimed (...) the hand-passing-motions are claimed to ENRICH BLOOD CIRCULATION [more or less], which is the objective truth as well. Medical massage would do the job far more effectively, but such an option can hardly be arranged for 100 people during a flight."

The Finnair magazine made no paranormal claims whatsoever. Yet both Randi and now you follow this over-skeptical (injustly critical) way of thinking:
- The text mentions the word "aromatherapy".
- In other contexts, other people have used the same word when making paranormal claims.
- So this Finnair text must be making paranormal claims (?).

Not so.

How small are the odds? How do you calculate that? As compared to what?

If I remember right, we are now talking about the odds of the mole beginning to disappear at the same time when the floor paint "treatment" began.

To calculate the actual odds, we would need to know what the "mole" exactly was, and what statistically should have happened to it after it reached the size of 15 mm, if no treatment of any kind had been given.

But supposing that the mole was "randomly just any of all the different possible alternatives known by medical science", the statistical probability of a random "mole" 15 mm wide beginning to vanish soon after its growth ends, without any treatment, must be something like one out of... just a guess now... 10,000. (This would be calculated so that out of 10,000 known cases, only one begins to fade out in the described way, at the described size and age of the "mole".)

In comparison, we would need to test floor paint on thousands of different moles, both malignant and non-malignant, and calculate the odds of the "treatment" being effective and killing the "mole". Then we would know which of these two alternative explanations is statistically more probable: The mole disappearing when floor paint was applied to it was 1) a pure coincidence or 2) an effective treatment.

That I turn out to be wrong on one occasion does not make me wrong for eternity.

How do you calculate that?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
You make the very same mistake that I criticized Randi for. Some quotes from my original post:

"... in OTHER contexts (such as "alternative medicine") these same practices are claimed to do more than just entertain you and make you feel good. NO SUCH CLAIMS are made in the Finnair text. Randi barks at the wrong tree."

"No miraculous powers or effects are claimed (...) the hand-passing-motions are claimed to ENRICH BLOOD CIRCULATION [more or less], which is the objective truth as well. Medical massage would do the job far more effectively, but such an option can hardly be arranged for 100 people during a flight."

The Finnair magazine made no paranormal claims whatsoever. Yet both Randi and now you follow this over-skeptical (injustly critical) way of thinking:
- The text mentions the word "aromatherapy".
- In other contexts, other people have used the same word when making paranormal claims.
- So this Finnair text must be making paranormal claims (?).

Not so.

O.....K. So you don't think that aromatherapy is paranormal. You don't think that waving your hands can "enrich blood circulation" is paranormal.

Tell me something, do you call yourself a skeptic?

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
If I remember right, we are now talking about the odds of the mole beginning to disappear at the same time when the floor paint "treatment" began.

Yes. You could save yourself the mental strain of remembering, by simply answering questions when they arise.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
To calculate the actual odds, we would need to know what the "mole" exactly was, and what statistically should have happened to it after it reached the size of 15 mm, if no treatment of any kind had been given.

But supposing that the mole was "randomly just any of all the different possible alternatives known by medical science", the statistical probability of a random "mole" 15 mm wide beginning to vanish soon after its growth ends, without any treatment, must be something like one out of... just a guess now... 10,000. (This would be calculated so that out of 10,000 known cases, only one begins to fade out in the described way, at the described size and age of the "mole".)

In comparison, we would need to test floor paint on thousands of different moles, both malignant and non-malignant, and calculate the odds of the "treatment" being effective and killing the "mole". Then we would know which of these two alternative explanations is statistically more probable: The mole disappearing when floor paint was applied to it was 1) a pure coincidence or 2) an effective treatment.

Very well. So, how did you arrive at your conclusion?

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
How do you calculate that?

It's not a calculation, it's logic.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


This dog. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42467)

From the thread:

" The first image above gives you an idea how this dog breed looks like, and the second (manipulated) image shows how its eyes looked."


That's why.




No, Claus, he did not "fake" the photo at all. Faking is where you secretly alter something, and then falsely present it as real. That is not what's happened here. He provided a picture as an illustration, to show what the dog looked like. His caption to the photo made it clear that its not the original dog. That isn't a fake at all. It would only be a fake if he had claimed it as an original, unaltered phot of the actual dog.

[CFLarsen]

Yawn.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

No, Claus, he did not "fake" the photo at all.
I agree. Claus, if JohnJoeMittler had provided a drawing instead of manipulating a picture in order to show the dog's condition, would you still have called him a fake?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by steenkh

I agree. Claus, if JohnJoeMittler had provided a drawing instead of manipulating a picture in order to show the dog's condition, would you still have called him a fake?

No, that would obviously have been an artistic rendering.

[Peter Morris]

Really, Claus?

A few weeks ago, Randi had this photo on his page.

http://www.randi.org/images/062504-UNB.jpg

Now, to me, it looks altered.. The perspective of the sign looks all wrong. Surely it should tilt the other way, assuming it runs parallell to the ground. I don't think this is a real photo at all.

I'm not going to gamble my 20 year reputation by stating that it IS manipulated, I'll just say in my inexpert opinion it looks all wrong.


Now, in this case, I can forgive Randi for including this image. Its just used as an illustration to go with his comments. He makes no specific claim that it's real, or tries to prove any point by reference to the picture. Its just there to show what the advertising for the lecture might have looked like.

But perhaps you disagree. Maybe you would like to call Randi a liar and a fraud for including this image.

Or possibly you apply different standards, and overlook in Randi what you condemn so strongly in others.

[JJM 777]

O.....K. So you don't think that aromatherapy is paranormal.

Is spoon-bending paranormal? Only when Uri Geller CLAIMS that the trick involves "paranormal powers".

We both agree that no actual "paranormal powers" are present either in Geller's spoon-bending, in aromatherapy, or in special hand-wavings.

The point is: are paranormal powers claimed to be present, when they actually are not present?

Geller claims more than he should: he is a quack.

The Finnair magazine DID NOT claim anything that was not true. Enthusiastically waving your hands certainly enriches your blood circulation. Not much, but more than nothing.

And my main point was: it's all entertainment. Some watch movies during the flight, others listen to music, and some do these self-massages.

Any doctor would advise elder ladies to try to enrich their blood circulation during a long flight. What about the tight socks that are sold to elder people for this purpose? Are they paranormal too?

