Gee, golly, whiz! Randi admits his mistakes!

[CFLarsen]

Time to eat crow. (http://randi.org/jr/031805x.html#5) Yes, you know who you are...

Aw, man! Doesn't that just suck?

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Time to eat crow. (http://randi.org/jr/031805x.html#5) Yes, you know who you are...

Aw, man! Doesn't that just suck?

Now if only his disciples would follow his example.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Time to eat crow. (http://randi.org/jr/031805x.html#5) Yes, you know who you are...

Aw, man! Doesn't that just suck?

Claus,

1) Do you admit that Randi's letter (you know which one) is real?

2) Do you admit that you cannot make an inference to a population from a convenience sample as you did?

3) Do you admit that you were mistaken when you talked about Girl6's reasons for starting SC?

4) Do you believe that Randi would have corrected his errors if many of us had not written in?

[JimTheBrit]

Originally posted by jzs
Claus4) Do you believe that Randi would have corrected his errors if many of us had not written in? I'm confused about this one. Has it been claimed that Randi fails to acknowledge his mistakes unless there is a substantial reader response pointing them out?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by JimTheBrit
I'm confused about this one. Has it been claimed that Randi fails to acknowledge his mistakes unless there is a substantial reader response pointing them out?

My point was that Randi pointing out his errors isn't too surprising if tons of people write them in.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by jzs
My point was that Randi pointing out his errors isn't too surprising if tons of people write them in.

In fairness, any answer Claus would give here would be pure speculation, unless, of course, he has claimed to have spoken to Randi on this issue.

I wouldn't mind seeing his answers to the first three questions though.

[thatguywhojuggles]

http://www.randi.org/jr/082004nonsense.html#5
"I will have to look back and discover where I obtained that faulty information about your mom, and I certainly will hasten to make appropriate apologies and changes...."

http://www.randi.org/jr/102904swing.html#7
"Reader Richard Schultz corrects me, as several others did, on the cold fusion credits of last week..."

http://www.randi.org/jr/032604why.html#8
"The reason I gave last week for the error that created the false scientific... ...Several readers pointed this out to me. Thanks."

http://www.randi.org/jr/05-04-2001.html
"I hope Mr. Randi will do a correction on his inaccurate comments about Suzanne Somers' cance..."
"Right on, friend. I was unaware of this, and I'm happy to know that things are better than I reported."

http://www.randi.org/jr/04-20-2001.html
"Correction from last week: My apologies to New Zealanders -- known as "Kiwis," not "Oz- landers." And Otago is a state, not a city....."

http://www.randi.org/jr/02-02-2001.html
"Early viewers last week saw that I compared Brian Josephson to "Judge Carter," and that should have been "Judge Crater." Our harried webmaster Jeff made the correction."

http://www.randi.org/jr/092002.html
"I've been sent a correction of some exchanges I quoted here two weeks ago. I got the attributions and the division wrong."

http://www.randi.org/jr/071202.html
"I'm scolded for errors in "angelology".....A little late, I referred to my Encyclopaedia Britannica..."

http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html
"John, just because I read something on a box, doesn't mean that I'll believe it. However, I think you're right, and I thank you for the correction."

http://www.randi.org/jr/071902.html
"Had I been more careful in examining my meager knowledge of astrophysics when making my comments on Lindell Lucy's speech recently, I'd not have erred in accepting that it would be a Red Giant, rather than a Supernova that is going to destroy life on this planet (don't panic, it's not imminent!) And I'd not have to publish this correction..."

http://www.randi.org/jr/022004demons.html
"That unfortunate use of an invalid e-mail address was remedied, and we sincerely apologize to Mr. French and his colleagues at the Center for this inadvertent error."

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by jzs
4) Do you believe that Randi would have corrected his errors if many of us had not written in? :D

I guess if we don't tell him about them he won't know about them will he.

BJ

[to.by]

And it is one thing that I have noticed about mistakes. When it is pointed out that you have made them you tend to remember.

[BillyJoe]

Yeah but, you keep on making new ones.

[Beady]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Yeah but, you keep on making new ones.

Well, that's somewhat better than continuing to make the same ones.

[BillyJoe]

That is undeniably true, Beady. That is undeniably true.

And, if Randi ever starts making the same mistakes, let's hope the hand on his shoulder will be a understanding one.

Until then, LET'S GIVE HIM HELL. :D
(in a friendly sort of way. :) )

BJ

[Lucky]

CFLarsen: Who are the people here who claim that Randi conceals his errors? I truly don’t know who you mean. If you were including me you were utterly mistaken, as I trust you will have the honesty to admit. In fact, I take it for granted that Randi tries to correct his errors when they’re brought to his attention, as this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870816114) makes plain.

You seem to be referring to Rolfe’s ‘red cats’ thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53850&perpage=40&pagenumber=1), in which I stated that Randi makes mistakes ‘quite often’ (rather than ‘occasionally’, as other people were saying). I was asked to provide evidence for this statement. As that was a perfectly reasonable request (and the issue seemed important) I took it very seriously, and spent some considerable time gathering information from the ten commentaries from this year, researching some of the items and providing links.

Results (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870820609)

I thought it could be the basis for a useful discussion about the issue of Randi’s errors and whether they matter (I’m open to argument), and also hoped that people might have more information on the items I was unsure about (especially the Tony Blair claim).

However, I got no reaction at all other than this pointless one from you (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870823653), which makes me wonder whether anyone but me ever had any interest in examining the evidence and discussing the issue with an open mind. Perhaps I was not expected to respond.

Tell me, CFLarsen, what on earth is your objection to my providing evidence when requested to do so?

As to Randi’s ‘Admission of Errors’ this week, he is still completely confused about his ‘Lost Cubit’ blunder. It was not a matter of a calculation error, but a misunderstanding of the pseudoscientific claim he was supposedly examining, as I explained:
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.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Time to eat crow. (http://randi.org/jr/031805x.html#5) Yes, you know who you are...

Aw, man! Doesn't that just suck? If that remark was directed at me, I consider it to be completely out of order. I certainly never imagined that Randi wouldn't correct his mistake when it was pointed out.

My concern wasn't that Randi was deliberately trying to perpetuate a falsehood, or that he would refuse to admit a mistake. It was simply that the original "red cats are always male" remark, offered as it was, indicated an absence of the sort of automatic critical thinking that I had assumed Randi would practise almost instinctively.

When I emailed Randi himself about it, and said I was just a little bit shocked to see him coming out with something like that without apparently applying any critical thinking to the statement, he replied very sweetly that I was "quite right to be shocked". Bless his heart!

But no, apparently Claus thinks it's out of order to point out a mistake when Randi is the one who has made it, and that those of us with the temerity to dare such a thing must "eat crow" when the mistake is corrected.

You know what? I'm beginning to realise what the term "pseudosceptic" means.

Rolfe (doting owner of a red tabby cat who is, as it happens, male).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rolfe
If that remark was directed at me, I consider it to be completely out of order.

It wasn't.

Next time, ask. ;)

[Lucky]

From CFLarsen:
Next time, ask.I have asked.
CFLarsen: Who are the people here who claim that Randi conceals his errors? I truly don’t know who you mean. If you were including me you were utterly mistaken, as I trust you will have the honesty to admit. In fact, I take it for granted that Randi tries to correct his errors when they’re brought to his attention, as this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870816114) makes plain. Strangely, you didn’t answer, so let me try again.

Who were you referring to? Name(s), please.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucky
Strangely, you didn’t answer, so let me try again.

Strangely, I am not at your beck and call.

Originally posted by Lucky
Who were you referring to? Name(s), please.

Strangely, I didn't say anything about concealing anything.

[HarryKeogh]

I applaud those who wrote to Randi and I thank Randi for acknowledging his error with humility

Humility is a great quality. The opening post in this thread is not an example of it.

[rppa]

Originally posted by jzs
My point was that Randi pointing out his errors isn't too surprising if tons of people write them in.

What do you think of the list of columns from Thatguywhojuggles, where Randi admits errors based on only a few e-mails, or even just one?

[alfaniner]

BTW, sometimes the errors are not all that noticeable. There was a column a few months ago where he mentioned Penn "Gillette" getting married, I think. I emailed him with the correction "Jillette" and he fixed it. No fuss, no muss, no big deal.

[Lucky]

I still don’t know who (if anyone) is supposed to have suggested that Randi is in any way remiss about correcting his errors. The fact that he’s ready to admit and correct his errors is one of the many things I admire and respect him for.

I haven’t given up the idea of having a constructive discussion about the mistakes in Randi’s commentaries and whether or not they are important enough that he should get the commentaries checked before posting them.

I posted this list (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870820609) in Rolfe’s thread, and BillyJoe said:I think most are too overcome by the length of your "list" to reply, so perhaps we should consider it one at a time.That seems a good idea. It seems more appropriate to have the discussion in this thread than the cats one, as it’s about the mistakes in general.

BJ’s post about the first item:This is a trivial error, in my opinion. The error is in using the imprecise word stopped. Even you used the word stopped in 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.For anyone who doesn’t know what BillyJoe and I are talking about, you can find many useful references by searching on cardiac arrest, asystole, fibrillation etc., e.g. this (http://www.medtronic-ers.com/documents/defib_booklet.pdf) and this (http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic44.htm).

Defibrillation is the delivery of electrical current to the heart muscle, either directly through the open chest, or indirectly through the chest wall, to terminate ventricular fibrillation (VF) and pulseless tacycardia (VT).
…
Electrical defibrillation should not be applied indiscriminately to the patient in asystole. This is not only fruitless, but also detrimental, eliminating any possibility of recovering a rhythm.Cardiac arrest is cessation of heartbeat. This includes ventricular fibrillation (VF) and cardiac standstill (flatline). There is a literally vital distinction between VF and flatline; treatment is completely different in each case. VF requires defibrillation; flatline requires cardiopulmonary resuscitation, external pacing and drugs.

Confusion is understandable, because you would think that cardiac arrest means the same as cardiac standstill, but it doesn’t (even more confusingly, asystole normally means flatline but is sometimes used as a synonym for cardiac arrest).

BillyJoe: I think we will have to agree to disagree, because to me the context makes it very plain that ‘stops’ means cardiac standstill: no-one would argue that a patient who’s fibrillating is dead (though they may be dying):Any condition in which the heart stops can be considered "death,"I’m not saying that this error was any more than a slip. I guess Randi does know the difference between cardiac standstill and fibrillation if he stops to think, but he didn’t stop to think. I included it because it would have been very easy to catch if he’d let any medic check this item.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Lucky
BillyJoe: I think we will have to agree to disagree, because to me the context makes it very plain that ‘stops’ means cardiac standstill: no-one would argue that a patient who’s fibrillating is dead (though they may be dying): The following is a full quote of what Randi said, and I have highlighted the more relevant part of the quote.

