Goodbye Nina Kulagina

[Dr Adequate]

Russian women of all sorts turned up, performing even more sensational feats of eyeless vision. The most publicised of these was Ninel Sergyeyevna Kulagina. The Leningrad newspaper Smena, 16 January 1964, reported on her remarkable platform demonstration at the Psychoneurological Department of the Lenin-Kirov District. The committee who examined Ninel's blindfold included S. G. Fajnberg (Ninel's discoverer), A. T. Alexandrov, rector of the University of Leningrad, and Leonid Vasiliev, whose laboratory at the University is the center of parapsychology research in Russia. No magicians were present, of course. While "securely blindfolded," Ninel read from a magazine and performed other sensational feats...

Ninel Kulagina.... was carefully tested at the Bekhterev Psychoneurological Scientific Institute in Leningrad. B. Lebdev, the institute's head, and his associates summarize their findings as follows:*

"In essence, Kulagina was given the same tasks as before, but under conditions of stricter control and in accordance with a plan prepared beforehand. And this was the plan: to alternate between experiments in which the woman could possibly peek and eavesdrop with experiments where peeking would be impossible. The woman of course did not know this. As was to be expected, phenomenal ability was shown in the first instance only. In the second instance [under controls] Kulagina could distinguish neither the color nor the form...

Thus the careful checking fully exposed the sensational "miracle." There were no miracles whatever. There was ordinary hoax."---Martin Gardner, Science Good, Bad and Bogus, Oxford University Press, 1983
* B Lebdev, Leningradskaya Pravda, 15 March 1964; trans. Albert Parry

Goodbye, Nina Kulagina.

[Azrael 5]

I can hear jambo's tears fall! ;)

[jambo372]

The Pravda was charged successfully for reporting that Kulagina used trickery. She sued them and won.

[Dr Adequate]

"Charged" with libel?

References, please?

Did or did not the experiments take place as described?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by jambo372
The Pravda was charged successfully for reporting that Kulagina used trickery. She sued them and won.

Argument by litigation aka The Geller Gambit.

[jambo372]

I don't know if the experiments took place or not - I can't find the sources you mention, for all I know you made the experiments up and the sources don't even exist. also I have read of reports saying that she passed tests using the same ability to affect film in sealed containers.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by jambo372
The Pravda was charged successfully for reporting that Kulagina used trickery. She sued them and won.

What a preposterous strawman!

The decision of a judge means nothing in scientific terms. Besides, maybe Pravda did not have evidence that she was cheating. If so, libel would be a possible verdict. That does not mean that she is legit.

It appears that such evidence now exists. Why can't you just suck up the fact that you are wrong?

[jambo372]

a) I can't find the named reports.
b) Even if they do exist, many other experiments contradict the results.

[TheBoyPaj]

Well, the OP contains a reference so that you can look it up in your nearest academic library. What are the references for the experiments you cite?

[jambo372]

There are several references. Ya Tarletsky declared her genuine after several years of tests.

[TheBoyPaj]

Then you'll have no problem producing one which directly contradicts the study that this thread is about.

Will you?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by jambo372
I don't know if the experiments took place or not - I can't find the sources you mention, for all I know you made the experiments up and the sources don't even exist. also I have read of reports saying that she passed tests using the same ability to affect film in sealed containers.

A simple search on Amazon.com turned up the book referenced:

Paperback: 412 pages
Publisher: Prometheus Books; Reprint edition (March 1, 1990)
ISBN: 0879755733

Regarding any lawsuits against Pravda, Jambo:

Pravda was the communist government's "mouthpiece" until 1991, when the USSR collapsed. Pre-1991, no-one would have been allowed to sue Pravda in the USSR, let alone win.

I can find no record that Ninel Sergyeyevna Kulagina ever sued Pravda prior to 1990. (She died in 1990.)