Tell me something, do you call yourself a skeptic?

Yes, and you I call an over-skeptic. Skepticism for the sake of skepticism itself.

Very well. So, how did you arrive at your conclusion?

I landed there by random chance. Perhaps it was a miracle.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
But perhaps you disagree. Maybe you would like to call Randi a liar and a fraud for including this image.

Or possibly you apply different standards, and overlook in Randi what you condemn so strongly in others.

I don't apply to different standards.

JohnJoeMittler did not present the photo as a joke. It is obvious that the photo that Randi used is a joke. Only the most deluded would claim that the photo is real. You don't even think yourself, that the photo is real. So, you are basically making a claim that someone might think it is real, and therefore, you have caught me.

Well, no.

But try again. I'm sure someday you'll succeed.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Really, Claus?

A few weeks ago, Randi had this photo on his page.

http://www.randi.org/images/062504-UNB.jpg

Now, to me, it looks altered.. The perspective of the sign looks all wrong. Surely it should tilt the other way, assuming it runs parallell to the ground. I don't think this is a real photo at all.

I'm not going to gamble my 20 year reputation by stating that it IS manipulated, I'll just say in my inexpert opinion it looks all wrong.


Now, in this case, I can forgive Randi for including this image. Its just used as an illustration to go with his comments. He makes no specific claim that it's real, or tries to prove any point by reference to the picture. Its just there to show what the advertising for the lecture might have looked like.

But perhaps you disagree. Maybe you would like to call Randi a liar and a fraud for including this image.

Or possibly you apply different standards, and overlook in Randi what you condemn so strongly in others.

Is it true that some of the early copies of Randi's book about Geller had an image of Uri on the front cover, but with an added big 'pimple' on his nose? Do you think that was meant to be a 'joke'? If so, it's not very funny is it?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
Is spoon-bending paranormal? Only when Uri Geller CLAIMS that the trick involves "paranormal powers".

We both agree that no actual "paranormal powers" are present either in Geller's spoon-bending, in aromatherapy, or in special hand-wavings.

The point is: are paranormal powers claimed to be present, when they actually are not present?

When you look at the definitions, then aromatherapy is paranormal.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The Finnair magazine DID NOT claim anything that was not true. Enthusiastically waving your hands certainly enriches your blood circulation. Not much, but more than nothing.

Not true? You mean to say that aromatherapy works?

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
And my main point was: it's all entertainment. Some watch movies during the flight, others listen to music, and some do these self-massages.

Any doctor would advise elder ladies to try to enrich their blood circulation during a long flight. What about the tight socks that are sold to elder people for this purpose? Are they paranormal too?

Is there documentation for the benefits, yes or no? That's the question. Go check, and let us know what you found.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
Yes, and you I call an over-skeptic. Skepticism for the sake of skepticism itself.

Sheesh, and I have just been accused of not being a skeptic by JustGeoff on this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870542414#post1870542414). Perhaps you would care to join that thread and explain to JustGeoff why you disagree with him?

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
I landed there by random chance. Perhaps it was a miracle.

So, you made it up. Which means that the whole point of this thread was based on a fantasy of yours.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Is it true that some of the early copies of Randi's book about Geller had an image of Uri on the front cover, but with an added big 'pimple' on his nose? Do you think that was meant to be a 'joke'? If so, it's not very funny is it?

Before we speculate on this, let's see the actual cover.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen



Sheesh, and I have just been accused of not being a skeptic by JustGeoff on this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870542414#post1870542414). Perhaps you would care to join that thread and explain to JustGeoff why you disagree with him?



He agrees with him Claus, he said you were an 'over-skeptic'. Prof M.Truzzi refers to that as 'pseudo-skepticism'. see www.google.com 'pseudo skeptic'. That is not the same as being a skeptic in the true sense.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I don't apply to different standards.

JohnJoeMittler did not present the photo as a joke. It is obvious that the photo that Randi used is a joke. Only the most deluded would claim that the photo is real. You don't even think yourself, that the photo is real. So, you are basically making a claim that someone might think it is real, and therefore, you have caught me.

Well, no.

But try again. I'm sure someday you'll succeed.

Can you explain where the humour is? Cause I don't see anything funny.

Oh, and I'm not basically making any such claim. That's just your strawman.

I don't see much difference between the two, save that JJF actually labelled his image as digitally altered, while Randi just left his readers to assume so.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Before we speculate on this, let's see the actual cover.

Have you seen what I am referring too?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
He agrees with him Claus, he said you were an 'over-skeptic'. Prof M.Truzzi refers to that as 'pseudo-skepticism'. see www.google.com 'pseudo skeptic'. That is not the same as being a skeptic in the true sense.

You keep trying, too!

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Can you explain where the humour is? Cause I don't see anything funny.

No, I am sorry. Humor is something that you either get, or you don't get. I can't explain Monty Python, either.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Oh, and I'm not basically making any such claim. That's just your strawman.

No? Then what is your complaint?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I don't see much difference between the two, save that JJF actually labelled his image as digitally altered, while Randi just left his readers to assume so.

That is because you fail to see the humor. Surely, you cannot blame me for your lack of humor? Isnt' that a little bit too pathetic?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Have you seen what I am referring too?

No. Have you? Can we see the cover, yes or no?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


No. Have you? Can we see the cover, yes or no?

Do you think it does not exist? Margolis writes in ' Magician or Mystic'

[...]"The lurid cover of the first paperback edition of the book includes a caricature of Geller in which a wart is added to the end of his nose; co-incidence, I am sure, but it happens that Nazi caricaturists usually added warts to the noses of Jews in their drawings for publications like Der Sturmer.[...]

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Do you think it does not exist? Margolis writes in ' Magician or Mystic'

[...]"The lurid cover of the first paperback edition of the book includes a caricature of Geller in which a wart is added to the end of his nose; co-incidence, I am sure, but it happens that Nazi caricaturists usually added warts to the noses of Jews in their drawings for publications like Der Sturmer.[...]

Which was taken from the Uri Geller site, yes. :rolleyes:

Now, can I actually see the cover, yes or no? Just because somebody writes about something, doesn't mean it exists. And I fail to see why - in case it is true - Randi can be blamed for that. Did he decide what went on the cover?

