About 75% of red cats are always male....

[Rolfe]

Oh Mr.Randi, how about you check your facts? From this week's commentary....As for cats, I'm partial to the red model, too. Did you know they're always male?"Red (or ginger or marmalade) cats always being male" is yet another urban myth, and not the sort of nonsense I would want to see being uncritically spouted here, and for no apparent reason either.

I remember going to a friend's house, and being introduced to her red tabby cat, and her remarking that the cat was female. I said, oh that's relatively unusual, only about a quarter of gingers are girls. She practically kissed me! She was just so sick of being told that she must be lying or mistaken when she told people she had a ginger girl.

OK, it's like this (slightly simplified). The genes for both red and black are on the same locus of the chromosome, and it happens to be on the X chromosome. Ginger is recessive, and in order to be ginger you have to have no copies of the gene other than those coding for "ginger". Boys only have one X chromosome (the one they inherited from their mother, who may well not have been ginger, more probably tortie), so all they need is a ginger gene on that and there they are, handsome red pussycats. Like the one purring on my desk right now trying to shove the computer on to the floor to get some more room for himself.

However, if you're a girl, it's harder. You have to have the ginger gene on both your X chromosomes. The one inherited from your mother (who might have been tortoiseshell or something other than ginger) and the one inherited from your dad (who would have had to be ginger). This is less common, obviously, but it's by no means impossible. Apart from my friend's cat, there are squillions of ginger females around to give the lie to that preposterous statement. (And the cat show entry form I just filled up states quite correctly that the ginger class is open to both males and females.)

Now, the other thing the cat show entry form reveals, is that only females are expected to enter for the tortoiseshell class. This is because in order to be tortie you have to carry both a red and a black gene. And since the locus is on the X chromosome and only females have two X chromosomes, that means that only females can have one copy of each colour gene and so come out tortie. (OK, with the rare exception of certain chromosomal abnormalities such as XXY trisomy.)

It's true that for all practical purposes, tortoiseshell cats are always female. And to a casual observer it looks as if their male equivalent is the ginger tom. Hence the growth of the fallacy. But it simply isn't true, as any casual enquiry would reveal.

JREF isn't the place for propagating this sort of fallacy, so the sooner a few owners of ginger girls send Randi a few cross emails, the better.

Rolfe.

[mummymonkey]

Next door's cat is a ginger female called toffee. It's a small friendly cat which eats cheese.

So there.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
Next door's cat is a ginger female called toffee. It's a small friendly cat which eats cheese.

So there. TELL RANDI!!!!

He's always very snippy when other people make false claims, even through ignorance, why should he get off with this one?

Rolfe.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Rolfe
TELL RANDI!!!!

He's always very snippy when other people make false claims, even through ignorance, why should he get off with this one?

Rolfe.

Chill out. Apply for the million dollar challenge by claiming you can produce a female ginger or marmalade cat. The testing will consist of lifting the tail. Randi can sniff to make sure if he wants.

Much ado about nothin'. (cats are, in my wee world, nothin').

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Chill out.Oh sure, minor point. But if someone else were to say something like, did you know that there are far more hospital emergency admissions at the full moon, just because they'd heard it somewhere, Randi would be down their throat in the most scathing terms.

Now here we see him just tossing off a known fallacy, without any attempt to check up on it, apparently as an unsolicited attempt to educate the lady who was grieving for her dead ginger cat.

And he's wrong.

I'd just like to see a little goose and gander sauce here.

Rolfe.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Oh sure, minor point. But if someone else were to say something like, did you know that there are far more hospital emergency admissions at the full moon, just because they'd heard it somewhere, Randi would be down their throat in the most scathing terms.

Now here we see him just tossing off a known fallacy, without any attempt to check up on it, apparently as an unsolicited attempt to educate the lady who was grieving for her dead ginger cat.

And he's wrong.

I'd just like to see a little goose and gander sauce here.

Rolfe.

So, email him. No biggie.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, email him. No biggie. Yes, I did.

I just find it odd that none of the hard-line sceptics who are so critical of this "blind repetition" behaviour in believers are even the least bit shocked to see it in one of the commentaries. I have to say I was really quite taken aback myself, and it did undermine my respect for Randi to some extent.

All right, the proposition isn't entirely woo-woo. Nevertheless, it's odd. Why should a particular colour of cat always be male? You can only answer that if you find out something about the genetics of the situation. And when you find that out, you also find out that the statement is false.

Before yesterday, I would have pretty much automatically assumed that Randi would view a statement like that with a sceptical eye, almost on principle or reflex habit, and check up on its validity. However, he just behaved in exactly the way he criticises in others, coming out with "did you know that..." without checking at all, on a subject in which the most superficial research would have thrown up the goods.

I didn't like the way he did it either. That poor woman, distraught over the loss of her cat, and even more distraught by being scammed by a psychic fraud. Where was there the need to chip in with a bit of "and did you know that....?" except as a small piece of showing off. OK, if the information had been accurate maybe I wouldn't have noticed that aspect, but coming out with a blatant fallacy in that situation (and possibly a fallacy that the woman herself knew to be false) seemed insensitive at best.

Rolfe.

[BillyJoe]

Yeah, Rolfe, just email him and he will publish a full retraction
next week. Very few of us get into the commentary. Here's your
big chance.

Oh, and as penance for daring to tilt your sword at the great one,
you must purchase a critical thinker wristband and wear it for
one whole week. :D

[BillyJoe]

hmmm......Rolfe slipped in there whilst I was kissing my daughter goodnight.

[Nova Land]

One of my current cats is a ginger girl, although she's such a light shade of ginger I'm not sure she counts as red. But many years ago I had a beautiful red female cat. Our calico cat had one last litter of kittens before she was spayed, and my parents agreed to let me keep the red kitten from that litter since the kitten was male. She remained male for close to a year, until she had a littler of kittens herself.

To be fair to Randi, he doesn't actually state that all red cats are male. Instead, he asks a question: "Did you know they're always male?"

In his mind, he may have followed this with "... because if you do, you're mistaken!" Not being a mind-reader *** I can't know if that was in Randi's mind. But sometimes it is good to be very careful and exact in interpreting people's words. I will be interested in learning Randi's response to you.

*** (except with brilliant beautiful Russian women, and then only under limited puzzle-related circumstances)

[Kiless]

My ginger boy is pleased to hear this news - although he's not that surprised. The children on the street found a ginger kitten and insisted that my boy must be 'the kitten's mother'. He seemed rather flabbergasted by this claim... especially after we got him neutered when young! Even kids know that Randi is wrong! :D

[Nova Land]

I should clarify my previous comment. (Never post after getting a full night's sleep!) When a person asks a question in that manner, I think it is normally reasonable to take it as a statement (the way Rolfe does). But there are people -- politicians come to mind, as well as television folks writing promos for items in the upcoming news broadcast -- who do routinely use questions to say one thing while sounding like they are saying another.