The Soviets use a term that translates as "reanimator," to define a doctor who studies the task of rescuing persons who have physically "died" either during medical procedures or as a result of an accident of some sort. 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 — the more correct definition of death includes the leveling of brain-wave patterns, as well.Only a few minutes in a "dead" state usually results in a substantial deterioration of brain function, so that anyone re-animated after that period, is often severely handicapped. The point that Randi is trying to make in this commentary is that death should not be defined in terms of heart "death" but in terms of brain death. People who are heart "dead" (note the "scare" quotes - which Randi uses in his commentary - which means not really dead) can, in certain circumstances, be resuscitated but this is not to say that they have been resurrected from the dead. He gives, as an example, the case of a heart "dead" (not really dead) person who is resuscuitated by means of a defibrillator. He makes the point that that person is not really dead because his brain is not dead.

Note that the example of a heart "dead" patient is not the actual point of his commentary, but an illustrative example of it. His point is that a person who is resuscitated was not really dead. We should not require him to go into an explanation of the medical details of "asystole" "ventricular fibrillation", "ventricular tachycardia", the diagnosis and treatment of these conditions, and the hazards of using a defibrillator on a patient in asystole.

Lucky, you say:
"no-one would argue that a patient who’s fibrillating is dead (though they may be dying)"
Similarly, a patient who is in asystole, is also not dead (though he may be dying). Both have no effective cardiac output and will die if nothing is done. Both can be resuscitated if the correct treatment is applied. The term "dead" (in "square" quotes) is equally applicable to both. This is, perhaps, not quite correct if it is easier to revert ventricular fibrillation compared to asystole, but you get my point.

BillyJoe

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Lucky
Commenting on some gobbledygook from the inventor of 'ECO-Aqualizer': 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

Let me address one of your concerns. Here are the original statements from the commentary in question.

Whether fresh or salt. H2O is H20. That's the basic science. Due to the polar nature of water, +'s and -'s bind up things. ECO-Aqualizer disrupts this binding as well as hydrogen bonding.

Randi's comment:

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....

Now, the writer Randi is criticising, clearly says the "ECO-Aqualizer" disrupts the +/- binding as well as hydrogen bonding. How can this reasonably be interpreted? It's obvious the author is not merely talking about hydrogen bonding and polar attraction between molecules (which is the same thing) - although that is probably what the author meant - he is specifically talking about the device disrupting "the binding" as well as the hydrogen bonding. Randi is perfectly correct to say that is equivalent to claiming that the system actually breaks down water molecules i.e. "disrupts the binding between hydrogen and oxygen".

The only possible issue here at all is that Randi probably made a typo when he said "hydrogen atoms" instead of "hydrogen bonds" - big deal.

The comment is not at all unfair or unreasonable in proper context (why did you omit the context?). In addition, did you look at the web site quoted? On that web site you will find the following claim:

This innovative breakthrough reduces the ionic bond of H2O molecules

As for the "universal solvent" thing, I read that as a lame joke on Randi's part. The writer doesn't say that water is the "universal solvent" as the term is normally used in the scientfic sense, but says that water is a universal solvent - which to me at least implies that it dissolves everything. If someone said that to me in the course of making some outrageous woo claim, I would probably pick up on that and make a similar joke.

Context is everything here, and apart from one small typo I don't think there is much of a case to say that Randi is in error.

[Pragmatist]

Now let me address another of your points.

Originally posted by Lucky
Same item: he twice refers to ‘Soviet’ scientists as though the Soviet Union still exists. And it’s not just an inconsequential slip:

The January 7 commentary makes a number of statements about "Soviets".

The first statement is:

The Soviets use a term that translates as "reanimator,"

Which is true. Let's get this clear - "reanimator" was a specific job title that originated in the Soviet era, and was a term originally sanctioned by the communist party. One can argue about the tense "use", as opposed to "used", but strictly speaking even that isn't totally incorrect - there are still Soviets in Russia, just as there are still Nazis in Germany. The difference is that neither of those political parties actually run the governments of those countries any more.

From: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Soviet

There are two main meanings to the word soviet:

* Soviet (council) can mean a council of workers, a term that was used from the late Imperial Russia days. After the October Revolution, soviets (councils) became the main form of government at all levels: enterprise, village, city, region, etc., and eventually up to the Supreme Soviet governing the whole USSR.

* Hence Soviet became also an adjective meaning of or pertaining to the Soviet Union or its constituent soviet republics and another noun, Soviet, means citizen of the Soviet Union.

The commentary then quotes a Dutch site which says:

Soviet reanimator Academician Negovsky explained the afterlife experience in his book "Clinical Death As Seen by the Reanimator:"

Note that the site that Randi is referencing refers to the person in question as "Soviet". It's not Randi saying it here, it's the article he's referring to. Now, since Randi obviously didn't criticize and then read the Soviet reference, it is clear that he is actually responding to a "Soviet" reference that someone else made first. And who was it that brought up the reference to "Soviets" in the first place? Why none other than Pravda, a major Russian newspaper (see: http://english.pravda.ru/printed.html?news_id=14745 ) writing on 12/21/2004. So if the Russians themselves refer to the scientist in question as "Soviet", then how exactly is Randi wrong to do so?

Randi then says:

Randi: 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. The account continues:

Which is true. Negovsky was a Soviet Academician. He was a leading member of the communist party and very much a "Soviet" scientist for nearly all of his career. (See my comments in this http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870747280#post1870747280 post). Randi merely points out here that a Soviet scientist was expected not to resort to religious explanations, and that Negovsky in general didn't do so. Which is relevant in the wider context of whether Negovsky is being properly represented by the woo site.

Randi concluded that the account is quite rational up to a certain point, but then suddenly deteriorates into blatant wooism. He is absolutely correct. The account as represented on the Dutch site has been doctored. I linked to the original article (from Pravda) above and in my earlier post. The Pravda account was perfectly rational, some woo's have modified it and made it sound as though it says something completely different. Randi is perfectly correct to comment on that. And that is precisely what he is doing, his commentary is entitled: "An account that gets lost in mysticism" - which is absolutely accurate.

Randi makes no explicit claims about "Soviets" except to note that Negovsky's original account was written from the viewpoint of a "Soviet" author - since Negovsky was referring to work over a great many years, most of which took place during the Soviet era, it is highly probable that Negovsky was strictly speaking as, "a Soviet scientist", at the time when he wrote the words quoted. It is also highly probable that the Soviet Union was still in existence at the time the original words were written. Since the book it was quoted from was a compilation of Negovsky's Soviet era work, it is highly probable that Negovsky was still a Soviet when he originally wrote what he did. Which is why Pravda also referred to Negovsky as "Soviet".

So where is the problem? There is no error on Randi's part.

In the following week's commentary Randi says (my emphasis):

I recently referred here to the Russians as, "Soviets." That term was taken directly from the news item I saw, and was obviously incorrect. There are no more Soviets....!

And there is the real problem. The error lies in the unnecessary apology! I see nothing wrong with what Randi originally said, the problem arises only after Randi has been pressured into "correcting" something that wasn't wrong in the first place.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Lucky
January 28

Repeats an accusation from a reader that Tony Blair has consulted a ‘spirit medium’ when making decisions. 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

And another one:

From: http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume118issue2_more.php?id=8_0_2_0_C (based on original report from "The Times", Saturday December 15, 2001)

It was long assumed that Tony Blair, who wears his Christianity on his sleeve, did not share his wife’s unorthodox enthusiasms. In 1999 he demanded the resignation of the England football coach Glenn Hoddle, who had told an interviewer that disabled people were paying off the bad karma they collected in previous incarnations. Blair thought this “offensive�, though it was not discernibly more offensive than the doctrine of original sin held by many of his fellow Christians. Besides, from a Buddhist viewpoint Hoddle was quite correct: no less a figure than the Dalai Lama confirmed as much, but added that “if you live in a Christian country, you should keep these views to yourself. It is difficult to have a mish-mash of religions�.

Not so, as Blair confirmed when he and his wife underwent a ‘rebirthing experience’ under the supervision of one Nancy Aguilar while holidaying on the Mexican Riviera in the summer of 2001. The prime ministerial mudbath was revealed by New Humanist contributor Tom Baldwin in a gobsmacking report for the Times:

“Ms Aguilar told the Blairs to bow and pray to the four winds as Mayan prayers were read out…Within the Temazcal, a type of Ancient Mayan steam bath, herb-infused water was thrown over heated lava rocks, to create a cleansing sweat and balance the Blairs’ ‘energy flow’.�
Ms Aguilar chanted Mayan songs, told the Blairs to imagine that they could see animals in the steam and explained what such visions meant. They were told the Temazcal was like the womb and those participating in the ritual must confront their hopes and fears before ‘rebirth’ and venturing outside. The Blairs were offered watermelon and papaya, then told to smear what they did not eat over each other’s bodies along with mud from the Mayan jungle outside.
The prime minister, on holiday just a month before the 11 September attacks, is understood to have made a wish for world peace.

Before leaving, the Blairs were told to scream out loud to signify the pain of rebirth. They then walked hand in hand down the beach to swim in the sea.

and:

He had his chance to allay their fears in the House of Commons on 13 March last year, when Jenny Tonge MP asked if the prime minister was “happy to allow the teaching of creationism alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in state schools.� A simple ‘no’ was surely the only possible answer; but it was not the answer he gave. Blair told Jenny Tonge that the creationists at Emmanuel College were doing a splendid job. “In the end,� he said, “a more diverse school system will deliver better results for our children.�

A few Labour backbenchers gawped in amazement as the significance of his remark sank in. Here was the leader of a supposedly secular, progressive government who, on being invited to assert that probable truth is preferable to palpable falsehood, pointedly refused to seize the opportunity — and indeed justified the teaching of bad science in the name of ‘diversity’. He might just as well have trotted out the pernicious old maxim that ignorance is bliss, the last refuge of tyrants ever since God banished Adam and Eve from Eden for sampling the fruit of knowledge or the classical deities unleashed misery on the world through Pandora’s box in revenge for Prometheus’s heroic disobedience.

[Pragmatist]

Official transcript from Hansard (House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 March 2002 (pt 3)

Q5. [40149] Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): Is the Prime Minister happy—[Hon. Members: "Yes."] Is the Prime Minister happy to allow the teaching of creationism alongside Darwin's theory of evolution in state schools?

The Prime Minister: First, I am very happy. Secondly, I know that the hon. Lady is referring to a school in the north-east, and I think that certain reports about what it has been teaching are somewhat exaggerated. It would be very unfortunate if concerns about that issue were seen to remove the very strong incentive to ensure that we get as diverse a school system as we properly can. In the end, a more diverse school system will deliver better results for our children. If she looks at the school's results, I think she will find that they are very good.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
hydrogen bonding and polar attraction between molecules (which is the same thing)
The quote doesn't mention molecules, but "things", so there seems no reason to restrict the discussion to molecules. Ions are also obviously dissolved in water (e.g. salt). The polar interaction between an ion and a water molecule (an ion-dipole interaction) is not classified as a hydrogen bond. Not all polar interactions of water and "things" are covered by hydrogen bonding.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by JamesM
The quote doesn't mention molecules, but "things", so there seems no reason to restrict the discussion to molecules. Ions are also obviously dissolved in water (e.g. salt). The polar interaction between an ion and a water molecule (an ion-dipole interaction) is not classified as a hydrogen bond. Not all polar interactions of water and "things" are covered by hydrogen bonding.