There are so many questions that you need to answer, before we can even begin to consider this.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Which was taken from the Uri Geller site, yes. :rolleyes:



No. I copied it from out of the book. ' Uri Geller - Magician or Mystic? by Jonathan Margolis. Orion Books 1999 - ISBN 0752810065.

Do you think what Margolis says is not true? It's a serious allegation if not true. Has Randi sued Margolis?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
No. I copied it from out of the book. ' Uri Geller - Magician or Mystic? by Jonathan Margolis. Orion Books 1999 - ISBN 0752810065.

Do you think what Margolis says is not true? It's a serious allegation if not true. Has Randi sued Margolis?

Is it? It is only a serious allegation, if Randi decided on the cover. Did he, yes or no?

And can I please see the cover, yes or no? Before I see the cover, I cannot tell whether Margolis tells the truth or not. Unlike you, I want evidence before I decide on what is real or not.

[JJM 777]

When you look at the definitions, then aromatherapy is paranormal.

What definitions? You seem to assume that there is only one official "aromatherapy" in the world, and this official doctrine includes paranormal claims.

Next you might equally conveniently claim that there is only one official doctrine of "Christianity" in the world.

You should at least quote word for word the paranormal claims made by your "official aromatherapy", so that we can agree on their paranormality. And then we can agree that the Finnair magazine made no such claims.

Not true? You mean to say that aromatherapy works?

If something "works" or not, depends on 1) what is expected to happen, and 2) what actually happens.

The Randi quotes did not contain any claims about the EFFECTS of aromatherapy, so I don't know what the Finnair magazine has claimed.

It is very likely that the claims have been similar in quality to those of OFFICIALLY approved "arts therapy", "music therapy" and so on. Even pets like cats and dogs are used as therapy in certain mental disorders.

Why do these "therapies" help in treatment of a mental disorder? Because mental disorders often are caused by the person getting stuck with some unpleasant memory or thought, which he meditates on day and night, even to the point of ignoring the everyday reality around himself.

"Arts therapy", "music therapy" and pets draw the attention of these people to something else than the unpleasant thoughts that feed the mental disorder. That's why the "therapy" works -- even though the "therapy" actually contains no healing powers or phenomenons of any kind.

In the same way, I believe that aromatherapy (smelling diverse pleasant odours) "works" and makes some people feel better. If you want to claim that aromatherapy does NOT work, then let us hear quotes of unfounded claims made by your official "aromatherapy".

Is there documentation for the benefits, yes or no?

You seem to be quite unaware of some basic health problems that many elder people -- and especially women -- are having with the blood circulation in their lower limbs.

If so, this page will be a civilizing experience for you:

http://www.traveldoctor.co.uk/flights.htm

Check out also this Finnair page (the last bolded headline on this linked page):

http://www.finnair.com/web/finnair/scripts/template_2level_white.jsp?pageid=-12887

This stuff is no quackery, it is generally approved medical advice.

Perhaps you would care to join that thread and explain to JustGeoff why you disagree with him?

Perhaps that thread was 11 pages long, and I yawned after two or three posts. You might quote for me the exact post where he makes this interesting and possibly very valuable claim.

So, you made it up.

If I understand correctly, we are now speaking of the question whether it is statistically the most probable explanation or not that the floor paint caused the mole to vanish.

The question is far from satisfactorily answered, but nevertheless, you make quite far-reaching conclusions on this point.

[CFLarsen]

JohnJoeMiller,

I use the commonly known meaning of "aromatherapy": I looked at the first 50 Google hits, and all - all - had a paranormal connection. None had any kind of scientific support for their healing claims. None.

I find it very interesting that you can criticize Randi, when you haven't even seen the actual article yourself.

I went to the Finnair site, where we find a reference to a "Biotherm aromatherapy face spray bottle". I have not been able to find this product on the Biotherm site. I would like to hear - from you - where this has been generally approved medical advice.

The posts re. JustGeoff are on the very same page I linked to: 11.

I don't make a "quite far-reaching conclusions on this point." You claimed the mole had been healed "miraculously" by paint. You claimed that the odds "for a pure coincidence" are "quite small... but greater than zero, of course." Yet, you admit that you had no basis to say so.

You made it up.

[UndercoverElephant]

Sheesh, and I have just been accused of not being a skeptic by JustGeoff on this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870542414#post1870542414). Perhaps you would care to join that thread and explain to JustGeoff why you disagree with him?


Oh, where's the big "disagreement", Claus? :rolleyes:

Being "beyind skepticism" and "not really being a skeptic" are pretty much the same thing. :(

You have just been accused by about four different people of being an extremist of one sort or another (but it's allright because they are woo-woos anyway and they are just smarting from your incisive destruction of their fantasies). You are doing precisely the same thing to JJM in this thread as you were doing to Luciananarchy and myself in the other thread, and as you were accused of doing to Clancie by Ian. You are misrepresenting people, and basically twisting what they have said to the point you are simply lying. I generously only accused you of "erecting an army of strawmen".

Why are you so nasty?

In my own case, all I did was point out that your own belief system might not be flawless either, and you helped to demonstrate that was true by your choice of argument. I said nothing unpleasant, aggressive, nasty or attacking you personally, yet you saw fit to respond not only with the dishonest debating tactics but with unpleasant personal attacks like "Stop crying-to-mom", when there was no "mom" in the equation and the only crying was coming from yourself.

Last night I made a post in that thread hoping that in the next thread I encountered you there would a diminishing of this attitude. Instead, the first other post I read of yours you are doing the same damned thing : misrepresenting people, this time by trying to make out that somehow there is a disagreement between myself and JJM about your attitude to skepticism when in fact you know perfectly well that you are being accused of the same thing by both of us : defending an ideaology by any means possible is not skepticism. If you aren't "defending it by any means possible", then there would be no need to continually misquote and misrepresent other people and no need for the continual undercurrent of nastiness and bitterness that seeps out of your posts like pus from an old wound.

Sort it out, Claus. Go have a holiday or something. :(

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


He agrees with him Claus, he said you were an 'over-skeptic'. Prof M.Truzzi refers to that as 'pseudo-skepticism'. see www.google.com 'pseudo skeptic'. That is not the same as being a skeptic in the true sense.