What's YOUR source for this claim?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
The Pravda was charged successfully for reporting that Kulagina used trickery. She sued them and won. Originally posted by jambo372
I don't know if the experiments took place or not - I can't find the sources you mention, for all I know you made the experiments up and the sources don't even exist.
So, let's look at that again in slow motion. First jambo says quite definitely that Nina sued over the article reporting the experiments and won. And then he says that for all he knows the article doesn't even exist.
:dl:
Well, jambo, I've given a citation. Whereas all we have to back up your assertions is your word, which we know to be worthless.

[jmercer]

Oh, man, I cannot believe I missed that obvious paradox! :th:

I did find one reference to the article in Pravda, but it was from a pro-psychic phenomena site. They made a number of unbiased claims about the article and it's author.

(No mention of a lawsuit - especially one where she won, which I would have expected them to trumpet.)
:i:

[TheBoyPaj]

...and "Ya Tarletsky" produces zero hits in Google. Not one.

[Ashles]

Maybe it's Yam Tartletsky.

... which sounds delicious.

[Bandersnatch]

The lack of results is due to a misspelling.

It should be "Ya Terletsky."

BTW, a quick google of that turns up:

In 1968 Moscow's top physicist Dr Ya Terletsky publicly proclaimed in Moscow Pravda "Mrs Mikhailova displays a new and unknown form of energy".

www.victorzammit.com/archives/Jan2004.html+Ya+Terletsky&hl=en]Victor (http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:ZVjm54lMQIkJ:

Then, in a crazy instance of deja vu:

Chairman of Theoretical Physics at Moscow University, Dr. Ya. Terletsky declared on 17 March, 1968, in Moscow Pravda: ‘Mrs. Kulagina displays a new and unknown form of energy.’
from www.mysteriouspeople.com/Nina_Kulagina.htm+Ya+Terletsky&hl=en]here (http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:3OeV0guoWU0J:[url).

I wonder which to believe....?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Bandersnatch
The lack of results is due to a misspelling.

It should be "Ya Terletsky."

BTW, a quick google of that turns up:



www.victorzammit.com/archives/Jan2004.html+Ya+Terletsky&hl=en]Victor (http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:ZVjm54lMQIkJ:

Then, in a crazy instance of deja vu:


from www.mysteriouspeople.com/Nina_Kulagina.htm+Ya+Terletsky&hl=en]here (http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:3OeV0guoWU0J:[url).

I wonder which to believe....?

Now what is jambo 372 going to say to that?

Both

[Ashles]

So Victor Zammit's website and Mysteriouspeople.com.

Ya Terletsky certainly shows up in all the respected publications doesn't he?

There is one other reference to him on Sciforums (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=22366&page=3&pp=20) with some poster describing him as one "of the most respected men in science... Dr. Ya Terletsky, Chairman of theoretical physics at the prestigious moscow university and holder of the Laureate of the State prize".

You'd think someone that famous would be mentioned elsewhere really.

You know, in some scientific publication or something.

[Bandersnatch]

Well, I seems I found a fault in my own "Terletsky" name, "Ya Terletski" seems to be it.

Or, if I wan to be really precise "Professor Yakov Petrovich Terletski". This time found in journals, text books, and a "Scientific Reading devoted to 90 years anniversary of Professor Yakov Petrovich Terletski'', which is from here. (http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:-zFfQCb923EJ:arxiv.org/list/gr-qc/0207+Yakov+Petrovich+Terletski&hl=en)

ETA:
Clarification and

When serching for Terletsky, I found lots o stuff on faster-than-light particles, but nothing when it changed to Terletski. Diffrent peoples maybe?

[jambo372]

And I'm really going to take the word from some book I haven't read based on one set of experiments by people I've never heard of over the official declaration of a person who was once the most respected physicist in the Soviet Union ? :o

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by jambo372
And I'm really going to take the word from some book I haven't read based on one set of experiments by people I've never heard of over the official declaration of a person who was once the most respected physicist in the Soviet Union ? :o Argument from ignorance, and argument from popularity. It's a two-fer! :)

[Pragmatist]

I suspect the reference is to Yakov P. Terletsky, nuclear and theoretical physicist?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Argument from ignorance, and argument from popularity. It's a two-fer! :)

jambo probably doesn't know what you are talking about.