Thanks for pointing that out - I did miss the "things" reference and didn't think of ion-dipole interactions. However, since the claim was that "+'s and -'s bind up things" and that the device claims to "disrupt this binding", the author is surely implying dissociation as well, or do you think not?

I've already said above that I am fairly sure that is not what the guy meant, but that is what he said, and as such if he is misinterpreted then surely the major part of the responsibility lies with him. I don't think it would be reasonable to imply that Randi wilfully misinterpreted it, particularly given similar statements on the web site in question.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Thanks for pointing that out - I did miss the "things" reference and didn't think of ion-dipole interactions. However, since the claim was that "+'s and -'s bind up things" and that the device claims to "disrupt this binding", the author is surely implying dissociation as well, or do you think not?
I agree. I just think one could interpret it as:
Due to the polar nature of water, +'s and -'s bind up things. ECO-Aqualizer disrupts this binding [ion-dipole interactions] as well as hydrogen bonding.
and then there wouldn't be a claim to disrupt covalent bonding.

When I read that excerpt in the commentary, I interpreted it the way Lucky did, and thought that Randi had got the wrong end of the stick. Your argument has made me reconsider that, as it was based on my chemical sense of the statement rather than an exact parsing. It does seem a bit of a stretch to suggest the author is making a distinction between hydrogen bonding and ion-dipole interactions. I just don't know whether the interpretation of the author is talking about covalent bonding and hydrogen bonding is any better.

Perhaps any interpretation of this gobbledegook is unwise. To be fair to Lucky, as we're all agreed on what the guy really meant, this gives weight to her suggestion about fact checking: any scientist with an interest in solvation phenomena would have been able to "translate" the text correctly for Randi. I don't know whether it would be really worth it, though.

[BillyJoe]

I thought we were going to tackle this one point at a time - meaning exhaust the discussion about his first "error" before moving onto the next.
Otherwise we might cause a shortcircuit in Lucky's overloaded brain. :D

BJ

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by JamesM
I agree. I just think one could interpret it as:

and then there wouldn't be a claim to disrupt covalent bonding.

When I read that excerpt in the commentary, I interpreted it the way Lucky did, and thought that Randi had got the wrong end of the stick. Your argument has made me reconsider that, as it was based on my chemical sense of the statement rather than an exact parsing. It does seem a bit of a stretch to suggest the author is making a distinction between hydrogen bonding and ion-dipole interactions. I just don't know whether the interpretation of the author is talking about covalent bonding and hydrogen bonding is any better.

Perhaps any interpretation of this gobbledegook is unwise. To be fair to Lucky, as we're all agreed on what the guy really meant, this gives weight to her suggestion about fact checking: any scientist with an interest in solvation phenomena would have been able to "translate" the text correctly for Randi. I don't know whether it would be really worth it, though.

I'd agree with you but for one thing - we're not necessarily all agreed on what the guy meant. I don't believe that he meant the water literally dissociates into hydrogen and oxygen gas (although even that is arguable since he claims on his web site that the "electromagnetically" treated water has more oxygen in it...) - but that doesn't mean that I know what he did mean - if you see what I mean! :)

I'd go with the general idea that it's gobbledegook, and as such it's legitimate to question it. And as I said before, if Randi got the wrong end of the stick as a result of gobbledegook, then I don't really blame Randi, the blame, if any, lies with the gobbledegooker so to speak! I don't really think that any scientist with an interest in solvation phenomena, would have been able to "translate" it correctly for Randi - I can't make out what the claimant is actually saying on his web site. The device claims to "ionize water", it claims to use "space age NASA far infra red" (or something similar, I forget the exact words). It claims to reduce bonding between hydrogen and oxygen - in short, the whole thing is so darned vague, I don't think anyone can really make sense of it. Therefore it's fair game IMO.

Randi's commentary is not meant to be a scientific paper or a scholarly journal. It's only a personal opinion piece by a layperson. Randi doesn't claim any special qualification (apart from his experience in spotting trickery) and his commentary is only designed to be what it claims to be - a commentary on the ridiculous and society in general. Sometimes the only thing appropriate to do with the ridiculous is to ridicule it!

I agree that it's only fair that if he makes an error, it should be pointed out to him - like the red cat thing. But at the same time there are a lot of gray areas in some of the things that people consider errors, to the extent that it is arguable whether they are errors or not. In those cases I would tend to give Randi the benefit of the doubt. I don't see any benefit in being overly picky about it. I would say to anyone, by all means say that you don't agree with Randi's assessment, but unless it's something clear cut, don't claim it is an error and demand an apology. Randi is the "good-guy" in most of these cases, the people he is criticizing are usually scammers, if anyone deserves criticism, it's them. Which is not to say that because someone does something bad, we should ignore errors by the "good-guys" - far from it, but it seems to me that sometimes the criticism of some incredibly minor irregularity on the part of Randi receives much more comment and disdain than the people who are actively conning and hurting people. It just seems to me that's not fair. Just because Randi endorses critical thinking, doesn't entitle anyone to assume or demand that he be a perfect critical thinker either - I would say that nobody is - and in any event there doesn't seem to be a universal unique definition of exactly what is "critical thinking" anyway.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I thought we were going to tackle this one point at a time - meaning exhaust the discussion about his first "error" before moving onto the next.
Otherwise we might cause a shortcircuit in Lucky's overloaded brain. :D

BJ

Ah! There speaks the voice of naive youth! :D

A discussion on here is usually only exhausted in about 20 pages and usually following some major derail due to a micturition contest between two or more posters! It'd take a few years to get through the points that way.

Besides, I didn't agree to it, so the contract isn't binding on me! :p

Seriously though, there's no hurry. I'm only making some points, anyone is free to address them (or not) at their leisure.

Edited to correct one word in error.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Lucky
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

To address another issue:

I don't believe that Randi accessed the site you mention. He specifically mentions the Berg web site. But the Berg website now doesn't contain detailed information on their products - maybe as a result of the adverse media attention, not only from Randi. Now you just have to buy their book. The quote may be on there somewhere but there's a lot buried on there in various places and frankly I don't want to have to read any more of that crap than I have to!

The reference to the "Lost Cubit" however first appears in the March 4th commentary. In that commentary Randi refers to the link below, and I have captured a part of the text from that page. (I also deserve a medal for the suffering I am put through whilst researching this! :D)

From: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5557833990&ssPageName=ADME:B:EF:US:1

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. It therefore relates to Earth natural harmonics in a special way. We believe that this discovery of Hans Becker, The "Lost Cubit", is that long lost information that will, as research progresses, yield the secret keys to extraordinary health and extreme longevity.

This highly secret information was always strongly guarded by the priesthood of Egypt and was reserved only for high initiates and Phaoroh himself. Today this secret information is incorporated by Life Technology Research International into the design of The Psionic Kabbalah Manifesting Capsuleâ„¢

The quote is exactly as Randi used it. It doesn't refer to the "Lost Cubit ring". It's perfectly clear that there are several different forms of this advert on the web on different sites. Some refer to a "lost cubit ring" (another piece of tripe to sell) whilst others simply refer to "lost cubit" as a measurement - and even the "ring" site refers to it as a measurement elsewhere. It is most definitely a claim about the measurement of a cubit (although this a special secret cubit!) a regular cubit may be 20.6 inches, but a "lost cubit" is...well, you know the rest!

I don't blame anyone for any confusion here, especially Randi - reading this stuff causes brain haemorrhages!

I don't consider the units issue to be particularly significant, he even asks what the units are in the commentary (as if one could take this junk seriously anyway) - but he did make a mistake by being out by a factor of 10 in the calculation. Of course this wasn't actually a mistake either - Randi was simply trying to preserve the secret esoteric knowledge of the "Lost Cubit" - after all, it wouldn't be "lost" any more if he revealed it, would it? :D (That last bit is a joke BTW!).

So again, he misplaced a decimal point, what's the big deal?

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
it seems to me that sometimes the criticism of some incredibly minor irregularity on the part of Randi receives much more comment and disdain than the people who are actively conning and hurting people. It just seems to me that's not fair.

For the most part, I agree with you and the points you've made. What I would say is that perceiving disdain on the part of other posters can be an inexact science, and where you see a desire for unrealistic perfection in Randi, others might just see a bit of healthy skepticism. I would make the following points:

1. If you compare the traffic in this subforum and that of the General Skepticism & Paranormal subforum (admittedly a very rough approximation), I would say that we are upholding our end of the bargain in criticising the scammers and conmen.

2. We're all pretty much agreed that scammers and conmen are bad, so you could probably add 10s-100s of silent "me too"s to any criticism of the "bad guys".

3. It's easy to turn a blind eye to mistakes made by people whose prejudices agree with ours. It might not be fair, but I think it's good practice to be even stricter with people on our side.

4. The scammers and fraudsters don't endorse critical thinking, while Randi is probably the big name skeptic, so his lapses have more significance.

5. Skepticism gets applied to pretty much everything on this forum. It would be a surprise if Randi's commentaries didn't get put under the microscope. And it certainly wouldn't be a good thing.

6. If nothing else, it's good practice.

[rppa]

Originally posted by JamesM
We're all pretty much agreed that scammers and conmen are bad, so you could probably add 10s-100s of silent "me too"s to any criticism of the "bad guys".

Not all:
Originally posted by jambo372
If frauds want to con people you don't even know out of large sums of cash that's none of your business.

Originally posted by jambo372
'd have a cheek to talk if I ever cliped on a con artist for making a few bob. I assume you haven't read of my previous endeavors.

But back to your post:
Originally posted by JamesM
The scammers and fraudsters don't endorse critical thinking, while Randi is probably the big name skeptic, so his lapses have more significance.

Lapses in critical thinking on Randi's part would have significance. He freely professes to not being educated in science and math and making errors in those subjects, and accepts corrections readily when they are offered, even if only by one person.

The claim expressed in this thread that Randi rarely admits an error, and then only if there are huge volumes of e-mail, is simply wishful thinking.

Originally posted by JamesM
Skepticism gets applied to pretty much everything on this forum. It would be a surprise if Randi's commentaries didn't get put under the microscope. And it certainly wouldn't be a good thing.

I'm hoping you meant it wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Lucky]

From BillyJoe:
I thought we were going to tackle this one point at a time - meaning exhaust the discussion about his first "error" before moving onto the next.
Otherwise we might cause a shortcircuit in Lucky's overloaded brain. :DThanks for your concern :), but the problem at the moment is that my brain is overloaded by having to spend almost every waking moment on an impossible work deadline. For this reason, I would have preferred to discuss the items one at a time, but I certainly don’t want to abandon the discussion.

About Error 1 (the heart stopping and defibrillation), there’s little disagreement about the facts, so it would seem rather nitpicky for me to continue arguing (much…). I said:Possibly just careless writing, but definitely incorrect (or at least misleading) to connect defibrillation with the heart stopping.You think that that it was misleading (or confusing) due to careless wording, but strictly correct. I think it was an error due to careless thinking, and strictly incorrect. As you say, whether or not it’s an actual error depends on how ‘stops’ is interpreted. Does it mean stops beating or stops all activity? I say that, in the context of resuscitation and ecg (defibrillation is always preceded by ecg), stops all activity is the natural interpretation, but I don’t think the issue is important.