So in certain circumstances I tend to pay careful attention to exactly what was and wasn't said. Reading Randi's comments shouldn't generally be one of those circumstances, so I have no problem with Rolfe's interpretation of Randi's words.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Yes, I did.

Let us know what he said.

Originally posted by Rolfe
I just find it odd that none of the hard-line sceptics who are so critical of this "blind repetition" behaviour in believers are even the least bit shocked to see it in one of the commentaries. I have to say I was really quite taken aback myself, and it did undermine my respect for Randi to some extent.

If it's any consolation, I thought that all reds were male as well. Nice to learn something new.

Originally posted by Rolfe
All right, the proposition isn't entirely woo-woo. Nevertheless, it's odd. Why should a particular colour of cat always be male? You can only answer that if you find out something about the genetics of the situation. And when you find that out, you also find out that the statement is false.

It's not odd at all, when you think about how strange cats can be: White cats with blue eyes are predominantly deaf. (http://www.petpeoplesplace.com/Care/Cats/004/25.htm) Tortoise cats and calico cats are always female (http://www.messybeast.com/tricolours.htm) (males can be born, but are genetic aberration or abnormal).

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Yes, I did.

I just find it odd that none of the hard-line sceptics who are so critical of this "blind repetition" behaviour in believers are even the least bit shocked to see it in one of the commentaries. I have to say I was really quite taken aback myself, and it did undermine my respect for Randi to some extent.

All right, the proposition isn't entirely woo-woo. Nevertheless, it's odd. Why should a particular colour of cat always be male? You can only answer that if you find out something about the genetics of the situation. And when you find that out, you also find out that the statement is false.

Before yesterday, I would have pretty much automatically assumed that Randi would view a statement like that with a sceptical eye, almost on principle or reflex habit, and check up on its validity. However, he just behaved in exactly the way he criticises in others, coming out with "did you know that..." without checking at all, on a subject in which the most superficial research would have thrown up the goods.

I didn't like the way he did it either. That poor woman, distraught over the loss of her cat, and even more distraught by being scammed by a psychic fraud. Where was there the need to chip in with a bit of "and did you know that....?" except as a small piece of showing off. OK, if the information had been accurate maybe I wouldn't have noticed that aspect, but coming out with a blatant fallacy in that situation (and possibly a fallacy that the woman herself knew to be false) seemed insensitive at best.

Rolfe.

see the silence by died-in-the-wool skeptics on this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53213)
No surprises here.

[Lucky]

Actually, you don’t need any specific knowledge about inheritance of coat colour in cats to see that it’s an improbable claim. You would only have to consider some basic school-level genetics (recessive traits, the XX/XY system) and a couple of common observations about cats.

Nearly all sex-linked traits (excluding those directly relating to maleness) are on the X chromosome, as it is much longer than the Y. So a trait that occurs mostly in males is generally due to a recessive gene on the X chromosome, as Rolfe explains. The incidence of the trait in males is therefore the same as the frequency of the gene, and the incidence in females is frequency squared (assuming the gene doesn’t affect fertility).

Haemophilia works the same way as ginger coat colour, and that could be the source of this common false belief. The difference between haemophilia and ginger coat colour is that the gene involved in haemophilia is rare, so it is approximately true that the condition doesn’t occur in females. The ‘ginger gene’ in cats is not rare (Rolfe’s figure suggests that the frequency is about 1/3).

Admittedly, at first sight the claim could just possibly be true, due to something more obscure than simple sex linkage, but common-sense reasoning suggests that it’s unlikely (especially as partly-ginger females are common).

Randi quite often makes incorrect, misleading or unwarranted statements in his commentaries. Sometimes they are much more serious than this one because they appear to serve his agenda. Why doesn’t he have the commentaries checked for accuracy before posting them?

[KelvinG]

When Randi makes such an error he usually acknowledges it when presented with contrary evidence.

This is what seperates him from many of the believers that drive him crazy. If Randi continues to insist all red cats are male when he is shown otherwise, then it might be more of a big deal.
As things currently exist, it might just be an honest mistake.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Lucky

...snip...

Randi quite often makes incorrect, misleading or unwarranted statements in his commentaries. Sometimes they are much more serious than this one because they appear to serve his agenda. Why doesn’t he have the commentaries checked for accuracy before posting them?

Well the best person to ask would be Randi.

Plus how often does he make "incorrect, misleading or unwarranted statements in his commentaries"? I know he's made mistakes etc. in the past (mainly because I've read a correction in a future commentary) and I know a lot of people accuse him of lying (as you do) but I've never seen a breakdown in terms of actual numbers.

[Lucky]

From KelvinG:
As things currently exist, it might just be an honest mistake.I don’t doubt that for one second, and I’m sure Rolfe doesn’t, either. The point we are trying to make is that he believed (and repeated) it on no evidence, just because he’d heard it somewhere.

From Darat:
I know a lot of people accuse him of lying (as you do)WHAT???!!!

As in WHAT??????!!!!!!

As in WHAT?????????!!!!!!!!!

Dear, oh dear, oh dear. I point out that Randi, not being a scientist, sometimes makes important and embarrassing blunders (as he undeniably does). And that he (and we, his supporters) should be protected from this by having his commentaries checked by knowledgeable people (as they certainly should be). You respond by saying that I’ve accused him of lying.

Plainly this is not justified by my post here, and I challenge you to read any post I’ve ever made and find any justification whatever for your suggestion that I’m in any way opposed to Randi and his mission and activities.

As a matter of deeply-held principle I never, ever use such mean, dishonest and cowardly tactics as accusing someone I disagree with of lying (I am no CFLarsen). Your throwaway remark is more insulting than you could know.

Darat: you’ve made an ‘honest mistake’ here. What do you have to say about that? Anything?

I am not being snide or devious. I mean what I say: Randi should have his commentaries checked for accuracy. He should, for the sake of the JREF mission. Do you have some counter argument? And bollocks to any suggestion that he’s an independent individual. He’s a world-famous exponent of critical thinking, and that’s why we support him.