Do you, jambo?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by jambo372
And I'm really going to take the word from some book I haven't read based on one set of experiments by people I've never heard of over the official declaration of a person who was once the most respected physicist in the Soviet Union ? :o Did you hear this official declaration yourself, directly from him? Or are you taking the word from some book you have read (or perhaps have only heard people discuss), by people you have never met...etc....

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
I suspect the reference is to Yakov P. Terletsky, nuclear and theoretical physicist?

Let me see if I've got the story straight ..... it's Communist USSR ... during the cold war ... nuclear and theoretical physicist claims a psychic displays a ' new and unknown form of energy' .. and the psychic is then tested agains and found to be hoax .......

:eek:

:)

[Interesting Ian]

WOW! So we have some research into a paranormal phenomenon which Skeptics actually approve of! Forgive me my scepticism, but I cannot help feeling that Skeptics approve of this research precisely because it turned out negative.

I don't suppose you lot will realise, but I may as well tell you anyway. The fact that good research is capable of exposing charlatans renders plausible the notion that equally good research, suggesting a genuine anomalous effect, should be taken to indicate that there is indeed some genuine anomalous phenomenon here.

I also remind Skeptics on here that I always maintained this individual was a charlatan. But let's forget about that. Let's just forget the convenient fact that skeptics continue to attack the easy targets all of the time -- and when, as is inevitably the case, these charlatans get exposed, and the skeptics declare that their worldview is somehow vindicated, let us forget that open-minded people like myself have always maintained that it is extremely likely that this individual did not have any genuine paranormal powers.

Completely pathetic.

Tell me, if your worldview is so obviously correct, why resort to such underhand tactics all the time? Surely, if the evidence for paranormal phenomena is so appallingly bad, then you can win by honest means? :con2:

[sf108]

Originally posted by jambo372
And I'm really going to take the word from some book I haven't read based on one set of experiments by people I've never heard of over the official declaration of a person who was once the most respected physicist in the Soviet Union ? :o

Jambo, does that mean you've met Nina and read all the reports on her experiments as well as met all the scientists who tested her?

Guess not.

GG. You've been squashed.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Tell me, if your worldview is so obviously correct, why resort to such underhand tactics all the time? Surely, if the evidence for paranormal phenomena is so appallingly bad, then you can win by honest means? :con2:

You sure like to lump Skeptics up into a nice package Ian. Whereas, I think you specifically are a loon. Many of the other non-skeptics which post here are simply misguided. :D

"Win by honest means"? Is this a contest? Best 2 out of 3?

Jambo makes the claims. Let him back'em up. No doubt he will simply start another thread.

Jambo, you never did answer my question. Do you believe we all have this power or just very specific people?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I don't suppose you lot will realise, but I may as well tell you anyway. The fact that good research is capable of exposing charlatans renders plausible the notion that equally good research, suggesting a genuine anomalous effect, should be taken to indicate that there is indeed some genuine anomalous phenomenon here.
I agree with you, Ian.

I just am not aware of any of this "equally good research" which is replicable, in the strong sense.

I agree that there is quite a bit of mainstream psychology to which this complaint could also apply. In such cases, I suggest being as skeptical of those mainstream findings as we are of these anomalous ones. We are too quick, in my opinion, to accept shoddy research in, say, personality psychology or some areas of social or cognitive psych.

So...I agree with you, but my threshold might be at a different place than yours. I think (but don't want to put words in your mouth) that you would accept more of the anomalous findings. I would not, but I would also prefer to reject (or at least not accept yet) more of mainstream findings than we currently do.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
WOW! So we have some research into a paranormal phenomenon which Skeptics actually approve of! Forgive me my scepticism, but I cannot help feeling that Skeptics approve of this research precisely because it turned out negative.


However, you must admit that anyone who feels they want to check the study in the original post will have little trouble doing so. The reference was clearly given. The skeptics are playing fair.