Obviously I understand that Randi was very sensibly trying to point out the difference between heart stopping and irreversible brain death, but the unfortunate wording helps to perpetuate a very common confusion between fibrillation (which requires defibrillation) and flatline (which doesn’t respond to it). That’s the only reason the misleading/incorrect wording matters, and my point is that Randi would surely have reworded it if the potential for confusion had been pointed out to him in time.


Pragmatist: You are completely mistaken about my motives in this discussion (though I don’t really see how that is possible given that I’ve stated them very clearly in this thread and the related one). I mean exactly what I say: I think it would be beneficial if Randi had his commentaries checked by knowledgeable people in the relevant areas before posting. I don’t know how practicable that would be, but I was hoping that would be something we could discuss here.

It is a pity that you had to take the position of defend Randi in all circumstances; anyone who criticises a syllable of his utterances is an enemy. I do not demand an apology, express disdain or demand that he be a perfect critical thinker. As I said in this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870797214):I certainly can’t agree that he should be asked to apologise. He devotes his life to a task that, after all, most of us perform in a part-time way or not at all, and he’s entitled to make mistakes.I would prefer a constructive discussion about the problem of Randi’s lack of expertise in science, and what could be done. I’m also open to the argument that it’s not a serious enough problem that we need do anything about it (though I probably won’t change my mind).

I want to answer you in full, but don’t have time to respond to all your posts at once. I disagree with all of your points (apart from two pieces of information that were new to me, I had already considered what you have to say).

For now: You have got yourself into some strange contortions in attempting to justify Randi’s references to the ‘Soviets’. You say:it is highly probable that Negovsky was strictly speaking as, "a Soviet scientist", at the time when he wrote the words quoted. It is also highly probable that the Soviet Union was still in existence at the time the original words were written. Since the book it was quoted from was a compilation of Negovsky's Soviet era work, it is highly probable that Negovsky was still a Soviet when he originally wrote what he did. Which is why Pravda also referred to Negovsky as "Soviet"Exactly so! (Since Negovsky was born in 1909 (http://www.erc.edu/index.php/newsItem/en/nid=136/) I think we can replace ‘highly probable’ with ‘certain’.) The article was therefore making a perfectly proper use of the term ‘Soviet’ in referring to Negovsky; it labels his nationality, and is more correct than referring to him as ‘Russian’. The article refers to ‘Russian reanimator Nikolay Gubin’ and ‘Academician with the Russian Academy of Sciences Natalya Bekhtereva’ and their views in the present tense; they are evidently currently working in the field.

There is no way that it is correct to refer to ‘The Soviets’ and ‘Soviet authors’ in the (true) present tense, as these entities no longer exist. It’s that simple. (Yes, I do know the political meaning of the term ‘Soviet’, but its only relevance here is its inclusion in the former country’s title ‘USSR’, and consequently its use as a label for the former USSR and its inhabitants.) I don’t know precisely how Randi came to make the error (obviously, the term ‘Soviet’ was in his mind as he was writing), and I don’t particularly care (I would say this is the most trivial item in my list).The account as represented on the Dutch site has been doctored. I linked to the original article (from Pravda) above and in my earlier post. The Pravda account was perfectly rational, some woo's have modified it and made it sound as though it says something completely different. Randi is perfectly correct to comment on that.I was about to take your word for this until it occurred to me to exercise my critical thinking skills and check. And you are quite, quite wrong! There is no doctoring; Randi’s ‘woo’ quotes appear in the Pravda original. (I would also point out that Randi made no such claim about doctoring, though you wrongly attribute this error to him!)

A little more seriously: I now think that Randi was wrong (as were you) in interpreting this article as promoting mysticism. When you consider that it’s a newspaper article it becomes clear that it’s based on hard science but is the typical inept, ‘don’t care’ fare (with no particular agenda) that we expect from science journalism.

Anyway, Randi made a minor careless error. It was pointed out, and he corrected it the following week. As others have said: No big deal (he’s always willing to do this). Don’t you think it’s a wee bit patronising to suggest that the poor, feeble old thing retracted because he was ‘pressured’? He doesn’t need you to defend him because no-one’s attacking him.

I hope to have time to respond to your other points over the holiday.

[BillyJoe]

Lucky,

Originally posted by Lucky
I think it was an error due to careless thinking, and strictly incorrect.I don't want to labour this but.....

Are these the words (highlighted) that you think are strictly incorrect:

.....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..... If so, then I think you are incorrect.

In asystole there is no electrical activity and in fibrillation there is (abnormal electrical activity). But in both aystole and fibrillation, there is no heart beat. So defibrillation DOES shock the heart back into "beating mode". There is no error. Randi is incomplete in not adding that you must always do an ECG before performing defibrillation and then defibrillate only if the ECG showed fibrillation. But since he was not giving us a lesson in resuscitation (as you acknowledge), there is really no reason for him to do so. Whether he was aware of this fact is, of course, another question.

Hmmm.....are you happy with my use of the word "fibrillation"? :)
Or am I going to be reprimanded by not specifying that I mean "ventricular fibrillation". :(

BillyJoe.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Lucky
Pragmatist: You are completely mistaken about my motives in this discussion (though I don’t really see how that is possible given that I’ve stated them very clearly in this thread and the related one). I mean exactly what I say: I think it would be beneficial if Randi had his commentaries checked by knowledgeable people in the relevant areas before posting. I don’t know how practicable that would be, but I was hoping that would be something we could discuss here.

It is a pity that you had to take the position of defend Randi in all circumstances; anyone who criticises a syllable of his utterances is an enemy. I do not demand an apology, express disdain or demand that he be a perfect critical thinker. As I said in this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870797214):I would prefer a constructive discussion about the problem of Randi’s lack of expertise in science, and what could be done. I’m also open to the argument that it’s not a serious enough problem that we need do anything about it (though I probably won’t change my mind).

Lucky, forgive me for saying so, but it is my opinion that you have a "chip on your shoulder". My immediate reaction to reading what you have written here was:

Huh???

(Large letters to emphasize the degree of "huh?" involved!).

Let me point out a few facts if I may.

1. I have said not one word about your motives.
2. Up until this point I haven't had the slightest reason to doubt what you claim your motives to be.
3. It is utterly and totally unreasonable for you to accuse me of taking the position of "defending Randi in all circumstances".
4. It is furthermore even more unreasonable for you to accuse me of holding the position that "anyone who criticises a syllable of his utterances is an enemy".
5. I have never stated that you have "demanded an apology".
6. I have never stated that you have expressed disdain toward Randi.
7. I have never stated that you have demanded that he be a perfect critical thinker.

I don't know where you get the impression that any generic comment I make about criticism of Randi in general has specifically to apply to you. I have done absolutely nothing to justify the claim that I have taken a position to "defend Randi in all circumstances", or to justify the claim that I treat anyone who criticises Randi as an "enemy". And unless you have some evidence to support these claims I suggest you reconsider them, and request that you conduct yourself in a more civil fashion. This is not some heated argument where one might believe that I was being overly emotional about the issue and as such, one might reasonably misinterpret my intentions. I believe therefore that you are being overly emotional and projecting your emotional state on to me. Please think about that.

Furthermore I point you to the direct evidence that I have done neither of the things you accuse me of, in my reply to JamesM above I said, at the beginning of the last paragraph:

I agree that it's only fair that if he makes an error, it should be pointed out to him

and:

I would say to anyone, by all means say that you don't agree with Randi's assessment, but unless it's something clear cut, don't claim it is an error and demand an apology.

Now, whilst you are clearly a member of the class "anyone", I see no reasonable way in which "anyone" can be taken to mean exclusively "Lucky", or that every member of the class "anyone" has to have done what I ask "anyone" in general not to do. It is perfectly obvious from context that my comments were general and not aimed specifically at you, or indeed at any one person in particular. Nor was that message addessed to you, it was addressed to JamesM - who clearly understood the context and took it in the spirit in which it was intended.

Further evidence:

In this post: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870815745#post1870815745

You accused Darat of suggesting that you were opposed to Randi, his mission and his activities. Nothing Darat said implied anything of the sort. Given your comments to me of a similar nature it appears to me, based on what I have seen, that you have a preconceived notion that anyone who disagrees with you has to be taking a position that you are opposed to Randi. That is not a reasonable stance for you to take IMO, if indeed it is your stance. For the record, I didn't agree with Darat's original assessment that you had accused Randi of lying.

You also said in that same post:

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.

But it appears that your deeply-held principles don't preclude you from falsely accusing people of other things...

And in relation to "generic" comments as opposed to specific, personal ones, when you directly mentioned something to Darat that you wouldn't accept a particular argument, and Darat asked you where he had ever made such an argument, you replied:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870817791#post1870817791

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).

So it appears that if I make a generic comment to someone, which was not even in a post addressed to you, I have to be talking specifically about you. But when you make a direct and specific comment to someone in a message to them that you will not accept an argument, it is to be interpreted as a general comment and not in relation to the person you are addressing...

Rrright!

Now, leaving the false accusations aside, if you want to discuss the issues rationally I would be happy to oblige. O.K.? By the way, I think, as a general principle, that your statement above that you are open to a specific argument but probably won't change your mind, is not one that I would expect from anyone claiming to be a skeptic or critical thinker.

Originally posted by Lucky
Exactly so! (Since Negovsky was born in 1909 (http://www.erc.edu/index.php/newsItem/en/nid=136/) I think we can replace ‘highly probable’ with ‘certain’.) The article was therefore making a perfectly proper use of the term ‘Soviet’ in referring to Negovsky; it labels his nationality, and is more correct than referring to him as ‘Russian’. The article refers to ‘Russian reanimator Nikolay Gubin’ and ‘Academician with the Russian Academy of Sciences Natalya Bekhtereva’ and their views in the present tense; they are evidently currently working in the field.

There is no way that it is correct to refer to ‘The Soviets’ and ‘Soviet authors’ in the (true) present tense, as these entities no longer exist. It’s that simple. (Yes, I do know the political meaning of the term ‘Soviet’, but its only relevance here is its inclusion in the former country’s title ‘USSR’, and consequently its use as a label for the former USSR and its inhabitants.) I don’t know precisely how Randi came to make the error (obviously, the term ‘Soviet’ was in his mind as he was writing), and I don’t particularly care (I would say this is the most trivial item in my list).I was about to take your word for this until it occurred to me to exercise my critical thinking skills and check. And you are quite, quite wrong! There is no doctoring; Randi’s ‘woo’ quotes appear in the Pravda original. (I would also point out that Randi made no such claim about doctoring, though you wrongly attribute this error to him!)