NB : I did not even see this when I made the previous post. Yes, Lucianarchy can also see that JJM and Geoff agree. Only Claus thinks there is a disagreement. :rolleyes:

Claus - Either you aren't as clever as I thought you were (and you simply don't understand what is being posted) or you are being dishonest on purpose by pretending you do not understand something you actually do understand.

[CFLarsen]

JustGeoff,

I'm not nasty. I'm trying to find out what the heck people mean.

There's no disagreement between "not really being a skeptic" and an "over-skeptic", then?

JJM's reason for calling me an "over-skeptic"? I'm too rigorous.

Your reason for saying I'm "not really being a skeptic"? My "belief system" might not be flawless.

Incredible. Simply incredible..... :rolleyes:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by JustGeoff



Claus - Either you aren't as clever as I thought you were (and you simply don't understand what is being posted) or you are being dishonest on purpose by pretending you do not understand something you actually do understand.

I think you are right, Geoff. Particularly his latest comments about what Margolis reports about the disgusting book-cover scandal. It seems he knows what really happened, but even when it is plainly wrong, he just can't admit it, and will do every twist and squirm in the book, rather than acknowledge the truth.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I think you are right, Geoff. Particularly his latest comments about what Margolis reports about the disgusting book-cover scandal. It seems he knows what really happened, but even when it is plainly wrong, he just can't admit it, and will do every twist and squirm in the book, rather than acknowledge the truth.

I am sorry to inform you that it was news to me. I do not know what "really happened", and I fail to see where the "scandal" comes in.

I am still waiting to see the cover. I am still waiting to see the evidence that Randi decided on the cover.

You have not seen the cover. Yet, you have already decided that Randi is guilty. Now, you want me to have known what "really happened", painting me as a liar. That speaks volumes of your ongoing war against skeptics. Your appeals for more civility on the new forum was nothing but a sham - you always show your true color after a short while. You wanted people to be oh, so civil, and here you are, throwing out baseless accusations again.

But keep doing it, Lucianarchy. Every time you try, your credibility is shot. Every time others support you, theirs go down the drain as well.

By being such an incredibly fullblown charlatan, you are a great gift to skepticism.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I'm not nasty.


Looks like it to me. You are talking to a whole bunch of people who have been perfectly reasonable towards you personally. They just happen not to share your belief system and have been levelling criticisism at some parts of yours. In reaction you have repeatedly attacked these people, and when answering their posts you continually misquote people then ridicule your own misquotation. Eventually you just resort to insults, and totally uncalled for comments like "You are crying-to-mom." That is deliberately designed to be as offensive and infuriating as you can be, yet nobody is trying to offend or infuriate you (well they might be starting to now, in retaliation). You spend your entire time questioning the way other people come to their conclusions, so why is nobody else allowed to question the way you conclude things without having bad-natured abuse heaped on them in response?


I'm trying to find out what the heck people mean.


I'm sure you are, but there are different ways of doing it. I feel like the old-timers here are my friends, Claus - including BillHoyt and scribble and yourself. I don't feel any need for personal resentment at all.


There's no disagreement between "not really being a skeptic" and an "over-skeptic", then?


I think they are two different ways of describing a very similar opinion about you. We chose slightly different ways of saying it.

I'm not sure that is your "over-skepticism" that is causing the problems. I think it is why way you are dealing with people whose views you do not respect and who challenge your worldview rather than providing easy targets for you.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Every time others support you, theirs go down the drain as well.


So people are guilty by association for ever agreeing with Lucianarchy about anything? :(

[CFLarsen]

JustGeoff,

I call'em as I see'em. You know that, because you have been here longer than most. Nothing has changed, since you came here as UndercoverElephant. I do not misquote people, because that is easy to spot - people could simply point out where I had forged their posts. Do I misunderstand people? Sure, we all do. But far from always. Usually - and this is my opinion only - the problems arise when those I debate with are inconsistent, change their stories, or flat-out lie and misrepresent. And I am not squeamish, I don't hold back in fear of antagonizing people - I point it out, when they do that.

You know how driven I am for answers - you also know that from the past. Nothing new here, either. I don't stop, just because it makes some people uneasy. I don't think it is a good idea to step back from finding an answer, just because people might have to change their minds about old beliefs. Truth can hurt, but deceit and delusion are far, far worse.

This is not mainly a forum for friends, chatting over the camp fire, it is a forum that encourages skepticism and critical thinking. Here, we investigate claims, and - by golly - we find answers, even though those answers are not always appreciated. But so what? Reality is not like a cuddly Teddybear, always warm, friendly and fuzzy. Get used to it.

As for Lucianarchy: Choose your allies with the greatest care. Lucianarchy is a proven liar, cheat and fraud. He has worked very hard for years, not just to establish himself as a star in the paranormal world, but also smearing skeptics who point out his many, many lies. Look at what he is trying to do right now, Geoff: He brings up a rumor, and suddenly, it's a full-blown "disgusting scandal".

Teaming up with people like that automatically puts you in a category of its own. It shows you are willing to ignore his deceit, as long as he criticizes those whom you also criticize. Heck, you are even willing to claim that I am both an "over-skeptic" and "not really a skeptic", because you and JJM describes "a very similar opinion about you".

Bull, Geoff.

[UndercoverElephant]

I do not misquote people, because that is easy to spot - people could simply point out where I had forged their posts.


You did, Claus. Once or twice I would have ignored but you did it several times, even after I had indeed pointed it out. You don't actually forge peoples posts, but you repeatedly attacked things I did not say and would not say, after attributing them to me.


And I am not squeamish, I don't hold back in fear of antagonizing people - I point it out, when they do that.


Sometimes antagonising people is unavoidable, but there is no need to do it deliberately. I did not want to antagonise you, but you ended up antagonised.


You know how driven I am for answers - you also know that from the past.


Only a subset of answers you have deemed worthy. You don't seem to be prepared to re-examine the structure you use to find answers. Instead, you defend that structure to the hilt and over-react when it is put under pressure. You want to find answers, but you aren't interested in finding new ways of thinking about the questions.


This is not mainly a forum for friends, chatting over the camp fire, it is a forum that encourages skepticism and critical thinking.


Can't we do both? I too wish to encourage critical thinking. I just want to encouragre you to think critically about your own belief system too, and I don't think you like it.


Here, we investigate claims, and - by golly - we find answers, even though those answers are not always appreciated.


