Alternative Science...again.

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.alternativescience.com/randi_retreats.htm

Work buddy showed me this link. I know we've discussed it before. I've told him why Randi doesn't do these types of silly claims. However, he's still not convinced. He's saying that instead of camping out at a Holiday Inn, why not lock a person in a jail cell for the test?? I think these kinds of claims really don't deserve to be tested because they go against scientific fact. However, would it not be great for Randi to pursue these idiots with some test protocols? I'm sure that if the non-eater actually knew he wouldn't get food or water for 10 days, he would likely decline being tested at all.

Jail cell with no food, no facilities and it must be lighted. Testee would be naked and video taped from several angles.

Make the testee pay all expenses for the test.

Just my opinion so I won't have to hear about this nonsense again.

[Anders]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi_retreats.htm

Work buddy showed me this link. I know we've discussed it before. I've told him why Randi doesn't do these types of silly claims. However, he's still not convinced. He's saying that instead of camping out at a Holiday Inn, why not lock a person in a jail cell for the test?? I think these kinds of claims really don't deserve to be tested because they go against scientific fact. However, would it not be great for Randi to pursue these idiots with some test protocols? I'm sure that if the non-eater actually knew he wouldn't get food or water for 10 days, he would likely decline being tested at all.

Jail cell with no food, no facilities and it must be lighted. Testee would be naked and video taped from several angles.

Make the testee pay all expenses for the test.

Just my opinion so I won't have to hear about this nonsense again.
The problem is that we skeptics are very nice people :halo: so we don't want to lock people in prison cells. It's against what most skeptics believ in! We wouldn't do that even if the subject asked for it!

[thaiboxerken]

Well, I'm not nice. I wouldn't even let the guy rinse his mouth with water......... unlike the people at the clinic where this guy supposedly went 10 days without food or water.

[troy jones]

10 days of living on just water and "prana", i.e. nothing, is not really paranormal. David Blaine outdid that by a substantial margin, minus the "prana" nonsense. :p

Far be it from me to tell James Randi what to do, but if I were him I would avoid testing claims that carry a very high risk of death for the claimant. In this case they are damned if they do and damned if they don't: if the "breatharian" claimant dies and thus fails the test, he or she may have relatives ready to sue for wrongful death or whatever. They could argue that their relative was obviously mentally ill (evidence: he believed in breatharianism), and as such could not legally consent to be locked in a jail cell and denied food.

[thaiboxerken]

I think the claim is that this guy has lived since 1998 without food or water. Strange, though, the 10 days that he was monitored by medical "experts" in a clinic, they allowed him to have water to rinse his mouth and brush his teeth.

I do agree that it is a liability on the JREF to have claimants risk their lives on their station. I never thought of the insanity plea though. That's a pretty good reason not to go through with such a dangerous test.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
... I think these kinds of claims really don't deserve to be tested because they go against scientific fact...

I agree with you, but not for this reason.

The advancement of science is due entirely to the testing of things that go against scientific fact. Doing so is necessary both to validate accepted theories and to disprove them.

[Operaider]

I don’t think this would be a hard or unethical test to perform. If I understand the claims made by breatharians correctly they will not experience any ill effects from not eating. If this guy has lived since 1998 without food than obviously he would not lose any weight if he went for a mere week without eating. You would need is physician on hand to monitor his vitals. He would have a supply of food and water on hand at all times. The food would be pre-wrapped and the water in sealed bottles. This way he would be able to eat anytime he wanted, and we would know if he did in fact eat. The second he started to show signs of fatigue or weight loss he would lose the challenge, and be immediately admitted to the nearest clinic for eating disorders.

I don’t think this test would be immoral because there is a chance that proving this to be ridiculous might save someone’s life. If this guy takes the test and fails; there is a chance, slim as it may be, that he will realize he was wrong and seek treatment. Or, other breatharians may be directed to this site by concerned friends.

[thaiboxerken]

I think it would be very viable, yet expensive to set up. If I were Randi, I would send out the challenge to these fools. The expenses of the test being all theirs, of course. After the challenge is sent, I would expect to never really hear from the non-eater again.

[Operaider]

I don't think it would be too expensive. They don't need to lock the guy up. They only need to make sure he is constantly supervised in some way. It could be by camera or by an observer.

What I would do is have him come down to the Jref office. Clear out a room with only one entrance and put a cot and a TV in it. Have a supply of bottled water and wrapped power bars in the room. Keep a Jref intern's desk in view of the room. At all times someone would need to be 'on guard' at the desk.
Periodically, lets say twice a day, have a physician or dietician check up on the subject. He would be weighed, his temperature would be taken, blood pressure checked, pulse rate taken. Since he claims he hasn't drank or eaten anything since 1998 he shouldn't show any symptoms of starvation or dehydration. Even mild ones. If he does, then he obviously loses the challenge.

The only problem I see with this is that you would need to keep constant watch on him. This wouldn't be a problem during office hours. But people would need to watch him overnight in shifts.

You would also need to get a physician of some type to monitor him. I wouldn't think this would be too hard. I'm sure some dietician would be willing to help in a scientific study that might save future lives.

The biggest problem I see is determining when he is in a stage of starvation or dehydration. Given his claim I'm sure he wouldn't be in the best of health to begin with.

[Yahweh]

So how is fasting paranormal?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Yahweh
So how is fasting paranormal?

Fasting isn't. Living for prolonged periods without water or food is. 10 days probably isn't sufficient. However, maybe a month in the brig without water will do it.