I don't accept your argument - maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. Firstly, with regard to the "doctoring". I linked directly to an earlier post of mine where I explained the matter in more detail. In my reply to you I generalised - assuming that you would follow that link and understand my earlier, more comprehensive argument. The specific argument is that the article on the Dutch site was not a true and complete rendering of the original Pravda article that it was lifted from. The ending, which made an enormous difference to the whole context and complexion of the article, was omitted from the Dutch site. That is what I mean by "doctored". As a result of that, what was originally a rational and balanced article was ostensibly transformed into an "account which became lost in mysticism". Therefore, whilst you may not like my use of the word "doctored", you have no basis to say that I am "quite, quite wrong". My original argument, the one I explicitly linked to, was quite clear and explicit. So I can't see how you came to misunderstand what I was actually saying.

Randi's first comment about "Soviet" authors was perfectly valid in the context in which he used it. In fact, it would have been quite erroneous to have not used it, because the whole point was that religious speculation was frowned on in the Soviet ideology - the fact that corresponded to a past political situation is not directly relevent to the point at hand. It makes no difference whether Soviet political power still exists or not. To put it in context, it would be rather ridiculous to say for example that it would be wrong to refer to Hitler as a "Nazi author", or to say, "Nazis are expected to believe x". You could not legitimately substitute "Russian" for "Soviet" in the context of the Soviet ideology any more than you could substitute "German" for Nazi in the context of Nazi ideology. Quibbling about the tense "are" as opposed to "were" is a very weak argument IMO. Those ideologies still exist. The political power they had in the past is gone. There is a big difference.

Let me take one of Randi's statements: "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."

That statement would be absolutely and totally wrong if it was rendered as: "While reading this, bear in mind that Russian authors are expected to provide views of reality that do not allow for religious beliefs such as survival-after-death."

The latter is not true at all in any sense.

Another statement, "The Soviets use a term that translates as "reanimator," may well remain true if one were to substitute "Russian" for Soviet. That comment prefaced a general introduction to an article about the "Soviet" use of the term "reanimator". It would have been rather strange to change between "Russian" and "Soviet" when the commentary was specifically referring to a job title used in the Soviet Union (regardless of whether or not it is still used), in the context of work done in the Soviet Union, and, in particular, when "Soviet" referred to a whole group of countries that are separate today. We assume that Negovsky was Russian. What if he was Chechen? Or from one of the other now separate states that formerly comprised, "The Soviet Union"? I doubt if Randi intensively researched Negovsky's personal history.

The other reference to Soviets came directly from the Pravda article.

I not only maintain that Randi was correct in using the term "Soviet" as he did originally, but further that he would have been wrong not to have used the term "Soviet", or to have substituted the term "Russian" as others suggested at the time.

Originally posted by Lucky
A little more seriously: I now think that Randi was wrong (as were you) in interpreting this article as promoting mysticism. When you consider that it’s a newspaper article it becomes clear that it’s based on hard science but is the typical inept, ‘don’t care’ fare (with no particular agenda) that we expect from science journalism.

The original, complete article was clearly not promoting mysticism, nor was there anything particularly wrong with the journalism. The "doctored" version as represented by the Dutch site very much gave the impression that it was promoting mysticism as it omitted the qualifiers that the afterlife statements were merely opinions that were not supported by any evidence. In general, when one reads an article, one expects the end of the article to sum up or conclude the foregoing statements. If the article ends in woo-woo statements it is only natural that anyone would take it as trying to make a woo point overall. Even more so when the introduction started specifically with references to belief in life after death. This was Randi's point. The article as misrepresented by the Dutch site apparently became lost in mysticism at the end. The final balance was missing.

Originally posted by Lucky
Anyway, Randi made a minor careless error. It was pointed out, and he corrected it the following week. As others have said: No big deal (he’s always willing to do this). Don’t you think it’s a wee bit patronising to suggest that the poor, feeble old thing retracted because he was ‘pressured’? He doesn’t need you to defend him because no-one’s attacking him.

Please show me where I said or implied that anyone was attacking him. I didn't say anything of the sort. Nor did I say I was defending him. My choice of the word "pressured" may not have been a good one, but the former implications don't reasonably follow even from a misreading of the sense in which I intended the latter.

My point was that I believe the original article was correct and that there was no error at all in the original. I believe Randi was in error when he "corrected" it the following week. I am saying that Randi made an error!!! But I am saying that he didn't make the error you believe he did, but rather a completely different one. I believe that the people who wrote in to Randi, "correcting" him were in error. I believe that Randi felt somehow obliged to "correct" an "error" which he never actually made and as result of that made a real error. In that instance, I believe the criticism led to an error being made, not that it corrected one that had already been made. Clear?

A wider implication of the above is that I believe that those who criticise ought to research more carefully themselves before criticising in case they actually cause errors to be made instead of correcting them.

[joevai]

I think its pointless being so darn nitpicking about things. I mean the guy does a difficult job (who here would like random nutters ringing the/emailing them/mailing them/meeting them on a day to day basis?!). He does a tremendous job regardless of its difficulties. He is human. He doesn't claim to be anything more (generally it's applicants who claim that!!), and therefore he makes mistakes. Generally they're very trivial. He helps reveal the dillusionary world that many people seem to extol.

Anyway, there's my two pennies lads!

[T'ai Chi]

Prag, do you have a point?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
Prag, do you have a point?

Yes. Be careful though - it's sharp, and irritating trolls have a tendency to get impaled by it! :D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Yes. Be careful though - it's sharp, and irritating trolls have a tendency to get impaled by it! :D

So "no" then.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by joevai
I think its pointless being so darn nitpicking about things. I mean the guy does a difficult job (who here would like random nutters ringing the/emailing them/mailing them/meeting them on a day to day basis?!). He does a tremendous job regardless of its difficulties. He is human. He doesn't claim to be anything more (generally it's applicants who claim that!!), and therefore he makes mistakes. Generally they're very trivial. He helps reveal the dillusionary world that many people seem to extol. Good....er....point. :D

[Lucky]

BillyJoe: shocked back into a beating mode is correct enough provided we’re talking about fibrillation, I agree (actually, I might argue that it doesn’t work precisely like that, but that really would be nitpicky). The issue is with the word ‘stops’. You say that means (or could mean) loses the normal beating mode, which could be asystole, ventricular fibrillation or other lethal arrhythmia. I say that the natural interpretation (and the way I read it), in Randi’s context of distinguishing cessation of heart activity from cessation of brain activity, is stops doing anything, which would preclude fibrillation.the more correct definition of death includes the leveling of brain-wave patterns, as wellObviously I can’t prove that my interpretation is ‘right’, and I certainly don’t want to insist on it, as I didn’t in my original post:incorrect (or at least misleading)Anyway, you haven’t answered my point, which is this: Many people think that medics see a flat ecg and apply defibrillation, and the sentence tends to reinforce that misconception. The wording helps to perpetuate a common confusion, which is obviously not what Randi intended, and I’m sure he would have altered it if it could have been pointed out to him before the commentary was posted. That’s all.

From your remark about ‘fibrillation’ vs ‘ventricular fibrillation’ I have the impression you think I am picking on trivial inaccuracies. But I think that’s because the discussion has concentrated on the first two items, which actually are not very important. Some of the other items are, in my opinion, a lot more significant, and I hope to get on to discussing them when time permits.



Pragmatist: I will not respond to any of your personal remarks. No-one on this board has succeeded in drawing me into petty bickering, and no-one ever will.

However, I am happy to have a civilised discussion, and will do my best to get round to answering all your points, though, as I said, I’ve very little time at the moment. It would probably take me a week or two to say everything I have to say, but I’ll continue as long as you or anyone else is interested.

I think you are completely wrong about the ‘Soviet’ item, and I’ll try again to explain why.

I am not saying at all that the word ‘Soviet’ is wrong. I am saying that it is wrong as used in the present tense in the commentary. As I said:The article was therefore making a perfectly proper use of the term ‘Soviet’ in referring to Negovsky; it labels his nationality, and is more correct than referring to him as ‘Russian’. The article refers to ‘Russian reanimator Nikolay Gubin’ and ‘Academician with the Russian Academy of Sciences Natalya Bekhtereva’ and their views in the present tense; they are evidently currently working in the field.Randi said: ‘The Soviets use a term that translates as "reanimator,"’ and: ‘Soviet authors are expected to provide views of reality that do not allow for religious beliefs such as survival-after-death’. The second should plainly have been ‘Soviet authors were’, as he was specifically talking about a book that we now know was written in the Soviet era. The first would need more rewording, as he was talking about both past (Soviet) and current use.

Randi’s commentary reads as though he thinks ‘Soviet’ is a current term for Russian scientists. I don’t know whether he meant it to, but it does, as anyone can check. When that was pointed out to him, he made a correction.

As to your claim that that the original Pravda article was ‘doctored’ on the Dutch site, it’s a side issue but I’ll answer it. In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51140) you saidMuch of the article that Randi refers to on the web site he quoted appears to have been lifted from Pravda, and bits of that have been omitted by the quoted site which gives it an artificial context of "woo". The original article was quite rational.In your post here you say:The specific argument is that the article on the Dutch site was not a true and complete rendering of the original Pravda article that it was lifted from. The ending, which made an enormous difference to the whole context and complexion of the article, was omitted from the Dutch site. That is what I mean by "doctored".I am completely baffled by this claim, because:

1) The ending is not balanced, except in the sham, mealy-mouthed manner of being fair to both sides that is only too common in science journalism. It gives no guidance at all on the relative merits, reliability and significance of the scientific and pseudoscientific claims it reports.Today, there is no serious prove or refutation to the after-life theory…2) There isn’t anything missing from the article on the Dutch site! It is the Pravda article in its entirety, not ‘doctored’ at all, with nothing omitted or added.

I don’t know why you thought any of the article had been omitted. I notice that no-one else in the thread said anything that would either confirm or refute your statement, and neither did Randi. You now seem not to be claiming that anything other than the ending was omitted, so you must consider the possibility that the page just didn’t load completely when you looked at it. There is probably no way to know for certain whether the ending ever was omitted, but there is absolutely no justification for saying that any ‘doctoring’ was carried out. The fact that the ending is there now strongly suggests that if there ever was an omission it was made in error, and had nothing whatever to do with ‘doctoring’ to make the article appear more ‘woo’ (which, as I’ve pointed out, it doesn’t do anyway).

You did not mention the penultimate paragraph:Researches of unusual conditions during clinical death are still popular. Today, many researchers believe that human conscience still remains alive even after death. Leading doctor from the Southampton hospital Sam Parnia claims there is no doubt that some people still can reflect and recollect when their brain no longer functions. The doctor and his colleagues insist that the conscience, or the soul, of a patient still think and meditate even when the heart and the brain do not function and the patient does not breathe. Academician with the Russian Academy of Sciences Natalya Bekhtereva also believes that life still continues in some form after death.Randi doesn’t mention it either, and I don’t know whether it’s part of the ending that you claim was omitted by ‘doctoring’. That would be very strange indeed. I don’t think that it’s necessarily unscientific to consider possible evidence for an afterlife, but if you do then this paragraph is far and away the most ‘woo’ part of the article. In any case, it contradicts your claims that ‘The original article was quite rational’ and ‘The original, complete article was clearly not promoting mysticism, nor was there anything particularly wrong with the journalism’ (as opposed to the original article without its final paragraph).