It isn't always accepted that you found the right answers. I will keep reminding you that you saw no problem in dismissing what others consider to be a positive result for a paranormal phenomena on the sole ground that experimental error was far more likely than a genuine positive PSI result. If you were really thinking about this as critically as you pretend to be then you would have recognised that this argument is "catch-all" and completely invalid. Any positive result for PSI, anywhere, and any time, you can dismiss on precisely the same grounds - without ever actually showing where or how the error crept in. In effect, what you are doing is rejecting an experiment on the grounds you do not believe the result. You think that is critical thinking? It isn't. We all make mistakes. Why can't you admit yours? It is exactly this sort of failure of critical thinking on the part of the skeptics that encourages people to attack some skeptics as extremists and dogmatists rather than genuine skeptics. I don't think you are being careful enough at critically evaluating the flaws people point out in your arguments.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You did, Claus. Once or twice I would have ignored but you did it several times, even after I had indeed pointed it out. You don't actually forge peoples posts, but you repeatedly attacked things I did not say and would not say, after attributing them to me.

Then I misunderstood it, I did not misquote you.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Sometimes antagonising people is unavoidable, but there is no need to do it deliberately. I did not want to antagonise you, but you ended up antagonised.

Nope, not at all. I pointed out what you did.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Only a subset of answers you have deemed worthy. You don't seem to be prepared to re-examine the structure you use to find answers. Instead, you defend that structure to the hilt and over-react when it is put under pressure. You want to find answers, but you aren't interested in finding new ways of thinking about the questions.

Now you are not telling the truth, Geoff. I have repeatedly encouraged you to start a thread where we could discuss the flaws of skepticism. You have repeatedly backed down from this.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Can't we do both? I too wish to encourage critical thinking. I just want to encouragre you to think critically about your own belief system too, and I don't think you like it.

Hey, prove me wrong. Open that thread, state your concerns, and I'm there.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
It isn't always accepted that you found the right answers. I will keep reminding you that you saw no problem in dismissing what others consider to be a positive result for a paranormal phenomena on the sole ground that experimental error was far more likely than a genuine positive PSI result. If you were really thinking about this as critically as you pretend to be then you would have recognised that this argument is "catch-all" and completely invalid.

It is? Why? Let's discuss that in the new thread, eh?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Any positive result for PSI, anywhere, and any time, you can dismiss on precisely the same grounds - without ever actually showing where or how the error crept in. In effect, what you are doing is rejecting an experiment on the grounds you do not believe the result. You think that is critical thinking? It isn't. We all make mistakes. Why can't you admit yours? It is exactly this sort of failure of critical thinking on the part of the skeptics that encourages people to attack some skeptics as extremists and dogmatists rather than genuine skeptics. I don't think you are being careful enough at critically evaluating the flaws people point out in your arguments.

Open that thread, then. It cannot just be me, you know - let's have an open discussion about the flaws of skepticism.

[JJM 777]

I use the commonly known meaning of "aromatherapy".

You are free to use any meaning you please, but do you expect also Finnair to use this same meaning for the word? An interesting conclusion. Your typical comment to such conclusions has been: prove it.

"Biotherm aromatherapy face spray bottle" (...) where this has been generally approved medical advice.

So here are those so-called "paranormal claims" from the Finnair site:

"In the toilets there is a comprehensive cosmetics basket, containing Lancôme Trésor scent for women and Sergio Tacchini Stile scent for men, Lumene moisturizer and a Biotherm aromatherapy face spray bottle. The basket also contains toothbrushes and shaving equipment. "

( http://www.finnair.com/web/finnair/scripts/template_2level_white.jsp?pageid=-12887 )

Another link describes how the beauty industry claims that these "paranormal products" relieve stress:

http://www.canoe.ca/LifewiseLiving0203/march14_stressout_d-can.html

The claimed effect is VERY MODERATE indeed: "relieving stress". And I bet that those middle-aged women who are silly enough to buy these products, also get their stress relieved. It functions in the same way as "arts therapy" and such: think about something nice, smell some nice scents, and give yourself a soft massage... you will forget your stress.

I cannot see what MOTIVE you have for claiming that these products are "paranormal"? Expect for the basic motive that what you once have said, you will never change afterwards.

I'm "not really being a skeptic"? My "belief system" might not be flawless. Incredible. Simply incredible.....

I'm afraid that I have to take back some of my words: I am no longer so sure if I would consider myself a "skeptic". I am beginning to see that you people are having some kind of a standardized religion here -- a holy creed, strict doctrines in which every orthodox believer must have unquestioning faith. Before I decide whether I consider myself a "skeptic" or not, I must know the precise meaning of this concept.

Feel free to include the names and addresses of the Pope and Bishops of your movement. I would not be surprized to see Randi's name high up on the list.

[KelvinG]

JohnJoeMittler
You've told us a story how a mole on your body went away by applying paint, and you've went on several tirades against Randi and his criticisms of alternative medicine.

But what I want to know is when you are going to share with us the story about the man in Finland who was healed of cancer as promised in the thread title?

[UndercoverElephant]

Now you are not telling the truth, Geoff. I have repeatedly encouraged you to start a thread where we could discuss the flaws of skepticism. You have repeatedly backed down from this.


You have misrepresented me again. I did not attack skepticism. I challenged Claus Larsens reasoning. I am not arguing with a general idealogy or a philosophical position - I am arguing with you. Since the obviously flawed argument I am talking about was made in this thread, it might as well be challenged in this thread. Instead of thinking about the flaw I pointed out in your argument, you have challenged me to start a new thread about "the flaws of skepticism". By this you have implied that there is nothing wrong with your reasoning, without actually addressing the flaw I pointed out.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff

...you saw no problem in dismissing what others consider to be a positive result for a paranormal phenomena on the sole ground that experimental error was far more likely than a genuine positive PSI result. If you were really thinking about this as critically as you pretend to be then you would have recognised that this argument is "catch-all"...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is? Why? Let's discuss that in the new thread, eh?


OK, Claus. Have it your way.


It cannot just be me, you know - let's have an open discussion about the flaws of skepticism.


See what I mean?

Your reasoning seems to be : "This is what the other skeptics would say, therefore if I have made an error it must because there is an error in skepticm. It cannot just be me. Why can't it just be you? I'm not arguing with "skepticism". I am arguing with Claus Larsen.