[crimresearch]

So how much money does Randi get from people for all of the 'wrong' information he is dispensing?;)

http://www.maine-coon-cats.at/kitten/images_kitten/4_wo/red_classic2.jpg

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Rolfe,
Thank you for disabusing me of a foolish belief that I never thought to question. I shall try to smile bravely and blink away the tears!
:-)

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Lucky
Randi quite often makes incorrect, misleading or unwarranted statements in his commentaries. Sometimes they are much more serious than this one because they appear to serve his agenda. Why doesn’t he have the commentaries checked for accuracy before posting them? I read all the commentaries, and I have only ever seen the occasional "incorrect, misleading or unwarranted statement". I don't think it is worth him having the commentaries proof-read and I don't think he will. No harm is done by making occasional mistakes as long as he corrects them in the next commentary. And he always does. If nothing else, it forces us to read his commentaries critically (critical thinking wrist band or not! :rolleyes: - my God whose idea was that! :( ). How boring if there was never a mistake to pick up and pick over.

If nothing else, Rolfe will play a starring role in next week's commentary and remain archived for eternity.

Remember, also, that the commentaries are usually quite long and appear every week. And that's not the only thing he does every week. I guess he could reduce them to a paragraph or two and avoid any errors. But what would you rather have. I say give us the volume and keep us on our toes picking out the occasion error.

BillyJoe
(And Mr. Randi, if you're listening, you have my express permission to use this post in your next commentary :) )

[Lucky]

From BillyJoe:
Remember, also, that the commentaries are usually quite long and appear every week. And that's not the only thing he does every week. I guess he could reduce them to a paragraph or two and avoid any errors. But what would you rather have.I really don’t think anyone’s blaming Randi for making mistakes (I certainly am not, and I would prefer the commentaries to be longer rather than shorter). He has to be prepared to comment on any aspect of science, religion, technology, medicine etc. Of course he doesn’t have sufficient expertise to do this single handed without errors (nobody does).

I don't think it is worth him having the commentaries proof-read and I don't think he will.But why on earth not? Presumably he’d rather not make a mistake and have to admit it publicly. And I don’t think we should assume that it doesn’t matter. He is a very public face of the critical thinking movement, and its opponents can and will take any opportunity to use his words against him (and the movement).

You may be right in saying that he wouldn’t agree to have his commentaries checked, but I can’t see any harm in suggesting it.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Lucky

...snip...

WHAT???!!!

As in WHAT??????!!!!!!

As in WHAT?????????!!!!!!!!!

Dear, oh dear, oh dear. I point out that Randi, not being a scientist, sometimes makes important and embarrassing blunders (as he undeniably does). And that he (and we, his supporters) should be protected from this by having his commentaries checked by knowledgeable people (as they certainly should be). You respond by saying that I’ve accused him of lying.

Plainly this is not justified by my post here, and I challenge you to read any post I’ve ever made and find any justification whatever for your suggestion that I’m in any way opposed to Randi and his mission and activities.


And I would "challenge" you to provide any evidence that I have ever said you are "any way opposed to Randi and his mission and activities".

Originally posted by Lucky


…snip…

Darat: you’ve made an ‘honest mistake’ here. What do you have to say about that? Anything?


Of course I could have made a mistake, yet when I go back and check I can see that you stated " Randi quite often makes incorrect, misleading or unwarranted statements in his commentaries."

Now I would hold that "incorrect" statements are not necessarily lies and I would not (generally) consider someone was accusing someone else of lying by stating that she or he makes incorrect statements. However your sentence continues "... misleading or unwarranted statements in his commentaries...", now put that together and what is that but a definition of lying? e.g. (from Encarta)


lie 2

[list=1] deliberately say something untrue: to say something that is not true in a conscious effort to deceive somebody
He lied about his age in order to get into the army.

be deceptive: to give a false impression
Don’t forget that appearances can lie.
[/list=1]
noun (plural lies)
[list=1] 1. falsehood: a false statement made deliberately
She told me she wasn’t seeing anyone else, but that was a lie.

wrong impression: a false impression created deliberately
I’m beginning to feel that my whole life is a lie.
[/list=1]
Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


Obviously from your subsequent post I now understand that you didn’t mean to imply Randi lies in his commentaries and I also hope you can now see why your words (at least to me) created an impression that you were saying he lied?

Anyway it was a rather minor point and hopefully we can proceed to the points of my response to your initial response?

Have you asked Randi if anyone checks his commentaries for factual errors before they are published? (I doubt they are but you never know.) And secondly, do you have any statistics that support your opinion that “Randi quite often makes incorrect, misleading or unwarranted statements in his commentaries.�? (Especially for the follow on sentence of “ Sometimes they are much more serious than this one because they appear to serve his agenda.�.)

I understand this is just your opinion but you are asking for something to be done (or perhaps just changed) because of that opinion so I would presume that you verified your impression/opinion was substantiated by evidence before you made your post?



Originally posted by Lucky
…snip…

I am not being snide or devious. I mean what I say: Randi should have his commentaries checked for accuracy. He should, for the sake of the JREF mission. Do you have some counter argument? And bollocks to any suggestion that he’s an independent individual. He’s a world-famous exponent of critical thinking, and that’s why we support him.

Couple of points:

One: I don’t support him for being “a world famous exponent of critical thinking�, I support him because I think he and the JREF help to bring a bit of adverse publicity to many liars and fraudsters. Critical thinking is just a tool that can help all of us protect ourselves from being exploited by others.

Two: When have I ever said or mentioned anything like “And bollocks to any suggestion that he’s an independent individual.� I can’t even understand how this is at all relevant to this thread and discussion(?).

[BillyJoe]

Lucky,

Originally posted by Lucky
But why on earth not? Presumably he’d rather not make a mistake and have to admit it publicly. .As I said, it depends on where he would rather spend his time, writing comprehensive commentaries or spending time making absolutely sure he makes no mistakes. As for having others scrutinizing his commentaries and picking up his occasional errors - well, here WE are doing JUST FINE. :D. And whose to say the proof reader will do any better than we can.

Originally posted by Lucky
And I don’t think we should assume that it doesn’t matter. He is a very public face of the critical thinking movement, and its opponents can and will take any opportunity to use his words against him (and the movement). Seems to me only his supporters are using his words against him. :D
In any case, there is only a week between a mistake and a correction. Not much mileage there for his opponents.

BillyJoe

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by KelvinG
When Randi makes such an error he usually acknowledges it when presented with contrary evidence.

Not in my experience.

Example : In his attacks on dowsers, Randi frequently claims that underground water is in abundance almost everywhere, so finding a well is easy.

http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.randi-paranormal.html
I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth's surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don't want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success.

And many similar comments, going back decades.

Now, Randi's comments simply didn't sound correct to me, so I consulted some trained geologists. I asked them what exactly a "dry spot" would be, and how common are they. They informed me that actually, water is pretty hard to find, and the chances of hitting a dry spot are actually quite high.