[hgc]

Originally posted by phildonnia
I agree with you, but not for this reason.

The advancement of science is due entirely to the testing of things that go against scientific fact. Doing so is necessary both to validate accepted theories and to disprove them. It just depends on how you use the word "fact."

Usually prevailing scientific theories come under investigation because there is evidence popping up that seems to contradict. Thus we don't go around testing perpetual motion because there is no evidence that challenges The 2nd Law; as there is no evidence to challenge what we know about the need for sustanance to survive.

By the way, the claims of Breatharians fail to rise to the level of evidence, having been shaved by Occam.

[Operaider]

I agree they seem to be a particularly potent breed of wack job. It’s pretty hard to make a psychic’s claim seem rational by comparison. I’d just hate for these people to gain any recognition by saying that the Randi won’t take their challenge because he’s afraid to lose the money. I think it would be better to squelch these guys before their sickness can spread.

[Operaider]

Does anyone know the history behind this belief? This is the first I've heard of it. Is it new or do most of them just die befor they have a chance to tell anyone of it? I don't even know why you would want to not eat or drink. Have these people never washed some slow smoked baby back ribs down with a nice cold beer?
WHY WOULD YOU GIVE THAT UP!!!!:arrow:

[JPK]

Originally posted by Operaider
I don't even know why you would want to not eat or drink. Have these people never washed some slow smoked baby back ribs down with a nice cold beer?
WHY WOULD YOU GIVE THAT UP!!!!:arrow:

I read once that bacon is the number one reason people give up being a vegitarian. :)

With all of the people in the world that are wondering when there next meal might come, it's interesting to see certain people "choose" not to eat. So they claim....
JPK

[thaiboxerken]

If only people wouldn't have to eat, there wouldn't be a food storage. It would be a luxury.

I sometimes wish that I didn't have to sleep at all, I mean, I think it's a waste of about 30% of my life. Oh well.

[Gastric ReFlux]

This sounds like a great way to cut down on supermarket bills. I will miss the barbecuing and flavor of grilled meat, but subsisting on water sounds like the logical and economical choice to me. :)

[keithwellman]

OK I am the "work buddy" that started this thread and the one that found out the info on this guy. I have read a few different things that are absolutely rediculous....(my spelling as one of them)
First of all it would not be unethical. As someone already posted a perfectly ethical and harmless way to do the experiment.
Second it would not be costly...only a volenteer doctor needed...this would not be hard considering if the guy really could go without food and water the doctor involved would be famous.
Third there is no need for Randi to send an invitation to the claiment...the claiment has already tried to apply and has been shot down my james randi on at least 2 occasions. The guy even told James Randi he would be willing to put up with anything they had for him to proove his abilities.

Now just for the record. I think the guy is a quack. However I think that James Randi has a responsibility to all the fans of JREF to accept things like this and post results on the website.

Keith

[drkitten]

Originally posted by keithwellman
The guy even told James Randi he would be willing to put up with anything they had for him to proove his abilities.


Even so, there is a problem in this. This is exactly the sort of statement that "the guy" may not be allowed to make, especially if he's serious. If he's sufficiently delusional that he really does think he can live for arbitrary lengths of time without food or water, then he's not rational enough to be able to give consent to this experiment.

Legally speaking, there are some things that you ust can't sign away; you can't, for example, "consent" to your own murder (and Jack Kevorkian is in the Thumb Correctional Facility today -- for murder -- for that reason). Ethically speaking, I wouldn't want to kill or seriously hurt you even if you consented, even if it were legally permitted. And I sure wouldn't want to kill or seriously hurt you if I thought you were delusional when you consented.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by hgc
It just depends on how you use the word "fact."

Usually prevailing scientific theories come under investigation because there is evidence popping up that seems to contradict. Thus we don't go around testing perpetual motion because there is no evidence that challenges The 2nd Law; as there is no evidence to challenge what we know about the need for sustanance to survive.

By the way, the claims of Breatharians fail to rise to the level of evidence, having been shaved by Occam.

I appreciate your point. Maybe I could make mine a little clearer:

In the current discussion, we might (very) charitably classify "Humans need food to survive" as a "theory", whereas "Someone died of dehydration and malnutrition" as "fact".

My point was that "argument from theory" is not science, although it has its place within science. A skeptical argument sometimes goes like this:

A: My machine violates 1LT!
B: That's impossible; if it did that it would violate 1LT!

Certainly, overwhelming evidence is needed to overturn a well-established theory, and the "breatharians" lack it utterly. If their claims are to be rejected out-of-hand, it is for this lack of evidence, not for being contrary to established theory.

[thaiboxerken]

In the current discussion, we might (very) charitably classify "Humans need food to survive" as a "theory", whereas "Someone died of dehydration and malnutrition" as "fact".

I think "humans need food to survive" is actually a scientific fact, not just a theory.

[SkepticPete]

Originally posted by phildonnia
I appreciate your point. Maybe I could make mine a little clearer:

In the current discussion, we might (very) charitably classify "Humans need food to survive" as a "theory", whereas "Someone died of dehydration and malnutrition" as "fact".

Are you serious?
This whole semantics issue about the word theory is really starting to annoy me.
Fact, theory, hypothesis WTF!

Humans need food to survive=FACT

Evolution of species happened= FACT

Gravity sucks=FACT

Well you get my meaning anyway....................
sorry for the rant but it just sounds too much like the crap that gets spouted by fundies and woos about facts and theories :con2:

Cheers
Pete

"A child of 5 could understand this! Quick,
someone fetch a child of 5!"