I will start a thread to discuss your specific case, since you keep asking me to.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
You are free to use any meaning you please, but do you expect also Finnair to use this same meaning for the word? An interesting conclusion. Your typical comment to such conclusions has been: prove it.

I refer you to the first 50 Google hits. Try it yourself.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
So here are those so-called "paranormal claims" from the Finnair site:

"In the toilets there is a comprehensive cosmetics basket, containing Lancôme Trésor scent for women and Sergio Tacchini Stile scent for men, Lumene moisturizer and a Biotherm aromatherapy face spray bottle. The basket also contains toothbrushes and shaving equipment. "

Yes, I know, I read it. I asked you to show me where the face spray has been generally approved medical advice. No answer. Very telling.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
Another link describes how the beauty industry claims that these "paranormal products" relieve stress:

http://www.canoe.ca/LifewiseLiving0203/march14_stressout_d-can.html

The claimed effect is VERY MODERATE indeed: "relieving stress". And I bet that those middle-aged women who are silly enough to buy these products, also get their stress relieved. It functions in the same way as "arts therapy" and such: think about something nice, smell some nice scents, and give yourself a soft massage... you will forget your stress.

Please try and stay focused. We are discussing Finnair, not some site you dig up.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
I cannot see what MOTIVE you have for claiming that these products are "paranormal"? Expect for the basic motive that what you once have said, you will never change afterwards.

Where is the scientific research that states that aromatherapy heals? Hm?

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
I'm afraid that I have to take back some of my words: I am no longer so sure if I would consider myself a "skeptic". I am beginning to see that you people are having some kind of a standardized religion here -- a holy creed, strict doctrines in which every orthodox believer must have unquestioning faith. Before I decide whether I consider myself a "skeptic" or not, I must know the precise meaning of this concept.

Feel free to include the names and addresses of the Pope and Bishops of your movement. I would not be surprized to see Randi's name high up on the list.

Yes, I see you have taken the road most often travelled: When you realise that you are not going to get away with making unfounded claims, you blame the skeptics and call them religious.

[JJM 777]

Please try and stay focused. We are discussing Finnair, not some site you dig up.

I refer you to the first 50 Google hits.

Are we discussing Finnair, or the 50 Google hits that YOU are digging up? It is not uncommon for you to apply slightly different criteria for me than yourself.

I asked you to show me where the face spray has been generally approved medical advice.

The advice given by any reasonable doctor would be: If you are having problems with blood circulation in aeroplane, try to move your body every now and then -- go take a stroll to the toilet, or give yourself those idiotic massages and hand-wavings found in the magazine.

What comes to stress, all forms of entertainment are a perfect remedy against it. Also playing with the luxury products that Finnair has in their Business Class toilets.

Where is the scientific research that states that aromatherapy heals?

Where is the Finnair claim that it heals?

you are not going to get away with making unfounded claims, you blame the skeptics and call them religious

I haven't made unfounded claims, but you have made such claims concerning some of my claims. Stalemate.

I am becoming strongly convinced that in the case of spray bottles with pleasant fragrance in the toilets of aeroplanes, you see in the situation something that is not present there. In other words, you have faith in something that does not exist in reality.

After all this, you still call yourself a skeptic. Well then, what is your creed?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
Are we discussing Finnair, or the 50 Google hits that YOU are digging up? It is not uncommon for you to apply slightly different criteria for me than yourself.

Not the same thing at all. You asked me what definition of aromatherapy I used. I pointed to the commonly accepted term, and proved it by doing a google.

I cannot point to the commonly accepted definition in the Finnair magazine (and neither can you, because you haven't even read the article, yet criticizes Randi anyway).

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The advice given by any reasonable doctor would be: If you are having problems with blood circulation in aeroplane, try to move your body every now and then -- go take a stroll to the toilet, or give yourself those idiotic massages and hand-wavings found in the magazine.

What comes to stress, all forms of entertainment are a perfect remedy against it. Also playing with the luxury products that Finnair has in their Business Class toilets.

That's not what I asked. I asked where the face spray has been generally approved medical advice. Please point to that.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
Where is the Finnair claim that it heals?

I point to Randi's description. He has read the magazine, you have not.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
I haven't made unfounded claims, but you have made such claims concerning some of my claims. Stalemate.

Yes, you have made unfounded claims. You claim that Randi is wrong when criticizing the content of a magazine he has read, and you have not. You claim that a Biotherm aromatherapy face spray bottle is generally approved medical advice, but have not been able to show evidence of that.

Not stalemate.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
I am becoming strongly convinced that in the case of spray bottles with pleasant fragrance in the toilets of aeroplanes, you see in the situation something that is not present there. In other words, you have faith in something that does not exist in reality.

After all this, you still call yourself a skeptic. Well then, what is your creed?

That is your perception, and your perception is wrong.

[JJM 777]

To sum up this rather restless discussion, let me make some statements:

- Aromatherapy and hand-wavings are tangible phenomenons, which have a tangible effect on a human being, however small.

- The tangible effect of hand-wavings (of any kind) is that some extra energy is consumed by the body, which requires some extra blood circulation.

- The tangible effect of aromatherapy is that the nose detects diverse scents and sends information about the scents to the brain, which then emits hormones that cause the human being to feel a bit more pleased (or a bit less bored), if the scents were interesting or pleasing.

- It is in no way "paranormal" or unfounded to suggest that the tangible effect of these tangible phenomenons is very likely to reduce the stress of some elder ladies.

- But even if the claims above were MISTAKEN, and the hand-wavings and pleasing scents would FAIL to reduce the stress of a remarkable percentage of elder ladies, when the effect of these "therapies" is tested in controlled circumstances, the claim would still NOT be "paranormal", since the claim is based on natural phenomenons, and the only mistake here would be that the expected natural effect of the natural phenomenon would be weaker than was expected and claimed.

In the same way, I could claim that I can run 100 m in 6 seconds. When tested, I would fail, but would this make my claim "paranormal" -- in anyone else's eyes than yours, C.F.L.?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
- The tangible effect of aromatherapy is that the nose detects diverse scents and sends information about the scents to the brain, which then emits hormones that cause the human being to feel a bit more pleased (or a bit less bored), if the scents were interesting or pleasing.

Depends entirely on mood, past experiences, as well as how the brain interprets the input. Somedays, I love the scent of citrus, other days I hate it. Scent isn't something you can use to flip a switch in your brain, provoking predetermined emotions.