To sum up, your argument that the article is rational and balanced with its ending and ‘woo’ without it, and therefore was ‘doctored’, is completely unpersuasive. I think if you apply critical thinking skills to your claim you will see that it is almost certainly wrong.

I have quite a few points to make about the other three items you’ve mentioned, so perhaps we can move on.

[BillyJoe]

Lucky,

the more correct definition of death includes the leveling of brain-wave patterns, as well

Okay, I concede your point. This does seem to imply that Randi was thinking of a (leveling of or a) flat line ECG.

Originally posted by Lucky
Anyway, you haven’t answered my point, which is this: Many people think that medics see a flat ecg and apply defibrillation, and the sentence tends to reinforce that misconception. I would think defibrillation means de-fibrillation, but perhaps the general public thinks of defibrillation as "delivering a shock" rather than "reversing the fibrillation".

BJ

[Lucky]

From BillyJoe:
I would think defibrillation means de-fibrillation, but perhaps the general public thinks of defibrillation as "delivering a shock" rather than "reversing the fibrillation".You could try this experiment (as I did, when compiling my list): Ask several colleagues/relatives etc., of average education or above but with no specific medical or biological knowledge, what they know about sudden cardiac arrest / cardiac standstill and their treatment. I found that, whilst they generally had some superficial knowledge, most were very confused about the details.

Most oddly, a few knew that the instrument is called a ‘defibrillator’ (or ‘defib’) without knowing at all how it works (in fact, they hadn’t heard of fibrillation).

[BillyJoe]

Lucky,

I did just that after my post yesterday. Everyone said that the ECG would show a flat line. (I gave the scenario of ambulance officers arriving on the scene, performing an ECG and then applying the paddles to the chest. Most wondered why he would waste time doing an ECG).

BJ

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Lucky
Pragmatist: I will not respond to any of your personal remarks. No-one on this board has succeeded in drawing me into petty bickering, and no-one ever will.

I wasn't trying to draw anyone into "petty bickering". I was simply pointing out that you made false accusations. You had a go at Darat when you thought he made a false accusation against you, but you apparently refuse to even acknowledge that you made at least two against me. Of course I cannot compel anyone to do as they say they do, rather than something else, but I am at liberty to point out the double standard. Beyond that, I have no intention of making an issue of it.

Originally posted by Lucky
However, I am happy to have a civilised discussion, and will do my best to get round to answering all your points, though, as I said, I’ve very little time at the moment. It would probably take me a week or two to say everything I have to say, but I’ll continue as long as you or anyone else is interested.

That's fine with me. There's no hurry anyway.

Originally posted by Lucky
I think you are completely wrong about the ‘Soviet’ item, and I’ll try again to explain why.

I am not saying at all that the word ‘Soviet’ is wrong. I am saying that it is wrong as used in the present tense in the commentary. As I said:Randi said: ‘The Soviets use a term that translates as "reanimator,"’ and: ‘Soviet authors are expected to provide views of reality that do not allow for religious beliefs such as survival-after-death’. The second should plainly have been ‘Soviet authors were’, as he was specifically talking about a book that we now know was written in the Soviet era. The first would need more rewording, as he was talking about both past (Soviet) and current use.

Randi’s commentary reads as though he thinks ‘Soviet’ is a current term for Russian scientists. I don’t know whether he meant it to, but it does, as anyone can check. When that was pointed out to him, he made a correction.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this. I maintain that Randi was specifically referring to the "soviet" ideology - that in that ideology authors are expected not to present religious beliefs as reality. Soviets still exist in both the political and the ideological sense - there are still provincial "soviet" style governments within the former soviet union, and there are still a very large number of people who subscribe to the soviet ideology. Therefore I believe it would specifically be an error to say "were" - if it was intended in the sense that such things no longer exist - specifically because they do still exist. I suspect you are identifying the word "soviet" specifically with the "soviet union" - which to me is an error because the latter refers to exactly what it says it does, a specific union rather than a general ideology.

I ought to add that I am not trying to say that Randi meant what I say - his "correction" appears to indicate that he took your interpretation rather than mine. However, independently of that I maintain that whether by design, fortune or mere coincidence, his original statements were correct, and the "correction" was not.

Originally posted by Lucky
As to your claim that that the original Pravda article was ‘doctored’ on the Dutch site, it’s a side issue but I’ll answer it. In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51140) you saidIn your post here you say:I am completely baffled by this claim, because:

1) The ending is not balanced, except in the sham, mealy-mouthed manner of being fair to both sides that is only too common in science journalism. It gives no guidance at all on the relative merits, reliability and significance of the scientific and pseudoscientific claims it reports.2) There isn’t anything missing from the article on the Dutch site! It is the Pravda article in its entirety, not ‘doctored’ at all, with nothing omitted or added.

I don’t know why you thought any of the article had been omitted. I notice that no-one else in the thread said anything that would either confirm or refute your statement, and neither did Randi. You now seem not to be claiming that anything other than the ending was omitted, so you must consider the possibility that the page just didn’t load completely when you looked at it. There is probably no way to know for certain whether the ending ever was omitted, but there is absolutely no justification for saying that any ‘doctoring’ was carried out. The fact that the ending is there now strongly suggests that if there ever was an omission it was made in error, and had nothing whatever to do with ‘doctoring’ to make the article appear more ‘woo’ (which, as I’ve pointed out, it doesn’t do anyway).

The article on the Dutch site has been changed since I looked at it before. The page did fully load. Firstly, there was originally no attribution to Pravda at all. I found the Pravda article independently, purely by accident whilst I was researching Negovsky. It was then that I compared the two and discovered that the original version of the Dutch site was copied from Pravda but did not have the complete article. I don't recall specifically whether there were more differences than the ending - I have a vague idea that one or more paragraphs near the beginning were omitted as well - but I may be mistaken about that - and in any event I didn't believe that it materially altered the sense of the article. To me it was the ending that made the biggest difference. But there is no doubt at all that the articles were different at the time of the commentary and my subsequent remarks about them.

As to whether the article was balanced or not, I think the (complete) article was reasonably balanced. I agree that it was far from perfect, but as a piece of newspaper journalism I found it superior to what passes as "science journalism" in many western newspapers today. I don't know whether it was actually intended as "science journalism" in Pravda either, there was no explicit claim that I saw that it was "science", rather I took it as just a journalistic overview.

And I don't see how you can dismiss the ending as "sham and mealy mouthed". The writer probably had no simple way of evaluating the specific claims of the people (s)he quoted, and I don't believe it was strictly necessary to in a general information piece. The conclusion, "there is no proof or refutation of an afterlife" is absolutely correct. I am aware of neither any proof that an afterlife exists or that it doesn't. So anything anyone says about it in a factual sense is purely speculation. If someone wants to state their opinion that there is or is not an afterlife, then fine, but it's only opinion. I, for one, am not in favour of substituting an opinion for facts no matter how much I might agree/disagree with it. I agree it would have been nice if the article had gone into more depth and followed up the relative merits of the positions, but I am also aware that newspapers have only limited space and are often reluctant to print long, involved articles. For all we know, the original writer may have done so and the copy may have been snipped by the editor.

And whilst I cannot prove the intent of the person who misquoted that article, it does seem suspicious that the bit which was omitted was specifically the bit that pointed out that the woo bits were speculation. Also given the nature of the site and the other material on it, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the person who posted it on that site had a non-skeptical agenda.

I believe that Randi saw the same version of the article that I did. I also believe that he wasn't aware that it was copied from Pravda, or that he had seen the original Pravda article.

Originally posted by Lucky
You did not mention the penultimate paragraph:Randi doesn’t mention it either, and I don’t know whether it’s part of the ending that you claim was omitted by ‘doctoring’. That would be very strange indeed. I don’t think that it’s necessarily unscientific to consider possible evidence for an afterlife, but if you do then this paragraph is far and away the most ‘woo’ part of the article. In any case, it contradicts your claims that ‘The original article was quite rational’ and ‘The original, complete article was clearly not promoting mysticism, nor was there anything particularly wrong with the journalism’ (as opposed to the original article without its final paragraph).

To sum up, your argument that the article is rational and balanced with its ending and ‘woo’ without it, and therefore was ‘doctored’, is completely unpersuasive. I think if you apply critical thinking skills to your claim you will see that it is almost certainly wrong.

I've already addressed this in a previous post. Basically you disagree with my opinion. But your view is only opinion too. Your comment that if I, "apply critical thinking skills to my claim I will see that it is almost certainly wrong", is an obvious fallacy:

Premise: If I apply critical thinking skills I will reach a conclusion (true)

Argument: The only possible conclusion I could reach would be that I am wrong (false)

Indulging in fallacies doesn't make your case. Therefore your argument is also "unpersuasive". It is particularly unpersuasive to try to invoke a claim about "critical thinking" in support of a logical fallacy!

Originally posted by Lucky
I have quite a few points to make about the other three items you’ve mentioned, so perhaps we can move on.

Please go ahead. You don't need to wait for me anyway, please feel free to address them as you wish. I'm sure that I am not the only one reading this thread and others may wish to address other points you raise.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Time to eat crow. (http://randi.org/jr/031805x.html#5) Yes, you know who you are...

Aw, man! Doesn't that just suck?

Are you talking to me, Larsen?

I did not claim that Randi never admits errors. I just shared my own experience of attempting to discuss an apparent error with Randi and getting a stream of abuse in response. On more than one occasion, in fact. When he responds at all, that is.

I freely admit that he has on occasion admitted to minor errors. It's the major errors he won't discuss.

Oh, and see the Starbucks error discussed here:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53929

Note how Randi agrees in private email that Harry has got a point, but fails to correct himself in his column. Instead
he makes further comments about "Starbucks' knuckling under"
http://www.randi.org/jr/032505really.html#6

So I say that Randi makes a lot of mistakes, but rarely admits them.

[Lucky]

A more serious item from my list: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) 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(In the next two commentaries Randi made passing references to Blair’s supposed ‘woo’ beliefs as a known fact.)

This is one of the ’possible errors’; I wasn’t sure it was wrong but felt that it was a very serious claim to make on such flimsy evidence. From a couple of evenings' investigation I am now pretty well convinced that it's not true. Blair’s religious beliefs and Cherie’s fondness for New Age mysticism are well known, so I suppose the commentary’s claim seems plausible enough at first sight to non-Brits. But I was doubtful, because:

1) It would surely be known to the British public if true that he goes in for this kind of thing. Given that he’s been Prime Minister since 1997 and has attracted his share of dirt from journalists, it’s incredibly unlikely that there wouldn't have been masses on this subject in the news and press. But there's almost nothing on Tony (though plenty on Cherie).

2) The fact that Blair is a devout mainstream Christian is not evidence that he would consult a ‘spirit medium’ – quite the reverse. A UK middle class, educated High Anglican is very different from a US southern protestant, and such beliefs and practices would be very much frowned on.