But can we check up on the "many" studies which Jambo claims uphold his belief? No, because he won't (or cannot) provide references which can be followed. Just giving a name is not a reference, as anyone who has had to conform to university regulations will know.

If you have to liken this discussion to a war, someone's firing blanks.

[Open Mind]

I know very little about Nina Kulagina (one case that never really caught my interest) ...... does anyone have details of the trial, the one Martin Gardiner refers to in the quote. That would be cool :)

[Interesting Ian]

WOW! I expected to get more antagonistic replies to my post last night! :confused: It must be because everyone's so delighted to see me back.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
WOW! I expected to get more antagonistic replies to my post last night! :confused: It must be because everyone's so delighted to see me back. Nah. :p I have no problem agreeing with you when you are right. :D

[hgc]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
WOW! I expected to get more antagonistic replies to my post last night! :confused: It must be because everyone's so delighted to see me back. Welcome home, double eye. Now, behave yourself.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
You sure like to lump Skeptics up into a nice package Ian. Whereas, I think you specifically are a loon. Many of the other non-skeptics which post here are simply misguided. :D


I find it most interesting that a lot of Skeptics accuse non-Skeptics of being a loon or insane. I think this illustrates very nicely how certain a lot of Skeptics are that their world view is indisputably correct. They a priori assume that the world must necessarily correspond to their worldview, and any evidence which suggests otherwise is dismissed. Anyone who doesn't just dismiss all this evidence, but looks into it, is designated as being insane! :eek:

To quote our friend Titus Rivas:


People who are interested in the paranormal will sooner or later stumble upon the phenomenon of the so-called skeptics. On the whole, these are well-educated persons who claim to have studied the parapsychological literature without prejudice. In practice, most skeptics discard the existence of paranormal phenomena out of hand, and for this reason, they are also commonly known as debunkers. Many skeptics believe that anyone who does not approve of this destructive approach should be branded as irrational or outright insane.

From here. (http://members.lycos.nl/Kritisch/mortalrev.html)

[Ashles]

I find it most interesting that a lot of Skeptics accuse non-Skeptics of being a loon or insane.
Ah what fresh nonsense is this?

Many members of my family and, indeed my girlfriend have several beliefs in paranormal and 'inexplicable' phenomena. I would in no way brand any of them as a loon or insane. And nor would I do so for the vast majority of people who believe in such things.

I think this illustrates very nicely how certain a lot of Skeptics are that their world view is indisputably correct.
Hmm, replace 'skeptics' with 'believers'...

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Ashles
Ah what fresh nonsense is this?

Many members of my family and, indeed my girlfriend have several beliefs in paranormal and 'inexplicable' phenomena. I would in no way brand any of them as a loon or insane. And nor would I do so for the vast majority of people who believe in such things.

But remember, Ashles, you are not a Skeptic (which appears to have grown a capitalisation now). Ian's special brand of Skeptics do and say all sorts of nasty things. Luckily they only seem to exist in his head.

[Dr Adequate]

Wow. He's back, and he's broken my Delusionometer.

Ian has found that he can't find any good arguments against the actual opinions of people on these forums. So he invents an imaginary doctrine which he calls Skepticism with a "k" and bold type, and which no-one in the world holds, attributes it to us, and spams off about how stupid we are to believe this nonsense which he himself made up.

(Note to new readers: he has been repeatedly confronted with our actual opinions, so this is not an honest mistake on Ian's part, but a deliberate lie.)

But now he has taken it a stage further. Since, obviously, our posts do not reflect the stupid doctrine of Skepticism which he invented, he must account for that. How? Simple --- in his fantasies, we can also all be hypocrites --- our posts do not reflect Skepticism because we're all cunningly dissimulating our Skepicism. Since (in his dream-world of lies) I am a Skeptic, it is "underhand" of me to pretend to be interested in parapsychological research, or to post any results thereof. A Skeptic would never have cited Martin Gardner or refered to the results of a parapsychological experiment, so to do so is... not a demonstration that I'm not a Skeptic of course... but rather it is resorting to unfair means. The people Ian thinks are Skeptics should behave like Skeptics --- to do otherwise is just plain dishonest.