So, I wrote to Randi, telling him that he may be mistaken. I was ready to hiold a civilised discussion with him, hear his defence of his words, and maybe he would admit his error. In fact he replied thus:

Just what IS your problem? I’ve no time for semantic games. I’m busy. If you want to pursue someone just to aggravate them, go after one of the dowsers! Please!

I tried to discuss the matter with him, but just got more of the same. Quite simply he was not willing even to talk about the matter.

He still continues to spread the same inaccurate information. The most recent commentary contains a similar ciomment from a contributor, which Randi quotes with approval.

I hope Rolfe has better luck with his correspondance.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Darat
Well the best person to ask would be Randi.

Plus how often does he make "incorrect, misleading or unwarranted statements in his commentaries"?

Too often. WAY to often.

Susan Blackmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore), editor of Skeptical Inquirer reviewed one of Randi's books with the comment "contains too many errors to be recommended"

That's pretty much my opinion of his career.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Too often. WAY to often.

Susan Blackmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore), editor of Skeptical Inquirer reviewed one of Randi's books with the comment "contains too many errors to be recommended"

That's pretty much my opinion of his career.

What book is that?

[BillyJoe]

Peter,

Just a bit of error correction, if you don't mind. :cool:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Susan Blackmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore), editor of Skeptical Inquirer reviewed one of Randi's books with the comment "contains too many errors to be recommended". Susan blackmore is not the editor of "Skeptical Enquirer". The editor is Kendrick Frazier. She is also not on the editorial board. She is, however, listed as a "consulting editor", which probably means that she is called upon form time to time to comment about something in her area of interest.

BillyJoe

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Too often. WAY to often.

Susan Blackmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore), editor of Skeptical Inquirer reviewed one of Randi's books with the comment "contains too many errors to be recommended"

That's pretty much my opinion of his career.

You’ve been making the same allegation for a long time now, more then long enough to have come up with statistics to support your allegations.

So any statistics to support your opinion? Or is it still just an unfounded opinion based on your personal impression?

[BillyJoe]

.....oops just noticed an error in my last post! :D

[BillyJoe]

Here (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/) is an example of how the other side handles error reporting. It is a report by prominant Australian skeptic, Peter Bowditch, about an exchange of correspondence after he reported an error contained in a paper by a supporter of that nonsense about murcury poisoning from amalgum tooth fillings....

Quote from the paper: "[Amalgam] is highly unstable above the melting point of Hg, 39ºC".

When it was pointed out to the person that this was obvious nonsense, the response was to quote another anti-amalgam paper which said of mercury: "Physical properties are: melting point 39ºC......". Now, leaving out the minus sign is a mistake, but when the mistake is identified and the response is to give the same answer then stupidity and obtuseness can be assumed. It might be different if this wasn't a case where it is so easy to demonstrate the truth, but when I said that the temperature inside a human body is about 37ºC and this was obviously above the melting point of mercury I was asked what qualifications I had to challenge the opinions of professional chemists. I doubted that my reply, "high school chemistry", will be considered satisfactory, and I was proved correct because the response was to ask the question again and repeat the original nonsense (plus some nonsense....about how dangerous mercury is, as if that was going to convince me that I was wrong about the melting point of mercury).

Yet again the supporters of non-medicine exhibit their lack of faith. Their heroes and authority figures (even anonymous ones) are not allowed to be anything except perfect, and any attempt to correct mistakes threatens the house of cards. What is so hard about saying "Oops! I was wrong"? Scientists do it every day. "What is so hard about saying "Oops! I was wrong"? Scientists do it every day."

BJ

[Darat]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
...snip...

"What is so hard about saying "Oops! I was wrong"? Scientists do it every day."

BJ

Human nature...

Of which I most confess to sometimes partaking of. :)

And I've provided a good example of how even when we “admit� we are wrong it sometimes seems as if we don’t really mean it in my above response to Lucky.

I now realise my response could easily be interpreted as if I am attempting to continue or even justify my (paraphrased) comment "Lucky says Randi lies in his commentaries" even though Lucky has stated that she/he doesn’t think Randi lies in his commentaries.

It would have been much clearer if I had just used the simple statement "Oops! I was wrong.�!

[Rolfe]

Just thought I ought to clarify that I'm not perfectly certain of the 25% figure for female ginger cats. It was an educated guess. It's certainly the case that most ginger cats are male, but that females aren't especially rare and you'll easily find some if you look. I wouldn't want to be held to the exact percentage.

My email to Randi was extremely short, simpy saying that the statement wasn't correct and requesting a correction. Since I don't have an email account in the name of Rolfe, it was sent in my own name. I have had a reply, and it simply said "Coming up!" I have no problem with that.

I didn't want to go into the details of my feelings on the subject. Anyone who wants to know that can read this thread. I just thought it was a regrettable example of lack of critical thinking in a commentary which is supposed to be about critical thinking. Of course it was an honest mistake. But I thought that what sceptics prided themselves on was thinking critically about the things they are told and not just blindly parroting them without checking up.

Rolfe.

[BillyJoe]

Rolfe,

Originally posted by Rolfe
Just thought I ought to clarify that I'm not perfectly certain of the 25% figure for female ginger cats. It was an educated guess. It's certainly the case that most ginger cats are male, but that females aren't especially rare and you'll easily find some if you look. I wouldn't want to be held to the exact percentage. "Clarifying", Rolfe, or correcting an ERROR! :D:D:D

Hell, I don't think there is single poster on this thread who hasn't made an error. (Although I have a feeling someone's going to correct me on this. :D )

regards,
BillyJoe

[Soapy Sam]

Well, Interesting Ian hasn't.

Seriously- I'm unsure we can always apply critical thinking to subjects we know nothing about.
On the cat question for instance, we would need to know that a given characteristic was linked to a sex chromosome before we could arrive at the conclusions Rolfe has clarified.

I had never heard of this and might well have accepted it at face value because it isn't worth checking (To me. To a vet it clearly is worth checking).

Of course, if we happen to make a statement about a sexual characteristic, on a public web board, we might think it worth checking whether it is linked to a sex chromosome, but that's fact checking rather than critical thinking.

Still worth doing, nonetheless.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Just thought I ought to clarify that I'm not perfectly certain of the 25% figure for female ginger cats. It was an educated guess. It's certainly the case that most ginger cats are male, but that females aren't especially rare and you'll easily find some if you look. I wouldn't want to be held to the exact percentage.



And anyone who wants to see one can come around here and see the "ginger tart" as we (un)affectionately call her since she seems to be in season about every 2 weeks! (Please note she is not in season I every two weeks, I used that to add a bit of spice and colour to my dry prose.)