Here is the reasoning of Randi's correspondent:Since Cherie Blair has been featured on your page several times, [/url] once with an acupuncture needle in her ear and once with her magic crystal necklace if I remember correctly, it sounds quite convincing that the Blairs would consult the spirits every now and thenSo, as it sounds quite convincing we don’t need to bother too much with evidence; after all it's likely enough - he's religious and his wife's a ‘woo’. Since the item raised no interest in the forum at the time I guess most people here make the same assumption, or think it doesn’t matter.

Pragmatist: You are shifting the goalposts. I don’t think for one moment that Blair’s a creationist, but that’s beside the point. As Randi’s claim wasn’t about Blair’s religious beliefs but his supposed New Age supernatural beliefs (specifically, that he consulted a ‘spirit medium’ to determine an auspicious date for resigning as leader of New Labour) your references 2 and 3 are not relevant.

As for the Mayan mud story, I decided to investigate the alleged incident as best I could from the published accounts, and it has opened my eyes and brought home to me that journalists are even less trustworthy than I assumed! To a large extent they simply copy their stories from each other. This one crops up in a number of places, and every instance borrows the wording of (what seems to be) the original article from Tom Baldwin in the Times, December 15 2001 (the alleged incident was in August). [url=http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/reorder.html]This bizarre site (www.randi.org/jr/04-13-2001.html) seems to contain the full text.

It is a very shoddy piece of journalism. There is no mention of any source; there are no witnesses or interviews; nobody claims to have first hand knowledge of the incident (or second, or third, or fourth hand ...). Notice that it is all about what the Blairs were ‘told’ to do. They are not directly claimed to have said or done anything (other than the imaginative touch about the ‘wish for world peace’). Throughout, statements are prefaced with ‘it seems that’, ‘according to the hotel brochure’, ‘understood to have’ etc. I suspect that the actual scoop was just the location of the Blairs’ holiday, and the whole thing is taken from the hotel brochure, perhaps supplemented with accounts from people who have participated on other occasions.

The article was picked up by (amonst others) Francis Wheen for the New Humanist, June 1 2003 (http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume118issue2_more.php?id=8_0_2_0_C). And here we have an undeniable example of ‘doctoring’. All the parts that throw doubt on the legitimacy of the account, or its force as evidence for the claim that Blair’s a ‘woo’, are omitted. It was also taken up by Nick Cohen in the Observer, December 8 2002 (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/cherie/story/0,12713,857416,00.html), who makes it quite clear why he’s inclined to accept any claim that Blair practices wooism:Well she is a Catholic and her husband is an Anglo-Catholic, and if you can believe that wine and a wafer are the blood and body of Christ you can believe anything. Or, indeed, everything.So, we have the Daily Mail ‘spirit medium’ story, and this one, and there must be more out there, though I couldn’t find anything (it’s not obvious what to search on). I did find various other bizarre allegations, including a few sites suggesting that he’s gay! But even if the Times story were true it would scarcely be evidence for the commentary’s claim. I suspect that the large majority of people who accept (or go along with) ‘woo’ psychology such as 'rebirthing' would reject 'spirit mediums'. If the Daily Mail article that Randi quoted is of the same standard as the Times one, then it’s worthless as evidence.

The Times article and its spawn actually provide strong evidence that Blair is not a ‘woo’:However, the involvement of her husband in such matters has previously been unknown. Those close to him suggested yesterday that he “probably went along with it to please Cherie�.(the only actual quote in the entire article). So, Tom Baldwin admits that there was no evidence of Blair’s ‘wooism’ before the incident in his story.

In his book How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions (October 2004), Francis Wheen says:Cherie and Tony bonding in a muddy Mayan ritual - it's the ultimate example of how mumbo-jumbo has inundated BritainSo he was presumably unable to find any other example since 2001.Nick Cohen:
No one followed-up the Times's scoop - deference is not as dead as some people would have you think.This really is the height of absurdity. Journalists show deference to Tony Blair??? That’s why none of them have dished up any more dirt on this issue since 2001??? (not saying that Blair deserves deference, by the way). The reason it wasn’t followed up is blindingly obvious; no-one could find anything to follow it up with (until the ‘spirit medium’ story).

I dislike Blair. I've never voted for him. I strongly object, for example, to his support for state-funded religious schools. But I don't believe he holds or practices any New Age superstitions, and I think it’s wrong to make such accusations on inadequate evidence. To me, accepting the unsupported word of a journalist because he has a similar anti-‘woo’ agenda to yours is on a par with accepting the unsupported word of a SCAM practitioner or hi-fi con merchant because it’s what you want to believe. Randi (who as far as I know doesn’t have a political agenda, though the journalists I’ve mentioned certainly do) is a trifle gullible here. And this one matters.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Lucky
This is one of the ’possible errors’; I wasn’t sure it was wrong but felt that it was a very serious claim to make on such flimsy evidence. From a couple of evenings' investigation I am now pretty well convinced that it's not true. Blair’s religious beliefs and Cherie’s fondness for New Age mysticism are well known, so I suppose the commentary’s claim seems plausible enough at first sight to non-Brits. But I was doubtful, because:

I agree with you that evidence in the form of newspaper articles is not strong evidence on its own. But I also find it strange that you immediately conclude that it isn't true. The evidence is the same either way. If you said you didn't know I could understand that, but I don't know why you would simply conclude that it isn't true either.

There are various media articles of this nature. Blair has never challenged any of them. If they are not true why doesn't he refute them? Why doesn't he bring a legal action or file a press complaint? Blair is usually vocal at refuting most other things the media have to say about him.

Originally posted by Lucky
1) It would surely be known to the British public if true that he goes in for this kind of thing. Given that he’s been Prime Minister since 1997 and has attracted his share of dirt from journalists, it’s incredibly unlikely that there wouldn't have been masses on this subject in the news and press. But there's almost nothing on Tony (though plenty on Cherie).

But there is a significant amount of commentary on this very issue in the media. The articles you pointed to and the ones I pointed to are examples - I believe there have even been TV documentaries about his dealings with the Caplins. Of course you can argue about whether that constitutes "masses" or not. And all that aside, there are plenty contentious issues about Blair - much more serious than his alleged belief in woo to keep the presses running - maybe most journalists don't think it important compared with all the other things.

Originally posted by Lucky
2) The fact that Blair is a devout mainstream Christian is not evidence that he would consult a ‘spirit medium’ – quite the reverse. A UK middle class, educated High Anglican is very different from a US southern protestant, and such beliefs and practices would be very much frowned on.

There are various reports about Blair's religious beliefs that bring suspicion on them. For example, Cherie Blair is a Catholic - yet her interest in and support of woo is well known and definitely factual. Blair himself has denied being a Catholic - yet regularly attends masses and takes communion in Catholic churches and in private Catholic ceremonies. Which led to his being criticised directly by the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster who asked him to stop. He has claimed in the past that he only does it for the sake of his family, yet there have been reports that he has been observed in such practices when alone on visits abroad. The fact that Blair has religious beliefs certainly does not indicate in and of itself that he is a woo. But from various reported accounts - even by members of his cabinet that he constantly refers to his religious beliefs in the context of official business indicates that he is probably more than an "ordinary" believer. And also this directly contradicts his public claims that he doesn't do things on the basis of religion.

Originally posted by Lucky
Here is the reasoning of Randi's correspondent:So, as it sounds quite convincing we don’t need to bother too much with evidence; after all it's likely enough - he's religious and his wife's a ‘woo’. Since the item raised no interest in the forum at the time I guess most people here make the same assumption, or think it doesn’t matter.

Have you asked Randi if he has any evidence?

Originally posted by Lucky
Pragmatist: You are shifting the goalposts. I don’t think for one moment that Blair’s a creationist, but that’s beside the point. As Randi’s claim wasn’t about Blair’s religious beliefs but his supposed New Age supernatural beliefs (specifically, that he consulted a ‘spirit medium’ to determine an auspicious date for resigning as leader of New Labour) your references 2 and 3 are not relevant.

I am not shifting any goalposts, nor did I say that Blair was a creationist. I pointed you to a (rather disturbing IMO) piece of evidence that Blair does not think it important if religious dogma is taught in British schools. It either indicates that he has little regard for truth, or that he places such beliefs at the level of "truth". I would argue that this is evidence that he is not honest - particularly since he is on record as saying that he believes that the government should go about its business without allowing it to be influenced by specific religious beliefs. Education is very much a matter of government. It is clear that where matters such as religion and other personal beliefs are concerned, Blair has a problem. This doesn't prove he's a woo, but it looks very much like typical woo behaviour.

Originally posted by Lucky
As for the Mayan mud story, I decided to investigate the alleged incident as best I could from the published accounts, and it has opened my eyes and brought home to me that journalists are even less trustworthy than I assumed! To a large extent they simply copy their stories from each other. This one crops up in a number of places, and every instance borrows the wording of (what seems to be) the original article from Tom Baldwin in the Times, December 15 2001 (the alleged incident was in August). This bizarre site (http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/reorder.html) seems to contain the full text.

It is a very shoddy piece of journalism. There is no mention of any source; there are no witnesses or interviews; nobody claims to have first hand knowledge of the incident (or second, or third, or fourth hand ...). Notice that it is all about what the Blairs were ‘told’ to do. They are not directly claimed to have said or done anything (other than the imaginative touch about the ‘wish for world peace’). Throughout, statements are prefaced with ‘it seems that’, ‘according to the hotel brochure’, ‘understood to have’ etc. I suspect that the actual scoop was just the location of the Blairs’ holiday, and the whole thing is taken from the hotel brochure, perhaps supplemented with accounts from people who have participated on other occasions.

Again, I don't know why you assume it isn't true. I agree that it may not be true, but the assumption that it's false is just as much an assumption as that it's true (in the absence of other evidence). As for the articles from the way I read them part of the account seemed to have come from the so called "Mayan therapist" or whatever. I can also understand why the newspapers might repeat the account in 3rd hand style without identifying the actual (alleged) witness - because if they did, it might be harder to infiltrate someone on a different occasion, or they may fear a comeback by Blair's associates. Alastair Campbell being an example, who is well known for personal vendettas against journalists who attack Blair.

There is also the matter that in these litigious times, it seems strange that newspapers would risk publishing anything like this if they absolutely knew it wasn't true. Whilst it is true that newspapers do make mistakes and get caught out occasionally, they have plenty of researchers, lawyers and editors to check whether they are likely to get bitten by such a story. It seems unlikely that they would publish unless they were reasonably sure that there wouldn't be any comeback.

And your claim that, "they are not directly claimed to have said or done anything", is obviously false. I suggest you read the article again and take note of the following direct claims:

"THEY rubbed fruits and mud over each other’s bodies. They screamed and went through a “rebirth�. Then they made a wish for world peace."

"During their stay at the hotel, the Blairs were particularly impressed by the Temazcal, a Mayan steam bath, where they took part in a “rebirthing ritual� wearing nothing but their swimming costumes."

"The ceremony took place at dusk: Mr Blair and his wife, wearing bathing costumes, were led to the Temazcal, a brick-coloured pyramid on the south end of the beach."