Wow.

New posters, be warned. I have tried to reason with Ian --- for months. I have repeatedly ground his nose into reality. I have posted polls in which people have revealed that they overwhelmingly disagree with the views which Ian has attributed to them. I have exposed his fantasies as lies. And the result? The old "I've got my fingers in my ears, I can't hear you" routine. Well, if you want to ignore reality, you have to ignore me first. There's no mystery about why he's frightened of me. But why, why, why is he frightened of Huntsman's avatar?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Wow. He's back, and he's broken my Delusionometer.

Ian has found that he can't find any good arguments against the actual opinions of people on these forums. So he invents an imaginary doctrine which he calls Skepticism with a "k" and bold type, and which no-one in the world holds, attributes it to us, and spams off about how stupid we are to believe this nonsense which he himself made up.

(Note to new readers: he has been repeatedly confronted with our actual opinions, so this is not an honest mistake on Ian's part, but a deliberate lie.)

But now he has taken it a stage further. Since, obviously, our posts do not reflect the stupid doctrine of Skepticism which he invented, he must account for that. How? Simple --- in his fantasies, we can also all be hypocrites --- our posts do not reflect Skepticism because we're all cunningly dissimulating our Skepicism. Since (in his dream-world of lies) I am a Skeptic, it is "underhand" of me to pretend to be interested in parapsychological research, or to post any results thereof. A Skeptic would never have cited Martin Gardner or refered to the results of a parapsychological experiment, so to do so is... not a demonstration that I'm not a Skeptic of course... but rather it is resorting to unfair means. The people Ian thinks are Skeptics should behave like Skeptics --- to do otherwise is just plain dishonest.

Wow.

New posters, be warned. I have tried to reason with Ian --- for months. I have repeatedly ground his nose into reality. I have posted polls in which people have revealed that they overwhelmingly disagree with the views which Ian has attributed to them. I have exposed his fantasies as lies. And the result? The old "I've got my fingers in my ears, I can't hear you" routine. Well, if you want to ignore reality, you have to ignore me first. There's no mystery about why he's frightened of me. But why, why, why is he frightened of Huntsman's avatar? My sister once read me my horoscope out of a newspaper astrology column. I beat her to death with a frying pan. I had no choice.

I'm a Skeptic.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Psiload
My sister once read me my horoscope out of a newspaper astrology column. I beat her to death with a frying pan. I had no choice.

I'm a Skeptic.
To be fair, it did say

"Expect conflict with a loved one. Beware, the sun is in the house of Tefal"

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by jambo372
a) I can't find the named reports.
b) Even if they do exist, many other experiments contradict the results.

Just to reiterate, we're still waiting for you to supply a reference which we can follow up. Just pick one of these many experiments. That's easy enough, isn't it Jambo?

[Dr Adequate]

And how could any experiment be said to "contradict the results" of this one? Do you mean that it was replicated and that this time she succeeded every time? If so, was it just coincidence that she succeeded if and only if she had a chance to peek in the experiment of which we actually have a report? If not --- then what do you mean? What "contradicts" this experiment?

[Ashles]

Aw lets go easy on Jambo. This whole thread has been a bit like beating up a corpse. Easy but after a while you just get tired from lack of a struggle.

And it didn't even contain the now-legendary "non-magnetic compass" post.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Ashles
Aw lets go easy on Jambo. This whole thread has been a bit like beating up a corpse. Easy but after a while you just get tired from lack of a struggle.

And it didn't even contain the now-legendary "non-magnetic compass" post.

Go easy except to say:

Thus the careful checking fully exposed the sensational "miracle." There were no miracles whatever. There was ordinary hoax."

Thus the careful checking fully exposed the sensational "miracle." There were no miracles whatever. There was ordinary hoax."

Thus the careful checking fully exposed the sensational "miracle." There were no miracles whatever. There was ordinary hoax."