Originally posted by Rolfe


...snip...

I didn't want to go into the details of my feelings on the subject. Anyone who wants to know that can read this thread. I just thought it was a regrettable example of lack of critical thinking in a commentary which is supposed to be about critical thinking. Of course it was an honest mistake. But I thought that what sceptics prided themselves on was thinking critically about the things they are told and not just blindly parroting them without checking up.

Rolfe.

Was it a lack of critical thinking or just a mistake? For instance perhaps Randi read this in a "1001 facts you didn’t know book" or some other perhaps not too rigorously checked source and it stuck in his memory? Now you could say it showed lack of critical thinking to not check it, but does it sound too much of an extraordinary fact to need checking when it wasn't of critical importance? I would say it wasn't. I would go further and say it is not reasonable to expect that every single fact in every single commentary is double checked before it is published. What I would hope is that when the facts are of substantial importance to a particular argument and so on they are checked and verified to the best of Randi's ability at the time of writing.

I find the cat colouration mistake a fascinating one since I know many people who make all weird and wonderful claims about cats, it seems cats attract a lot of folklore. One that I’ve commonly heard is that "only females are tortoiseshell" and then a few who know males can be tortoiseshell say "all male tortoiseshell cats are infertile", both of which are to be accurate not true but for practical purposes the statements are a fair summary since tortoiseshell cats are normally female and quite often the exception to the rule male tortoiseshell male are infertile..

And just to add something, I've learnt from Randi's mistake! I hadn’t realised that some people really do seem to believe that there are only "ginger toms", it was a part of popular "folklore" that I just wasn’t aware of.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Darat
Now you could say it showed lack of critical thinking to not check it, but does it sound too much of an extraordinary fact to need checking when it wasn't of critical importance? I would say it wasn't. I would go further and say it is not reasonable to expect that every single fact in every single commentary is double checked before it is published. What I would hope is that when the facts are of substantial importance to a particular argument and so on they are checked and verified to the best of Randi's ability at the time of writing.I suppose it's a matter of opinion. I was just a bit shocked to read what I saw as a hoary old wives' tale trotted out as "fact", in such an unsolicited manner, in this context. And started thinking about the treatment that gets meted out to "woos" who come up with similarly unsubstantiated statements.

I've been thinking again about the statistics, and I asked a colleague. She said, "I remember hearing 10% of ginger cats were female, but I'm sure it's more than that." So it seems to go like this.

For a kitten to come out ginger, the MOTHER must have at least one ginger gene. For the kitten to come out ginger AND FEMALE, the father also must be ginger (phenotypically, as he has only the one gene locus). So, for a queen carrying at least one ginger gene, if she mates with a ginger tom, half of the ginger kittens will be male and half female. (If the queen is homozygous for ginger, and so has a ginger coat herself, ALL the litter will be ginger. If the queen is heterozygous for ginger, that is having a tortoiseshell coat colour, half of the remaining kittens will be tortoiseshell females, and the other half will be black males.) If however, the queen mates with a tom who is not ginger, half the kittens will be ginger toms and the other half will be not-ginger females.

This is where I got the "approximately 75%" from. One lot of matings gives you 50% of the gingers being female, the other gives you 0% of the gingers being female. However, just assuming that the two classes of matings are equally likely is incorrect. It all depends on how likely it is that the ginger-carrying queen finds a ginger tom to mate with. The fact that she herself is has the gene indicates that it occurs in the gene pool, and so she may well find a ginger tom, but just because she herself has 50% ginger genes doesn't mean that her chances of mating with a ginger tom are 50%. They may be more, they may be less. I'm not sure, but if we knew the exact frequency of the occurrence of the ginger gene in the feline community, it might be possible to work out the exact pecentages that would occur. Maybe. My brain is deteriorating into mush about now.

Ginger toms are pretty common, but it's unlikely that 50% of tom cats are ginger. Therefore 25% of gingers being female is probably a bit of an overestimate. But it depends on the frequency of occurrence of the gene in the gene pool, and most specifically on the percentage of tomcats who are ginger. The percentage of ginger kittens who are female is simply half of the percentage of toms who are ginger. (If 10% of ginger cats are female, that would imply that 20% of tomcats are ginger. Might be, but as my colleague said, I think it might be more than that.)

A safe way of putting it is that a substantial majority of ginger cats are male, but ginger females are not especially rare.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

In case anyone wants to know more about cats and their colours have a read here:

http://www.messybeast.com/colours.htm

(I haven't verified all the details and facts on the above links but they seem OK ;) )

(Edited to add.)

Some very intresting stuff on the MessyBeast site:

http://www.messybeast.com/gene-symbols.htm

[supercorgi]

Oh what a tempest in a teapot! As a cat lover, when I read Randi's commentary Friday and read the "all red cats are male" bit, I thought "Oh! I've never heard that one before, I wonder if it's true?" So I got out my trusty google and looked up information on cat color genetics and learned something new.

I then wrote to Randi telling him that he was in error and Sunday receieved a reply from him saying he's hearing this from lots of people and will correct the error in next week's Commentary.

I don't see any reason to get upset with Randi. The man's human and makes mistakes. He also corrects his errors when people point them out to him -- to me, that makes him an honest individual. As to the tone of the comment, I just read it as Randi trying to connect to the woman by saying he also preferred red cats and then presenting an interesting (although untrue) "factoid." The end result for me was that I learned something I wouldn't have otherwise.

[Soapy Sam]

Be grateful you don't have this lot looking over your shoulder.
Tough audience.
I get a quiet laugh when we are accused of being Randi sycophants.

[Lucky]

From Darat:
I would "challenge" you to provide any evidence that I have ever said you are "any way opposed to Randi and his mission and activities".From your use of the ongoing present tense (don’t know its proper term) I thought you were saying I habitually attack Randi.
When have I ever said or mentioned anything like “And bollocks to any suggestion that he’s an independent individual.�I didn’t particularly have you in mind; it was meant generally. It was a reference to a defence that is generally made here when Randi is criticised in any way: that he’s not accountable to anyone (I don’t agree).

I also hope you can now see why your words (at least to me) created an impression that you were saying he lied?No, I certainly can’t. The definitions you quote show a clear distinction between ‘incorrect, misleading or unwarranted statements’ (which is what I said and what I meant) and deliberate lies.

Looking at my previous response, I see that I was a trifle more intemperate than is usual for me. (Well, I was provoked!)

In a later post you say:It would have been much clearer if I had just used the simple statement "Oops! I was wrong.�!Well, you damned well were! Anyway, let’s forget the whole thing (now that I’ve had the last word ;)).