"However, the involvement of her husband in such matters has previously been unknown. Those close to him suggested yesterday that he “probably went along with it to please Cherie�. A Downing Street spokesman said yesterday: “I’ve no idea whether all this is true. The Prime Minister, as you know, is in Belgium for the European summit. However, what I can tell you is that, like any other couple on holiday abroad, they enjoyed doing what the Romans do.�"

So it was important enough to attract the attention of a "Downing Street spokesman" - who also did not directly refute the claims.

Originally posted by Lucky
The article was picked up by (amonst others) Francis Wheen for the New Humanist, June 1 2003 (http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume118issue2_more.php?id=8_0_2_0_C). And here we have an undeniable example of ‘doctoring’. All the parts that throw doubt on the legitimacy of the account, or its force as evidence for the claim that Blair’s a ‘woo’, are omitted. It was also taken up by Nick Cohen in the Observer, December 8 2002 (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/cherie/story/0,12713,857416,00.html), who makes it quite clear why he’s inclined to accept any claim that Blair practices wooism:So, we have the Daily Mail ‘spirit medium’ story, and this one, and there must be more out there, though I couldn’t find anything (it’s not obvious what to search on). I did find various other bizarre allegations, including a few sites suggesting that he’s gay! But even if the Times story were true it would scarcely be evidence for the commentary’s claim. I suspect that the large majority of people who accept (or go along with) ‘woo’ psychology such as 'rebirthing' would reject 'spirit mediums'. If the Daily Mail article that Randi quoted is of the same standard as the Times one, then it’s worthless as evidence.

The Times article and its spawn actually provide strong evidence that Blair is not a ‘woo’:(the only actual quote in the entire article). So, Tom Baldwin admits that there was no evidence of Blair’s ‘wooism’ before the incident in his story.

In his book How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions (October 2004), Francis Wheen says:So he was presumably unable to find any other example since 2001.This really is the height of absurdity. Journalists show deference to Tony Blair??? That’s why none of them have dished up any more dirt on this issue since 2001??? (not saying that Blair deserves deference, by the way). The reason it wasn’t followed up is blindingly obvious; no-one could find anything to follow it up with (until the ‘spirit medium’ story).

I dislike Blair. I've never voted for him. I strongly object, for example, to his support for state-funded religious schools. But I don't believe he holds or practices any New Age superstitions, and I think it’s wrong to make such accusations on inadequate evidence. To me, accepting the unsupported word of a journalist because he has a similar anti-‘woo’ agenda to yours is on a par with accepting the unsupported word of a SCAM practitioner or hi-fi con merchant because it’s what you want to believe. Randi (who as far as I know doesn’t have a political agenda, though the journalists I’ve mentioned certainly do) is a trifle gullible here. And this one matters.

I don't know how you can reject every part of the story but only accept the bit which seems to support your case! Either the whole thing is BS or it isn't. But there are several such stories out there and there is a distinct lack of any refutation from Blair.

And I don't know on what basis you can say, " I suspect that the large majority of people who accept (or go along with) ‘woo’ psychology such as 'rebirthing' would reject 'spirit mediums'. " - it seems to me, that you are doing precisely what you are accusing Randi of doing. Again, it seems that you have your own opinion about these reports but no evidence either way. The Times story etc., do not provide strong evidence of anything on their own.

On another aspect, consider this: it is well known and absolutely factual that Cherie Blair is into "woo" in a big way. A very big way. Now if Blair himself does not hold such beliefs then wouldn't you think he would have some influence on her? She is not a stupid woman (woo beliefs aside). She is well aware that by parading her beliefs as she does, that it will become a matter of public attention. Blair is aware of that too. Yet in spite of that, he apparently does nothing to stop her. If he is such a concerned religious believer as you claim, don't you think that he would find this uncomfortable and perhaps ask her to tone it down a bit? I don't believe that if he was a skeptic, that she would continue to put such faith in such things - or remain married to him. I think it's highly probable that either he fully shares her beliefs or he implicitly endorses them.

So as far as the reports go, I would agree that they are not strong evidence that he is a woo. But neither do they refute the claim that he is a woo. And the fact that despite them being widely reported, he does nothing whatsoever to refute them, and appears to have no problem with his wife parading such beliefs in her capacity as "first lady" so to speak, tends to imply that they are more likely true than not. His claims about his personal religious stance and his position on "belief systems" in general is inconsistent and somewhat disturbing - obviously so to some of his colleagues in government and also to members of the public.

[DrMatt]

Okay, maybe I can whip up something black involving black sesame paste, soy sauce, and bean curd.


Crofu.

And then see if I can license it to Tofurky corp.

hahahaha

[Lucky]

At last, got some time to answer Pragmatist’s post.
I agree with you that evidence in the form of newspaper articles is not strong evidence on its own. But I also find it strange that you immediately conclude that it isn't true.I didn’t ‘immediately conclude’ anything. I have now spent several hours looking into the two claims, and trying to find others. All the evidence I have been able to find is:

1) Innuendo, based on Blair's religious views, Cherie’s known nuttiness and the fact that they are on friendly terms with the Caplins, or
2) About the two specific claims, each of which originated from a single source, or
3) Quoting from pathological liar and convicted fraud Peter Foster.

I couldn’t find any other claimed incidents, though it’s difficult to search. Combining ‘Tony Blair’ with e.g. ‘New Age’ produces thousands of entries. I went through the first few pages, and almost all were irrelevant. The rest were mostly about Cherie, and a handful actually linked Tony with New Age beliefs, but turned out to be empty innuendo.
There are various media articles of this nature. Blair has never challenged any of them. If they are not true why doesn't he refute them? Why doesn't he bring a legal action or file a press complaint?
...
There is also the matter that in these litigious times, it seems strange that newspapers would risk publishing anything like this if they absolutely knew it wasn't true.Perhaps it isn’t so obvious to non-Brits, but any Brit would understand that it is completely and utterly out of the question for Blair to sue a newspaper for libel over anything so petty. It would be politically impossible. Try as I might, I can't think of any claim extreme enough that that he would be likely to sue; not even if the Daily Mail ran a front-page spread with faked pictures of him cavorting nude on the cabinet-room table with a pair of prostitutes. (Anyway, sadly, I doubt whether anyone could sue for having New Age beliefs attributed to them. It probably wouldn’t be considered defamation of character.)
I believe there have even been TV documentaries about his dealings with the Caplins.You are referring to Cheriegate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2546835.stm). Carole Caplin’s then boyfriend, the Australian criminal Peter Foster, assisted Cherie with a property deal, and Cherie seems to have been economical with the truth in her public statements when this came out. Embarrassing for Tony, but nothing to do with either him or the supernatural.
Blair himself has denied being a Catholic - yet regularly attends masses and takes communion in Catholic churches and in private Catholic ceremonies.I am very much more inclined to believe reports that Blair is considering converting to Catholicism, because in this case there seem to be quite a few genuinely independent sources. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did so, but not while he’s leader of the Labour party.
I am not shifting any goalposts, nor did I say that Blair was a creationist. I pointed you to a (rather disturbing IMO) piece of evidence that Blair does not think it important if religious dogma is taught in British schools.I don’t want to get bogged down in the question of creationism in UK schools, but it doesn’t at all map to the US situation. I don’t doubt that Blair thinks:

1) Creationism is bunk, and
2) It doesn’t matter if people believe it; it’s their individual choice.

You might disagree (so would I), but there’s nothing unusual about this view – in fact I would say it’s the majority view here.
I can also understand why the newspapers might repeat the account in 3rd hand style without identifying the actual (alleged) witnessIt is quite usual for newspaper articles to talk about ‘unnamed sources’, ‘spokesperson who wishes to remain anonymous’ etc. That’s why it’s so striking that this one doesn’t claim to have any sources at all for the alleged incident.
And your claim that, "they are not directly claimed to have said or done anything", is obviously false. I suggest you read the article again
I made no false claims at all. I suggest that you read the article and my post more carefully. The attention-grabbing opening paragraph:They rubbed fruits and mud over each other’s bodies. They screamed and went through a “rebirth�. Then they made a wish for world peace.appears at first sight to be a summary of facts known to Tom Baldwin, that he’s going to expand on, but if you look at the details of the account that follows you will see that’s not the case:
The Blairs were offered water melon and papaya, then told to smear what they did not eat over each other’s bodies along with mud from the Mayan jungle outside.
...
Before leaving, the Blairs were told to scream out loud to signify the pain of rebirth.
...
The Prime Minister, on holiday just a month before the September 11 attacks, is understood to have made a wish for world peace.But the detailed account doesn't have them actually doing any of these things. The author is plainly not too confident of any of his statements! I don’t believe he went to the Mexican Riviera and interviewed anyone there, for the simple reason that he never claims to have done so. The more I look into this story the clearer it becomes that the 'account' is simply a general description of the ceremony, and not an eye-witness report of the Blairs' participation.
I don't know how you can reject every part of the story but only accept the bit which seems to support your case! Either the whole thing is BS or it isn't.I don’t have a case. I am not a Blair supporter. As I said, I’m suspicious of Randi’s assertions about Blair’s New Age beliefs and practices, and also about Tom Baldwin’s article. The reason I give a bit more credence to the alleged comments of 'those close to him' and the 'Downing Street spokesperson' is that this is the only part of the article that claims to be quoting anyone. I think he probably did speak to these people (and that’s why the ‘Downing Street spokesperson’ made a statement).
On another aspect, consider this: it is well known and absolutely factual that Cherie Blair is into "woo" in a big way. A very big way. Now if Blair himself does not hold such beliefs then wouldn't you think he would have some influence on her?
…
She is not a stupid womanCherie is well known for all sorts of beliefs and actions that are deeply embarrassing to Tony. For example, he is sympathetic to Israel and has always rejected the Palestinians good, Israelis bad; suicide bombers act from despair analysis that is (or was until recently) standard in European politics. Cherie, however fully accepts the European analysis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2051372.stm).

Also, she recently played a leading role (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1507636,00.html) in a case that was extremely awkward for Tony, as it amounted to an attack on all Education Authorities in the country.

And, of course, Cheriegate.

You might well think that he should have some influence on her, but it seems you’d be wrong. I’ve never understood why he doesn’t, because I think she truly is stupid in many ways (actually, that could be the reason).
And I don't know on what basis you can say, " I suspect that the large majority of people who accept (or go along with) ‘woo’ psychology such as 'rebirthing' would reject 'spirit mediums'. " - it seems to me, that you are doing precisely what you are accusing Randi of doing. Again, it seems that you have your own opinion about these reports but no evidence either way.I use expressions like ‘I suspect’, ‘in my opinion’ etc. precisely because I don’t want to claim more direct knowledge than I have. In this case, Randi doesn’t use such phrases; he talks about Blair’s involvement in New Age practices as a known fact. He repeated the claim last week, without any suggestion of evidence. I’ve now noticed it in three commentaries as a throwaway jibe without any supporting facts. I am not Randi, and am therefore entitled to speculate and express personal opinions about political figures etc. (as is anyone in this forum). But Randi should not do so in his commentaries.

Pragmatist: if you’re still out there, I plan to answer your points about the ‘lost cubit’ in the next few days.