Thus the careful checking fully exposed the sensational "miracle." There were no miracles whatever. There was ordinary hoax."

Thus the careful checking fully exposed the sensational "miracle." There were no miracles whatever. There was ordinary hoax."

Thus the careful checking fully exposed the sensational "miracle." There were no miracles whatever. There was ordinary hoax."

Thus the careful checking fully exposed the sensational "miracle." There were no miracles whatever. There was ordinary hoax."

Thus the careful checking fully exposed the sensational "miracle." There were no miracles whatever. There was ordinary hoax."

Thus the careful checking fully exposed the sensational "miracle." There were no miracles whatever. There was ordinary hoax."

Thus the careful checking fully exposed the sensational "miracle." There were no miracles whatever. There was ordinary hoax."

Nina Kuligina, hoaxer and charlatan, R.I.P.

[TheBoyPaj]

Well, I'm tired of Jambo's constant assertions that this stuff exists, all the time ignoring requests for more information. It's pathetic.

Jambo, before you start yet another thread (maybe about telepathic fish or something), take a moment to clean up your mess.

[jambo372]

Sources of information about some of the experiments I described were available on that link someone posted earlier to the mysterious people website.
Articles were also published in Moscow Pravda throughout the 1960's as well as Terletsky's official declaration of her genuine power.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by jambo372
Sources of information about some of the experiments I described were available on that link someone posted earlier to the mysterious people website.
Articles were also published in Moscow Pravda throughout the 1960's as well as Terletsky's official declaration of her genuine power.

Duh!

[TheBoyPaj]

Now, you see, how would it have sounded if Newton had said:

"Information about how gravity works? Well, some guy wrote a message some time ago, and if you follow the link in there it will tell you more."

When you make a claim about a written work, YOU provide the exact reference along with the claim. You don't send people on a wild goose chase, expecting them to sift through hundreds of documents, looking for something which might not even exist.

[jambo372]

Oh, of course, I'm not allowed to do that I'm a believer.
But needless to say it's Ok for sceptics to do that.

The site gives references.

[rppa]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
I suspect the reference is to Yakov P. Terletsky, nuclear and theoretical physicist?

Possibly. "Ya" is the name of a letter (the backwards "R"), and thus the form "Ya. Terletsky" is just giving his first initial. It could be anyone who is indexed under Y. Terletsky in English.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Now, you see, how would it have sounded if Newton had said:

"Information about how gravity works? Well, some guy wrote a message some time ago, and if you follow the link in there it will tell you more."

When you make a claim about a written work, YOU provide the exact reference along with the claim. You don't send people on a wild goose chase, expecting them to sift through hundreds of documents, looking for something which might not even exist.

I suspect jambo honestly doesn't know about the academic meaning of "references". He has not been to college or university yet.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ashles

Hmm, replace 'skeptics' with 'believers'...

At the highest level of pseudoskeptic, they become indistinguishable from the highest level of believers.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by rppa
Possibly. "Ya" is the name of a letter (the backwards "R"), and thus the form "Ya. Terletsky" is just giving his first initial. It could be anyone who is indexed under Y. Terletsky in English.

Yes, it is that, that's why I mentioned it, because I noticed that several people seemed to be using "Ya" as though it were a complete name, although I only noticed just now that Bandersnatch got it earlier - I skimmed the thread before and didn't notice.

It's Yakov Petrovich Terletsky. He was a highly qualified and respected nuclear, theoretical and quantum physicist. But he was also a staunch Soviet Communist and a KGB member. He was heavily involved in cold war espionage and even disinformation campaigns. Whether that is relevent to any Kulagina comments he may possibly have made is debateable. In any event I can't find any independent reference to him testing Kulagina or any comments he may have made about her. He has numerous books and papers but none of them on the face of it address the issue.

Which leaves the ball squarely in Jambo's court - as usual - to present the evidence rather than just hearsay.

I could just as easily claim that Einstein tested Kulagina and declared her a fake - my standard of evidence would be no worse than Jambo's! :)

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Whether that is relevent to any Kulagina comments he may possibly have made is debateable. In any event I can't find any independent reference to him testing Kulagina or any comments he may have made about her. He has numerous books and papers but none of them on the face of it address the issue.