Critical thinking is just a tool that can help all of us protect ourselves from being exploited by others.To me it’s the other way round. Thinking is always the important thing; reducing the probability of being exploited is just an agreeable side effect. Perhaps that’s why I sometimes get a bit frustrated with posters who are fervently opposed to ‘woo’, but seem not to apply critical thinking in other areas.

Have you asked Randi if anyone checks his commentaries for factual errors before they are published?I have wondered, and I've quite often thought that if anyone is checking them they’re not doing a very good job. I really do think someone who knows Randi should suggest that that he improve the checking procedure. I’m not sure how it could work, though, because it would need to be checked by people knowledgeable in many areas.

Now to the tricky point.

Darat challenged me to produce statistics about the frequency of Randi’s mistakes, and BillyJoe claimed they are ‘occasional’. I decided to go through this year’s commentaries (ten of them) and the comments in this forum, to get some rough estimate (and heartfelt curses on both of you for causing me to spend half the weekend on such a tedious task :)).

This is what I found (so far):
7 unequivocal errors, mostly scientific, 1 of which supports his bias (I am not saying bias is wrong).
4 claims that I strongly believe to be errors (I’m still investigating), 3 of which support his bias.
3 ‘mistakes’ of a different kind; not factual errors but (in my opinion) significant errors of judgement.

Not sure what else I want to say. I think we shouldn’t make a big issue of it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Be grateful you don't have this lot looking over your shoulder.
Tough audience.
I get a quiet laugh when we are accused of being Randi sycophants.

Maybe we should make a list? ;)

[BillyJoe]

Lucky,

Originally posted by Lucky
This is what I found (so far):
7 unequivocal errors, mostly scientific, 1 of which supports his bias (I am not saying bias is wrong).
4 claims that I strongly believe to be errors (I’m still investigating), 3 of which support his bias.
3 ‘mistakes’ of a different kind; not factual errors but (in my opinion) significant errors of judgement. Would you please list these errors. I mean I don't want to take your word for it, after all you could be in error. :D

But seriously, would you?

BJ

[Soapy Sam]

It may be worth mentioning, for any lookers in who don't know: The JREF office staff generally consists of JR himself, Linda, the secretary/ PA/ and Lady High Everything Else and perhaps one or two part time interns. It's not like a newspaper office with two hundred employees.

There will be limits to the time such a small group can spend on error checking.

Of course , that may be all the more reason for JR not to make remarks he's unsure of , especially since he knows his errors will be used against him by his opponents- and grumbled about by his supporters. I would be more concerned if the errors were fundamental to the message, rather than throwaway remarks like this one.

I'll be interested to read Lucky's List.

[alfaniner]

Did you know that there are no "red" cats?

BTW, I have Dichromatism. Or is it deuteranopia?

[Croesus47]

I'm just wondering if anyone noticed that, by making a mis-statement that Randi is actually proving the viability of his mission? Think about it: what would happen if we, as critical thinkers, were to accept every word given by Randi as fact. That would make us just as bad (or worse!) than the fundies simply because we only accepted one source of info. However, we rightly questioned the statement and found evidence to the contrary. I think, though it was a mistake, it was honest and that he's proud of us for using the principles which bind us as a group.

[alfaniner]

Yes, yes, that's it! By virtue of having an error, it only proves his case that much stronger!!

(What?? Well, people say that about the psychics all the time...)

;)

[BillyJoe]

Still waiting for the following posters to respond...


Peter Morris

1) Is Susan Blackmore editor of the "Skeptical Inquirer"?
2) About which book by Randi did Susan Blackmore say "contains too many errors to be recommended"?


Lucky

Please list from Randi's last ten commentaries....
1) 7 unequivocal errors, mostly scientific, 1 of which supports Randi's bias.
2) 4 claims that you strongly believe to be errors, 3 of which support his bias.
3) 3 ‘mistakes’ of a different kind; not factual errors but significant errors of judgement.


BJ

[Lucky]

I have been asked several times to provide evidence for my view that mistakes in Randi’s commentaries are quite frequent and can be important, and it’s obvious now that I will have to respond, though I have been reluctant to do so. I’m bothered that it will be seen as Randi-bashing, which is absolutely not my intention. And I don’t want to give ammunition to people who condemn his errors without showing any appreciation of his dedicated work. My point is simply that it would be beneficial to have his commentaries checked for errors, if practicable.

Let me say again that I am most certainly not accusing Randi of dishonesty. I think that he’s often careless in his fact checking, and has a tendency to accept and repeat a claim on insufficient evidence when:
1) He doesn’t think it’s important, or
2) It fits his views.

We all do this, but:
1) As critical thinkers, we should be aware of what we’re doing, and try not to.
2) It bothers me a lot when Randi does it, because he is one of the most prominent representatives of critical thinking, and it reflects badly on the whole movement.
3) We should be more understanding when people we don’t agree with do the same.

There are threads in this forum about many of the items I list (I didn’t spot them all single-handed!). I have said where an error is only suspected, and the 'errors of judgement' are obviously my opinion.

The list:
(From the ten commentaries this year.)

January 7 Any condition in which the heart stops can be considered "death," but since many persons have been "brought back" by means such as a defibrillator — where the heart is literally shocked back into a beating mode by electrodes applied to the bodyDefibrillation is not used when the heart has stopped – a popular misconception that Randi reinforces here. Possibly just careless writing, but definitely incorrect (or at least misleading) to connect defibrillation with the heart stopping.
Error 1


Same item: he twice refers to ‘Soviet’ scientists as though the Soviet Union still exists. And it’s not just an inconsequential slip: While reading this, bear in mind that Soviet authors are expected to provide views of reality that do not allow for religious beliefs such as survival-after-death.Error 2



January 14

A dubious line of reasoning in a letter to University of Arizona's President Peter Likens, complaining about the University’s support for Gary Schwartz. It comes close to an attack on academic freedom, and is certainly ill thought out and badly expressed. We are dealing here, not with facts nor reality, but with fantasy.
…
You write that "universities provide the context for the faltering advances of science," but they certainly should not provide protection for fantasies and religious tenets.