Let's also not forget that of all our senses, smell is the one that "tires" first. Walk into a cheese shop (one with cheese, of course), and you'll get knocked over by the smell. But after a couple of minutes, you cannot smell it anymore.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
It is in no way "paranormal" or unfounded to suggest that the tangible effect of these tangible phenomenons is very likely to reduce the stress of some elder ladies.

That's not what we have been discussing. We have been discussing the paranormal claims of aromatherapy. Or, rather, I have. You have consistently ignored this.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
- But even if the claims above were MISTAKEN, and the hand-wavings and pleasing scents would FAIL to reduce the stress of a remarkable percentage of elder ladies, when the effect of these "therapies" is tested in controlled circumstances, the claim would still NOT be "paranormal", since the claim is based on natural phenomenons, and the only mistake here would be that the expected natural effect of the natural phenomenon would be weaker than was expected and claimed.

How would you know this? Can you point to some experiments?

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
In the same way, I could claim that I can run 100 m in 6 seconds. When tested, I would fail, but would this make my claim "paranormal" -- in anyone else's eyes than yours, C.F.L.?

Not necessarily. It would depend on what your reasoning behind it was. If you claimed it was because of training and doping, it would not be paranormal. If you claimed that you could do it by channelling crystal powers from Arcturus, then it would be.

Things aren't always as black-and-white as you seem to think they are.

Let me do a little summarizing of my own:


You asked me what definition of aromatherapy I used. I pointed to the commonly accepted term, and proved it by doing a google. I did not apply different criteria for myself than I did for you.
You were asked to point to where the face spray has been generally approved medical advice. You have not been able to.
You claimed that Randi is wrong when criticizing the content of a magazine he has read. This claim is unfounded - you have not even read the magazine.
You claimed that a Biotherm aromatherapy face spray bottle is generally approved medical advice, but have not been able to show evidence of that.
You have not been able to show the scientific research that states that aromatherapy heals.
You claimed the mole had been healed "miraculously" by paint. You have not been able to prove this.
You claimed that the odds "for a pure coincidence" are "quite small... but greater than zero, of course." Yet, you admit that you had no basis to say so.

[JJM 777]

It would depend on what your reasoning behind it was. If you claimed it was because of training and doping, it would not be paranormal.

Likewise, spray bottles and other luxury cosmetic products in the toilets of aeroplanes are NOT paranormal, because whatever their expected and claimed effect is, it is based on the simple NATURAL phenomenon that holding expensive luxury products in one's hands and squeezing some expensive stuff out of the bottle makes many people a bit happier. (That's why luxury products sell so good, even though they are so heavily over-priced.)

The cosmetic industry often makes heavy claims, but I have never seen any of the leading luxury product companies make PARANORMAL claims with a serious face.

Things aren't always as black-and-white as you seem to think they are.

So it is ME who has widely applied on-off thinking here? All the time I have thought that it was... someone else, to put it nicely.

A brief summary of your summary:

>> You claimed that Randi is wrong when criticizing the content of a magazine he has read.

I don't think that the Randi fan had sent the entire magazine to Randi. From the quote I understand that Randi knows quite exactly as much about the contents of the article as we now do. This is the impression that the Randi commentary left, so the case is not quite so firmly settled in your favour as you would like to imagine.

>> You claimed that a Biotherm aromatherapy face spray bottle is generally approved medical advice

I gave links to two Web pages, one of which was a medical site and the other was the Finnair site. After these two links I began my commentary with the words: "this is generally accepted medical advice" (referring to the medical page), but you chose to ignore the entire medical site as "out of topic", and conveniently concluded that I had referred to the Finnair site as "generally accepted medical advice".

>> You have not been able to show the scientific research that states that aromatherapy heals.

My statement was that aromatherapy is a form of entertainment, mainly targetted for the logically less brilliant elder ladies, and as such it is an equally effective cure against boredom as any other form of entertainment available in an aeroplane -- from music to movies.

While no scientific research probably exists about this subject, out of personal experience I know how exciting it felt in teenage to own the first deodorant bottle of my life (silly but true), and now in my more mature age, how pleasing it still feels to squeeze a test-bottle of expensive after-shave in a tax free shop, and experience a fragrance never encountered anywhere else in life than in that small expensive and beautiful bottle. And how delighted all the ladies are in such boutiques -- one seldom sees a sorrowful or stressed face in such shops.

>> You claimed the mole had been healed "miraculously" by paint.

I didn't use the word "miraculous". Already in the first post I gave a naturalistic explanation for the events, and have sticked to that version ever since.

I suggested that it seems very probable that paint is the factor that caused the mole to vanish. This suggestion is naturalistic, not "miraculous" or paranormal.

>> You claimed that the odds "for a pure coincidence" are "quite small... but greater than zero, of course." (...) you had no basis to say so.

I made an estimation, and explained on what data the estimation was based.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
Likewise, spray bottles and other luxury cosmetic products in the toilets of aeroplanes are NOT paranormal, because whatever their expected and claimed effect is, it is based on the simple NATURAL phenomenon that holding expensive luxury products in one's hands and squeezing some expensive stuff out of the bottle makes many people a bit happier. (That's why luxury products sell so good, even though they are so heavily over-priced.)

The cosmetic industry often makes heavy claims, but I have never seen any of the leading luxury product companies make PARANORMAL claims with a serious face.

It's not a question of making paranormal claims with a "serious face". If you sell something with a claimed effect, you have to back it up with evidence. Unfortunately, it isn't considered a serious offense, so not much is done to prevent it.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
I don't think that the Randi fan had sent the entire magazine to Randi. From the quote I understand that Randi knows quite exactly as much about the contents of the article as we now do. This is the impression that the Randi commentary left, so the case is not quite so firmly settled in your favour as you would like to imagine.

May I refer you once again to Randi's own words?

In the past, I've encountered a variety of quack practices while on Finnair, including "aromatherapy" and some "vibrational" hand-passing "cures" for the kinks that develop on long (9 hours!) flights.
Source (http://www.randi.org/jr/120503lin.html)

Why do you keep ignoring this?


Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
I gave links to two Web pages, one of which was a medical site and the other was the Finnair site. After these two links I began my commentary with the words: "this is generally accepted medical advice" (referring to the medical page), but you chose to ignore the entire medical site as "out of topic", and conveniently concluded that I had referred to the Finnair site as "generally accepted medical advice".