It certainly is debatable. Just because someone is a theoretcial physicist, that does not make them an expert at spotting trickery. When David Copperfield performs on stage, do all the theoretical physicists in the audience sit there with knowing looks on their faces?

I dare say Einstein would have been in the same position. Out of his area of expertise, trying to design an experiment to control for techniques he knows nothing about.

Which is assuming that Terletsky ever performed such tests, which Jambo still can not confirm.

[Ashles]

Good point Paj. The theoretical physicists shouldn't even be involved until the ability is confirmed as genuine.

Otherwise they may well be wasting their time watching a magic act when they could be doing some proper work that might actually expand human knowledge.

In my opinion these claims should always be tested in the first instance by Psychologists and Magicians before we waste the time of Physicists, Doctors and other experts in different fields who are not trained to look for trickery or self-delusion.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by jzs
At the highest level of pseudoskeptic, they become indistinguishable from the highest level of believers.

"Pseudoskeptic" What a interesting word. The first time I saw it used was by a poster who's name I have forgotten. I remember the poster was a woman and a believer. Apparently in her world, a skeptic is someone who accepts any belief that someone has asserted as true. To become a "pseudoskeptic" one had to question those ideas or ask for proof. Since proof was rarely offered and when it was the science was sorely lacking her assertions were dismissed out of hand earning the dissmisser the covetted title "pseudoskeptic." My question is, do you use "pseudoskeptic" in the same way?

[misawafan]

Originally posted by Dragonrock
"Pseudoskeptic" What a interesting word. The first time I saw it used was by a poster who's name I have forgotten. I remember the poster was a woman and a believer. Apparently in her world, a skeptic is someone who accepts any belief that someone has asserted as true. To become a "pseudoskeptic" one had to question those ideas or ask for proof. Since proof was rarely offered and when it was the science was sorely lacking her assertions were dismissed out of hand earning the dissmisser the covetted title "pseudoskeptic." My question is, do you use "pseudoskeptic" in the same way?

By the way, pseudoskepticism is yesterday's news. Postpseudoskepticism is what the young, cool crowd are into...

[Ashles]

Postpseudoskepticism is what the young, cool crowd are into...
That's so last week.

Quasipostpseudoskepticism (not to be confused with Quasipostpseudoscepticism) is the latest hip philosophy that the kids are digging and a-groovin' to.

[TheBoyPaj]

I am thinking of introducing neopseudoscepticism, but I'm waiting until the world is ready.

[Hawk one]

I'll end this joke once and for all with my premetaphiloquasipostneoquantumpseudoscienceskepti cism. Sure you can top that. But it won't be worth it. :P

Edit: And for some reason, the UBB coding is not working at all. Damn. I'll just make sure to point out that's skepticism with a k in the end, because there is no way any of you could ever possibly have discovered that on your own. Ever. (Except most you probably did on the first attempt without even trying...)

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Ashles
Good point Paj. The theoretical physicists shouldn't even be involved until the ability is confirmed as genuine.

Otherwise they may well be wasting their time watching a magic act when they could be doing some proper work that might actually expand human knowledge.

In my opinion these claims should always be tested in the first instance by Psychologists and Magicians before we waste the time of Physicists, Doctors and other experts in different fields who are not trained to look for trickery or self-delusion.

Paj: I agree.

Ashles: I disagree. :)

Whilst I understand what you are saying in principle, I think physicists need to be involved at the outset because someone also needs to assess whether the proposed effect is simply a normal but relatively rare and not well known physical effect. And of course cheating could also occur by means of such an effect which would be missed even by psychologists and magicians if they had no expertise in physics.

To use a trivial and somewhat poor example, if we were to suppose that magicians and psychologists were ignorant of magnetism (yes I know it isn't realistic but I'm making a wider point) then a fake telekineticist could potentially fool even the magicians and psychologists by the judicious use of magnets.