Sir, you state that you must support Schwartz, to quote you, "whether or not [you] support the hypotheses advanced." It is my position that by not questioning the conclusions arrived at by Schwartz, you lend support to them.Randi actually includes a valid complaint, which is that Schwartz promised to provide the JREF with some raw data, but never did so. Instead of sticking to this point, he buries it in a very questionable attack on the right of Schwartz and the University to pursue the 'research' at all.
Error of judgement 1



January 21

Repeats a misrepresentation from a reader of a Buddhist spokesperson’s statements about the tsunami on a TV programme. ‘The Buddhist talked of desire and misery. (I don't know that a natural disaster is the result of desire).’ True, these aren’t Randi’s words, but there’s no suggestion that Randi saw the programme or in any way checked the accuracy of the reader’s account, which he should have done before repeating it.
Error 3; reflects a bias against religion



January 28

Repeats an accusation from a reader that Tony Blair has consulted a ‘spirit medium’ when making decisions. "Mystic" Sylvia Caplin, 70, a former ballet dancer, was asked by Cherie Blair to tell her when Tony should quit, and also to predict whether political aspirant Gordon Brown could win if he challenged him as UK leader.
…
We're told that this isn't the first time that Caplin, who gets all this heavy info from angels, has been summoned by the Blairs. Why are we not surprised....?The claim is based on an article in the Daily Mail, which Randi appears not to have seen (he relies on the reader’s quotations). We all know that Cherie has ridiculous New Age beliefs, and it also seems to be true that both Blairs are friends with the Caplins, but it’s another matter altogether to claim that Tony personally is into New Age nuttiness.

This is an extremely serious accusation to make about the Prime Minister of the UK. Randi makes it on quite inadequate evidence (hearsay, in fact), and, from what I’ve been able to find, it’s probably wrong. I did a search at the time, and couldn’t find the article but found this one in the Cape Times (http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=2378312&fSectionId=333&fSetId=520), which could be the source. And here is the ‘evidence’: ‘His wife Cherie asked her stylist Carole Caplin's mother, Sylvia Caplin, a self-proclaimed mystic, to find out from the spooks when Tony should call it a day. Blair, according to reports, fully approved this method of acquiring political direction.’

There’s also this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/13/nblur113.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/13/ixnewstop.html) and this (http://www.libertythink.com/2004/03/blair-consults-light-spirit-joins.html), based on the claims of a convicted fraud and declared enemy of the Blairs. And that’s the total of all the evidence I could find for the claim. (It is hardly conceivable that there wouldn’t be orders of magnitude more evidence if it were true.)
Possible error 1; reflects a tendency to see ‘woo’ where it doesn’t exist



February 4

Repeats the unsubstantiated claim about Tony Blair. today the U.K. has a couple living at #10 Downing Street who have any number of superstitions and "psychics" going for themAlso: El Al, the Israeli airline, used to hire their employees based on astrological signs — and may still do so, for all I knowHe gives no reference for this, and I couldn’t find any. Seems highly improbable.
Possible error 2



February 11 The Bible, Book of Mormon, Hindu Veda, Koran, Talmud, Torah, and ancient writings of China, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, rave about the supposed curative powers of honey.He gives references only for the Koran. I’m no expert, but I’m sure I have much greater acquaintance with the Torah than Randi does, and I can’t think of anything about the ‘curative powers of honey’. That makes me wonder about the other books, too.
Possible error 3; reflects a bias against religion


Repeats the Tony Blair claim, in passing. Knowing the Blair penchant for accepting occult claims

February 18

Special Analysis of the ‘John of God’ TV programme.

Randi complains, justifiably, about his treatment by the programme makers, in particular that they had shown out of context a quotation he made from Benjamin Franklin: There are no greater liars in the world than quacks — except for their patients.I’m doubtful that the quotation is correct. I did a search on '"no greater liars" and Franklin', and found almost nothing apart from Randi’s own references (he also quoted it in his book An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural (1995), and the handful of other mentions could have copied it from there.
Possible error 4; reflects a bias towards accepting evidence that supports his views


Regardless of the quotation’s accuracy, I believe it was a blunder to use it, as I said here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870797214).
Error of judgement 2



February 25

He quotes a very dubious JoG-debunking email from a claimed victim. He demonstrates no scepticism at all about the story, though some of it doesn’t seem very plausible:

‘He grabbed my arm and looked at me. I became paralyzed. I could not move, speak or open my eyes. I could only hear.’
Error of judgement 3



March 4

Couldn’t find anything wrong!



March 11

The 'Lost Cubit'.

The commentary quotes: ‘The "Lost Cubit" is derived from the sum of the polar and equatorial circumferences of the Earth, in inches, divided into the speed of light.’

Randi's analysis is based on a total misunderstanding of the claim, with some subsidiary blunders. (I can’t tell from the commentary whether the misunderstanding is Randi’s own, or he’s just repeating it.) The reference is from this site (http://www.4dshift.com/products/slim.htm), and it actually says 'The "Lost Cubit" ring is derived from ...'. It is a sales pitch for a ridiculous New Age product, a 'Light Life Ring'. The barmy claim is about 'positive light fields' and 'natural harmonics' in relation to 'extreme longevity' (presumably of the patriarchs). It isn't a claim about the length of the cubit, and actually assumes the plausible figure of 20.6 inches that Randi quotes.

'Energetically the Ring creates a positive light field from the center plane which extends in both directions from the ring. The cubit is 20.6 inches in circumference.'
...
'Curiously, the "Lost or Becker Cubit" copper wire construction shows exactly 33 MHz per second increase in frequency at 177 MHz. Can the subtle energy bodies of living organisms be enhanced by these frequencies.')

To make matters worse, Randi didn't notice that a distance divided into a speed can't give a distance. He also got his sums wrong by a factor of 10.
Error 4


From a comment Randi sent to Starbucks 'The Way See It' site:I find it depressing that Starbucks has to be politically correct by assuring the customer that the company does not necessarily embrace the findings of science and research rather than the mythology of religion. Or perhaps I've interpreted this incorrectly: did you mean to pacify the racists, who might be offended that Dr. Leakey suggests that homo sapiens began in Africa....?A brief glance at the site shows that Starbucks has gathered a series of generally progressive or liberally quotations, and is putting them on their cups in order to stimulate 'coffee house' discussions. The disclaimer is quite proper, and not too prominent, and it is standard for the series. The impression Randi gives, that Starbucks is attempting to appease the fundamentalists, is seriously misleading, and the inflammatory comment that he sent to the site is quite inappropriate.
Error 5


Red cats!
Error 6


Commenting on some gobbledygook from the inventor of 'ECO-Aqualizer': Now I'm worried. Any system that "disrupts" the binding between hydrogen and oxygen, as well as between hydrogen atoms, might really spoil the entire universe! We need those +'s and -'s, friends! Oh, wait.... electrolysis does that, doesn't it? These high-tech matters confuse this old brain....Although the claim is garbage, it is clearly talking about polar attraction (hydrogen bonding between water molecules, and water's action as a polar solvent). Randi's comment makes no sense. He seems to be confusing intra-molecular covalent bonds ('between hydrogen atoms'), 'electrolysis' and hydrogen bonds.