No, you did not refer to the medical page:

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
If so, this page will be a civilizing experience for you:

http://www.traveldoctor.co.uk/flights.htm

Check out also this Finnair page (the last bolded headline on this linked page):

http://www.finnair.com/web/finnair/...p?pageid=-12887

This stuff is no quackery, it is generally approved medical advice.

You listed two sites, and said "this stuff", thereby including both pages. Now, I would like to see that evidence that aromatherapy is "generally approved medical advice". Please.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
My statement was that aromatherapy is a form of entertainment, mainly targetted for the logically less brilliant elder ladies, and as such it is an equally effective cure against boredom as any other form of entertainment available in an aeroplane -- from music to movies.

While no scientific research probably exists about this subject, out of personal experience I know how exciting it felt in teenage to own the first deodorant bottle of my life (silly but true), and now in my more mature age, how pleasing it still feels to squeeze a test-bottle of expensive after-shave in a tax free shop, and experience a fragrance never encountered anywhere else in life than in that small expensive and beautiful bottle. And how delighted all the ladies are in such boutiques -- one seldom sees a sorrowful or stressed face in such shops.

O......K. Still no scientific research that states that aromatherapy heals.

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
I didn't use the word "miraculous". Already in the first post I gave a naturalistic explanation for the events, and have sticked to that version ever since.

I suggested that it seems very probable that paint is the factor that caused the mole to vanish. This suggestion is naturalistic, not "miraculous" or paranormal.

You open this thread with a tale about people's need for miraculous healings. You then go on to describe your own healing with paint.

What is your purpose, if not claiming a miracle? To play word games? To show off how intellectually superior you are?

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
I made an estimation, and explained on what data the estimation was based.

Yes, on something you made up. Yet, you say in the beginning of this thread:

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
The text contains no humour, no exaggerations or distortions of reality, no intentionally misleading information. No essential information is consciously left unmentioned.

Why should we trust anything you say, or even regard it as nothing else but manure? Why are you here, John Joe Mittler?

[JJM 777]

May I refer you once again to Randi's own words?

... and right there Randi makes sport of "vibrational" hand-wavings that are expected to release the stress caused by flying, as if those hand-wavings were NOT tangible action with a tangible effect on the tangible bodies of people.

Why do YOU keep ignoring this?

no scientific research that states that aromatherapy heals.

The word "heals" is probably more than can be expected. But I already noted that no scientific research probably exists about the way how elder women emotionally react to the experience of opening an expensive yet FREE spray bottle in the toilet of Finnair's Business Class.

What is your purpose, if not claiming a miracle?

I have already mentioned the concept of over-skepticism, and will again do so. Talk about spray bottles, talk about silly hand-wavings, talk about painted moles... did I say somewhere that a true scientist would be eager to understand as much as possible about natural phenomenons that evidently exist, but so far cannot be controlled or classified?

I cannot see what purpose you have in mentioning the word "miracle" again and again in this context. You try to force the discussion into sharp black-and-white, while I am talking in smooth shades of gray.

To show off how intellectually superior you are?

Houston, we have a problem.

An intellectual mind can only be recognized by another intellectual mind. Say something witty to a complete idiot, and he will think that you are a complete idiot. Or throw your pearls to swines, and they will turn around and tear you into pieces.

Once chatting with a small group of my friends, including a Professor and a computer engineer, I said something like "that would require a genius, but unfortunately none are present in this room". A sudden silence fell, and then one of them asked: "So you really think that there are no geniuses present in this room, not a single one?"

Why should we trust anything you say, or even regard it as nothing else but manure?

Hmmmm.....

Did someone say that having made one mistake doesn't make him eternally wrong? And did the same person also ceremonially assure that he uses the same criteria for himself as for the other discussers around here?

Yep, this is the way of the world: respect and be respected, ignore and be ignored, hate and be hated: whatever you want the others do to you, do so to them, and the forest will reply to you exactly as you called there. Go ahead.

Why are you here, John Joe Mittler?

Reasons, in chronological order:
- I originally landed on this site after searching Google with the phrase "faith healing" or something like that.
- Having landed here, I noticed the bookstore and ordered a couple of books written by Randi: Faith Healers and Flim-Flam!
- Having enjoyed the two books, I wanted to hang around the forum to see what's going on here.

This story cannot be very unique. What is more unique is the way how you cordially welcome newcomers to this forum.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You keep trying, too!

No, I am sorry. Humor is something that you either get, or you don't get. I can't explain Monty Python, either.

That is because you fail to see the humor. Surely, you cannot blame me for your lack of humor? Isnt' that a little bit too pathetic?

Claus, this is not a funny picture.


http://www.randi.org/images/062504-UNB.jpg

If Randi had meant it to be funny he would have put a joke in it.

What work of Randi does have a joke in it? Anyone?

[Jyera]

Originally posted by JohnJoeMittler
...snip...
In the same way, I could claim that I can run 100 m in 6 seconds. When tested, I would fail, but would this make my claim "paranormal" -- in anyone else's eyes than yours, C.F.L.?
I can understand JJM analogy. It is not paranormal in the particular case.

As I understand, although JREF is about debunking the paranormal, it has positioned itself to also fight ignorance.
In particular, the ignorance about such things as paranomal abilities and phenomenon.

In the above "claim" that you can run 100m in 6sec.
Failing the test do not make the claim paranormal.
But between the time the claim was made, till the time you were tested to have failed, damage could have been done.
Damage in terms increased public ignorance.

The public has to be educated to question all claims.
To require you to "Prove it."

Not just to disbelieve it. Because disbelief could very well be a result of blind belief in another idea.
"eg. Some disbelieve JMM can run 100m in 6 sec. Because the famous personality, Randi, said so that human can never run 100m in 6sec. And they have blind unquestioned trust in Randi. "

In my opinion, from a skeptic point of view, it is better for the general public to be ignorant about your unproven ability to run 100m in 6sec, than to be ignorant enough to believe that you can do so without evidence.

To the skeptics, they are concerned that many people seemed to be prepared to believe without evidence or critical thinking.

As such,
To combat ignorance,
They can hit at the ignorant blind believer, or they can hit at the people who help to start or propega