[Ashles]

To use a trivial and somewhat poor example, if we were to suppose that magicians and psychologists were ignorant of magnetism (yes I know it isn't realistic but I'm making a wider point) then a fake telekineticist could potentially fool even the magicians and psychologists by the judicious use of magnets.
I see your point, but I can't think of an 'paranormal' example that would fool the magician that a physicist would pick up on.
I'm sure such examples exist but they would be extremely rare. And they would get picked up by the physicist at the next stage anyway.

99.9% of the frauds would be using standard tricks or suffering some mental illness.

I'm just trying to help the physicists have more on their own to invent yet further new sub atomic particles with silly names.:)

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Ashles
I see your point, but I can't think of an 'paranormal' example that would fool the magician that a physicist would pick up on.
I'm sure such examples exist but they would be extremely rare. And they would get picked up by the physicist at the next stage anyway.

99.9% of the frauds would be using standard tricks or suffering some mental illness.

I'm just trying to help the physicists have more on their own to invent yet further new sub atomic particles with silly names.:)

Agreed. Although I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't suggesting a physicist needed to be present at all stages of testing etc., but rather that it would be a good idea to run the proposed testing protocol past a physicist (and other specialists as appropriate) in the first place just in case they could spot any obvious deficiencies.

I believe that's what Randi does, but I may be wrong.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Dragonrock
"Pseudoskeptic" What a interesting word. The first time I saw it used was by a poster who's name I have forgotten. I remember the poster was a woman and a believer. Apparently in her world, a skeptic is someone who accepts any belief that someone has asserted as true. To become a "pseudoskeptic" one had to question those ideas or ask for proof. Since proof was rarely offered and when it was the science was sorely lacking her assertions were dismissed out of hand earning the dissmisser the covetted title "pseudoskeptic." My question is, do you use "pseudoskeptic" in the same way?

Was that Clancie? She seemed to be an intelligent woman with some fatal flaws -- total inability to admit she was wrong and blind belief (prompted, if I remember, by grief).

[Ashles]

I just did a search and the first example I can find (back in 2002) is by...

da-da-dum!

Lucianarchy arguing with Larsen (Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...)

The first exmple of pseudo-skeptic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=142435&highlight=pseudoskeptic#post142435)


For completists:
The first usage of pseudosceptic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870068766&highlight=pseudosceptic#post1870068766) in 2003 by Pillory.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ashles
I just did a search and the first example I can find (back in 2002) is by...

da-da-dum!

Lucianarchy arguing with Larsen (Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...)

The first exmple of pseudo-skeptic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=142435&highlight=pseudoskeptic#post142435)


For completists:
The first usage of pseudosceptic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870068766&highlight=pseudosceptic#post1870068766) in 2003 by Pillory.
In 2002 the forum crashed and all the posts prior to that time were wiped out. I assure you that the term "pseudo skeptic" was very much in use before then.

[Ashles]

I assure you that the term "pseudo skeptic" was very much in use before then.
Oh I believe you. If Luci and Ian were here then so was 'pseudoskeptic' :) .

I just thought it might be nice to travel back in time to see some early black and white sepia-toned posts of the Luci and Larsen show.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Tricky
In 2002 the forum crashed and all the posts prior to that time were wiped out. I assure you that the term "pseudo skeptic" was very much in use before then. Yep-pers... these whipper snappers don't remember, but I was there. I was right in the thick of it during the 'big one'. The Great Purge of aught 2. I lost some 600 posts to my name, a lot of good friends, and about 30 feet of small intestine.

I still have nightmares about it, and my wound pains me whenever rains a' comin'. I remember it like it was yesterday...

except for the lost friends and the intestines.

I just made that up.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Was that Clancie? She seemed to be an intelligent woman with some fatal flaws -- total inability to admit she was wrong and blind belief (prompted, if I remember, by grief).

Clancie would be who I was thinking of. She made a big splash when she appeared both for her opinions in addition to her literacy. I didn't know about any grief driving her beliefs, but she did take any disagreement personally.