Also, he ridicules the term ‘universal solvent’, seeming to think that it is a ‘woo’ claim. (It is a standard term that refers to the ability of water to dissolve both ionic and non-ionic substances.)
Error 7

[Metullus]

Tssk. SOOOOO much ado about snake food...

[Gr8wight]

Today, Randi writes:
I had a beautiful all-black cat, Alice, who was female — except for a tiny white spot.

So, the white spot was male, but the rest of the cat was female?:D

[Metullus]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
Today, Randi writes:


So, the white spot was male, but the rest of the cat was female?:D

Yeah. I've heard of that sort of thing.

[CFLarsen]

Lucky,

Do you think it is possible to go through life without making mistakes?

Just yes or no.

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucky,

Do you think it is possible to go through life without making mistakes?

Just yes or no.

Claus, where do you get off hounding people for answers when you run from questions yourself?

[BillyJoe]

Lucky,

Originally posted by Lucky
I have been asked several times to provide evidence for my view that mistakes in Randi’s commentaries are quite frequent and can be important, and it’s obvious now that I will have to respond, though I have been reluctant to do so. I’m bothered that it will be seen as Randi-bashing, which is absolutely not my intention. And I don’t want to give ammunition to people who condemn his errors without showing any appreciation of his dedicated work. My point is simply that it would be beneficial to have his commentaries checked for errors, if practicable.

Let me say again that I am most certainly not accusing Randi of dishonesty. I think that he’s often careless in his fact checking, and has a tendency to accept and repeat a claim on insufficient evidence when:
1) He doesn’t think it’s important, or
2) It fits his views.

We all do this, but:
1) As critical thinkers, we should be aware of what we’re doing, and try not to.
2) It bothers me a lot when Randi does it, because he is one of the most prominent representatives of critical thinking, and it reflects badly on the whole movement.
3) We should be more understanding when people we don’t agree with do the same.I reserve my opinion about whether the errors are occasional or frequent also about whether they are serious or trivial, but I appreciate the above considered and well-meaning preamble. Your heart is obviously in the right place.

I think most are too overcome by the length of your "list" to reply, so perhaps we should consider it one at a time.

BJ

[Lucky]

From BillyJoe:
Your heart is obviously in the right place.And so is my brain. I apply critical thinking to this issue, the same as any other (cf. CF).

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Lucky

Randi:

Any condition in which the heart stops can be considered "death," but since many persons have been "brought back" by means such as a defibrillator — where the heart is literally shocked back into a beating mode by electrodes applied to the body

Lucky:

Defibrillation is not used when the heart has stopped – a popular misconception that Randi reinforces here. Possibly just careless writing, but definitely incorrect (or at least misleading) to connect defibrillation with the heart stopping.

This is a trivial error, in my opinion. The error is in using the imprecise word stopped. Even you used the word stoppedin your reply without explaining what you meant by it.

What do you mean when you say "the heart stopped"?
Do you mean....

(1) The electrical activity of the heart stopped altogether.
(2) The normal electrical activity of the heart stopped being overridden by abnormal electrical activity?
(3) The heart stopped pumping out sufficient blood to keep the body alive?

(1) is called "asystole" and does not respond to defibrillation.
(2) is called "fibrillation" and can respond to defibrillation.
(3) can be caused by either and can respond to defibrillation if it is caused by "fibrillation".

I don't know if Randi knew that defibrillation only works if the heart is fibrillating (although it sounds trivially true putting it like that), but he was not "wrong", he just needed to explain what he meant by stopped. Just like you needed to.


regards,
BJ

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Lucky
And so is my brain. I apply critical thinking to this issue, the same as any other (cf. CF). I wasn't implying otherwise, sorry if that was the impression I gave.

[Metullus]

About 75% of red cats are always male....

Does this mean that 25% of red cats are only male sometimes?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Metullus
About 75% of red cats are always male....

Does this mean that 25% of red cats are only male sometimes? :)

We must really have it in for Randi, mustn't we?
Here is Rolfe starting a thread called "About 75% of red cats are always male....", which is intended as a criticism of Randi's error proness, and it takes two pages for someone to even notice she has made a mistake in the actual title!

Not picking on Rolfe, though.
I've even made an error myself - but, if anyone picks me up for it, I'm going to claim equal celebrity with Randi. :)

BillyJoe

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
We must really have it in for Randi, mustn't we?
Here is Rolfe starting a thread called "About 75% of red cats are always male....", which is intended as a criticism of Randi's error proness, and it takes two pages for someone to even notice she has made a mistake in the actual title!It was meant to be a joke, mousie!

Some people are really slow....

Rolfe.

[BillyJoe]

Ouch!!!......does your vet not clip your claws? :mad:

Yes, of course.....About 75% of "Red cat's are always male".



AND I AM NOW CLAIMING EQUAL CELEBRITY WITH RANDI! :D



BillyJoe

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Still waiting for the following posters to respond...

Well, gee, some of us have lives away from talking about Randi.


Peter Morris

1) Is Susan Blackmore editor of the "Skeptical Inquirer"?
2) About which book by Randi did Susan Blackmore say "contains too many errors to be recommended"?

1) She is, apparently, a consulting editor. Someone above seems to think that it different from being an editor. Perhaps someone who knows more about the publishing industry would care to explain the distinction? She is, at least, part of the editorial staff, an editor rather than the editor, perhaps.

2) I believe it was this one (http://jref.sawco.com/FMPro?-db=ency.fm&-format=list.htm&-findall=f)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

...snip...

2) I believe it was this one (http://jref.sawco.com/FMPro?-db=ency.fm&-format=list.htm&-findall=f)

Any supporting evidence for your belief?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, gee, some of us have lives away from talking about Randi. Oh, Peter, you sound like I 've been hounding you to death and here I've been patiently and silently waiting for over two weeks.

:con2:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
1) She is, apparently, a consulting editor. Someone above seems to think that it different from being an editor. Perhaps someone who knows more about the publishing industry would care to explain the distinction? She is, at least, part of the editorial staff, an editor rather than the editor, perhaps.You said she is editor of "Skeptical Inquirer". What does that mean to the average person - that SHE IS EDITOR OF "SKEPTICAL INQUIRER"!
No, she is NOT.
Now you say that she is "at least part of the editorial staff". Hey you are still wrong. She is a CONSULTING editor and, as such, she is NOT part of the editorial STAFF.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
2) I believe it was this one (http://jref.sawco.com/FMPro?-db=ency.fm&-format=list.htm&-findall=f) You wouldn't perhaps have a link to her comments about this book?
I have googled in vain.

BillyJoe